Original sin.

[PeaceB]

So we are sinners before we sin?

You are born a child of wrath because of Adam's sin. You are made a child of God by Jesus's death on the cross.

We are all in this together, basically.

 

[TheSeabass]

Regardless of whether Universalism is true or false, the questions still remain.

In your view, how do "many die[ ] through the one man’s trespass"?

In your view, how does "one man’s trespass le[a]d to condemnation for all"?

I am simply quoting Scripture. What do they mean to you? How do you interpret them?

There is no Universalism therefore your interpretation of Rom 5:18 has to be rejected for it created Universalism.

Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

What Paul does NOT say: Paul does NOT say all men are UNCONDITIONALLY condemned nor does he say all men will be UNCONDITIONALLY justified. This idea is read into this verse by some.

Paul shows in Rom 5:12 that men sin therefore CONDITIONALLY condemned for "having sinned" and Rom 5:1,2 men must CONDITIONALLY have faith to be justified.

"All men" refers to the same people both times, therefore Paul's point is that the righteousness of Christ dying on the cross can benefit 'all men' who have been affected by sin since sin entered the world by Adam (the offence of one).

So this passage does not prove original sin, it also disproves limited atonement.

 

[TheSeabass]

Yes, yes. Pelagius.

No, the bible shows men are born sinless, innocent regardless of what men may say one way or the other.

 

[TheSeabass]

Let us know when you decide which side of the Original Sin fence you're for sure on.

I am on the side of God and the bible that there is NO original sin. My quotes you hi-lited were showing Romans 5:18 does not teach original sin. If Romans 5:18a teaches 'all men' are UNCONDITIONALLY made sinners by Adam, then 18b proves that same "all men" will be UNCONDITIONALLY justified by Christ thereby creating Universalism.

 

[TheSeabass]

Jesus is God incarnate. The Virgin birth was necessary so He was conceived sinless.
All men are conceived in sin psalm51,Romans 3:23

Yet if OS were true, then Christ would have it for he was created "like unto His brethren" Hebrews 2:17 and "made in the likeness of men" Philippians 2:7. These two verses cannot be true and Christ was not truly human if He was not tainted with Adam's sin like unto His brethren. Catholics saw this problem so they created the "immaculate conception" to get around this problem.

 

[TheSeabass]

So we are sinners before we sin?

This is what the teaching of original sin claims even though being a sinner before one sins is not possible no more than calling a wall 'painted' before one puts paint on it.

 

[TheSeabass]

You are born a child of wrath because of Adam's sin. You are made a child of God by Jesus's death on the cross.

We are all in this together, basically.

No, I was not born a child of wrath...neither were you.....nor the Ephesians.

If ALL MEN are children of wrath because of Adam's sin, then are the same ALL MEN children of God by Jesus' death on the cross?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

If ALL MEN are children of wrath because of Adam's sin, then are the same ALL MEN children of God by Jesus' death on the cross?

what does Jesus saying "you must be born again" mean to you?

 

[TheSeabass]

what does Jesus saying "you must be born again" mean to you?

Glad you brought this up for I mentioned what Jesus said in John 3:5 in another "original sin" thread.

Why would Jesus use the phrase "born again"? The word 'again' implies one is born before in order to be born AGAIN.

One is first born physically, born into this world pure and sinless. Therefore when one is born AGAIN spiritually, he rises from the waters of baptism pure and sinless just having had all his sin remitted, washed away by the blood of Christ.

So the comparison and connection is when one is physically born he comes forth without sin and when one is spiritually born again he comes forth without sin.

 

[PeaceB]

There is no Universalism therefore your interpretation of Rom 5:18 has to be rejected for it created Universalism.

Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

What Paul does NOT say: Paul does NOT say all men are UNCONDITIONALLY condemned nor does he say all men will be UNCONDITIONALLY justified. This idea is read into this verse by some.

Paul shows in Rom 5:12 that men sin therefore CONDITIONALLY condemned for "having sinned" and Rom 5:1,2 men must CONDITIONALLY have faith to be justified.

"All men" refers to the same people both times, therefore Paul's point is that the righteousness of Christ dying on the cross can benefit 'all men' who have been affected by sin since sin entered the world by Adam (the offence of one).

So this passage does not prove original sin, it also disproves limited atonement.

Thanks. I will need to get back to you concerning this when I have more time on my hands.

 

[PeaceB]

Glad you brought this up for I mentioned what Jesus said in John 3:5 in another "original sin" thread.

Why would Jesus use the phrase "born again"? The word 'again' implies one is born before in order to be born AGAIN.

One is first born physically, born into this world pure and sinless. Therefore when one is born AGAIN spiritually, he rises from the waters of baptism pure and sinless just having had all his sin remitted, washed away by the blood of Christ.

So the comparison and connection is when one is physically born he comes forth without sin and when one is spiritually born again he comes forth without sin.

Would an adult need baptism if he has not sinned?

 

[TheSeabass]

Would an adult need baptism if he has not sinned?

No, for the purpose of baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Infants have no sins to be remitted therefore are not candidates for baptism. Mark 16:16 Jesus made 'believeth' a prerequisite that must be met before one can be baptized. The newly conceived (I think) do not even have a brain or least a developed brain enabling them to understand language, think logically or process ideas rendering them incapable of believing.

 

[PeaceB]

No, for the purpose of baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Infants have no sins to be remitted therefore are not candidates for baptism. Mark 16:16 Jesus made 'believeth' a prerequisite that must be met before one can be baptized. The newly conceived (I think) do not even have a brain or least a developed brain enabling them to understand language, think logically or process ideas rendering them incapable of believing.

