The Immaculate Conception Error

[BradC]

The topic at hand and the contexts of Rom 5:12-18 or I Cor 15:12-22 and others have nothing to do with believers specifically. It has all to do with Christ's atonement. Christ reconciled the world to God, II Cor 5:18-19, Col 1:15-20.

Your confusion over the use of "many" is merely pointing out that all it took is one sin for Adam to be condemned to death, and that by inheriting death many became sinners. Then the contrast for Christ is saying the same thing. One act of righteousness many will be made righteous.

Some of you are stumbling over the word, "righteous". It means to be put into a correct relationship. It is NOT referring to believers in the least.

Many are made righteous only when they believe. They are at that moment justified by grace and put in right standing and relationship with God through Christ. Look at (Luke 18:13,14). The publican was one of the many made righteous and we who have not seen him yet believe will be made the righteousness of God in Christ, who is our righteousness.

 

[Cassian]

Many are made righteous only when they believe. They are at that moment justified by grace and put in right standing and relationship with God through Christ. Look at (Luke 18:13,14). The publican was one of the many made righteous and we who have not seen him yet believe will be made the righteousness of God in Christ, who is our righteousness.

That is also the false extension of the false premise of Original Sin theory.

Man is condemned to death, Gen 3:19. Satan rules this world through his tools which scripture says is death and sin, Heb 2:14, I John 3:8. If man is not saved from death then man has no hope, no eternal existence. Without life man is but a short lived biological entity that will be dissolved by death into dust permanently.

This is why the comparisons are all equations. To use some of the terms you are using is that all men have been saved from death and sin by grace. The world was reconciled to God by Christ. Everything was given to Christ to redeem, Col 1:15-20, Christ arose from the dead and gave life to all, I Cor 15:22. He will raise all in the last day and lose none John 6:39, I Cor 15:52-54.

Christ did not save any individual from the Cross. To become a believer one must believe and that faith justifies you. This is not the topic of discussion here.

The theory of Original Sin does not describe the fall correctly so how would you be able to describe salvation from that fall correctly. One error leads to other errors.

Unless you don't believe that Christ arose from the dead, nor that the world has been renewed.recreated/recapitulated by His Resurrection and that all men will be raised in the last day. In fact without death being defeated, heaven and hell don't even exist since the are uncessary.

 

[BradC]

That is also the false extension of the false premise of Original Sin theory.

Man is condemned to death, Gen 3:19. Satan rules this world through his tools which scripture says is death and sin, Heb 2:14, I John 3:8. If man is not saved from death then man has no hope, no eternal existence. Without life man is but a short lived biological entity that will be dissolved by death into dust permanently.

This is why the comparisons are all equations. To use some of the terms you are using is that all men have been saved from death and sin by grace. The world was reconciled to God by Christ. Everything was given to Christ to redeem, Col 1:15-20, Christ arose from the dead and gave life to all, I Cor 15:22. He will raise all in the last day and lose none John 6:39, I Cor 15:52-54.

Christ did not save any individual from the Cross. To become a believer one must believe and that faith justifies you. This is not the topic of discussion here.

The theory of Original Sin does not describe the fall correctly so how would you be able to describe salvation from that fall correctly. One error leads to other errors.

Unless you don't believe that Christ arose from the dead, nor that the world has been renewed.recreated/recapitulated by His Resurrection and that all men will be raised in the last day. In fact without death being defeated, heaven and hell don't even exist since the are uncessary.

You do not understand what people say to you. You have misconstrued every single thing said in that post. You go on and believe the way you want and have learned. There is a very strangle spirit on this chat site and those engaged in that spirit are extremely argumentative and have very strange doctrine. For those who have the Spirit of the living God and the love of God in their hearts are like-minded because they have the same Spirit, the same Lord and they have love one for another.

 

[Cassian]

You do not understand what people say to you. You have misconstrued every single thing said in that post. You go on and believe the way you want and have learned. There is a very strangle spirit on this chat site and those engaged in that spirit are extremely argumentative and have very strange doctrine. For those who have the Spirit of the living God and the love of God in their hearts are like-minded because they have the same Spirit, the same Lord and they have love one for another.

