bibliology QUIZ

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, Jan 25, 2014.

?

Do you believe in Errancy, Infallibility, or both and why?

  1. Inerrancy

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Infallibility

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  3. Both

    20 vote(s)
    90.9%
  4. None

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,367
    Likes Received:
    105
    So what do you believe and why? Explain. From looking at the posts on this board it is possible there is a division on these terms and many do not even know it because they have not studied this doctrine in depth. For example there are some here that deny the doctrine of original sin and do not believe the plain readings of scripture when presented on this doctrine. This is because they do not believe their Bibles. Or perhaps they do believe their Bibles, they just have issues with Hermeneutics and that is another possibility. Some great theologians believed in inerrancy and infallibility, but did not understand Hermeneutics which resulted in questionable interpretations.
     
    #1 evangelist6589, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2014
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends on what one calls "original sin." There is confusion about that as well, primarily caused by the liturgical churches from which the Reformation sprung. They misdefined it. How do you define it, Evan?
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    My question for Evangelist is where do the scriptures say everyone is born guilty of Adam's sin? Please show where the scriptures teach this.
     
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psalm 51, (NASB)
    5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
    And in sin my mother conceived me. ​
    This cannot be understood through any personal iniquity of his parents, since this respects his being "fearfully and wonderfully made" in the womb, in which both he and they were wholly passive. This was written of by the psalmist David himself in Psalm 139:13-16. The sin David speaks of is the imputed sin of Adam to all the human race. Not only was Adam found guilty because he sinned, but his guilt and his punishment --death -- belongs to us as well.
    Romans 5
    12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned -
    13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​
    Those two verses appear to be in conflict with one another, but obviously, as the Bible cannot contradict itself, they can't be. It behooves us, therefore, to find out why there is no conflict. It cannot be denied that v. 12 speaks of sin entering the world through Adam. Sin, like a virus, infected all men following Adam's disobedience, and continues unabated down through history until today, the only cure being faith in Christ, that His death paid the punishment of sin for us, and that through His burial and resurrection we have attained new life.

    It is not true, however, that v. 13 contradicts that conclusion. If it were, then God was unjust in punishing sin before He gave Moses the Law. But He was not unjust, because there was a law before the words were given Moses on Sinai. It was God's law. He held man accountable before the Law was given to Moses. Witness Cain. Witness Sodom and Gomorrah. Witness Babel. It is beyond question that Adam's sin was passed to us. Genesis even says this, regarding Seth.
    Genesis 5
    3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. [Emphasis added]
    Seth was still created in God's image, but Adam's sinful "image" or nature -- literally, "resemblance" -- was superimposed over that image of God in Seth, and until Seth was able to "believe God" just as Abram did, the "resemblance" of sin enacted by Adam hounded Seth. As it does us.
     
  5. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baloney. Psalm 51 is a confession of sin, David is confessing his sin with Bathsheba. It would not make sense to suddenly blame his sin on being born a sinner. This would be to blame God for David's personal sin.

    David did not have the same mother as his brothers. David had two sisters Zeruiah and Abigail whose father was Nahash the Ammonite. Nahash was still alive when David was an adult, so his mother was either divorced from Nahash, or had had children outside of marriage with Nahash. Either way, David's mother was a "polluted" woman who had relations with a non Jew.

    David was the black sheep of the family, when Samuel asked Jesse to present his sons, twice he did not present David. Only when Samuel insisted did he bring David forth.

    So, David was the black sheep, and this seems to be what he is saying in Psalm 51. Psalm 51 in no way is teaching that all men are born guilty of Adam's sin, Adam is not even mentioned in this scripture.

    Romans 5:12 does not say all men are born dead in Adam, it says death passed on all men, "for that all have sinned".

    Augustine based OS on a flawed Latin text. Here is what Dr. MacGorman who taught at Southwestern Seminary for 56 years said of Romans 5:

    I agree with Dr. MacGorman, Paul shows that all men are sinners in Romans chapters 1-3 without even mentioning Adam.

    And Genesis 5 does not prove we are born sinners. In fact, in the book of James we are told that men are made in the similitude or likeness of God.

