The Immaculate Conception Error

[Cassian]

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.

Corruption is due to death. Everything is due to death. We are corrupt because of death, we sin because we are mortal, dead beings. Decay and corruption happens in this world, to the world because of death. It is why Christ also redeemed this world.
The foundational root is the sin of Adam, but we are not liable for his sin, his sin is not passed on to us in any shape or form. His guilt is not passed on either. We do not sin in the manner of Adam but because of the condemnation of death, dust to dust.

 

[Cassian]

Valiant,

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.

You are arguing against yourself.

you are using words that condemn the Original Sin theory and support death as the essence of the fall. Our mortal nature is a sinful nature, but is NOT a sin nature. We are not sin, but we do sin. Huge difference. If one actually has a sin nature the Holy Spirit could not help you to not sin because you are sin. You would be incapable of love with a sin nature. Our essence is not a sin nature, but a mortal nature. A nature that is NOT sin but does sin.

False theories are never consistent with scripture and this is a very good example.

 

[valiant]

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.

Valiant, You are arguing against yourself.

you would try to say that even though it is totally untrue.

you are using words that condemn the Original Sin theory and support death as the essence of the fall.

Nonsense. The verses make quite clear that man's problem is a sinful nature, called 'the flesh' which lies at the root of all men's sins. Death is the final consequence of the Fall. The sinful flesh is meanwhile our problem in trying to deal with sin, ensuring that we fail..

Our mortal nature is a sinful nature, but is NOT a sin nature.

LOL who is arguing against himself now?

We are not sin, but we do sin.

We sin because we have a sinful nature, called by Paul 'the flesh' which fights with the Spirit. Scripture is quite clear. As John said we both 'have sin' and 'do sin' (1 Johhn 1.8, 10).

Huge difference. If one actually has a sin nature the Holy Spirit could not help you to not sin because you are sin.

Now you are being absurd. You are saying that God could not counteract a sinful nature? That is ridiculous. Nor does having a sinful nature mean that 'you are sin'. You are simply playing with words. No one says that 'we are sin'. What we say is that we do sin because we have a sinful nature, which is a part of us, something we were born with. Fortunately for the Christian, God counteracts that sinful nature by the new birth.

You would be incapable of love with a sin nature.

Nonsense, you must have a peculiar notion about what you call 'the sin nature'. The sinful nature makes us selfish, self-defensive, lustful and so on. But it does not mean that we cannot have a form of love, although without the Holy Spirit not true Christian love.

You have no defence so you invent contradictory ideas which are totally unrelated to the teaching concerning original sin.

Our essence is not a sin nature, but a mortal nature. A nature that is NOT sin but does sin.

I have never spoken of a 'sin nature'. I do not know what you mean by a sin nature. I must assume it is one of your inventions intended to make us say what we do not say. No one has ever suggested that our essence is 'sin' (whatever that means). But our essence, what we are in ourselves, is affected by the sinful nature that we have inherited. Using Paul's terminology 'the flesh'.

Adam was mortal before he sinned. His mortal nature did not make him sin. If we had simply a 'mortal nature' (whatever that means) it would mean that some did not sin. Our problem is that we have a sinful nature from birth. We are born with a tendency to sin which we are unable to resist.

If we only had a mortal nature we would have no problem. Our problem lies in being born with a sinful nature, which as 'the flesh' fights against the Spirit of God.

False theories are never consistent with scripture and this is a very good example.

yes your false theories are very good examples of how Scripture can be twisted.

 

[Roberth]

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

It means that no man had sexual intercourse with Mary.

Technically a woman can be artificially inseminated and still remain a virgin, right?

Mary was artificially inseminated through God's Spirit. Apparently He used the "seed of David according to the flesh".

 

[BradC]

Corruption is due to death. Everything is due to death. We are corrupt because of death, we sin because we are mortal, dead beings. Decay and corruption happens in this world, to the world because of death. It is why Christ also redeemed this world.
The foundational root is the sin of Adam, but we are not liable for his sin, his sin is not passed on to us in any shape or form. His guilt is not passed on either. We do not sin in the manner of Adam but because of the condemnation of death, dust to dust.