In other words you do not understand what Christ accomplished. You do not understand the implications of the Incarnation. What I explained to you was the Incarnation. It had absolutely nothing to do with individuals being saved through faith.

What you stated is totally irrelevant to the topic.

 

[BradC]

In other words you do not understand what Christ accomplished. You do not understand the implications of the Incarnation. What I explained to you was the Incarnation. It had absolutely nothing to do with individuals being saved through faith.

What you stated is totally irrelevant to the topic.

If you want to take the time you can go back and read some of the other posts on this thread and find out what I communicated that I thought might be relevant to the OP. But who am I but a scumbag in the whole scope of things that knows nothing as I ought to know with a very small capacity for the truth unlike others here on this thread.

 

[epostle]

That is also the false extension of the false premise of Original Sin theory.

Man is condemned to death, Gen 3:19. Satan rules this world through his tools which scripture says is death and sin, Heb 2:14, I John 3:8. If man is not saved from death then man has no hope, no eternal existence. Without life man is but a short lived biological entity that will be dissolved by death into dust permanently.

This is why the comparisons are all equations. To use some of the terms you are using is that all men have been saved from death and sin by grace. The world was reconciled to God by Christ. Everything was given to Christ to redeem, Col 1:15-20, Christ arose from the dead and gave life to all, I Cor 15:22. He will raise all in the last day and lose none John 6:39, I Cor 15:52-54.

Christ did not save any individual from the Cross. To become a believer one must believe and that faith justifies you. This is not the topic of discussion here.

The theory of Original Sin does not describe the fall correctly so how would you be able to describe salvation from that fall correctly. One error leads to other errors.

Unless you don't believe that Christ arose from the dead, nor that the world has been renewed.recreated/recapitulated by His Resurrection and that all men will be raised in the last day. In fact without death being defeated, heaven and hell don't even exist since the are uncessary.

The reality of death defeated is not in dispute. The INFALLIBLE doctrine of Original Sin doesn't deny it.

The EO rejection of original sin is a recent innovation of theirs. From what I can tell, it traces back to their 19th century anti-Latin movement (they have always been ant-Latin to some degree, but it got really rabid at this time). They pretty much chucked anything that they thought seemed Western--this included original sin, since the theology behind it was primarily developed by St. Augustine. It may also be related to their revulsion towards papal definitions, in this case that of the Immaculate Conception (since they wouldn't attack the holiness of the Mother of God, they attacked the concept of original sin, which they had come to see as "Western.").

But they used to teach the Catholic understanding (just like they did with indulgences, satisfaction, etc.). For example, at their Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, they taught the following relating to infant baptism. Note the parts in bold--how is this different from the Catholic position? They teach that infants need to be cleansed of original sin to be saved and that original sin makes one liable to eternal punishment.

Synod of Eastern Orthodox Churches: Jerusalem, 1672
Decree 16

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized.

Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”

Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he is Orthodox, and has the proper intention to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins of any kind that the baptized may have committed. Secondly, it delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it gives to the person immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it makes them temples of God.

Is truth relative?

 

[Cassian]

epostle,

The reality of death defeated is not in dispute. The INFALLIBLE doctrine of Original Sin doesn't deny it.

Your right. It totally ignores the Truth on the fall of man, and then the false understanding of the fall leads to false understanding of man's salvation from that fall. It is why the theory of Original Sin is false, it does not align with scripture.

The EO rejection of original sin is a recent innovation of theirs. From what I can tell, it traces back to their 19th century anti-Latin movement (they have always been ant-Latin to some degree, but it got really rabid at this time). They pretty much chucked anything that they thought seemed Western--this included original sin, since the theology behind it was primarily developed by St. Augustine. It may also be related to their revulsion towards papal definitions, in this case that of the Immaculate Conception (since they wouldn't attack the holiness of the Mother of God, they attacked the concept of original sin, which they had come to see as "Western.").

