J
jdbear
Guest
So...the prodigal son returns home and dad is ecstatic. "Hey boy...we gonna have a paaaaartay!!! I'm gonna roast that fatted calf right now. But first, I need an infant to get the fire going!"
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.
C
chubbena
Guest
This is an example of pulling word out of context and making one's own judgement. This is an example of an wilful sin.
C
chubbena
Guest
jdbear said:
That's excellent.
His righteous is upon no one until they believe in Jesus Christ and for that, they need to hear the word of God.
Likewise, Adam's sin is upon no one until they believe in Adam and for that, they need to hear the word of Adam.
Who could imagine that people would actually teach that this baby...
... deserves an excruciating death upon the cross or even worse.
The people who believe and teach this stuff then claim that God is righteous and that such a thing glorifies His name.
Have people lost their minds? Have people lost all sense of their conscience? Is the conscience that seared that people can uphold such things as godly?
... deserves an excruciating death upon the cross or even worse.
The people who believe and teach this stuff then claim that God is righteous and that such a thing glorifies His name.
Have people lost their minds? Have people lost all sense of their conscience? Is the conscience that seared that people can uphold such things as godly?
Who could imagine that people would actually teach that God would pour out His wrath on His innocent Son in order to satisfy His wrath, get it out of His system so to speak, wherefore He could then ignore the manifest wickedness of people who believe that His wrath was satisfied?
Now here is the kicker...
A holy and righteous god is angry at an individual BEFORE the individual even commits a sin. This holy and righteous god then beats up his own son in the place of the individual who has not sinned yet. Then when the individual actually does sin he is no longer angry anymore because he already took it out on his son.
Is that what Christianity has become?
A holy and righteous god is angry at an individual BEFORE the individual even commits a sin. This holy and righteous god then beats up his own son in the place of the individual who has not sinned yet. Then when the individual actually does sin he is no longer angry anymore because he already took it out on his son.
Is that what Christianity has become?
Last edited:
Strip all the fluff away and you have people who actually believe little babies, who are born of no choice of their own, deserve eternal punishment and that this is all in accordance with a righteous god.
Have we lost our minds? I mean come on folks, have we really lost our minds?
Have we lost our minds? I mean come on folks, have we really lost our minds?
Excuse me for pointing out the obvious but so many of what people hold to be true is insanity. People will point to a Bible verse which doesn't even say what they claim and they say "see there it is, proof." What is going on in the mind here?
For example we have people teaching that Jesus takes the place of the guilty sinner whereby all the sin is credited to Jesus and then God proceeds to punish Jesus for those sins. Then it is on that basis that the actual sinner is no longer condemned because the punishment has already been meted out.
So what this means is that God doesn't actually forgive sin, He just attributes the sin to someone else and punishes them instead. That is holy and just? Punish the innocent and let the guilty go free? Not only that but the guilty keep on sinning but cannot be held accountable for it because the innocent was already punished. You are kidding me?
People argue in favour of that as well as infants deserving hell and they really think that this god they believe in is holy and just?
For example we have people teaching that Jesus takes the place of the guilty sinner whereby all the sin is credited to Jesus and then God proceeds to punish Jesus for those sins. Then it is on that basis that the actual sinner is no longer condemned because the punishment has already been meted out.
So what this means is that God doesn't actually forgive sin, He just attributes the sin to someone else and punishes them instead. That is holy and just? Punish the innocent and let the guilty go free? Not only that but the guilty keep on sinning but cannot be held accountable for it because the innocent was already punished. You are kidding me?
People argue in favour of that as well as infants deserving hell and they really think that this god they believe in is holy and just?
Have many of you folks actually examined these things with an honest heart? I mean really examine these things?
I know these things are the "popular theology" but does popularity mean it is right? Jesus did warn that MOST would be deceived and only a FEW would enter in. Do those warnings mean not a thing to most people today?
Here we have a thread about Original Sin, a doctrine clearly brought into orthodoxy in the Fourth Century. That is a fact anyone can look up. Even the Theopedia says...
Even Wikipedia explains how Original Sin with the underlying tenet of inability was developed by Augustine in the fourth century and that the Greek fathers before him upheld the freedom of the will and refuted the Augustinian notions which were actually taught by the Gnostics.
Any of us can read early church writings and clearly see they did not teach "birth depravity" or that people are "born guilty."
Here is a link to the early church writings which any of us can read.
http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Ante-Nicene-Fathers-Vol-1.pdf
None of those writers taught Original Sin or Penal Substitution. They preached an entirely different Gospel than what we hear today. Yet why don't people care about that?
