• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all-Original Sin

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by redleghunter, Jan 15, 2019.

  1. ewq1938

    ewq1938 Wise 2have humblepride but not PridefulHumbleness. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +6,120
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican

    What needs to be explained?
     
  2. ewq1938

    ewq1938 Wise 2have humblepride but not PridefulHumbleness. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +6,120
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    The only assumption was the concept of being tested and that's barely even an assumption. The rest are basic facts.
     
  3. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,602
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  4. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,602
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Not that Adam did not eat of the ToL. We don’t know how long they were in the Garden.
     
  5. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  6. ewq1938

    ewq1938 Wise 2have humblepride but not PridefulHumbleness. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +6,120
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican
    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. Here's another:

    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.

    There was a time children could pay for their parents sins but that ended.
     
  7. ewq1938

    ewq1938 Wise 2have humblepride but not PridefulHumbleness. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +6,120
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican

    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.
     
  8. ewq1938

    ewq1938 Wise 2have humblepride but not PridefulHumbleness. Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +6,120
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Republican

    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.
     
  9. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,602
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The text does not say that.

    The text does not say the reign ended at Moses.
     
  10. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,602
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That’s a circular assertion based on a false premise.

    Adam was cut off from the ToL after his sin of disobedience. Then we find out he dies later. There’s nothing in the text to suggest Adam and Eve were not eating from the ToL while in the Garden.

    It is only when they sin are they told they will return to the dust which he came.
     
  11. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  12. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,602
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I challenged your pretext with the full context of Romans 5. You have yet to address.


    I don’t think you picked up on the parallel. God judged Korah and his household. The transgression of Adam was against God. What you quoted was what God established for civil Law for Israel. Meaning the human judges could not punish a son for the sins of the father.

    But again it’s not me who is creating contradictions using out of context proof texts.

    Using your line of reasoning I too can say Romans 5 is after Jeremiah.

    The Law was changed?
     
  13. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.

    Something else, Adam is mentioned 8 times, always as the first parent of humanity. Luke ends his genealogy with 'Adam son of God', indicating special creation with no human lineage previously. Over 400 times Adam is used synonomously with humanity in the OT, Just as Israel is named for Jacob.

    Finally, if we can take the first Adam as fictional, why not the second? If I'm not going to believe God created life in the beginning, whats that say about the resurrection, the incarnation and the new heavens and new earth.

    For a guy who read the whole Bible you have some real issues with the clear testimony.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  14. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,602
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That’s the half of it.

    Why did Jesus die physically and then was Resurrected Bodily? I asked that before. I’m sure you believe in the Bodily resurrection of Christ. If we are only truly dead spiritually then why all the torture and blood and need for the Resurrection?
     
  15. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    So the former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the Law made nothing perfect ), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18-19)
    You read the entire Bible, including the New Testament and came to that conclusion? The Law convicts us of sin, righteousness comes by grace through faith 'in Christ'. That's the message of the New Testament, not that the Law was wrong exactly, but because it couldn't provide the righteousness everyone needs to be saved.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  16. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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).
     
  17. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,602
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Obviously not.
     
  18. Hammster

    Hammster Citizen of Covidstan. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +22,615
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    The fiction that you are supporting is this “age of accountability”. That doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  19. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,262
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Well said.
     
  20. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,602
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    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:

    Imputation by B. B. Warfield | Monergism

    Ping for @ladodgers6 too!

    Excerpt:

    Rationalism almost ate the heart out of the Lutheran Churches; and the Reformed Churches were saved from the same fate only by the prompt extrusion of the Arminian party and the strengthening of their position by conflict with it. In particular, about the middle of the seventeenth century the "covenant" or "federal" method of exhibiting the plan of the Lord's dealings with men (see "Cocceius, Johannes, and his School") began to find great acceptance among the Reformed Churches. There was nothing novel in this mode of conceiving truth. The idea was present to the minds of the Church Fathers and the Schoolmen; and it underlay Protestant thought, both Lutheran and Reformed, from the beginning, and in the latter had come to clear expression, first in Ursinus. But now it quickly became dominant as the preferable manner of conceiving the method of the divine dealing with men. The effect was to throw into the highest relief the threefold doctrine of imputation, and to make manifest as never before the dependency of the great doctrines of sin, satisfaction, and justification upon it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
Loading...