Hardly recent when they rejected Augustines concept.

The reality of death defeated is not in dispute. The INFALLIBLE doctrine of Original Sin doesn't deny it.
The EO rejection of original sin is a recent innovation of theirs. From what I can tell, it traces back to their 19th century anti-Latin movement (they have always been ant-Latin to some degree, but it got really rabid at this time). They pretty much chucked anything that they thought seemed Western--this included original sin, since the theology behind it was primarily developed by St. Augustine. It may also be related to their revulsion towards papal definitions, in this case that of the Immaculate Conception (since they wouldn't attack the holiness of the Mother of God, they attacked the concept of original sin, which they had come to see as "Western.").
But they used to teach the Catholic understanding (just like they did with indulgences, satisfaction, etc.). For example, at their Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, they taught the following relating to infant baptism. Note the parts in bold--how is this different from the Catholic position? They teach that infants need to be cleansed of original sin to be saved and that original sin makes one liable to eternal punishment.
Synod of Eastern Orthodox Churches: Jerusalem, 1672
Decree 16
We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized.
Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”
Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he is Orthodox, and has the proper intention to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins of any kind that the baptized may have committed. Secondly, it delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it gives to the person immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it makes them temples of God.
Is truth relative?

The period between the fall of Constantinople and the beginning of the 19th century the Orthodox were heavily influenced by western theology especially Ukraine and Russia. The east did not translate Ausgustine's works until the 14th century. Because they attended Catholic seminaries, since all of theirs were lost to the Turks and the fall of Constantinople they came under the teaching of the west. That has long ago been corrected by those who were not so influenced. The same can be stated with any false teaching historically. The first major one, Arius was around for almost 400 years before it was completely eratigated.
You will find quite consistantly thorughout the centuries that it is the consequence of Adam's sin that all men are partakers, not the actual sin or guilt. The west, because of Augustine's teachings moved away from the understanding of the early Church. For the west it became a legal, juridicial. punishment/wrath understanding where in the East it was a compassion, love, therapeutic, healing.

 

[JonahLynx]

Then who was Jesus's biological father since it obviously wasn't Joseph?

 

[onlinebuddy]

You are leaving out (Rom 5:18) because what Christ did on the cross was for all men, for all have sinned through Adam and he finished the work so that all men could be justified. God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come unto repentance. All have sinned and come short through Adam's transgression even before they had done any good or evil. Sin is in the heart and the heart is deceitful and wicked and out of the heart proceed the issues of life. It may seem to be unfair on God's part but we were all conceived in sin through Adam. It was passed on and we had no say in the matter. Our part is to agree with God and admit it. God's part is to give us grace and justify us from all sin through the cross. This is the way it is and has always been and neither you or I can change that. Either you believe that or you don't and that is called the sin of unbelief.

We were specifically discussing Romans 5:19; but no problem, let us also consider Romans 5:18 as well, or any other verse in the passage. I agree with all the verses.

Romans 5:18 says that condemnation came to all. I agree.
What is the meaning of condemnation? Verse 12 answers this question.
Death came to all people. The consequence of Adam's sin was death to all. It does not say that the sin of Adam was transferred to all men. No scripture says this.

what Christ did on the cross was for all men

No doubt about it.

for all have sinned through Adam and come short through Adam's transgression even before they had done any good or evil

Incorrect. All have sinned (period) and fall short of the glory of God(period)[Ro 3:23]. This verse is not talking about the sin of Adam. There is no mention of Adam in the entire chapter of Romans 3. And it does not say that anyone else's sin was transferred to all men.

Sin is in the heart and the heart is deceitful and wicked and out of the heart proceed the issues of life.

Sin is in the heart, not because of Adam, but because every single man who ever lived (except Jesus) chose to disobey. That's how the heart became deceitful, because man's heart got corrupted due to his own wickedness.

