- Nov 5, 2011
- 44,419
- 6,800
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Please explain. This makes no sense.
What needs to be explained?
Upvote
0
Please explain. This makes no sense.
That’s a bold assumption.
Yes God did create man upright in His image and according to His likeness. His name was Adam.Fair enough but allow me to post some scripture that disagrees with the above statement:
Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Other translations:
(CEV) I did learn one thing: We were completely honest when God created us, but now we have twisted minds.
(ESV) See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.
(GW) I have found only this: God made people decent, but they looked for many ways to avoid being decent."
(MSG) Yet I did spot one ray of light in this murk: God made men and women true and upright; we're the ones who've made a mess of things.
upright
3477
03477 yashar {yaw-shawr'}
from 03474; TWOT - 930a; adj
AV - right 53, upright 42, righteous 9, straight 3, convenient 2,
Jasher 2, equity 1, just 1, meet 1, meetest 1, upright ones 1,
uprightly 1, uprightness 1, well 1; 119
1) straight, upright, correct, right
1a) straight, level
1b) right, pleasing, correct
1c) straightforward, just, upright, fitting, proper
1d) uprightness, righteous, upright
1e) that which is upright (subst)
God hath made man upright, meaning righteous and good, but man seeks out things that alter this beginning.
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Psalms 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
Psalms 92:15 To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
Even God describes himself as 03477 yashar and creating man as 03477 yashar means we are not born in sin and not created imperfect and flawed.
Matthew 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
Even here we see that a wicked man progressed in his wickedness. His ending state was worse than his beginning. Mankind is created upright and righteous but we all progress from that state in our unrighteousness. Not all end up as bad as the above example but we all do become more unrighteous than when we were first created.
Not that Adam did not eat of the ToL. We don’t know how long they were in the Garden.The only assumption was the concept of being tested and that's barely even an assumption. The rest are basic facts.
Have you read Romas 5? It contrasts the disobedience of Adam the righteousness of God in Christ, it's the whole point of the passage.We aren't discussing that. We are discussing original sin and whether it is biblical or not.
Yes God did create man upright in His image and according to His likeness. His name was Adam.
You still won’t address Romans 5:13-21?
I also addressed the sins of the father argument by showing the sin of Korah in Numbers 16. His whole family and clan died for his sin.
Not that Adam did not eat of the ToL.
Have ypou read Romas 5?
The text does not say that.It means sin caused people to be spiritually dead which ultimately leads to the second death unless they are saved by Christ.
The text does not say the reign ended at Moses.Do you know why that reign ended at Moses? Because the law provided a way to cleanse someone from sin. That was perfected in Christ's sacrifice bringing in a better covenant.
That’s a circular assertion based on a false premise.How is that an assumption? Adam did not eat of it because he was not immortal and died. Had he eaten of it he would have never died.
I got you telling me that and Paul telling me something else entirely. Sin and death came by one man, Paul is crystal clear on that and insisting all sinned (Rom. 5:12). Paul went on for two and a half chapters explaining that, concluding that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Rom. 3:23). Paul never says some, he explicitly says all. He couldn't be more clear that we are sinners because of the disobedience of one man, Adam.No one is born with anyone else's sin, nor any sin at all.
I challenged your pretext with the full context of Romans 5. You have yet to address.I already have. Nothing there changes what is said in verse 12 nor is there any support for original sin there.
Nice try but that happened before the other verses were written.
Using your line of reasoning I too can say Romans 5 is after Jeremiah.Jer 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
Jer 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
The Law was changed?There was a time children could pay for their parents sins but that ended.
Paul says the exact opposite of what you are telling us. You clearly don't accept a fact of redemptive history that sin and death came through Adam, contrary to the teaching of Paul.I've read the whole bible brother. There is nothing in Romans 5 or anywhere that supports original sin. It is a man made fictional doctrine. And Paul himself wrote verse 12 which proves sin is not inherited so accepting that means original sin is untrue.
That’s the half of it.It means sin caused people to be spiritually dead which ultimately leads to the second death unless they are saved by Christ.
It means sin caused people to be spiritually dead which ultimately leads to the second death unless they are saved by Christ. Do you know why that reign ended at Moses? Because the law provided a way to cleanse someone from sin. That was perfected in Christ's sacrifice bringing in a better covenant.
That expression actually means, 'dying you shall die', it's a literary feature in the Hebrew that doesn't really come out in the translation. Adam and Eve had a choice between life and death, they choose death. Now they may very well have been created mortal, I wouldn't argue otherwise, but the Tree of Life was available as well, that tree actually still exists. Figuratively, Proverbs (3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4) and literally, Revelation (2:7; 22:2,14,19).Actually the text says they would die that same day and they did. It was a spiritual death. Physical death was not mentioned as part of their punishment because it is natural for mortals to die.
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
I've read the whole bible brother. There is nothing in Romans 5 or anywhere that supports original sin. It is a man made fictional doctrine.
The fiction that you are supporting is this “age of accountability”. That doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture.I've read the whole bible brother. There is nothing in Romans 5 or anywhere that supports original sin. It is a man made fictional doctrine. And Paul himself wrote verse 12 which proves sin is not inherited so accepting that means original sin is untrue.
Well said.The fiction that you are supporting is this “age of accountability”. That doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture.
I believe @Jonaitis is referring to federal heads of covenants. B.B. Warfield explains how with the Arminian opposition explaining the imputations in federations helped unify Reformed theologians using 'Federal heads.' It's deeper in this piece which is a very good source:What does federal head mean?