Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

[DHK]

Now, that's a meaningful argument :thumbs:

If indeed that is what you mean, than that is an important statement....
Admittedly, I've never attempted to exactly trace how they view Original Sin, but it's a worthy under-taking....

On some level, I think we all believe in something we could call "Original Sin" (you are using the term Depravity of Man)....

Definitions are a problem here. Sometimes we talk past each other.
I do believe in the "depravity of man," or the "sinfulness of mankind," but not the way the Calvinist defines it. The Calvinist believes in "Total Inability" and hard determinism, ruling out the free will of man. I don't believe that.
I do believe that man has an inherent sin nature from birth onward that he spiritually inherits from Adam as part of the curse. It is abundantly clear that mankind is "in Adam," and that Christ is "of the seed of the woman" (Gen.3:15; Gal.4:4).
Man's sinfulness (or depravity) must start at birth, because that is his nature. If all infants are inherently innocent, then why didn't Noah take them all with him on the Ark? Why were they destroyed along with the wicked? God caused the animals to walk onto and into the Ark. He could have caused small children to do the same, but he didn't.

I think what I object to is the literal inherited guilt/ co-participant with Adam in the garden style.
I know many of the ancient Church fathers believed in what many called "Ancestral Sin"...which is more of a condition and a pre-disposition towards sin....
but it's not necessarily inheriting the GUILT itself.

That's what I mainly object to, GUILT being passed from father (specifically) to child....
The Augustinian version.

Again, it goes back to definitions. How the sin-nature is "inherited" or passed down from one generation to another is not explained and we don't know. There are some here that are bold enough to tell us what the DNA of Jesus looked like, but he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and I don't believe it is wise to speculate on those things.
"The secret things belong to the Lord."

I don't believe there is such a thing as an innocent person, not even an infant. We are born guilty. Christ died for all of our sins, even the sins of the infants.

 

[DHK]

I don't know if I like the term "fallen nature", but I do believe our corrupt physical bodies do have an effect on us and could make us more prone to give in to temptation. We are not as intelligent as we might be, and our judgment is very likely affected as well for the worse. The scriptures also speak of our "infirmities" or weaknesses.

But again, the scriptures are clear we receive our soul and spirit from God. God does not make evil spirits and souls. We become evil when we make a willful and knowing choice to violate one of God's laws.

Jesus said the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Compare this verse to the end of Romans chapter 7 and I think you will have a scriptural view of the state of man.

You are no where near the position of the Orthodox.
The Orthodox Church still believes that all, including infants, have a sin nature. I believe the same thing. You wouldn't argue with me if you believed as they did.

“Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him,” writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161).
​

Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became

“diseased… through the sin of one” (Migne, 1857-1866a).
​

It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.

http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/


That is from an Orthodox website.

Even the infant has an innate condition that is diseased; not innocent but diseased and will end in death. It is not just physical but spiritual.

As Cyril taught: "Our nature became diseased through the sin of one." Not physical, but spiritual. We have a sinful nature, a nature that Christ could not partake of. Not even the Orthodox would agree with you in your position.

 

[Winman]

You are no where near the position of the Orthodox.
The Orthodox Church still believes that all, including infants, have a sin nature. I believe the same thing. You wouldn't argue with me if you believed as they did.

http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/


That is from an Orthodox website.

Even the infant has an innate condition that is diseased; not innocent but diseased and will end in death. It is not just physical but spiritual.

As Cyril taught: "Our nature became diseased through the sin of one." Not physical, but spiritual. We have a sinful nature, a nature that Christ could not partake of. Not even the Orthodox would agree with you in your position.

You are wrong, I read that site quickly, and from what I saw I was in agreement. I believe a corruption passed upon all creation. That is why children die, I have said that half a dozen times. That does not mean they are sinners. There is a difference between being diseased and being a sinner. I do not believe man is born with a nature that compels him to sin, I believe man chooses to sin. I did not see anything different on that Orthodox site.