Babies do not start out with a wicked heart as described in Psalms 58. The psalm is saying that from birth, "the wicked" (who?) go astray. From birth the wicked go astray; they were not born that way. But this is a hyperbole, because children may cry and manipulate, but they surely do not spew out venom or anything to that effect. Ask a parent if they ever saw their baby spewing venom. At the most they may spew out their baby feed. Ask any parent if they ever broke their baby's teeth. Teeth?

Also, babies are not born with someone else's sin. Psalm 51 is not talking about all men. This is not a teaching or prophecy. It is Hebrew poetry. The psalm is about one specific man (and not all men) who is repentant, and is expressing to God how sinful he is. In his repentance, he goes to great extents to express to God how sinful he is. How can anyone ignore the figurative language, unless deliberately done. It is important to note that the psalmist is not blaming Adam or anyone else for his sin. He is owning up in a major way.

Now, babies are surely selfish, but their sense of wrong or right has not yet developed (human parents understand this); so God (who does not delight in condemning) does not count their sins against them. Jesus focused on the humility of kids, rather than on their selfishness.

It may seem to be unfair on God's part but we were all conceived in sin through Adam. It was passed on and we had no say in the matter. Our part is to agree with God and admit it..

Scripture has never said that we are conceived in sin through Adam, and that sin was passed on. One must not agree with man-made doctrines.

This is the way it is and has always been and neither you or I can change that.

The best you can do is to explain your beliefs, in love. You cannot force them on someone else, and you cannot make your beliefs the norm for everyone.

Either you believe that or you don't and that is called the sin of unbelief.

​Not believing in the man-made doctrine of OS is not called unbelief. Jesus never taught original sin. When someone does not believe in the words of Jesus, that is termed as unbelief. The instructions of Jesus were best understood by his apostles. The apostles preached that we must believe in Jesus, and repent. They did not advocate the doctrine of Original Sin. The Book of Acts never taught Original Sin. Why do you make Original Sin a salvation issue?

So, thank you for your time, but my question from Romans 5:19 still remains unanswered: how many will be made sinners due to Adam's disobedience? many or all?

 

[KenAllan]

Romans 3:10
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;

Romans 3:23
[SUP]23 [/SUP] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 5:12
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Nobody is righteous. No one was righteous. All have sinned. We have death because all have sinned.

As far as i can see the word ALL and NONE include everybody. All includes babies and all includes Mary also.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding the meaning of ALL?

The problem is the condition of the Heart towards God. When the Heart is evil the Doctrines a person teaches are evil also. How can a person see the Truth from God if they walk in darkness because their Heart is dark?

Some people on this chat site have an agenda to destroy the Truth from God.

 

[BradC]

We were specifically discussing Romans 5:19; but no problem, let us also consider Romans 5:18 as well, or any other verse in the passage. I agree with all the verses.

Romans 5:18 says that condemnation came to all. I agree.
What is the meaning of condemnation? Verse 12 answers this question.
Death came to all people. The consequence of Adam's sin was death to all. It does not say that the sin of Adam was transferred to all men. No scripture says this.

No doubt about it.

Incorrect. All have sinned (period) and fall short of the glory of God(period)[Ro 3:23]. This verse is not talking about the sin of Adam. There is no mention of Adam in the entire chapter of Romans 3. And it does not say that anyone else's sin was transferred to all men.

Sin is in the heart, not because of Adam, but because every single man who ever lived (except Jesus) chose to disobey. That's how the heart became deceitful, because man's heart got corrupted due to his own wickedness.

Babies do not start out with a wicked heart as described in Psalms 58. The psalm is saying that from birth, "the wicked" (who?) go astray. From birth the wicked go astray; they were not born that way. But this is a hyperbole, because children may cry and manipulate, but they surely do not spew out venom or anything to that effect. Ask a parent if they ever saw their baby spewing venom. At the most they may spew out their baby feed. Ask any parent if they ever broke their baby's teeth. Teeth?

Also, babies are not born with someone else's sin. Psalm 51 is not talking about all men. This is not a teaching or prophecy. It is Hebrew poetry. The psalm is about one specific man (and not all men) who is repentant, and is expressing to God how sinful he is. In his repentance, he goes to great extents to express to God how sinful he is. How can anyone ignore the figurative language, unless deliberately done. It is important to note that the psalmist is not blaming Adam or anyone else for his sin. He is owning up in a major way.