The only reason that death exists is because of Adam's sin and no other reason. The wages of sin is death and that death existed from Adam to Moses and when the law came sin abounded. We are all liable for the sin of Adam because he is our federal head. If any believer refuses to identify with Adam, the first man, then we must identify with his sin because we are all born in his image and likeness. Adam became a sinner before the first man was born. As a sinner all who were born through his loins were born in sin. Before there was any record of any sin from Cain or Abel, they were to offer sacrifices to the Lord. This pointed to the fact that they were born in sin through their father Adam. Cain offered the best from the fruit of his own hands and it was rejected. Cain refused to acknowledge his sin nature before the Lord and was disapproved. This made Cain angry and jealous of his brother Abel whose sacrifice was accepted as the firstlings of the flock.

Some of you want to be responsible for your own sin and you offer an unacceptable sacrifice. You want your repentance to be from the fruit of your own hands. You don't want to acknowledge the sin within your heart that was passed down to you from Adam and you want to establish your own righteousness before the Lord. You reject the fact that Christ paid not only for your own sins but also for sin in you which was inherit as your very nature. You minimize the effect of the cross and you limit the atonement for your own sin. You fail to see that Christ did not only die for sin but as sin and you make the cross of none effect toward the sin of Adam. Christ could never be the second Adam unless he destroyed the sin of Adam in his own flesh. The death of Christ accomplished both the crucifixion of our sins and also the sin nature we inherited from Adam. Without doing both the sin nature within would continue to have dominion over the believer.

 

[Mec99]

Romans 3:10-12
[SUP]10 [/SUP] As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
Have you read where God has said none are righteous, no not one?

Have you read where God says thee is none who seek after God?

Have you read where God say there is none who do good, 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--

For ALL to have sinned means everybody has a sin nature and sins!

The problem is not about what God says in the Scriptures, its all about evil men sneaking into the fold trying to deceive the very elect of God with their lies.

 

[BradC]

It means that no man had sexual intercourse with Mary.

Technically a woman can be artificially inseminated and still remain a virgin, right?

Mary was artificially inseminated through God's Spirit. Apparently He used the "seed of David according to the flesh".

The seed of David is simply the lineage of David. We have both Mary and Joseph carrying the lineage of David and through that seed and we have the immaculate conception of Christ through the Holy Spirit and not through the copulation of a man. The flesh of Christ was made like unto sinful flesh but was without sin. He was the son of man in the likeness of sinful flesh but as the son of God he was the word made flesh and dwelt among men without sin. Christ came to reproduce himself in man through the new birth and not through copulation with a woman.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Christ was born of the Spirit and not of the flesh. He grew in spirit and the words he spoke were spirit and life. He had flesh and bones as we do but was born of the Spirit, even after the resurrection he appeared to Thomas saying that a spirit has not flesh and bone as you see. Christ was resurrected by the Spirit and appeared in the flesh once again and then ascended into heaven. Jesus was never born or resurrected of the flesh but he had flesh both before and after the resurrection. So Jesus was made of the seed of David according the flesh and nothing else.

 

[Cassian]

valiant,

Nonsense. The verses make quite clear that man's problem is a sinful nature, called 'the flesh' which lies at the root of all men's sins. Death is the final consequence of the Fall. The sinful flesh is meanwhile our problem in trying to deal with sin, ensuring that we fail..

You have just described the fall as death and not sin. Our mortal nature is a sinful nature because it causes us to sin. The root of man's sin is the flesh, namely our mortal nature.

Where in the above is it describing that man is sin, or has a sin nature or sin is passed on to man? It cannot be found.

Now you are being absurd. You are saying that God could not counteract a sinful nature? That is ridiculous. Nor does having a sinful nature mean that 'you are sin'. You are simply playing with words. No one says that 'we are sin'. What we say is that we do sin because we have a sinful nature, which is a part of us, something we were born with. Fortunately for the Christian, God counteracts that sinful nature by the new birth.

Again you have just described our mortal nature, not a sin nature. Man is born with a mortal nature and he sins through or because of that nature which makes it a sinful nature. But where is the sin nature? Where is the transmission of Adam's sin?

Maybe you do not realize the thrust of the discussion started out about IC which was the RCC solution to the Original Sin theory because they realized that in order for Christ to save mankind, He could not assume a sin nature. Protestants have no solution to the theory. They essentially either ignore the implications, or just put salvation from the fall as unrelated to the fall.

Nonsense, you must have a peculiar notion about what you call 'the sin nature'. The sinful nature makes us selfish, self-defensive, lustful and so on. But it does not mean that we cannot have a form of love, although without the Holy Spirit not true Christian love.

