Featured Double Double Toil and Trouble

what condemns a sinner is that they are born into Adam, that we have received in us the penalty God pronounced in the curse from/of the fall...

Unbelief just exhibits/manifests that sinful nature...

NONE could ever keep the law, ONLY jesus as God in human flesh could do that!

 

Of course this man was a sinner who needed to be forgiven, but that does not negate the fact that if any man perfectly keeps the law and never sins he will merit eternal life.

Nevertheless, it is true that if a man perfectly keeps the commandments he will earn eternal life. Jesus did not lie to him.

He could not have been obedient unless he had choice.

The reason I take the view that the elder son never sinned is because Jesus said he never sinned. Do you think Jesus would say such an incredible thing by mistake?

There is a reason Jesus told us about 99 just persons which need no repentance. There is a reason Jesus told us a story about the elder son who never sinned. Jesus did not say vain or nonsensical things Skan.

You can read. I am not the person who spoke of 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance, I am not the person who told the incredible story of the elder son who never sinned at any time, JESUS DID.

You act like I am the one who said these things. Open your Bible and read for yourself, it was Jesus who said this, and Jesus knows what he is talking about.

 

That did not just happen lol

 

Winman I want to understand your view better. You believe that children are born rightious ( not having sinned) but with a sin nature? And that we are not guilty for Adams sin correct?

 

It is the ANSWER that Jesus gave to the lawyer.

Actually, it is quite possible, babies die in their mother's womb all the time, and they have not sinned according to Romans 9:11.

Skan, I don't need you to explain what I easily understand.

Skan, sorry, but I don't buy that interpretation at all. Too contrived, too forced, doesn't match up with the other three parables.

All three parables are ONE.

Luk 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

Although Jesus told four separate stories, it is ONE parable according to scripture itself.

What do all four stories have in common? The person was not lost originally.

The sheep was not lost originally;

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 silver piece was not originally lost;

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 prodigal son was not originally lost;

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

The elder son was NEVER lost;

31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

If Original Sin is true, then all I can say is that Jesus blew it big time with these four stories, because in each story he made it a point to tell us these persons were not originally lost.

If you want to believe Jesus would make such an incredible mistake, you go ahead and believe that. I find this impossible to believe.

 

Fine, I understand. And I read some of those commentaries years ago when I first read Luke 15.

It was Luke 15 that first made me doubt Original Sin. It simply does not agree with OS, because in all 4 stories the persons described are not originally lost. And these parables are not about Israel and the Gentiles, but about lost sinners that God rejoices when they repent and are saved.

And Skan, even you must admit this is common to all 4 stories. The sheep was not originally lost, the silver coin was not originally lost, the prodigal son was not originally lost, and the elder son was NEVER lost.

Jesus did not tell us these details without reason Skan. And that is a very important detail.

Original Sin is false doctrine plain and simple. And it is almost as if Jesus knew in the last days this false doctrine would abound, and so he left us these important parables in scripture. :thumbsup:

 

Why would Jesus say I am the way the truth and the light no one comes to the father but by me if it was possible to achieve salvation by Works also Ephesians 2:8

 

It is not my new found belief, I read Luke 15 MANY years ago. It does not agree with Original Sin whatsoever, that is OBVIOUS. This chapter is not discussing Jews and Gentiles and you know that Skan, you are smart. No, it is about lost sinners repenting, and God and the angels in heaven rejoicing.

Luke 15 is not the only scripture that refutes Original Sin, I actually believe I could show you hundreds of scriptures that refute it, though you might be unable to see it. Some of the very scriptures used to teach OS actually refute it when properly interpreted. For example;

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

One of Calvinism's favorite verses, they believe this verse proves Total Depravity. But in truth this verse completely refutes Calvinism, because it refutes Original Sin.

No piece of clothing ever starts out as a filthy rag, absolutely NONE. All clothing starts out clean and whole. Our sin over time turns our original clean clothing of righteousness into a filthy rag.

No leaf starts out dead and brown, absolutely NONE. All leaves start out green, moist, and alive. Only over time does a leaf fade and die.

Folks do not see the forest for the trees. This verse refutes Original Sin, it shows that we start out whole and clean, but over time our sin corrupts us and finally kills us.

Pay attention and you will see ALL scripture is written like this, it shows man goes from an original good state to a corrupt state. Watch and see.

 

Millions of Christians have rejected Original Sin throughout church history.

As for Luke 15, I seriously doubt I am the first Christian to notice that none of the persons was originally lost. I am sure many Christians noticed this.

And I doubt I am the first to conclude that the 99 who never sinned and need no repentance are children, who else could qualify as these persons? The same with the elder son who never sinned, who else could it be but a child? A person might think angels, but an angel is not the brother of a person (the prodigal). And besides, the "servants" would be the angels.

In addition, Matthew 18 lends support to this view, there Jesus is specifically discussing children and repeats the parable of the 99 sheep who did not go astray.

And if I were the first to come up with this interpretation (very doubtful) that would not necessarily mean I am wrong.

 

Babies that die don't achieve "salvation", they were never lost. This is why Jesus spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance. They committed no sin, what do they need to repent of?

The wages of SIN is death. If you do not sin, you do not merit death. Folks assume that just being born or conceived is sinful, that is what is wrong with this false doctrine.

 

But the Older son did sin, he was so overcome with jealousy he couldn't celebrate the return of his lost brother. Right?
But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. (Luke 15:28, 29 ESV)

 

What both Winman and Skandelon are missing in their understanding and interpetation of Luke 15 is the contextual designed application. This is being directed to LOST RELIGIOUS pharisees who see themselves as ALREADY SAVED and NEVER IN NEED OF REPENTANCE.

Jesus presents this kind of person in the parables as those NEVER NEEDING REPENTANCE but declares repeatedly that the one who sees himself as LOST and in need of REPENTANCE is whom the Son brings home and rejoices over MORE than 99 LEFT in the wilderness who NEED NO SALVATION. This is the one whom HEAVEN REJOICES over MORE than nine coins NEVER LOST. This is whom the Father provides a robe, a ring, a sacrifice for MORE than one who sees himself as one who NEVER HAS SINNED AT ANY TIME, never been given a robe, a ring, or rejoiced over.

This parable repudiates the absolute nonsense of Wiman who denies original sin as Jesus is mocking his position rather than affirming it.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden with free will to eat anything there, including the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only He told them the ramifications of eating it. They were neither compulsed nor coerced when they ate of it, but received the effects of it by sinning and falling, causing their posterity to fall as well. God, through His divine work, chose the sheep from their fallen posterity through no merits of their own(doing this before Adam and Eve were created), but according to His good pleasure, to give to the Lamb to atone for their sins. By doing so, He made all plans possible to redeem them and bring them to the Lamb, ensuring He would lose none.

The goats, the fallen portion of Adam's posterity not chosen to be redeemed, being born fallen through Adam's transgression, were left in their already fallen state, and will stand before Him and give an account for the deeds done in their body.