Now, babies are surely selfish, but their sense of wrong or right has not yet developed (human parents understand this); so God (who does not delight in condemning) does not count their sins against them. Jesus focused on the humility of kids, rather than on their selfishness.

Scripture has never said that we are conceived in sin through Adam, and that sin was passed on. One must not agree with man-made doctrines.
The best you can do is to explain your beliefs, in love. You cannot force them on someone else, and you cannot make your beliefs the norm for everyone.
​Not believing in the man-made doctrine of OS is not called unbelief. Jesus never taught original sin. When someone does not believe in the words of Jesus, that is termed as unbelief. The instructions of Jesus were best understood by his apostles. The apostles preached that we must believe in Jesus, and repent. They did not advocate the doctrine of Original Sin. The Book of Acts never taught Original Sin. Why do you make Original Sin a salvation issue?

So, thank you for your time, but my question from Romans 5:19 still remains unanswered: how many will be made sinners due to Adam's disobedience? many or all?

When death passed upon all men it was death associated with the sin of Adam and no one else.

Rom 5:12

AMPLIFIED 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all people [no one being able to stop it or escape its power], because they all sinned

NASB 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

KJV 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

There is no other way you can interpret this verse. The death that was passed upon all men came by sin and that sin and offence was Adam's and no other...

So, thank you for your time, but my question from Romans 5:19 still remains unanswered: how many will be made sinners due to Adam's disobedience? many or all?

ANSWER

So, thank you for your time, but my question from Romans 5:19 still remains unanswered: how many have been made sinners due to Adam's disobedience? many or all?

For death passed upon all men because of the sin of Adam, for all have sinned through Adam's transgression unto condemnation. Many people find this hard to swallow and try to be forgiven of sin without acknowledging the sin that is in their heart. They have never murdered anyone, but murder is in their heart. They have never been a thief but thefts are in their heart. They have never fornicated but fornications are in their heart. They have never borne false witness but that tendency is in their heart. Sin is not what you have done, sin is what is in your heart and when sin proceed out from the heart through temptation or reaction in the flesh these defile the man with sin. We are not just guilty of sins but also of sin in our heart. This is why (Prov 4:23) says the following...

23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

There is no way that anyone can have the Spirit dwelling within and have this understanding so wrong about the original sin of Adam. Only human viewpoint could deny original sin from Adam.

 

[valiant]

Babies do not start out with a wicked heart as described in Psalms 58.

So at least you are now admitting that that is what Psalm 58 SAYS. I think I will accept the teaching of the Holy Spirit inspired Psalmist

The psalm is saying that from birth, "the wicked" (who?) go astray. From birth the wicked go astray; they were not born that way.

LOL if they go astray from birth it can only be because they were born that way. They do not have enough awareness of the world for anything else to be true.

But this is a hyperbole, because children may cry and manipulate, but they surely do not spew out venom or anything to that effect.

The reference to venom is a metaphor comparing their sin with what a snake produces. It is something that spoils and mars and causes much trouble. And it is an interesting illustration for it shows the initial source of the baby's sin, the snake who caused Adam to fall. Was that not 'venomous'? ALL sin is venomous.

Ask a parent if they ever saw their baby spewing venom.

Now you are simply being silly.

At the most they may spew out their baby feed.

They also spew out sin by their selfish cries which are often unjustified.

Ask any parent if they ever broke their baby's teeth. Teeth?

Now you are being silly again. Wild beasts had their teeth broken to render them harmless when they were allowed to live. The Psalmist is using picture language which any sensible person would understand. Thus it is saying that parent will discipline their children so as to prevent them from sinning as much. The discipline is needed because of their sinful nature as the Psalmist had made clear.

Also, babies are not born with someone else's sin.

No they are born with their own sin (sinful tendencies), the sin that is in them because they are descended from Adam.