That said, being corrupt physically can certainly tempt one to sin. And being born in a corrupt world where you must work hard to eat your bread can tempt one to sin. I believe the main reason many persons are career criminals is because they are LAZY. They don't like to work, it makes them tired. It is much easier to steal someone else's hard earned money than to work hard and earn it yourself.

Are you addicted to cigarettes? It is because you are weak and cannot fight off the addiction. This is a result of corruption. Are you addicted to porn? That is because it entices your natural lusts, but your willpower has been weakened and corrupted by this corruption that passed over creation, making it more difficult to fight off temptation and do the right thing.

The scriptures say Jesus himself "suffered" being tempted, and that he could be "touched with the feelings of our infirmities". He was subject to this same physical corruption that passed upon all creation.

So, I agree with all this, but I do not believe we are born guilty of Adam's sin. We are not condemned or separated from God until we personally choose to sin.

But we all suffer under the death and corruption that passed upon all creation. Even Jesus suffered this.

 

[DHK]

You are wrong, I read that site quickly, and from what I saw I was in agreement. I believe ...

Blah...Blah...Blah. I know what you believe.
Yes, you read quickly, perhaps too quickly.
Do you agree; tell me honestly; do you agree with this:

Even the infant has an innate condition that is diseased; not innocent but diseased and will end in death. It is not just physical but spiritual.

As Cyril taught: "Our nature became diseased through the sin of one." Not physical, but spiritual. We have a sinful nature, a nature that Christ could not partake of.

The bolded is a direct quote. The other is a summary. That is their position.
If you don't agree with the above, then no matter what "you believe" it is not in agreement with the Orthodox.

 

[Inspector Javert]

You are wrong, I read that site quickly, and from what I saw I was in agreement.

It does agree largely with your view and not D.H.K's:
This is from the same cite:

The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death.

Methinks that D.H.K. may be hastily trying to disprove the assertion that hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians deny Augustinian-style Original Sin...

He'd be wrong. They deny it.

 

[Winman]

You are no where near the position of the Orthodox.
The Orthodox Church still believes that all, including infants, have a sin nature. I believe the same thing. You wouldn't argue with me if you believed as they did.

http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/


That is from an Orthodox website.

Even the infant has an innate condition that is diseased; not innocent but diseased and will end in death. It is not just physical but spiritual.

As Cyril taught: "Our nature became diseased through the sin of one." Not physical, but spiritual. We have a sinful nature, a nature that Christ could not partake of. Not even the Orthodox would agree with you in your position.

You misrepresent Cyril, he did not say what you said here. Cyril did not say we have a sin nature as you misrepresent.

Cyril did say our nature became diseased, but he did not say we have a sin nature.

If you are going to quote others, try being honest.

 

[Winman]

It does agree largely with your view and not D.H.K's:
This is from the same cite:

The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death.

Methinks that D.H.K. may be hastily trying to disprove the assertion that hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians deny Augustinian-style Original Sin...

He'd be wrong. They deny it.

I know. And DHK misrepresented what Cyril said. Cyril did say our nature became diseased in that article, but he did not say we have a "sin nature" as DHK misrepresented.

Busted.

 

[Winman]

Blah...Blah...Blah. I know what you believe.
Yes, you read quickly, perhaps too quickly.
Do you agree; tell me honestly; do you agree with this:

The bolded is a direct quote. The other is a summary. That is their position.
If you don't agree with the above, then no matter what "you believe" it is not in agreement with the Orthodox.

No, the other is YOUR opinion, not what the article said.

Busted.

 

[DHK]

You misrepresent Cyril, he did not say what you said here. Cyril did not say we have a sin nature as you misrepresent.

Cyril did say our nature became diseased, but he did not say we have a sin nature.

If you are going to quote others, try being honest.

Our nature became diseased. When? When Adam sinned. Thus each one is born with a diseased nature or sin nature. Take it in context. He may not be calling it depraved or sin nature, but there is not much difference. Because of Adam's sin we have a "diseased" nature or "sin nature" passed down from our "ancestors" hence "ancestral sin."

