Featured SIN DOES NOT SEND MAN TO HELL....Bear With Me...lol

I disagree, they spiritually died right then and there, and they had to trust God to be forgiven. They came to God when he called (remember, God said they would surely die in the day they sinned, so to come to God was an act of faith). God slew an innocent animal and clothed them, representing the righteousness imputed them upon belief.

These scriptures are speaking of eternal punishment, notice that God says "in their trespass and sins, IN THEM they shall die"

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

This language is speaking of eternal death, dying "IN" your sins. This is the exact language Jesus used of those who do not believe.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Again, you make the mistake of thinking Paul is speaking of physical death here. He is not. Look at the terms used in this passage, it speaks of "sin is not imputed", "transgression", "offense", "free gift", "grace", "condemnation", "justification", "judgment", etc... These are all legal terms. Paul is speaking of being judged a sinner, not of physical death. Paul is speaking of spiritual death here, not physical.

And if you believe that Adam's sin is unconditionally imputed to us, then you must also believe Jesus's righteousness is unconditionally imputed to us.

Rom 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.

There is both a parallelism and contrast to all these verses. What applies to one side of a verse also applies to the other side. If sin is unconditionally imputed to us, then so is righteousness. But we know righteousness is only imputed to those who believe. Likewise, sin is imputed to those who sin just as Adam sinned.

We all made our choice, and when we chose to willingly disobey, we all spiritually died. Our judgment is perfectly just.

Jesus said either to make the tree good and it's fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and it''s fruit corrupt. It is up to us what kind of tree we are.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

You can be either a good tree or else a corrupt tree, the choice is yours.

Trust me, I do not understand it all either, FAR from it.

 

First, to answer your last post, Winman is made from my real name, not any need to "win" anything.

Second, it is not difficult to find hundreds, or even thousands who agree with Original Sin, this does not prove you correct at all, what it really proves is that thousands of Christians have been misled by false doctrine. It is the blind leading the blind.

Your writer gave the example of Psalm 51:5 as a proof text for Original Sin. The Jews knew this verse for over 1500 years before Augustine, and NEVER interpreted it to be teaching Original Sin. In fact, the Jews never saw OS anywhere in the scriptures and do not hold to it. They believe a child is born neutral, neither good or bad. but innocent.

If Psalm 51:5 did teach Original Sin, then you have a real problem, because it teaches sin is passed through the mother, not father, so Jesus would have inherited a sin nature. Job also asks how anyone born of a woman can be clean. So, if the scriptures teach OS (they don't), then they teach sin is inherited through the mother and Jesus would have had a sin nature.

If you believe in OS, you cannot explain who the 99 just persons who need no repentance are, they couldn't possibly exist, yet it was Jesus himself who spoke of these persons. Jesus also showed 9 silver pieces were never lost, and it was Jesus himself who told us of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time.

Now why in the world would Jesus tell us such nonsensical and misleading things? The answer is, that Jesus would not tell us nonsensical or misleading things. They only seem nonsensical because everyone has been falsely taught Original Sin. Jesus knew exactly what he was speaking about and was not saying nonsensical or misleading things at all. It is men's doctrine that is in error.

What kills me is that folks when faced with this obvious contradiction between their doctrine and scripture will choose their false doctrine every time.

So, you just keep on believing your false teachers and see where it gets you.

 

You are only confused because you ASSUME Original Sin is true. Originally, everyone is a child of God. The prodigal son originally was not lost and was at home with his father, thus the scriptures say a father "had two sons".

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

It was the prodigal son that rebelled and rejected his father. He asked for his inheritance. You do not receive your inheritance until your father is DEAD. So, this fellow was pretty much telling his father "you are dead to me". That is pretty harsh, but that is what the boy did.

It was after the boy rejected his father and went out and lived in sin that he "joined himself" to a citizen of that far country. I believe this "citizen" represents Satan, look how he abused and starved the boy.

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.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

This is when the prodigal son became a "child of the devil", when he willingly and knowingly joined himself to this citizen of a far country. Was he born this way? NO.

Now, when the boy came to himself and returned home, his father saw him when he was "a great way off". This is God's foreknowledge, he can foresee who will repent before it actually takes place.

Now Jesus tells us twice that the boy is alive AGAIN. I know I over-emphasize that, but this word "again" is very important, as it absolutely refutes Original Sin. If we are born dead in sin, then it would be impossible to ever say we were alive AGAIN. But that is exactly what Jesus said TWICE.

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.

Not only did Jesus say the boy was alive again, but he tells us the boy was both "dead" and "lost", so no way this is speaking of a believer. The scriptures never call any believer dead or lost. No, this was a young man who knowingly and willingly chose to sin and died in his sin and became lost. But originally he was not lost (or dead).