 

[valiant]

Psalm 51 is not talking about all men. This is not a teaching or prophecy. It is Hebrew poetry.

Of course it is prophecy. David was a prophet.(Mark 12.36)

The psalm is about one specific man (and not all men) who is repentant, and is expressing to God how sinful he is.

No it is a general Psalm used in general worship. All the people sang it of themselves.

In his repentance, he goes to great extents to express to God how sinful he is. How can anyone ignore the figurative language, unless deliberately done.

Yes sinful because he was born of a sinful mother in the same way as we are.

It is important to note that the psalmist is not blaming Adam or anyone else for his sin.

Why is it important? It still makes clear that he was born sinful of a sinful mother.

He is owning up in a major way.

Yes to having been born sinful.

Now, babies are surely selfish, but their sense of wrong or right has not yet developed (human parents understand this);

So you agree that they sin naturally and not by choice? Thank you. You have lost your case.

so God (who does not delight in condemning) does not count their sins against them.

then why do some of them die? They die because in some way they are affected by sin, the sinof Adam and of their parents. If what you say were true they could not die until they had sinned on reaching what YOU call the age of accountability (an idea not mentioned in Scripture.

Show me the Scripture that says that God does not count their sin against them. That is your view, not God's

Jesus focused on the humility of kids, rather than on their selfishness.

But those were children who believed in Him.

Scripture has never said that we are conceived in sin through Adam,

But Psalm 51 does say that we were conceived in sin through our parents.

and that sin was passed on.

The whole argument of Rom 5.11 ff is that sin was passed on in some way.

One must not agree with man-made doctrines.

That is why we do not agree with yours.

The best you can do is to explain your beliefs, in love. You cannot force them on someone else, and you cannot make your beliefs the norm for everyone.

No but we can make what Scripture teaches the norm for everyone.

​

Not believing in the man-made doctrine of OS is not called unbelief. Jesus never taught original sin.

Of course it is unbelief. It is unbelief in the Scriptures, the word of God (Jesus).

When someone does not believe in the words of Jesus, that is termed as unbelief.

So you are an unbeliever.

The instructions of Jesus were best understood by his apostles. The apostles preached that we must believe in Jesus, and repent.

yes and they also believed in original sin which made all men sinners. Otherwise how did they know that all men were sinners?

They did not advocate the doctrine of Original Sin.

Of course they did.

The Book of Acts never taught Original Sin.

we would hardly expect it too. It was a history not a doctrinal treatise. But Roman certainly did.

Why do you make Original Sin a salvation issue?

I was not aware that we had.

So, thank you for your time, but

my question from Romans 5:19 still remains unanswered: how many will be made sinners due to Adam's disobedience? many or all?

The many who comprise all sinners apart from Adam. In that verse many is used adjectivally to signify a contrast with 'one'. It is not limiting how many are included. The previous contrasts show that it is the equivalent of all but Adam.

 

[Cassian]

Onlinebuddy,

It seems that you have done your homework on the theory of Original Sin. Most are regurgitating the same error that Augustine made because he did not know Greek. Even if one mistranslates Rom 5:12, the solution given in vs 18 does not match, same for I Cor 15:22, so one would think that they would go back to see where their error lies.
Very simply the "because clause" of Rom 5:12 has as its antecendent the "condemnation of death" It never refers to the actual sin of Adam. It is death that is being transferred/inherited. As it has also been pointed out, the theory causes a change in the scriptural understanding of the Incarnation as well.

It seems that most are stumbling over the phrase "made sinners". Yes, Adam made us all sinners but not because we took on his sin or guilt or that God imputed sin to man. It is because his sin caused death, which is passed on to all men just as Rom 5:12 states.

Elsewhere in scripture it clearly states that sin is NOT passed on to anyone. We are sinners ONLY because we sin. We sin because we are mortal. The sting of death is sin. Everywhere scripture loudly proclaims the error of Augustinian's theory of Original Sin. All men are born, mortal, innocent, just as Christ took on our human nature from Mary. There is no need for the IC theory either.