    Jam 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

    Note that this verse is written in present tense (are).

    Original Sin is false doctrine invented by Augustine and the Catholic church. None of the early church fathers taught it.

    The scriptures say man is made upright, but then all men choose to go out in sin.

    Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

    Note the word "they" shows this is speaking of all men, not just Adam.

    The scriptures also show that God never imputes the sin of the father to the son.

    Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

    The Jews were teaching a form of Original Sin in this chapter, they had a proverb that the father would eat a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. God said this proverb would no more be taught in Israel, every man would die for his own sin, and the son shall not bear the sin of his father or vice versa.

    Again, Original Sin is false doctrine unknown until Augustine introduced it as official doctrine of the Catholic church.
     
    #5 Winman, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2014
  6. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    :thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup:​
     
  7. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please Willis, present scripture for one side or the other, but lay off this cheerleader stuff, doctrine is not determined by popularity.
     
  8. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Why, he did all the work for me. He made the layup look as easy as pie.
     
  9. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want to present scripture that you believes supports Original Sin, I will address it. But this cheerleader stuff proves nothing. That goes for both sides.

    The scriptures do not teach we are born dead in Adam's sin, in fact, there is much scripture which refutes this false doctrine.

    Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
    8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
    9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
    10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
    11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

    In Romans 7 Paul is telling us of when he learned the law as a young Jew. He said he would have not known what sin is except for the law, he would have not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    In verse 9 Paul tells us he was spiritually alive until the commandment came, but when the commandment came (when he learned the law), sin revived and he DIED. It doesn't get any plainer than that, Paul is clearly teaching that a man is alive until he learns right from wrong before God. When a man understands the law he becomes accountable. This is when Paul was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died.

    In Luke 15 Jesus tells three parables that are all one. The first is a shepherd with 100 sheep. None are lost.

    Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

    The lost sheep was not lost at first.

    Luk 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

    The lost piece of silver was not lost at first.

    Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

    The prodigal son was not lost at first. It was only after he knowingly and willingly left home and went out in sin that he was joined to a citizen of that far country.

    Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

    This is when the prodigal became a child of the devil, when he became a child of wrath by nature (habit).

    When the boy repented, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. This would be impossible if Original Sin were true (it's not).

    Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

    Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

    Of course, no Calvinist will ever admit that the scriptures do not teach Original Sin, without OS Calvinism is utterly proved to be the false doctrine it really is.
     
    #9 Winman, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2014
  10. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    I love how the OP was derailed from the very get go... by the OPer himself no less. Another useless thread.
     
  11. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    You really thought he was asking a question didn't you? :laugh:
     
  12. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, Win, but you can't discount what he said. To do so is to deny what David wrote about his own sin nature, passed to Him by Jesse, and to him by Obed, and to him by Boaz, and to him by Salmon, and to him by Nahshon, and to him by Amminadab, and to him by Ram, and to him by Hezron, and to him by Perez, and to him by Judah, and to him by Jacob, and to him by Isaac, and to him by Abraham, and to him by Terah, and to him by Nahor, and to him by Serug, and to him by Peleg, and to him by Heber, and to him by Shelah, and to him by Cainan, and to him by Arphaxad, and to him by Shem, and to him by Noah, and to him by Lamech, and to him by Methuselah, and to him by Enoch, and to him by Jared, and to him by Mahaleleel, and to him by Cainan, and to him by Enosh, and to him by Shem, and to him by Adam.
    Evidence please, form the Bible. Hint: It never mentions his mother, or his brothers' mother.
    My turn: Baloney. Pure speculation, with no proof whatsoever.
    I like this: Baloney. You're operating on pure speculation. There is no evidence to support that statement. Jesse did not bring David before Samuel because he was the black sheep, but because he was the youngest, not of age, therefore not, in Jesse's mind, eligible to be a leader. In fact, as you well know, David did not become a leader until age 30, the biblical age of leadership throughout God's word. In fact, none of David's brothers were likely of age, though that is speculation on my part. See? I admit when I'm speculating.
    As I've shown, yes it does.
    A lot of false ideas are based on what men say is not in Scriptures.
    Which irrationally leaves out the preceding phrase, " ... just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men ... "
    Which irrationally overlooks the fact that the concept of imputed sin is not only taught through God's word, but is recognized by several different doctrinal disciplines.
    I would point out to you that MacGorman's post attempts to alter perceptions of the traditional Southern Baptist Faith and Message, which affirms the exact argument he attempts to deny. MacGorman is wrong, and if you agree with him, you are wrong.
    To claim Paul "didn't mention Adam" is a direct denial of " ... just as through one man sin entered into the world ..." in Romans 5:12. Who do you and MacGorman think that "one man" was? It can't be anyone but Adam and to claim otherwise is a denial of God's word.
    You're right, it doesn't -- if one chooses to ignore the obvious and attempt to twist, rewrite or otherwise alter what Genesis 5:3 says. But if one is honest, and reads the passage for what it says, no other conclusion can be reached. As I explained in the previous post, therefore there is no need to repeat it.
    I will go ahead and repeat what I said: Man is made in God's image. Adam's sin overlays his image over that created image, and until faith in Christ provides salvation, the underlying image of God is not revealed.
    Which does not negate what I just said.
    The term “original sin” deals with Adam’s sin of disobedience in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and its effects upon the rest of the human race. Original sin can be defined as "that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God’s eyes as a direct result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden." The doctrine of original sin focuses particularly on its effects on our nature and our standing before God, even before we are old enough to commit conscious sin. That is not what Augustine or the Catholic Church teaches. This is the right view of so-called "original sin" and to be biblically correct, it must be accepted. Otherwise, one utterly fails to understand the reason Christ died on the cross.
     
  13. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    What did he say?

    Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    This doesn't say, "I was born a sinner". It says I was shapen in iniquity, in other words he was formed in a sinful world. And the second half of the verse speaks of his mother, not himself, it says in sin did his mother conceive him. Scholars have debated on this, as I showed before, David's mother had relations with a non Jew, she had two daughters with Nahash the Ammonite.

    It is also possible that David was conceived out of wedlock. But this scripture is not saying David or any other man is born guilty of Adam's sin.

    Your view is also completely out of context with the first four verses where David repeatedly admits his OWN PERSONAL guilt. Look at the scripture.

    Psa 51:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
    2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
    3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
    4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

    Look how many times David confesses HIS sin, not Adam's. So your view is completely out of context and makes no sense whatsoever.

    I believe David had always been treated as slightly inferior to his brothers, and it was probable he truly had a damaged self image. I know this sounds like today's "victim attitude", but David may have had real reasons for feeling this way. He is simply confessing self disgust with himself.

    But you cannot take this one verse from a Psalm that in no way is addressing the univeralism of sin and it's origin and create doctrine from it.

    What is amazing to me is how people will completely ignore scripture that directly says God has made men upright.

    Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

    Does this verse address how all men are made? YES. And yet folks ignore it, and go about pulling vague and difficult scripture to understand completely out of it's context to prove Original Sin. That is not scholarship.
     
    #13 Winman, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2014
  14. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Good posts, T#isD. Brother winman, I am not able to "cut and paste" scriptures, seeing I am on my Nook, stuck here at work due to snow...no need trekking home in the snow, only to drive through it again ~29 miles one way.

    But, God sees us through one of the two Adam's, which are Adam and Christ. The first if of the earth, earthy, the other, a quickening Spirit.


    BTW, have you been pelted with a lot of snow, Brother winman? Wifey told me earlier we got an extra couple inches this morning, which should give us ~6" at the house. In Conn, 6" is a flurry...
     
  15. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Brother winman, the "they" in Ecc 7:29 is referring to Adam & Eve, imhho...
     
  16. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct, the scriptures never mention David's mother. That in itself is interesting. But the scriptures do tell us that David had two sisters.

    1 Chr 2:13 And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third,
    14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth,
    15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:
    16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.

    We are also told that Zeruiah and Abigail were the daughters of Nahash the Ammonite;

    2 Sam 17:25 And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.

    We know that Nahash the Ammonite showed some kindness to David, most likely because of David's mother.

    2 Sam 10:1 And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead.
    2 Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.

    So, Nahash had shown David kindness for some reason. This was a man known for his ruthlessness. It is likely that he showed David kindness for his mother's sake.

    David did not look like his brothers, they were tall and handsome, David was short and ruddy. Jesse did not present David twice when Samuel came to him.

    1 Sam 16:5 And he said, Peaceably: I am come to sacrifice unto the LORD: sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.
    6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him.
    7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
    8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
    9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said, Neither hath the LORD chosen this.
    10 Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these.
    11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.
    12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.
    13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

    Again, David's brothers were tall and handsome. Twice Jesse presented his older sons to Samuel, and twice Samuel rejected them. When Samuel asked if Jesse had any other sons, he confessed he had one more who was keeping the sheep. This shows how David was excluded from the rest of his family.

    David was short and ruddy, and not handsome like his brothers. That is because he had a different mother from the others. But David was the one chosen by the Lord.
     
    #16 Winman, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2014
  17. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it is speaking of all men. If God wanted to tell us that only Adam was made upright, could he not have easily said;

    Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made Adam upright; but he has sought out many inventions.

    or perhaps Adam and Eve;

    Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made Adam and Eve upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

    I think if you are honest you will admit neither of these interpretations works.

    No, the word "they" shows Ecc 7:29 is speaking of all men.

    Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
     
  18. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    The thing is, Brother winman, is that if a baby is born upright, its impossible for them to die in a sinless state. Sin brings death. Babies die because the sin of Adam was passed upon all, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, even babies. If they aren't born w/o Adam's sin being past unto them, then they weren't sinners per se.
     
  19. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it is impossible for them to spiritually die. But physically they are under the curse and die. Animals cannot sin, and they physically die because of the curse.

    Babies have not committed Adam's sin, Paul clearly shows this in Romans 9:11

    Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

    Original Sin teaches that all men were present in Adam's loins in the garden, and that we all personally participated in Adam's sin. Some base this on the story of Melchisedec in Hebrews;

    Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
    10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

    Some will use this passage in Hebrews to argue that we were all present in Adam's loins in the garden, but this presents all sorts of problems. If this view is correct, we would not only be guilty of sinning Adam's original sin, but ALL of his sins, as well as ALL of the sins of all our fathers. Not only that, we would also receive credit for believing if one of our ancestors believed, paying tithes is a good act.

    No, the writer of Hebrews was simply proving that Christ's priesthood was greater than Levi's. The father was always considered greater than the son, so Abraham was greater than his grandchild Levi. When Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, this proves Christ's priesthood is greater than the Levitical priesthood.

    But it is not actually teaching that Levi literally paid tithes to Melchisedec.

    Back to Romans 9:11, if Paul truly believed that Jacob and Esau were present with Adam in the garden and participated in his sin, then he could not truthfully say they had done no evil in Romans 9:11, but that is exactly what he told us.

    Paul did not believe in Original Sin at all.

    As for children not spiritually dying, I believe Jesus clearly shows this in Luke 15 and Matthew 18;

    Mat 18:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
    14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

    Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

    Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
    30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
    31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
    32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

    Note that Jesus said the elder son NEVER sinned. Did the father correct him? NO, the father confirmed what he said was true, he called him "Son" and said "thou art ever with me and all that I have is thine". The elder son was never separated from his father by sin and never would be.

    Note that the father distinguished between the elder son and the prodigal, only the prodigal was dead and lost. The elder son was never dead or lost.

    But again, notice that the prodigal is alive AGAIN. You have to be alive once to be alive again. Original Sin teaches that men were never alive, that we were all born dead in Adam's sin. OS is FALSE DOCTRINE.
     
    #19 Winman, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2014
  20. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    The thing is, Brother winman, is babies don't have to be taught to know how to lie, steal, pass the blame to others, etc. That's already instilled within them from their first father, Adam. However, they have to be repeatedly taught how to do the right thing. That's a sin nature acquired from the fall, and all are born with it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...