What is the different between original sin and daily sin.
- Thread starter Jackson123
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
And Ro.5:12 says death passed because all sinned...meaning committed their own sin. Tell me something Elin:
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,and*to keep himself unspotted from the world. Ja.1:27
Since you believe we are stained with Adams sin, what does it mean to be unspotted from the world?
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,and*to keep himself unspotted from the world. Ja.1:27
Since you believe we are stained with Adams sin, what does it mean to be unspotted from the world?
You get to decide if you believe the word of God when it states:
"for the result of one trespass (Adam's sin) was condemnation for all men."
When you accept and believe it based on the authority of God, then we can take a look
at understanding it, because it is useless to discuss Scripture with those who do not believe it,
for it is a closed book to them.
"for the result of one trespass (Adam's sin) was condemnation for all men."
When you accept and believe it based on the authority of God, then we can take a look
at understanding it, because it is useless to discuss Scripture with those who do not believe it,
for it is a closed book to them.
That is Ro 3:23, same as Ro 3:12, and something else, not Ro 5:18.
Ro 3:12, 23 refer to sin by personal action (due to the sinful nature inherited from Adam at birth).
Ro 5:18 refers to inherited sin from Adam, the cause of the sinful nature.
Adam sins, all descendants inherit Adam's sin and a sinful nature which is the reason for their own sin.
Ro 3:12, 23 refer to sin by personal action (due to the sinful nature inherited from Adam at birth).
Ro 5:18 refers to inherited sin from Adam, the cause of the sinful nature.
Adam sins, all descendants inherit Adam's sin and a sinful nature which is the reason for their own sin.
Last edited:
Your problem is that you "understand" this verse as saying something it doesn't!
You completely forget about the one overriding thing and that is the freewill of man (and angels)!
Paul even writes in Rom 5v13 that where there is no knowledge of moral law (as in a young child) sin in NOT imputed!
Yahweh Shalom
You completely forget about the one overriding thing and that is the freewill of man (and angels)!
Paul even writes in Rom 5v13 that where there is no knowledge of moral law (as in a young child) sin in NOT imputed!
Yahweh Shalom
Elin you throw around out of context proof text verses like leaves in the autumn.
I have addressed multitudes of what you put forth including those passages, that I have not addressed them to your satisfaction is irrelevant because you are emotionally attached to your beliefs and thus whatever I may bring to the table will never be of any significance to you. All you do is ignore what is presented and jump to the next proof text until eventually we go full circle and we are back where things started. I won't play your game. You are a rambling deluded dogmatic slave to the doctrines of men.
Your are stuck in a close minded rut and that is why you can never address issues like the logic of a righteous God sending an infant to hell because Adam sinned.
You'll always avoid any discussion of purity of heart and it relates to the genuine salvation experience, a subject which you simply cannot deal with because you believe in the inherent perpetual corruption of the heart until physical death.
Alluding to verses out of context is not going to make any difference at the judgement. Claiming that Jesus paid your sin debt by absorbing God's wrath as your substitute won't work. Claiming that God sees you as righteous because Jesus was righteous even though you remain inwardly defiled by sin won't work either.
Original Sin is a damnable doctrine which lies at the root of most false teaching today.
I have addressed multitudes of what you put forth including those passages, that I have not addressed them to your satisfaction is irrelevant because you are emotionally attached to your beliefs and thus whatever I may bring to the table will never be of any significance to you. All you do is ignore what is presented and jump to the next proof text until eventually we go full circle and we are back where things started. I won't play your game. You are a rambling deluded dogmatic slave to the doctrines of men.
Your are stuck in a close minded rut and that is why you can never address issues like the logic of a righteous God sending an infant to hell because Adam sinned.
You'll always avoid any discussion of purity of heart and it relates to the genuine salvation experience, a subject which you simply cannot deal with because you believe in the inherent perpetual corruption of the heart until physical death.
Alluding to verses out of context is not going to make any difference at the judgement. Claiming that Jesus paid your sin debt by absorbing God's wrath as your substitute won't work. Claiming that God sees you as righteous because Jesus was righteous even though you remain inwardly defiled by sin won't work either.
Original Sin is a damnable doctrine which lies at the root of most false teaching today.
No, read it again.
Paul states that where there is no law (itself), there is no transgression (sin is not taken into account, imputed).
He does not say where there is no knowledge of law.
Ro 5:12-21 is an involved argument showing that the sin of Adam is imputed to the sons of Adam,
which is what is called original sin.
Paul states that where there is no law (itself), there is no transgression (sin is not taken into account, imputed).
He does not say where there is no knowledge of law.
Ro 5:12-21 is an involved argument showing that the sin of Adam is imputed to the sons of Adam,
which is what is called original sin.
Last edited:
Elin does not forget about the free will of man, Elin does not believe in the free will of man.
Elin holds to the Calvinist doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches this...
Elin believes in "inability," she believes that the human will is "born" enslaved to sin and therefore cannot make the virtuous choice. She approaches the Bible with this presupposition and will read into the Bible this presupposition as true.
That is why any teaching that contradicts the free agency of man will be repugnant to Elin.
Elin holds to the Calvinist doctrine of "Total Depravity" which teaches this...
Elin believes in "inability," she believes that the human will is "born" enslaved to sin and therefore cannot make the virtuous choice. She approaches the Bible with this presupposition and will read into the Bible this presupposition as true.
That is why any teaching that contradicts the free agency of man will be repugnant to Elin.