Thanks. Would an adult need Jesus Christ as savior if he has not sinned?

 

[TheSeabass]

Thanks. Would an adult need Jesus Christ as savior if he has not sinned?

Jesus required one to believe [John 8:24] repent [Luke 13:3] confess [Matthew 10:32-33] and be baptized [Mark 16:16] in order to be saved.

So how is it possible for an adult to be sinless if he does not know who Christ is therefore does not believe? This adult may not commit any moral sins as lying stealing, murder adultery, but he has committed a sin in not believing repenting confessing Christ and being baptized as Christ commanded.

 

[Albion]

If Romans 5:18a teaches 'all men' are UNCONDITIONALLY made sinners by Adam, then 18b proves that same "all men" will be UNCONDITIONALLY justified by Christ thereby creating Universalism.

Perhaps the confusion arises because the statement above is a non-sequitur. The second part definitely does not prove what you have concluded.

It could be taken to mean that all men thereafter had a chance at salvation, but not that all would be saved, period. That would fit with what proponents of free will contend.

 

[PeaceB]

Jesus required one to believe [John 8:24] repent [Luke 13:3] confess [Matthew 10:32-33] and be baptized [Mark 16:16] in order to be saved.

So how is it possible for an adult to be sinless if he does not know who Christ is therefore does not believe? This adult may not commit any moral sins as lying stealing, murder adultery, but he has committed a sin in not believing repenting confessing Christ and being baptized as Christ commanded.

What will he repent of if he has not sinned?

Let's say, for example, that he professes Jesus as Lord and is baptized at the moment that he reaches the age of reason.

What sin will he repent of?

 

[St_Worm2]

The denial of original sin is the heresy of Pelagianism.

Not sure our EOC friends will agree with you

 

[PeaceB]

Not sure our EOC friends will agree with you

They are perfectly welcome to join the conversation.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

There is no Universalism therefore your interpretation of Rom 5:18 has to be rejected for it created Universalism.

Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

What Paul does NOT say: Paul does NOT say all men are UNCONDITIONALLY condemned nor does he say all men will be UNCONDITIONALLY justified. This idea is read into this verse by some.

Paul shows in Rom 5:12 that men sin therefore CONDITIONALLY condemned for "having sinned" and Rom 5:1,2 men must CONDITIONALLY have faith to be justified.

"All men" refers to the same people both times, therefore Paul's point is that the righteousness of Christ dying on the cross can benefit 'all men' who have been affected by sin since sin entered the world by Adam (the offence of one).

So this passage does not prove original sin, it also disproves limited atonement.

You have it totally wrong,on sin and the atonement.
Romans 3:23 says all sinned....at one point in time,that time was the fall.

 

[PeaceB]

Jesus required one to believe [John 8:24] repent [Luke 13:3] confess [Matthew 10:32-33] and be baptized [Mark 16:16] in order to be saved.

So how is it possible for an adult to be sinless if he does not know who Christ is therefore does not believe? This adult may not commit any moral sins as lying stealing, murder adultery, but he has committed a sin in not believing repenting confessing Christ and being baptized as Christ commanded.

We can get back to the Scripture in a bit, but here is why your theology (let us call it the heresy of Seabasism for lack of a better term) is untenable.

1) In your view "original sin" consists of causing one man to pay a penalty (or be deprived of grace) because of the sin of another. You find this idea objectionable.

2) You believe that infants are born free of sin, and therefore all infants who die go to Heaven.

3) Because you deny original sin, you assert that man's nature is not corrupted. Thus, your recognize that a hypothetical man is capable of exercising free-will and choosing good over evil his entire life, without sinning.

4) We asked you about the logical conclusion that stems from (3) above, which is that our hypothetical man could live his entire life without sinning, and that therefore he would not need Jesus as a savior. That is, because he never sinned, there is nothing that he needs saving from.

5) To avoid the logical conclusion at (4) above, which should most certainly offend the ears of any Christian, you manufacture right out of thin air some sins for our hypothetical man to commit. That is, our hypothetical man has committed the sin of (a) unbelief, although there is no reason for him to believe that Jesus died for his sins since he has not committed any, (b) not repenting, although he has not committed any sins, (c) not getting baptized for the forgiveness of these uncommitted sins, and (d) not confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior, although there is no sin that he has committed.

6) In a previous thread concerning this same topic, I asked you about the fate of a person who has never even heard the gospel. You said that such a person was condemned, for the reasons stated above. That is, our hypothetical man would be lost for the sin of unbelief, and not getting baptized, etc., even in the case where he was born into a militant Muslim community (an ISIS camp, for example) and never once had an opportunity to hear the gospel.

7) So our hypothetical man is completely sin free and on the way to heaven up until the age of reason (the age of seven, for example), but at the very second that he reaches the age of reason, he instantly becomes a sinner on his way to hell for not believing something that has never even heard once, and for not being baptized although there is no person who would be willing to baptize him even if he desired it.

8) Even though you would say that our hypothetical man is being punished for this ridiculous sin of not believing something that he has never even heard, and for not being baptized when there is no-one to baptize him, in realty what your theology does is condemn our hypothetical man for the sins of his parents and the other members of the community in which he was born. That is, he is being punished for the sins of his parents and his community for not providing an environment in which he can hear and believe in the gospel, and in which he can be baptized.

9) So in effect, what Seabasism does is take the concept of original sin, and simply moves it to a different point in time. Seabasism does exactly what you object to, but at different times and with different people than in mainline Christian theology. Instead of Adam's sin being passed down to our hypothetical person at the moment he is conceived, your theology passes down the sins of his parents and his community to our hypothetical man, at the moment that he reaches the age of reason.