What surprises me really is that Protestants do not accept the RCC developement of IC because it would solve their problem using Original Sin as well. However, they seem to accept the idea that Christ in His Humanity was actually not like us in our human nature so that He could heal that nature, transform our mortal nature to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:52-54. Scripture never states that we have a sin nature, or that Christ raised our sin nature to immortality. Man has ONLY one nature, since Adam, a mortal nature, We are all consubstantial with each other, from Adam, after the fall, to Christ in His Humanity. All are one of the same human essence precisely.

The Incarnation was under attack three different times and was answered in the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon Constantinople II.

 

[valiant]

Onlinebuddy,

It seems that you have done your homework on the theory of Original Sin. Most are regurgitating the same error that Augustine made because he did not know Greek. Even if one mistranslates Rom 5:12, the solution given in vs 18 does not match, same for I Cor 15:22, so one would think that they would go back to see where their error lies.
Very simply the "because clause" of Rom 5:12 has as its antecendent the "condemnation of death" It never refers to the actual sin of Adam. It is death that is being transferred/inherited. As it has also been pointed out, the theory causes a change in the scriptural understanding of the Incarnation as well.

It seems that most are stumbling over the phrase "made sinners". Yes, Adam made us all sinners but not because we took on his sin or guilt or that God imputed sin to man. It is because his sin caused death, which is passed on to all men just as Rom 5:12 states.

Elsewhere in scripture it clearly states that sin is NOT passed on to anyone. We are sinners ONLY because we sin. We sin because we are mortal. The sting of death is sin. Everywhere scripture loudly proclaims the error of Augustinian's theory of Original Sin. All men are born, mortal, innocent, just as Christ took on our human nature from Mary. There is no need for the IC theory either.

What surprises me really is that Protestants do not accept the RCC developement of IC because it would solve their problem using Original Sin as well. However, they seem to accept the idea that Christ in His Humanity was actually not like us in our human nature so that He could heal that nature, transform our mortal nature to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:52-54. Scripture never states that we have a sin nature, or that Christ raised our sin nature to immortality. Man has ONLY one nature, since Adam, a mortal nature, We are all consubstantial with each other, from Adam, after the fall, to Christ in His Humanity. All are one of the same human essence precisely.

The Incarnation was under attack three different times and was answered in the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon Constantinople II.

The Scriptures are crystal clear. Let them speak:

'We are BY NATURE children of wrath' (Eph 2.3).

'Through one man's disobedience many (the whole human race) were made sinners.' (Rom 5.19).

'If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves (1 John 1.8) (in contrast with having sinned - verse 10).

'The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies' (Psalm 58.3).

'I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me' (Psalm 51.5).

The Scripture are crystal clear on the matter, but naturally depraved sinners won't accept it.

You SAY, 'Elsewhere in scripture it clearly states that sin is NOT passed on to anyone.'

Perhaps you will cite those Scriptures?

 

[BradC]

Onlinebuddy,

It seems that you have done your homework on the theory of Original Sin. Most are regurgitating the same error that Augustine made because he did not know Greek. Even if one mistranslates Rom 5:12, the solution given in vs 18 does not match, same for I Cor 15:22, so one would think that they would go back to see where their error lies.
Very simply the "because clause" of Rom 5:12 has as its antecendent the "condemnation of death" It never refers to the actual sin of Adam. It is death that is being transferred/inherited. As it has also been pointed out, the theory causes a change in the scriptural understanding of the Incarnation as well.

It seems that most are stumbling over the phrase "made sinners". Yes, Adam made us all sinners but not because we took on his sin or guilt or that God imputed sin to man. It is because his sin caused death, which is passed on to all men just as Rom 5:12 states.

Elsewhere in scripture it clearly states that sin is NOT passed on to anyone. We are sinners ONLY because we sin. We sin because we are mortal. The sting of death is sin. Everywhere scripture loudly proclaims the error of Augustinian's theory of Original Sin. All men are born, mortal, innocent, just as Christ took on our human nature from Mary. There is no need for the IC theory either.