Its called definition of words. There is a huge difference between saying we have a sin nature and a sinful nature. One portrays essence, the other is an adjective portrays an act of a nature. The Orginal Sin theory is premised on that we ARE SIN, IN OUR ESSENCE,THUS A SIN NATURE.
Scripture NEVER says we have a sin nature. Or that we are sin and born with sin or that sin is passed on to all human beings.
Again, you are making the argument against the theory of Original Sin and you don't even understand you are because you do not understand the definitions of the words/phrases.

Which is why we have a mortal nature that is sinful because it causes us to sin. Christ can save man from the fall because he assumed that mortal nature in order that by death He could arise and give life to that mortal nature. NEVER does it ever say that Christ assumed our sin nature.

But our essence, what we are in ourselves, is affected by the sinful nature that we have inherited. Using Paul's terminology 'the flesh'

the best argument against Original Sin as I have seen here. Death is the root cause.
None of your statements so far has stated any of the principles of the Theory of Original Sin. That sin is transmitted to all men, or that we have a sin nature. or for some believe that God actually imputes sin to man.

Adam was mortal before he sinned. His mortal nature did not make him sin.

Where do you get the idea that Adam had a mortal nature BEFORE he sinned? God did not create man mortal. Gen 3:19 clearly states that death was the result if his sin.

Our problem is that we have a sinful nature from birth. We are born with a tendency to sin which we are unable to resist.

We can resist otherwise Christ would not have commanded us to be perfect as He is perfect. It takes a struggle be we can resist sin. Which further states that we are not sin or have a sin nature.

If we only had a mortal nature we would have no problem. Our problem lies in being born with a sinful nature, which as 'the flesh' fights against the Spirit of God.

Scripture proclaims it to be man's primary problem. The biggest is that we will all be dissolved by death and permanently return to dust from whence we came. Christ came specifcally to redeem us from the fall, death being first since without life, there is no eternity. What purpose would there be for God to have as relationship with man on this earth, but man ceases to exist and returns to dust.

You do believe in the resurrection of the dead? How do you think that happens Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:12-22, I Cor 15:52-54. The other is the sacrifice for sin which was only for the forgiveness of sin in this life so that man could have a relationship with Christ now. The two texts that sum up the atonement are Heb 2:9 and I John 2:2.

yes your false theories are very good examples of how Scripture can be twisted.

Yet, other than your current misunderstanding regarding man's mortality, you have explained the fall as being through death and not the theory of Original Sin. You are far more in agreement with scripture than you are with the theory that is held by most Protestants.

 

[Cassian]

BradC,

The only reason that death exists is because of Adam's sin and no other reason.

so far good. God allowed Satan to have dominion over man and Satan took man captive through death. Heb 2:14.

The wages of sin is death and that death existed from Adam to Moses and when the law came sin abounded.

still exists. Christ did not give us immortal life in this life, but only for eternity.

We are all liable for the sin of Adam because he is our federal head.

We are not liable for any sin but our own. Adam is NOT our federal head. We are of the same essence as Adam, so was Christ in His human nature.

If any believer refuses to identify with Adam, the first man, then we must identify with his sin because we are all born in his image and likeness.

No human being can be identified with Adam any longer. Scripture says Christ came to defeat death, sin and Satan. All men, the world has been reconciled to God through Christ. In Adam's likeness is that we are born mortal.

As a sinner all who were born through his loins were born in sin.

but being born in sin does not mean born with sin. We are born in a world subject to corruption, decay and death which includes every human being.

Some of you want to be responsible for your own sin and you offer an unacceptable sacrifice.

Unfortunately we are all responsible for our sin, for what we do. We cannot blame the devil or Adam for what we do.

You want your repentance to be from the fruit of your own hands.

Where does it say that anyone else repents for me? Christ's first words of His ministry was, Repent, for the Kingdom is at Hand. If we are not responsible why does He require that we repent?

You don't want to acknowledge the sin within your heart that was passed down to you from Adam and you want to establish your own righteousness before the Lord.

My sin was not passed down to me from Adam. It is all mine. And just how does man make himself righteous when man has absolutely nothing to do with what Christ did in reconciling the world to God by defeating death and sin?

You reject the fact that Christ paid not only for your own sins but also for sin in you which was inherit as your very nature. You minimize the effect of the cross and you limit the atonement for your own sin. You fail to see that Christ did not only die for sin but as sin and you make the cross of none effect toward the sin of Adam.