The Orthodox also believe that salvation is a process and not an act--a lifelong process in fact. "Work out your salvation," is the verse taken out of context of course.
They don't believe in a substitutionary atonement.
Here is a contrast between their idea of salvation and the Calvinist's

Salvation is a transformation from the tragic state of alienation and autonomy that ends in death into a state of communion with God and one another that ends in eternal life. So, in the Orthodox view, a transformation in this mode of existence must occur. If the chosen are saved by decree and not by choice such an emphasis is irrelevant.

They believe salvation is a slow, life-long transformation of the person that ultimately ends at death. That would also rule out eternal security.
"IF the chosen..." begins the Calvinist view, a bit exaggerated.
We all don't believe the way that was described there. For those that don't believe in "Orthodox" and do believe in free will, stand completely opposed to what the author has written.

 

[Winman]

Our nature became diseased. When? When Adam sinned. Thus each one is born with a diseased nature or sin nature. Take it in context. He may not be calling it depraved or sin nature, but there is not much difference. Because of Adam's sin we have a "diseased" nature or "sin nature" passed down from our "ancestors" hence "ancestral sin."

He did not say we have a sin nature, you added that. Perhaps you thought no one would notice. I did.

The Orthodox also believe that salvation is a process and not an act--a lifelong process in fact. "Work out your salvation," is the verse taken out of context of course.
They don't believe in a substitutionary atonement.
Here is a contrast between their idea of salvation and the Calvinist's

They believe salvation is a slow, life-long transformation of the person that ultimately ends at death. That would also rule out eternal security.
"IF the chosen..." begins the Calvinist view, a bit exaggerated.
We all don't believe the way that was described there. For those that don't believe in "Orthodox" and do believe in free will, stand completely opposed to what the author has written.

Oh, I'm sure there are many things I would disagree with them about. But I agree with them that a physical corruption passed on the whole world. This is why babies die, animals die, even non-living things wear out and fade away.

I don't really need all these "theories", I argue from scripture. I have shown much scripture like the three parables in Luke 15 that show we are not originally lost and dead in sin, how Paul said he was spiritually alive until he learned the law in Romans 7, and how Peter said we are now RETURNED to Jesus the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls in 1 Peter 2:25. All of these scriptures and more easily refute Original Sin, and that is how I make my argument.

You are the one that is worried about 2000 years of "orthodox" belief. I worry more about what the scriptures say.

 

[DHK]

He did not say we have a sin nature, you added that. Perhaps you thought no one would notice. I did.

He said this, exactly this:

Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became “diseased… through the sin of one” (Migne, 1857-1866a).

That is sin nature being described. It is "our nature" that has become "diseased" through "the sin of one," that is Adam, hence our Adamic nature--commonly referred to as "sin nature." Where plain sense makes common sense don't turn it into nonsense.

Oh, I'm sure there are many things I would disagree with them about. But I agree with them that a physical corruption passed on the whole world. This is why babies die, animals die, even non-living things wear out and fade away.

It doesn't say physical features, physical flesh, etc. It says "our nature" diseased from Adam. That has nothing to do with my looks vs your looks--the physical. It has to do with our "nature," our sinful nature.

I don't really need all these "theories", I argue from scripture. I have shown much scripture like the three parables in Luke 15 that show we are not originally lost and dead in sin, how Paul said he was spiritually alive until he learned the law in Romans 7, and how Peter said we are now RETURNED to Jesus the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls in 1 Peter 2:25. All of these scriptures and more easily refute Original Sin, and that is how I make my argument.

To put it plainly your "interpretations of those parables contained outright heresy.
--A wrong view of heaven.
--A wrong view of man.
--A wrong view of sin.
--A wrong view of the holiness of God.
--A wrong view of parables that lead to heresy.

Your "argument" from Scripture has left much to be desired.

You are the one that is worried about 2000 years of "orthodox" belief. I worry more about what the scriptures say.

Yes, you ought to worry. I don't. I am secure in the hands of Jesus.

 

[Winman]

He said this, exactly this:

That is sin nature being described. It is "our nature" that has become "diseased" through "the sin of one," that is Adam, hence our Adamic nature--commonly referred to as "sin nature." Where plain sense makes common sense don't turn it into nonsense.