Why don't people care about things like this? We live in a time when we can easily access these things online instead of having to dig through some archive in a monastery.
It just blows my mind how stupid and stubborn people can actually be. People are going to go to hell because they refused to repent and forsake their sins and approach God in the correct manner simply because they found the false teachings they were used to comforting to their flesh.
It is so sad. So, so sad.
I know these things are the "popular theology" but does popularity mean it is right? Jesus did warn that MOST would be deceived and only a FEW would enter in. Do those warnings mean not a thing to most people today?
Here we have a thread about Original Sin, a doctrine clearly brought into orthodoxy in the Fourth Century. That is a fact anyone can look up. Even the Theopedia says...
http://www.theopedia.com/Original_sin
Even Wikipedia explains how Original Sin with the underlying tenet of inability was developed by Augustine in the fourth century and that the Greek fathers before him upheld the freedom of the will and refuted the Augustinian notions which were actually taught by the Gnostics.
Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any of us can read early church writings and clearly see they did not teach "birth depravity" or that people are "born guilty."
Here is a link to the early church writings which any of us can read.
http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Ante-Nicene-Fathers-Vol-1.pdf
None of those writers taught Original Sin or Penal Substitution. They preached an entirely different Gospel than what we hear today. Yet why don't people care about that?
Why don't people care about things like this? We live in a time when we can easily access these things online instead of having to dig through some archive in a monastery.
It just blows my mind how stupid and stubborn people can actually be. People are going to go to hell because they refused to repent and forsake their sins and approach God in the correct manner simply because they found the false teachings they were used to comforting to their flesh.
It is so sad. So, so sad.
Last edited:
Well, your unbelief of Ro 5:18:
"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men,"
is above my pay grade, and that of all the othesr here.
I'll be taking a pass on your unbelief from here on.
Well, that explains your gross misunderstanding of Scripture.
You could use a good Bible study.
Who could imagine that anyone claiming to believe the word of God
would set his own wisdom above God's and would not believe God's own word in Ro 5:18:
"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."
Obvious attempt to divert from the unfinished business you've left on the table.
Give the meaning of Lk 11:48-51; Ro 3:10, 4:55; 8:7-8; Eph 2:3 , which you also don't believe,
without violating the texts.
Who could imagine that people who claim to believe the word of God would not believe Isa 53:5:
"the punishment that brought us peace (with God, of whom we were enemies, Ro 5:10)
was upon him, by his wounds we are healed."
Or 2Pe 2:24:
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree. . .
by his wounds you have been healed."
Or Paul on God's wrath (Ro 1:18, 2:5, 5:9, 9:22, etc.)?
Your unbelief makes the NT a closed book to you, everywhere demonstrated in your contra-NT doctrine.
Still trying to distract from the unfinished business you've left on the table:
Give the meaning of Lk 11:48-51; Ro 3:10, 4:5; 5:18; 8:7-8; Eph 2:3 without violating the texts.
Last edited:
J
jdbear
Guest
You know sis, I've read many of your posts on other subjects and I think you're a very smart lady. I don't know why you're focusing on on one verse here without thinking outside the box by comparing scripture with scripture:
by the righteousness of one*the free gift came*upon all men unto justification of life.
Without knowledge of other scripture, this says righteous applies to all whether they want it or not.
We both know that interpretation is foolish. So is the idea that God blames us for the sins of another.
Heck...you will pay for my wrongdoing? No way!
The real kicker is gross unbelief of the word of God in:
Ro 5:18:
"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."
Is 53:5:
"the punishment that brought us peace (with God, of whom we were enemies, Ro 5:10)
was upon him, by his wounds we are healed."
2Pe 2:24:
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree. . .
by his wounds you have been healed."
Is that what belief has become?
Still trying to distract from the unfinished business you've left on the table:
Give the meaning of Lk 11:48-51; Ro 3:10, 4:5; 5:18; 8:7-8; Eph 2:3 without violating the texts.
And there we have it.
The unbelief of Skinski7ism makes the gospel a closed book and the wisdom of God into foolishness.
But the foolishness of God's wisdom is wiser than the unbelief in the wisdom of Skinski7ism (1Co 1:25).
Q.E.D.
And now the word of God is insanity.
The gospel of grace is a closed book in Skinski7ism.
Ro 5:18:
"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."
Is 53:5:
"the punishment that brought us peace (with God, of whom we were enemies, Ro 5:10)
was upon him, by his wounds we are healed."
2Pe 2:24:
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree. . .
by his wounds you have been healed."
Wrath of God:
Ro 1:18, 2:5, 5:9, 9:22, etc.
Q.E.D.