I'm not really sure why you bring in our personal salvation here. Christ died for the sin of Adam just as much as He died for my sins and the sin of the world. I John 2:2.

Christ could never be the second Adam unless he destroyed the sin of Adam in his own flesh.

he did not destroy sin. He did not eradicate sin in this world. He destroyed death, by his own death and resurrection. He gave life to all men, to the world. The solution to Rom 5:12 is Rom 5:18, life to all men. I Cor 15:22 states the same thing.

The death of Christ accomplished both the crucifixion of our sins and also the sin nature we inherited from Adam.

So, you believe Christ had a sin nature that He healed by His death so we no longer will have a sin nature? Explain just what you mean by that statement and support it with scripture.
No place does scripture ever state that a believer does not sin. It manifestly states that sin is a choice. We can choose to be a slave to sin or to righteousness.

 

[onlinebuddy]

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




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



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




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



Yes to having been born sinful.



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



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



But those were children who believed in Him.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

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



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



That is why we do not agree with yours.



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

​


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



So you are an unbeliever.



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



Of course they did.



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



I was not aware that we had.



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.

Of course it is prophecy. David was a prophet.(Mark 12.36)No one is asking whether David was a prophet or not. However, everything David spoke wasn't prophecy.

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

Singing a psalm is different from singing it of oneself. You are welcome to sing it of yourself. Only people wearing OS spectacles sing it of themselves, because they don't believe the truth: that God created them upright and they have messed up. Well, sing on then, and blame your sins on someone else, even when in the very psalm you are singing, the psalmist is not blaming anyone else.

Yes sinful because he was born of a sinful mother in the same way as we are.
Why is it important? It still makes clear that he was born sinful of a sinful mother.

You are making a general application of a specifically isolated situation in order to please yourself that the false doctrine of OS is true. The psalmist is not blaming anyone but himself; not Adam, not his mother. He is not saying that he is the victim of Adam's or his mother's sin, but that he is a criminal. If you consider him a prophet, follow suit; repent and own up. Don't make excuses for your sin.

Yes to having been born sinful.

How can one own up for Adam's or his mother's sin. Each one has to own up for his own sins.
You say your sinful nature was because of Adam's sin, but then you call it your own nature. It's just like being paralyzed in an accident where the driver (unknown to you) is drunk, and then saying, "It was the driver's fault, but now being paralyzed is my nature, and I'm responsible for it. The doctrine of OS thus makes you defy all logic.

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

I am not here to win or lose. I'm here to learn; to learn the truth, which you do not have.
Babies are mortal beings. Mortal beings have needs, and they cry out or act in order that their needs would be met. Any parent would understand this, except for a parent blinded by the false doctrine of OS.
Yes, they are selfish naturally, since they are naturally mortal; not because they have been infected by some uncontrollable nature because of someone else's sin. God does not consider their actions as condemnable, since they have not reached the age of accountability. So who are you to condemn babies? Who are you to call them wicked? The false doctrine of OS makes you insensitive to little babies, and you condemn them, and that is evil.
In Psalm 58, the psalmist uses highly condemning language because it was not himself he was talking about, but about the wicked and unrepentant. You have gone to the extent of identifying yourself with the wicked, because it helps your false doctrine of OS. Your doctrine of OS has thus become your idol.
In Psalm 51, the psalmist is begging for forgiveness and mercy, because he is talking about his sins. How can he ask forgiveness and mercy for Adam's or his mother's sins. He is repeatedly saying the words, "my sin", "my iniquity", "my transgression." This is not about you and me. It is about him.

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.

What an incorrect perspective. They die because they are mortal. Death or mortality came because of Adam's sin. There is no connection between mortality and age of accountability. You say this because your belief of OS has blinded you from the truth. You even override the justice and mercy of God.

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

In 2 Sam 12, David's son who was born out of adultery dies. No sooner his son dies, than David stops all mourning and breaks his fast, to the surprise of everyone. When asked about his behavior, David's response was, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me". This shows that David believed that he would meet his son in heaven.
In 2 Kings chapter 21 and chapter 24, one of the sins of Manasseh was killing of children who were specifically called "innocent." Therefore God would not only punish Manasseh, but the entire nation.
According to Jewish customs, and as implied in the NT, there was an age of accountability for children.