No, that is a diseased nature being described. You can't put your words into his mouth. Read it for what it actually says. Sin and disease are not the same thing. Sin is a willful and knowing transgression of the law, where disease is an illness or weakness that could contribute to sin. For example, in the garden Jesus asked his disciples to stay awake and pray with him. They did not stay awake, but fell asleep several times. That could be considered disobedience or sin, they did not obey him. But it was not because they did not try to obey and stay awake, but their flesh was very weak and caused them to fall asleep.

Mat 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.
44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Do you see the difference between willful sin here and being weak? I believe the disciples truly desired to stay awake and pray with Jesus, Jesus himself said their spirit was willing, but their flesh was weak. It was late at night, it had been a long and active day, and these men were exceedingly tired. This is the corruption of our flesh, it is weak.

Now that said, many times men choose to willfully sin, and there is no excuse for that, but I am simply showing an example from scripture of how the corruption that fell over creation affects men.

It doesn't say physical features, physical flesh, etc. It says "our nature" diseased from Adam. That has nothing to do with my looks vs your looks--the physical. It has to do with our "nature," our sinful nature.

It is not necessarily sinful, like the example I just gave. The disciples did not willingly choose to disobey Jesus, Jesus himself said they were willing to obey him, but their flesh was very weak and caused them to fall asleep against their will.

I can totally relate to this, we have long meetings at work on occasion, and I find it almost impossible to stay awake. I am just one of those persons that needs fresh air and to move around. If I sit in a long boring meeting for half and hour or more, my eyes get extremely heavy, just like the disciples in the garden. I don't like this, I try hard not to get sleepy like this, but it just happens. That is the corruption that passed on creation.

To put it plainly your "interpretations of those parables contained outright heresy.
--A wrong view of heaven.
--A wrong view of man.
--A wrong view of sin.
--A wrong view of the holiness of God.
--A wrong view of parables that lead to heresy.

Your "argument" from Scripture has left much to be desired.

Yes, you ought to worry. I don't. I am secure in the hands of Jesus.

I give examples from scripture to support all my views. I showed saints complaining in heaven in Revelation 6 for example. I showed John at least once, possibly twice praying to either a fellow believer or angel. So I proved from scripture that things aren't always exactly "perfect" in heaven as many people believe they will be. You know, Revelation 12 tells us there will be war in heaven, Satan and his angels fighting against God and his angels, so things are not always "perfect" in heaven.

No, I always present scripture to support my views. And what do folks say about me? That I interpret the scriptures LITERALLY as though this is wrong. :laugh:

Yep, that's the complaint, I interpret scripture literally, when Jesus speaks of 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance, I actually believe Jesus is speaking of real persons. That's the big complaint against me.

But you guys can come up with all sorts of wild convoluted interpretations for scripture and that is alright.

 

[DHK]

No, that is a diseased nature being described. You can't put your words into his mouth. Read it for what it actually says. Sin and disease are not the same thing. Sin is a willful and knowing transgression of the law, where disease is an illness or weakness that could contribute to sin. For example, in the garden Jesus asked his disciples to stay awake and pray with him. They did not stay awake, but fell asleep several times. That could be considered disobedience or sin, they did not obey him. But it was not because they did not try to obey and stay awake, but their flesh was very weak and caused them to fall asleep.

You are confused. Cyprian distinctly used the word "nature," not flesh. There is no confusing the term. One can have an innocent nature or a sinful nature.
People who stay awake through the day and then work through the night will feel sleepy by morning. That is not sinful flesh. It is tired flesh. It has nothing to do with one's sinful nature, except to say that the person is tired. So what? The Jesus said "Take your rest." It was not sin if he is giving them permission to sleep while they come to take him away to be crucified. There would be nothing they could do to stop it. The "flesh" is made up primarily of water, plus a number of other elements: [ Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, iron, fluorine, zinc, silicon, rubidium, strontium, bromine, lead, copper, aluminum, cadmium, cerium, barium, iodine, tin, titanium, boron, nickel, selenium, chromium, manganese, arsenic, lithium, cesium, mercury, germanium, molybdenum, cobalt, antimony, silver, niobium, zirconium, lanthanum, gallium, tellurium, yttrium, bismuth, thallium, indium, gold, scandium, tantalum, vanadium, thorium, uranium, samarium, beryllium, tungsten.]
Which one of these elements are diseased? Which one of these elements that make up our flesh give us a sin nature (that you know every adult has)? Which one Winman? They are elements. That is what the flesh of the human body is made up of.

