I am sick to death of having my words twisted, that is not what I am doing. My position is based on Paul, Moses and the traditional theology of the Christian faith that is uniformly Creationist. This modernist, so called 'interpretation' exists no where in the Scriptures.
Which is it? Is it based on tradition, or is it based on Moses and Paul, because neither Moses nor Paul ever mention 'Original Sin' or ever suggested we sinned when Adam did, while you favourite quote 'we all sinned in Adam' is simply a human tradition that dates back to a bad translation into Latin.
Again you are twisting my words, I did quote from New Advent but I have based my views exclusively on the testimony of the Scriptures. Something, I might add, no TE ever does.
How can you quote New Advent and 'base your views exclusively on the testimony of the Scriptures'
I used to be a Catholic, I recognise the doctrine you are preaching, it is the one I was taught before I started looking to scripture for my doctrine rather than tradition. You favourite quote is a doctrine that goes way back, not to the NT, but to a bad translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin. Of course you can't find it in scripture, and it is unsurprising in a way you find the greatest support in the writing of Augustine and Aquinas. What is surprising is that an evangelical would cling so strongly to Catholic tradition and to the arguements of Augustine and Aquinas in support of a teaching based on a mistranslation.
And you countered with what? Absolutely nothing. The Scriptures speak clearly on Creation, not just in Genesis but Luke and Paul both make it crystal clear that Adam was the first man, without human ancestry, specially created. I have done in depth expositions of the Scriptures as I have done with scientific literature.
The issue here is not the historicity of Adam, though it is not well supported by Luke who only referred to the genealogy as 'supposed', or Paul who compared Adam and Christ on a figuratively level in Romans 5 and 1Cor 15. We have discussed that at different times. But it is a non issue. Many TEs accept a literal Adam. The issue is your claim that Christ's death is meaningless unless we all sinned in Adam, and that any TE who doesn't accept your Vulgate based all sinned in Adam, is theological bankrupt.
What traditions? You are talking in generalities and making sweeping judgments based on your statements alone. I quote Augustine because he cites 11 Church fathers.
It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, thatSt. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to makeSt. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.New Advent 'Original Sin'
According to Christian tradition, original sin is the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born (Psalm 51:5). Original sin is also called hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to the serpent's temptation. (Original Sin from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Original sin. "Our first parents being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature were conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation." Adam was constituted by God the federal head and representative of all his posterity, as he was also their natural head, and therefore when he fell they fell with him (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22-45). His probation was their probation, and his fall their fall. Because of Adam's first sin all his posterity came into the world in a state of sin and condemnation, i.e.,
(1) a state of moral corruption, and
(2) of guilt, as having judicially imputed to them the guilt of Adam's first sin. (Sin, Bakers Dictionary of the Bible)
Original sin and the special creation of Adam is not a Catholic or Augustine doctrine, it's a Christian doctrine and represents the traditional view of the Church for 2,000 years. This so called theistic evolution can substantiate itself neither by the Scriptures nor any Christian doctrine that I am aware of.
Of course Augustine quoted other church fathers, that is how people argued their case back then. It does not follow that the church fathers Augustine quoted held the same views as Augustine. If they did, and Augustine quoted both Latin and Greek fathers, why do the Eastern Orthodox Churches not accept Augustine's doctrine?
You quoted wikipedia, but I am afraid there has been a bit of wikiality in the story of Original Sin. Your quote:
Instead of According to Christian tradition, original sin is the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born (Psalm 51:5).
It now says:
Western Christian tradition regards it as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born,
It goes on to explain that
The Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, concerning original sin is largely based on writings by Augustine of Hippo,
However, both the new version and the old one you quoted tell us that
Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt
Clearly the Catholic church will claim their tradition dates all the way back to the NT, their argument about Augustine quoting earlier church fathers is part of this, but we can only know what church fathers believed by reading what they say themselves, not by reading back into them a later theology that simply quoted them in support.
If you want to take Genesis 1 figuratively that's your business. You can reject Creationism based on religion or secular science and I could care less. But don't come on here and tell people that I based by doctrinal position on Catholic theology, that's a lie. I have posted extensive expositions, quoted from numerous commentaries and several Bible dictionaries.
I would prefer to see it based on scripture than commentaries and dictionaries. A lot of Catholic tradition was passed on down by Calvin and Luther, just look at infant baptism. So it is not surprising that Augustine's views on Original Sin still come up in Protestant commentaries, especially the older ones. Why is it surprising that people try to support traditions that have been passed down to them from teachers they respect. But the traditions stem from Augustine and a doctrine based on a mistranslation of Romans 5:12. Lets go back to scripture and see what it actually says, not just look for arguments to support tradition.
You claim to have done in depth expositions of scripture, but perhaps I have missed them, I certainly can't recall you ever getting to grips with the meaning of a passage. You quote the odd passage and tell us your theology, but you don't actually analyse the passage and show what it says, you certainly don't get to grips with any of our comments about Paul discussing Adam allegorically, or the basis of Romans 5 being 'because all sinned'.
If you are going to relate my position to someone then get your facts straight. I do not take kindly to having my words twisted.
How am I twisting you words? You keep saying
we all sinned in Adam you just don't realise, or refuse to admit where this phrase and doctrine comes from. This is Augustine "all then sinned in Adam". Apparently he picked up his exegesis of the Latin vulgate's in quo omnes peccaverunt (in whom all have sinned) from someone called Hilary "It is manifest that all have sinned in Adam". The phrase does not go back any further than that, certainly not to scripture.
Instead of devoting your energy to defending Augustine's mistaken doctrine based on a Latin mistranslation, why not go back to scripture and start again. See what it actually says. Try to work out what Paul was actually saying in his epistles, even if as Peter tells us There are some things in them that are hard to understand. 
The fact that so many conservatives have embraced evolution without even blinking shows that this is merely loaded nonsense.