Then you have the story of the elder son. It was Jesus himself who told us of this older brother who never sinned against his father "at any time". Now why would Jesus tell us of a fictional person that could not possibly exist if Original Sin is true? He wouldn't! It is OS that is false.

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.

It was Jesus who told us this elder brother never sinned. Did the father rebuke or correct him? NO, the father confirmed that what the elder son 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 not lost, and he had never sinned. Note that the father compared the older brother to the prodigal, and it was only the prodigal whom the father said was "dead" and "lost". So, the father confirms that the elder son never sinned, and was never dead or lost.

Of course, no such person could exist if Original Sin is true.

Look, this is not rocket science, these parables are actually very simple and straightforward, I am not going to keep explaining them. If you want to continue to hold to Augustine's false doctrine that is your privilege, but Jesus did not teach Original Sin.

 

I've said it before winman, I don't agree with the RC definition of original sin.

Original sin that can be washed away by water I believe we can agree is not the truth.

Genetically (and perhaps not just physical genetics) we have had the propensity to sin passed on to us by our father Adam (Romans 5:12). However, God does not hold children responsible for that fact until they mature in understanding. When that happens then we are enlightened.

But we love darkness rather than light.

Some do come to the light:

John 3

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

If what you are saying is true then children who have not yet sinned could not die because the wages of sin is death.​

Also, if we didn't receive it from Adam there would be exceptions.​

But sin is universal and untaught. ​

Where then do children learn sin? From God? May it never be!
Did you or I teach them how to sin?​

It's part of the human gnome.

You don't have to answer I just wanted to remind you of my position.
I have been very busy lately with a contract so I probably wouldn't rebut anyway during the week.​

Bye for now brother.​

HankD​

 

Adam and Eve were always flesh and were tempted by the lusts of the flesh. Read of Eve's temptation BEFORE she sinned.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Was Eve tempted by her flesh before the so-called fall? YES. The tree looked good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. It was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes. It was "desired" (lust) to make one wise, this is the pride of life. This is the three lusts of the world described in their exact order.

1 Jhn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

I'll ask one more time, did Eve have theses lusts BEFORE or AFTER she sinned?

Any honest scholar would admit Eve had these 3 lusts of the world BEFORE she sinned and the so-called "fall". Men were always flesh with lusts and desires.

Then how could God call Adam and Eve "very good"? Because it is not our nature that makes us sinful, but our choices and actions. Though Eve was tempted, if she had obeyed God and walked away she would have committed no sin, just as when Jesus was tempted by the devil to turn stones into bread he refused to obey Satan, but chose to obey his Father. Jesus was TEMPTED, he really and sincerely wanted to eat, he was starving. He felt temptation. Being tempted does not make us evil, it is obeying sinful temptation that makes us evil.

Correct, some men choose life, some choose death.

Again, you are confusing physical death and spiritual death. In Romans 5 Paul is speaking of spiritual death, not physical. In 1 Cor 15:22 Paul is speaking of physical death, not spiritual.

What would be funny if it were not tragic is that Calvinism gets it exactly backwards. They interpret Romans 5 to be speaking of physical death, and 1 Cor 15:22 as spiritual death. I've said it a hundred times, Calvinism understand scripture in the exact reverse of what it truly says. Amazing.

Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world and sinned the very first time they were tempted, what makes you think that we who are born in a corrupt world with thousands of temptations would do better?

You don't get it, the flesh simply wants what it wants, but the flesh does not make our decisions for us. Jesus naturally wanted food when he fasted for 40 days, but this is not evil.

There is nothing wrong with wanting sex, that is how God designed us. But sex is only good within the bounds God set on it which is marriage. Sex within marriage is not sinful, outside of marriage it is. But the desire for sex is not evil in itself. It is our choice with how to deal with this natural lust that determines whether we are good or evil.

Thanks. The scriptures teach we are "flesh". The flesh is not evil, because it makes no decision. The flesh does pull and tug on us though, and the flesh wars against the spirit. It simply wants what it wants.

People are mistaking our being flesh with a sin nature. Eve had natural lusts and desires that tugged her toward sin BEFORE she sinned. This is what folks are calling a sin nature, but God said Adam and Eve were "very good". God did not say they were evil, even though they had these lusts and desires.

 

Well, I think the three parables in Luke 15 show just that, Jesus said the shepherd had 100 sheep, one became lost. When this sheep is recovered, Jesus explains this represents a sinner who repents. But originally the sinner was not lost and belonged to the shepherd. The same is true with the silver piece that was lost, and the prodigal son. None were originally lost.

But there is other scripture besides this.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Here again, the Jews were sacrificing their children to idols, the old fashioned form of abortion. God says these children were "borne unto me", that is, they belonged to God. Then God directly calls these children "my children".