GTG..I will respond more later.

 

[epostle]

epostle,

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.

Hardly recent when they rejected Augustines concept.
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.

Augustine didn't move away from the early church. Since you deny that scripture itself is a development, there is little point using that logic. The claim that the Church invented one doctrine to bolster another is just sheer stupidity.It is impossible for the Church to operate like that.

ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)

​

TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom MAN was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On ACCOUNT of his transgression MAN was given over to death; and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE, which was INFECTED by his SEED, was made the TRANSMITTER of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

"Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection" [1 Cor 15:21]. Here, by the word MAN, who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect.
(Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)

ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)
EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)
EVERY SOUL that is BORN into flesh is SOILED by the filth of wickedness and SIN....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given EVEN TO INFANTS. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which REQUIRED a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem SUPERFLUOUS. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism EVEN TO INFANTS. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the INNATE STAINS OF SIN, which must be WASHED AWAY through water and the Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)​

Please quote Augustine as to exactly how he "moved away" from the essential understanding of the early church.

You didn't answer my question.
Is truth relative?

 

[Cassian]

Augustine didn't move away from the early church. Since you deny that scripture itself is a development, there is little point using that logic. The claim that the Church invented one doctrine to bolster another is just sheer stupidity.It is impossible for the Church to operate like that.

ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)

​

TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom MAN was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On ACCOUNT of his transgression MAN was given over to death; and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE, which was INFECTED by his SEED, was made the TRANSMITTER of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

"Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection" [1 Cor 15:21]. Here, by the word MAN, who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect.
(Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)

ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)
EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)
EVERY SOUL that is BORN into flesh is SOILED by the filth of wickedness and SIN....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given EVEN TO INFANTS. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which REQUIRED a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem SUPERFLUOUS. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism EVEN TO INFANTS. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the INNATE STAINS OF SIN, which must be WASHED AWAY through water and the Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)​

Please quote Augustine as to exactly how he "moved away" from the essential understanding of the early church.

You didn't answer my question.
Is truth relative?

Both of these citations puts death as the cause of our sin. Truth is not relative which is why the Church, Christ's Church, has not moved away from the original revelation given to man, once. Jude 3.
The RCC with development of Revelaton and Protestants with sola scriptura have made revelation relative. It is what man wants it to mean to suit their particular understanding.

As to Augustine, he went way outside of the Church's understanding at the time. His whole explanation begins with sin being the element of transfer to man instead of what scripture states is clearly death. The idea that man is imputed sin and guilt of Adam is wholly Augustinian. It is strange that Rome who was still part of the Church during the three Councils dealing with Christ's Incarnation apparently forgot what it actually means.

Why would the RCC adopt/develop the IC doctrine since by scripture it is not necessary nor based on the Councils understanding of the Incarnation.

 

[BradC]

BradC,

so far good. God allowed Satan to have dominion over man and Satan took man captive through death. Heb 2:14.

still exists. Christ did not give us immortal life in this life, but only for eternity.

We are not liable for any sin but our own. Adam is NOT our federal head. We are of the same essence as Adam, so was Christ in His human nature.

No human being can be identified with Adam any longer. Scripture says Christ came to defeat death, sin and Satan. All men, the world has been reconciled to God through Christ. In Adam's likeness is that we are born mortal.

but being born in sin does not mean born with sin. We are born in a world subject to corruption, decay and death which includes every human being.

Unfortunately we are all responsible for our sin, for what we do. We cannot blame the devil or Adam for what we do.

Where does it say that anyone else repents for me? Christ's first words of His ministry was, Repent, for the Kingdom is at Hand. If we are not responsible why does He require that we repent?

My sin was not passed down to me from Adam. It is all mine. And just how does man make himself righteous when man has absolutely nothing to do with what Christ did in reconciling the world to God by defeating death and sin?

I'm not really sure why you bring in our personal salvation here. Christ died for the sin of Adam just as much as He died for my sins and the sin of the world. I John 2:2.

he did not destroy sin. He did not eradicate sin in this world. He destroyed death, by his own death and resurrection. He gave life to all men, to the world. The solution to Rom 5:12 is Rom 5:18, life to all men. I Cor 15:22 states the same thing.

So, you believe Christ had a sin nature that He healed by His death so we no longer will have a sin nature? Explain just what you mean by that statement and support it with scripture.
No place does scripture ever state that a believer does not sin. It manifestly states that sin is a choice. We can choose to be a slave to sin or to righteousness.

Christ destroyed the old sin nature through his own crucifixion. He rendered it powerless so it would not have dominion. He also put away the sins of the world as the lamb of God. That is the finished work of the cross. The power of the old sin nature we inherited from Adam has been destroyed through death. This is the hope that we have and the Spirit reveals that in us and by faith we walk in the love of that truth and in the resurrection power of the new man through the new birth.

 

[Cassian]

Christ destroyed the old sin nature through his own crucifixion. He rendered it powerless so it would not have dominion. He also put away the sins of the world as the lamb of God. That is the finished work of the cross. The power of the old sin nature we inherited from Adam has been destroyed through death. This is the hope that we have and the Spirit reveals that in us and by faith we walk in the love of that truth and in the resurrection power of the new man through the new birth.

if that is so, why do you still sin? And if that is what He did, then all men no longer have this sin nature. So all men's sins have been put away.

I have a very difficult time in following your arguments via scripture. It seems you are reading a different book.
Where does it say we have a sin nature in scripture? Where does it say Christ bore our sin nature?

 

[onlinebuddy]

In 1 Kings 14: 6-16, God had found something "good" in Abijah, the son of the wicked king, Jeroboam. He was the only one who was considered "good" in Jeroboam's household. Therefore God took him away in his sickness, so that he would not be tainted by the corruption of Jeroboam.
God is a merciful God, and does not delight in condemning. He is interested in saving. If Abijah was tainted by the sin of Adam, or by the sin of his mother, why would God call him "good"?
Do you think Abijah never cried and manipulated his parents as a baby? Was Abijah sinless? Obviously not. It's just that God in his mercy does not count the sins of a person against them until they are at an age when they can understand right and wrong.

God is not an evil headmaster looking for someone to punish. He would rather overlook sin and give grace in order to encourage repentance.

In the end, we do not have the final word on who is saved or lost. But this we know, that God is just, and does not count a person as a sinner because of another person's sin. So no one has the right to say babies are not saved. Let's leave that to God.

 

[valiant]

Corruption is due to death.

Physical corruption is due to death. Moral corruption is due to the Fall.

Everything is due to death.

Nonsense. You have said that without thinking.

We are corrupt because of death,

Physically we are corrupt because we live in mortal bodies. Spiritually we are corrupt because we are the products of the Fall.

we sin because we are mortal,

Adam was mortal, but there was no excuse for his sin. God intended him to be mortal and not sin. Thus your statement is clearly in error.

dead beings.

spiritually dead, yes, because we are by nature children of wrath (people deserving punishment). But not yet physically dead.

Decay and corruption happens in this world, to the world because of death.

No it happens in us and the world because God made us subject to it. Its final consequence is death. But it is not death that causes decay and corruption.

The foundational root is the sin of Adam, but we are not liable for his sin, his sin is not passed on to us in any shape or form.

We are not liable for his sin, but we sin because he made us sinners. Through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners (Rom 5.19).

His guilt is not passed on either.

On that we agree.

We do not sin in the manner of Adam but because of the condemnation of death, dust to dust.

of course we sin in the manner of Adam. He sinned by deliberately disobeying God. So do we. We sin because we are BY NATURE children of wrath. We sin because we were born as sinful flesh as a consequence of Adam's sin. Condemnation of death is the consequence, not the cause. Dust is not sinful. It is man's soul/spirit which has been corrupted by the Fall

 

[valiant]

In 1 Kings 14: 6-16, God had found something "good" in Abijah, the son of the wicked king, Jeroboam. He was the only one who was considered "good" in Jeroboam's household.

Your usual slack exegesis. He was not considered 'good'. It was just that something good was found in him. In other words he was not totally evil.

Therefore God took him away in his sickness, so that he would not be tainted by the corruption of Jeroboam.

True but that did not make him 'good'.

God is a merciful God, and does not delight in condemning. He is interested in saving. If Abijah was tainted by the sin of Adam, or by the sin of his mother, why would God call him "good"?

God did not call him good. He said that there was some good in him. So your argument collapses.

Do you think Abijah never cried and manipulated his parents as a baby? Was Abijah sinless? Obviously not.

I am pleased that you admit that he was a sinner. That is why God did not call him good, but merely said that there was SOME good in him..

It's just that God in his mercy does not count the sins of a person against them until they are at an age when they can understand right and wrong.

Scripture? Who are we to say when God counts our sins against Him? Such an idea is pure arrogance. It is not based on Scripture.

God is not an evil headmaster looking for someone to punish. He would rather overlook sin and give grace in order to encourage repentance.

He NEVER overlooks sin. What He does is put it behind Him because of the cross. Nor does He 'give grace' in that sense. He acts in grace (unmerited love and compassion). Your concepts are all wrong.

In the end, we do not have the final word on who is saved or lost.

So why be dogmatic about it? You contradict yourself.

But this we know, that God is just, and does not count a person as a sinner because of another person's sin.

That is true.

So no one has the right to say babies are not saved.

I fail to see what that has to do with your last point. Babies are born sinful. That is why they also need to be saved. We cannot say that they are not saved because God does not tell us. We also do not have the right to say that they are saved.

Let's leave that to God.

Now that I agree with you on. So stop pontificating..

 

[Mec99]

Does it really matter if babies are born sinful? Does it really matter if babies are born without sin?

What does matter is what God says about everybody being a sinner.

God has said ALL have sinned and none are righteous. Mary was born into sin and Mary was a sinner who sinned.

Those who disagree with what God says are not Christians, they are Catholic. All this debate has come about because Catholics hate the fact that Mary was born into sin. The Catholics are bringing into the debate the teachings of their God Satan.

Catholics are not Christians. Catholics do not follow God. Catholicism is a Cult that has Mary as their God.

Its the Catholics who are causing divisions between True Christians. Its the Catholic Cult that is trying to destroy our walk with God.

We are to have nothing to do with the Catholics.

1 Corinthians 5:11
[SUP]11 [/SUP] But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person.

We are told by God not to have anything to do with a Catholic.

 

[Cassian]

Valiant,

Physical corruption is due to death. Moral corruption is due to the Fall.

and the fall was death. No difference.

Physically we are corrupt because we live in mortal bodies. Spiritually we are corrupt because we are the products of the Fall.

same as above. We are products of our mortal nature, the flesh.

Adam was mortal, but there was no excuse for his sin. God intended him to be mortal and not sin. Thus your statement is clearly in error.

How did Adam become mortal before he sinned? What does dust to dust mean to you?

spiritually dead, yes, because we are by nature children of wrath (people deserving punishment). But not yet physically dead.

we are spiritually dead because we sin. We sin because we are mortal. Why are people deserving of punishment. God thought otherwise.

No it happens in us and the world because God made us subject to it. Its final consequence is death. But it is not death that causes decay and corruption.

God had nothing to do with it. He may have permitted it, but it is all man and Satan. Satan's tools are death and sin. Heb 2:14, I John 3:8.

So you believe that God created the world solely for the purpose of its destruction.

We are not liable for his sin, but we sin because he made us sinners. Through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners (Rom 5.19).

because of the condemnation of death. The solution is found in the next verse, LIFE to all.

of course we sin in the manner of Adam. He sinned by deliberately disobeying God. So do we. We sin because we are BY NATURE children of wrath. We sin because we were born as sinful flesh as a consequence of Adam's sin. Condemnation of death is the consequence, not the cause. Dust is not sinful. It is man's soul/spirit which has been corrupted by the Fall

Rom 5:14 disagrees with you. But I can understand your position because you believe Adam was mortal before he sinned. Very logical but quite unscriptural.

 

[BradC]

If man is born without sin or original sin then why did God have his son conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of a virgin and not through the copulation of Joseph? If he had been conceived like unto us, between à man and a woman, would he have been God's only begotten son or just the son of man? Would he have been born of sinful flesh instead of 'like unto sinful flesh'. God could have had Jesus born of a man and woman, not even a virgin, given him the Spirit and grace and let Jesus live in perfect obedience as a man, be tempted in all points as we are and be without sin.

Could he have been the spotless lamb of God and take away the sin of the world in this manner? This way wouldn't he have been able to identify with man more intimately having been born in the same manner as other men, who BTW he had created? Did God the Father have his son Jesus born of a virgin and conceived of the Spirit instead of how man is conceived because he feared if his son was born like other men might succumb to sin and fall short destroying the purpose for which he was sent. Remember that God is the God of all flesh and is there anything too hard for him? So God could have done it that way but did not for very good reason and it was more than to just to fulfill prophesy.