However, our nature is something different. Cyprian did not use the word "flesh." He used "nature," something diseased and sinful.


Note what Cyprian of Carthage said: (250 B.C.)

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the REMISSION OF THEIR SINS is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an INFANT not be held back, who, having but recently been BORN, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the REMISSION OF SINS: because the SINS FORGIVEN HIM are NOT his OWN but THOSE OF ANOTHER [i.e. inherited from Adam]. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

He is very clear about the sin nature as are most of the early church fathers. I assume you didn't read the link that Hank provided.

Do you see the difference between willful sin here and being weak? I believe the disciples truly desired to stay awake and pray with Jesus, Jesus himself said their spirit was willing, but their flesh was weak. It was late at night, it had been a long and active day, and these men were exceedingly tired. This is the corruption of our flesh, it is weak.

Now that said, many times men choose to willfully sin, and there is no excuse for that, but I am simply showing an example from scripture of how the corruption that fell over creation affects men.

So? That doesn't address the subject of "the nature of man." It simply shows than men are prone to weakness, responsible for their actions, etc. That is obvious to us all. It is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the nature of man, a nature which is inherently sinful.

It is not necessarily sinful, like the example I just gave. The disciples did not willingly choose to disobey Jesus, Jesus himself said they were willing to obey him, but their flesh was very weak and caused them to fall asleep against their will.

So? What of it? Again, a red herring.

I can totally relate to this, we have long meetings at work on occasion, and I find it almost impossible to stay awake. I am just one of those persons that needs fresh air and to move around. If I sit in a long boring meeting for half and hour or more, my eyes get extremely heavy, just like the disciples in the garden. I don't like this, I try hard not to get sleepy like this, but it just happens. That is the corruption that passed on creation.

Yes, we don't have perfect bodies. What is your point here?
The Bible says we wait for the redemption of our bodies. If you sinned when you fell asleep then that is a different matter. If not what is the point you are making?

I give examples from scripture to support all my views. I showed saints complaining in heaven in Revelation 6 for example.

In Revelation 6 you teach heresy.
Complaining is a sin as one can see from Numbers 11 and numerous other passages. Do a search on the word "complain," and its derivatives (like complaining, complained, etc.). It is a sin.
To suggest that there is sin in heaven is heresy. It is to suggest that God is not holy.

I showed John at least once, possibly twice praying to either a fellow believer or angel.

John was taken up to heaven in a vision, as a man. He was overcome with emotion. Both times he was sharply rebuked.

So I proved from scripture that things aren't always exactly "perfect" in heaven as many people believe they will be. You know, Revelation 12 tells us there will be war in heaven, Satan and his angels fighting against God and his angels, so things are not always "perfect" in heaven.

No. There was a rebellion in heaven. Satan and one third of the angels rebelled against God. The story is also in Isaiah 14 and in Ezekiel 28. Satan was cast down, out of heaven, as were those angels who are now demons. Heaven is a perfect place, as God is perfect. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that God is not perfect.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
--These are without, not within, as you suppose.

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
--This is what heaven is like.
Nothing that can defile or be unholy can stand before a holy God.

No, I always present scripture to support my views. And what do folks say about me? That I interpret the scriptures LITERALLY as though this is wrong.

Scripture interprets itself. But your interpretation leads to heresy.

Yep, that's the complaint, I interpret scripture literally, when Jesus speaks of 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance, I actually believe Jesus is speaking of real persons. That's the big complaint against me.

This is another heretical teaching.
Use common sense for once. Just listen to reason.
If the 99 were actually just, then they would have truly repented, is that not so? Yes or no Wiman? Give me an answer. Is a truly just person a repentant person?
If so, then the angels in heaven would be rejoicing over 100 persons that had repented and were made just. Is that not so?
But that is not the case. Only one person repented, and was therefore made just in the eyes of God. Just one person, and therefore the angels in heaven rejoiced for that one person who truly repented.
The others never repented. They were "just" in their own eyes. They were righteous in their own eyes. Answer Winman: Does your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees? If it doesn't you can in no wise enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees. They were "just" in their own eyes.

But you guys can come up with all sorts of wild convoluted interpretations for scripture and that is alright.

--Just the ones that agree with Scripture and don't lead to heresy.

 

[Winman]

Since when are Cyprian of Carthage and Cyril of Alexandria the same?

And even if you did find some quote from Cyril, that would not change my view. My view is based on scripture. If Cyprian were alive I would tell him that Ezekiel 18:20 refutes his view, that God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Nice try, but you quoted the wrong guy.

 

[DHK]

Since when are Cyprian of Carthage and Cyril of Alexandria the same?

And even if you did find some quote from Cyril, that would not change my view. My view is based on scripture. If Cyprian were alive I would tell him that Ezekiel 18:20 refutes his view, that God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Nice try, but you quoted the wrong guy.

It wasn't the wrong guy. Cyril of Alexandria was quite clear speaking of the nature of man being diseased right from Adam.
Cyprian of Carthage was another early church father that was very clear on the sinfulness of man beginning at infancy and coming from Adam, in fact inherited from Adam. It gives extra added force to what the ECF believed in. Would you like more quotes from them?
Like I said previously: you didn't look at the link that Hank provided did you?

And you continue in a perverted interpretation of Ez.18:20 so I don't need to listen to that either. You refuse to look at the context. Don't even need to bring it up again.

 

[Winman]

It wasn't the wrong guy. Cyril of Alexandria was quite clear speaking of the nature of man being diseased right from Adam.
Cyprian of Carthage was another early church father that was very clear on the sinfulness of man beginning at infancy and coming from Adam, in fact inherited from Adam. It gives extra added force to what the ECF believed in. Would you like more quotes from them?
Like I said previously: you didn't look at the link that Hank provided did you?

And you continue in a perverted interpretation of Ez.18:20 so I don't need to listen to that either. You refuse to look at the context. Don't even need to bring it up again.

Cyprian was a Latin father, so of course he leaned toward the Western view.

Cyril was a Greek father.

And no, I do not need any more quotes, they don't prove anything, scripture is what matters.

And it is not I that perverts Eze 18:20. I believe it for exactly what it says, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. This refutes Original Sin.

 

[DHK]

And it is not I that perverts Eze 18:20. I believe it for exactly what it says, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. This refutes Original Sin.

I really don't want to be drawn into your perverted view of this Scripture. You have consistently shown how you misinterpret scripture after scripture to fit your odd theology and you do the same here.

The father (for example) may be a drunkard and a murderer. Ezekiel 18 even mentions those sins. Read the context. Why should the son, bear the sin, or the consequence of the sin, that is the sin of being a drunkard and murderer? He shall not. It has nothing to do with OS, and does in no way refute.

Even it you thought it refuted it, it would only show that there was a wide-spread belief among the Jews of OS. I thought you didn't believe that? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Van]

18 pages of nonsense. Was Abraham sinless, washed by the blood of the Lamb when he died? Of course not, Jesus had not died.

Did the babies who died before they had done anything good or bad ascend to heaven? Nope. Why not. The deniers have no answer. But by the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners, answers the question.

Scripture says (Romans 4:5) Abraham's faith was counted or credited or reckoned as righteousness, and Winman says that is nonsense. Next, he charges me with redefining scripture.

Bottom line, once again the deniers have posted all the same arguments, still bogus and refuted time and again.

1) God, not ourselves, subjected mankind to futility.

2) God, not ourselves, made the many sinners as a consequence of Adam's sin.

3) Being made (conceived) sinners means we are conceived in a separated from God spiritual state, spiritually dead on arrival.