Doesn't get much plainer than that. Of course, you are a Calvinist, so you have been falsely taught that everyone is born a child of the devil.

Now you show me where the scriptures say everyone is born a child of the devil, I'll be waiting.

 

You are forgetting the context, the scribes and Pharisees are murmuring against Jesus because he eats and keeps company with sinners. Jesus is showing #1-that these "sinners" originally belonged to God, and #2- that God does not hate or despise these sinners, but actually goes to great pains to recover them.

I'm sorry, but these little children did not enter into an oath and covenant with God. You are just looking for a way out. And I hardly believe they were throwing grown adults into fire. Absurd.

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

This verse applies to all men God CREATED. Try getting out of this one.

 

Good point, annsni.

Why would God command infants to be killed if they were innocent of sin? He clearly said in the Law that the children would not die for the sins of the fathers.

So why would God order that the Samaritan infants be dashed to pieces if they were as innocent as Winman wants us to believe?

 

Sick.

The reason God commanded the Jews to kill children is so that the children would not grow up among the Jews and turn them away from God. God did not command the Jews to kill the children in every city, but certain very wicked peoples.

Deu 20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

As you see, God only commanded the Jews to kill certain children. Why? Because they would grow up among the Jews and lead them away from worshiping the true God.

We see this in our own culture, many black Americans have converted to Islam because it was the religion of their fathers.

I disagree with you, in a sense it was merciful to slay these children, as they all were saved, whereas, if they had grown they would have adopted the false religions of their fathers and perished forever in hell.

 

Look, God as our Creator can decide when any of us die for his purposes. Whether you die at birth, or when you are 100 years old, it is where you spend eternity that really matters in the big view.

The fact is, God told us why he commanded the Jews to kill every one of these certain peoples, including the women and children. It was so they would not teach the children of Israel to practice the abominations and worship the false gods of these people.

God did not say the children were evil, the babies and little children did not practice these abominations, but many of the children would have reverted to the religion of their parents when they grew older and led the Jews astray. It was for this reason that God commanded they be killed.

Jesus never spoke evil of children, you cannot find it in scripture. Jesus told his disciples that they must be converted and become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. It is impossible to interpret this to mean Jesus was teaching little children are wicked sinners.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Did Jesus say unless you be converted and become as "this" little child ye shall not enter heaven? NO. Jesus simply said unless you be converted and become "as little children" ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus was speaking of ALL little children here, not any specific child or children. All children are innocent until they understand right from wrong and willfully sin against God.

If all children are wicked little sinners as you believe, then Jesus would have been commanding his disciples to become little wicked sinners to enter heaven. Absurd to say the least!!

 

accountability

Little children aren't accountable until their (God-given) free will and intellect take over and they begin to act deliberately to sin by choice with a knowledge of right and wrong. That takes place at different times and ages depending many times on what kind of cultural or parental influences are brought to bear. Sadly, many children lose their innocence at a much earlier age these days due to TV and other such influences as well as just plain BAD parenting,etc. :tear: This is my opinion.

Bro.Greg raying:

 

The age of accountability sounds good, it just can't be found anywhere in the bible.

If a child dies and goes to heaven, it is because of the saving work of Christ.
Children are born sinners and sin accordingly. Many of you sound a lot like ignorance from The Pilgrim's Progress.

 

Winman...pardon me for just now responding to this...I'm playing catch-up on this thread.
My response to you and this quote by the Catholic(and I disagree with him) would be.....I believe in Original sin because the Bible very clearly teaches it beginning in Genesis. However, we must all remember that God is the Creator and the giver of life and the matter of (accountability) for each of us as individual sinners (and yes...we are born since Adam as sinners) is God's business...not ours. Although the RESULTS of the "age of accountability" are the same for ALL of us, (sin, ie., the knowledge of right and wrong and the consciousness of it)...the TIMING of its occurence in each of us will be as different as the (God-given) individuality of each of us. The age of accountability is God's business!!! Although I'm sure the Calvinists in here will probably disagree...our business is to respond (with our God-given free will) to His truth and Gospel when we hear it after we become accountable. The ability to actually do that varies from person to person as time progresses and age and intellect develops. If I could go back and do my parenting days all over again I believe I would have been far more aggressive about sheltering and protecting my children from the ways of this wicked world and I would have been far more diligent about instructing them in the ways of God's righteousness as taught in and by the Word of God. I have absolutely NO DOUBT they would have been far better off in this world today had I done so. (it is like the way banks teach tellers to recognize counterfeits....by having them handle the real thing enough times that the counterfeits reveal themselves) As it stands, both of my sons are today far out of fellowship with God. All I can really do now is pray for them and hope God will show them the same grace and mercy He has shown me. But it comes at a high price.

Bro.Gregraying: