Featured sinners by nature

This argument is completely moot. Ask the majority of the Calvinists on this board, those whom you debate against. It doesn't refer to OS; it refers to the judicial system of the Jews, the Ten Commandments. Now that being said, UNDERSTAND:

If we believe that is its interpretation, then you have no argument, because you are debating against us!

Do you understand this. You don't believe in OS.
We don't believe this teaches OS.
Therefore your argument here is moot and useless.

 

It is TRUTH that matters. Fact is, I have shown you Calvinist commentators that say Ezekiel 18 does pertain to eternal death, not civil law.

You can close your eyes to truth and ignore it, but in the end you must deal with it.

 

You don't get it do you. You need to go to that thread on logic in that the Baptist theology forum.

1. Do you believe in OS? Yes or No.
If no, then you cannot use a verse in the Bible that "supports" something you don't believe.

2. If yes, then you believe in OS; the argument is settled, and we all go home happy. Right? The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. If you believe this is referring to OS, then it still is about OS, and both father and son have OS irrespective how it was passed down. They both have OS. You believe that. You just admitted that all men are born with original sin. This is what you believe. This is what you say these verses teach. The only thing you disagree with is how it is passed from one generation to another. You haven't figured that part out. But you do believe that all have Original Sin from birth. You do believe in the doctrine. That is what you are admitting to.
Good. Argument over.

3. But I suspect you don't really believe in OS. Therefore you cannot use a verse that doesn't teach something you don't believe. There is no logic in that.

4. To go from the ridiculous to the sublime. You cannot use a verse that not only does not teach something you don't believe, but it doesn't teach something I don't believe, and I am the one you are debating!!!!!!!!
:tonofbricks:

 

Ezekiel 18 does not support OS.

Ezekiel 18 does not support OS. This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. If I say gremlins do not exist, they exist because I said they do not? You must be drinking that Kool-Aid Jim Jones passed around.

I am not using scripture that teaches something I don't believe.

What is ridiculous was this argument of yours.

It is all a deflection. Romans 1:3 clearly and simply says Jesus was MADE of the SEED of David according to the FLESH. Deal with it.

 

Good. We agree. Then don't use it. Because I don't believe it supports OS either, and it is me that you are debating not some old dusty commentary. Do you get that??

 

Are you saying that the sin nature makes is guilty or is it that the sin which results from the sin nature makes us guilty? Are you saying we are guilty without ever having committed the first sin just because of our sin nature?

 

My position is that we are all sinners. Period The details of when that came about is irrelevant. It changes not the gospel and the timing of it is not clear. Any attempt to try to explain it is over all our heads and unnecessary.

God opens the heart to save us and we either accept Him or reject him. That is done according to His good will and pleasure.

He who has the power and authority to save us gets all the credit.

To much over thinking it and hyper-explanation only muddy the waters and cause unnecessary debate and division.

 

That's nonsense, Ezekiel 18 refutes Original Sin, it says that God does not impute the sin of the father to his children or vice versa.

Do you get that?

 

Unfortunately it is a very important subject, and probably hundreds of thousands of people have died over this issue. Many millions of people are atheists because they refuse to believe in a God that creates them (and especially babies) as sinners and then torments them forever in hell for being the very thing they were created to be.

The fact that the church has accepted this doctrine since Augustine does not prove that it is correct doctrine, it was FORCED upon people by threat of death.

 

It can't refute what it doesn't teach. You are not logical.
Look. You do not believe that the Bible teaches OS.
Therefore, logically, Jehovah, Israel, her prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles, (or anywhere in the Bible), does not teach OS, according to you.
If the Bible does not teach OS, according to you, it cannot refute OS, because there is no mention of it in the Bible!! You cannot use the Bible to refute something that doesn't exist.

I don't believe that the passage in Ez.18 speaks of original sin and can be used to refute OS, so your argument is completely moot. It does not refute OS, and it cannot refute OS, because you do not believe that OS is taught anywhere in the Bible.

If OS were taught in the Bible, you would believe it, right?
If there is a refutation of it; there must be a teaching of it!!

 

No one has died over it.

 

What Winman teaches affects these doctrines:
1. the nature of man.
2. the nature of Christ.
3. the virgin birth of Christ.
4. It demeans and diminishes the supernatural power of God in the Bible.

When Adam sinned death came into the world, and by death sin came upon all. (Romans 5:12).
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Rom.6:23).
We are born sinners (Psalms 51:5; 58:3; Jer.13:23)
We sin for two reason: because we were born with a sin nature, and secondly because we want to sin; we enjoy it. We will be held accountable for our sin.
One doesn't have to teach a child to lie, but he does have to teach a child to tell the truth. Why? Because he has a sinful nature in him that causes him to do evil naturally. If it were not true, why doesn't a child, any child, go through life without sin? Why isn't that possible? His carnal nature; that sinful nature pulls him toward sin every day. There is not a single day in a man's life that he can go without sin.

Read Romans chapter 7, where Paul describes the great struggle that wars in his body against his carnal and sinful nature: the new nature against the old sinful nature. Even a saved man still has the old sinful nature which he struggles against. It will never be eradicated until he reaches heaven.

 

I can agree with you on this.

I've been following this thread, and this could be a very good, instructive, and fruitful discussion if all the personal stuff could be left out of it.

 

Oh yes they have, every person who was burnt at the stake or beheaded because they refused to baptize their babies was killed because of this doctrine. Every person who was tortured and killed because they were baptized as an adult were done so because of this doctrine.

Original Sin is the greatest error ever introduced into the church.

 

The first part of what he said is true.
But this is false:

It is a logical fallacy. It cannot be proven. To prove this statement Winman would have to back in history and interview all Christians that lived before the time of Augustine to see whether or not they believed in the depravity of man or Original Sin. He cannot make such a sweeping general statement without any evidence. Where is his proof?
Who says it started with Augustine except for Winman's opinion and bias?
It is clearly taught in the Bible, except for Winman's adamant opposition to this Biblical doctrine. But he is the one standing outside of historical orthodox Christianity. The doctrine was not "forced" on anyone.

 

Insane. Ezekiel 18:20 teaches that sin is not imputed from the father to his children or vice versa. This absolutely refutes Original Sin.

You do not know what you are talking about. If Ezekiel 18 teaches that sin is not imputed from a parent to their children (and it does), it of course refutes Original Sin.

Again, you do not know what you are talking about. Ezekiel 18 teaches that sin is not imputed from the parent to the child or vice versa. Original Sin is the belief that Adam's sin is imputed to all his posterity. So of course Ezekiel 18 refutes Original Sin.

There is a teaching of it, there is a teaching that it is false. The Jews had a proverb that said the father eats a sour grape and the children's teeth are set on edge, God said he would refute this proverb so that it would be said no more. This is a refutation of Original Sin.

I would hope that someone here would explain DHK's error in judgment here. He will not listen to me.

 

Leaving out the issue of "force" for now, let me say that I can see logic in both your posts and his, but it seems to me that you too often make it a personal thing with him.

I consider myself a church historian, and one thing I can say is that in the Orthodox branch of Christianity, they see original sin much differently from the way you do. They would consider that it is you who is "the one standing outside of historical orthodox Christianity" and not adhering to the "Biblical doctrine".

 

You must be joking. The whole reason babies were baptized was to wash away Original Sin. Many believed that babies were not guilty of sin, and also believed that no one could be baptized until they understood sin and knowingly placed trust in Jesus for forgiveness of sins.

Not everybody believed in OS. The Anabaptists did not believe in OS. The EOC did not believe in OS in that a person inherited Adam's guilt, although they did believe in a physical corruption at the fall.

John Smyth, the man credited with starting the first true Baptist churches did not believe in Original Sin.

The early church fathers barely spoke of a concept of Original Sin, they overwhelmingly believed in free will. This is a fact that Calvin admitted in his writings.

 

Your post is absolutely historically accurate.

 

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

The doctrine of Christ was the deity of Christ, which is a well established doctrine in the Bible. If any came "to the elect lady" not bringing this well established doctrine, taught throughout the Bible, she was not even to allow this person into her house, nor even to say "good-bye" (God be with you).

The doctrine of the deity of Christ is taught. The doctrine of the deity of Christ is refuted by false teachers. Those false teachers were to be rejected.

Now, if OS is rejected or refuted, it must have first be taught. Where was it taught? One doesn't refute a doctrine that is not taught. The Bible does not spend time refuting purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the Islamic doctrine of Jihad, etc. It doesn't spend time refuting doctrines that aren't in the Bible, but this is what you are telling us it does.
You don't believe the Bible teaches OS. But you say the Bible refutes something it doesn't teach. This is absurd. Can't you see that? Ez.18 has nothing to do with OS, unless you believe in OS to begin with. (Even then it has nothing to do with OS, for it is speaking of the Jewish judicial system).