What surprises me really is that Protestants do not accept the RCC developement of IC because it would solve their problem using Original Sin as well. However, they seem to accept the idea that Christ in His Humanity was actually not like us in our human nature so that He could heal that nature, transform our mortal nature to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:52-54. Scripture never states that we have a sin nature, or that Christ raised our sin nature to immortality. Man has ONLY one nature, since Adam, a mortal nature, We are all consubstantial with each other, from Adam, after the fall, to Christ in His Humanity. All are one of the same human essence precisely.

The Incarnation was under attack three different times and was answered in the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon Constantinople II.

The nature in man it not only mortal but corrupt. For corruption shall put on incorruption and it is corrupt through the deceitfulness of sin.

 

[valiant]

Jesus was clearly aware that man's sins arose from his inherent sinfulness.

'He who commits sin is the slave of sin,' (John 8.44). This is clear statement that the origin of a man's sins from the beginning of his life is a consequence of sin having enslaved men. The slavery of sin comes before the actual sinning (otherwise there would be some who sinned who were not the slaves of sin).

This is confirmed by Paul, 'we are all by nature children of wrath (Eph 2.3). Thus he declares, 'I am carnal, sold under sin' (Rom 7.14). This is because, 'I see a different principle in my members warring against the principle of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the principle of sin which is in my members' (Rom 7.23).

As he said in Romans 8.5-7, 'Those who are after the flesh have the mind of the flesh, -- the mind of the flesh is death, --- those who are in the flesh cannot please God'. Thus those who have not experienced Christ's saving power in the Holy Spirit are sinful because of their 'flesh; their sinful nature.

This is why he could say, '--- to those who are defiled nothing is pure, but even their mind and consciences is defiled' (Tit 1.15). It explains why, 'the natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him'. (1 Cor 2.14). This is man's condition from birth. 'It is no more I who do it, but sin which dwells in me' (Rom 7.20).

All these verses make clear that all men are possessed by the principle of sin.

As the Holy Spirit discovers when He begins His activity in a man, He has to fight the principle of the man's 'flesh', that in him which is contrary to the Spirit (Gal 5.12).

From this we can see why the Psalmist said, ''The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies' (Psalm 58.3).

It is this of which John said, 'I we say that we have no sin (within us) we deceive ourselves' (1 John 1.8)

 

[Roberth]

Then who was Jesus's biological father since it obviously wasn't Joseph?

The Bible doesn't give that detail. It does, however, state that Jesus as the son of man was "of the seed of David according to the flesh" and hence "born of a woman"!

 

[Magenta]

Then who was Jesus's biological father since it obviously wasn't Joseph?

Is this seriously a serious question? Seriously? Do you not understand what virgin means?

 

[Cassian]

The Scriptures are crystal clear. Let them speak:

'We are BY NATURE children of wrath' (Eph 2.3).

'Through one man's disobedience many (the whole human race) were made sinners.' (Rom 5.19).

'If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves (1 John 1.8) (in contrast with having sinned - verse 10).

'The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born speaking lies' (Psalm 58.3).

'I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me' (Psalm 51.5).

The Scripture are crystal clear on the matter, but naturally depraved sinners won't accept it.

You SAY, 'Elsewhere in scripture it clearly states that sin is NOT passed on to anyone.'

Perhaps you will cite those Scriptures?

But not a single one above states that we are sin, or have a sin nature or that sin is passed on to all men.
The logical extension of Original Sin says that man could not even repent, or do any righteous act. By saying man has a sin nature it becomes his essence and not something man does. It turns scripture on its head and makes the salvation of man false since Christ in order to save our sin nature must of necessity become that sin nature.

Or, I will leave it to you to explain just who Christ saved from the fall and how, since I find nothing in scripture that says we are saved from a sin nature. I know the RCC has developed IC to get around the false theory, but what do Protestants do?

The fact that the texts under question says that sin of Adam is NOT passed on to man. Even more explicit are Ezek 3:19-21, Ezek 18:21:24, Ezek 33:10-16.