4) All in Adam die at conception, All in Christ are made alive together with Christ. To be in Christ is to be alive, to be elsewhere is to be spiritually dead.

 

[DHK]

18 pages of nonsense. Was Abraham sinless, washed by the blood of the Lamb when he died? Of course not, Jesus had not died.

4) All in Adam die at conception, All in Christ are made alive together with Christ. To be in Christ is to be alive, to be elsewhere is to be spiritually dead.

True enough Van. The problem in this thread was not the discussion of Original sin, whether it be the Calvinistic view, the Catholic view, or even the Orthodox view of Ancestral sin. The problem has been the necessity to refute all the error that has been posted in between.
I feel the need to do so once again.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2104029&postcount=107

Complaining is not always a sin. We see persons in heaven complaining in Revelation.

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Here we see saints in heaven complaining. They are impatient and cry for revenge on those who had killed them.

The Lord is very patient with these persons and gives them a white robe, and tells them to rest for a season.

So, heaven might not be exactly as you have all figured out. It seems persons can and do complain in heaven. Likewise, I believe the elder son complained because he was never given a big celebration. Likewise, Jesus had told in the parable of the lost sheep that there was more joy over this one sinner who repented, than 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance.

Look, if you don't want to believe these parables, that is your choice, but it is Jesus who spoke of 99 persons who did not go astray, it was Jesus that told us of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time.

But you can believe whatever you choose to believe.

And again: (Post #118) See also Post #127

We see saved persons here complaining, they are crying out to God to avenge them for being put to death for serving the Lord on earth. The Lord is very patient with these folks and gives them a white robe and tells them they should rest for a season.

We also see in Revelation 22 that the tree of life's leaves are for the healing of the nations.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

We have been conditioned to believe heaven will be absolutely perfect, and perhaps it will be. But perhaps some things will still go wrong, perhaps we will still be able to get ill, or injure ourselves, I don't know, but the leaves of the tree of life are used for "healing" so it might be possible.

One of the funniest glimpses into heaven for me is when God asked the angels who would persuade wicked king Ahab to go down and fight at Ramothgilead.

1 Kin 22:20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Perhaps there is nothing funny here, but I see this almost like an episode of Dilbert. All the angels talk among each other, but no one can come up with a good idea of how to get Ahab to go fight this battle where the Lord knows he will be killed.

Then one angel comes forward with his idea, he will be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's wicked false prophets. This is Wally to me.

Perhaps this was not funny, I seem to see humor everywhere. But it seems to show that heaven is not exactly perfect, we see angels here scratching their heads trying to come up with a good idea. That doesn't seem to be "perfect" to me. And sometimes folks might complain a bit in heaven as well. I don't think we will be robots incapable of making mistakes in heaven.

In Winman's posts this is what we see concerning Heaven:
1. In heaven there is complaining (Rev. 6)
2. There will be idolatry--he uses John bowing before an angel as a precedent.
3. There will be war and rebellion--chapter 12: Satan will rebel against God.
4. There will be sin and disease--Why else would there be a Tree of Life for healing??
This direct quote gives us Winman's outlook on eternity:

I don't think we will be robots incapable of making mistakes in heaven.

No we aren't robots, but we will be glorified. The picture in Rev.4:11 and in 5:9-14 give a picture as to what eternity will be like for us.

Winman's picture of heaven is not a perfect heaven. That infers that God is God who is not sovereign, One who is out of control or cannot keep control in heaven. Nevermind discussing Lordship salvation; what about God being Lord in Heaven. In Winman's heaven there is chaos: idolatry, war, complaining, bumbling saints making mistakes, "sins" that need healing, etc.
Is this really what the Bible teaches about heaven?
This error is more like heresy, and needs to be pointed out. It is an attack on the holiness and sovereignty of God.

 

[Winman]

Looks like we've got a couple of robots right here on earth.

So I am a heretic for believing the scriptures when they say John bowed down and prayed to either a fellow believer or angel in heaven?

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

So, because I believe the word of God actually means what it says I am a heretic?

I plead guilty.