Featured sinners by nature

Hopefully someone like Heir of Salvation or Skandelon will come along and explain how illogical your argument is, I know you won't listen to me.

 

Thank you very much, but good luck convincing DHK of that.

 

I won't try to convince him or anyone of anything. I just try to put forth objective evidence and let people decide for themselves, although I admit that I too often let myself get drawn into personal squabbles and wrestling matches.

As I said, what you wrote is absolutely historically accurate and can be easily affirmed by just reading some history.

 

Here is a very interesting video that goes into great detail about what the early church fathers before Augustine believed concerning Original Sin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhLF-llpFX0

Now, I do not know the author of this video and his personal views, and am not endorsing him, I am simply providing this video because of the many statements of early church fathers concerning Original Sin shown in this video.

It is a little long, but well worth watching.

 

Your history is not accurate at all. Let's look at it.

Absolutely false.
One of the first errors to enter into Christianity was baptismal regeneration which had nothing to do with OS. Baptismal regeneration is the doctrine that baptism saves. It is improperly ascertained from Scriptures like Acts 2:38 which are easily misinterpreted. The baptism of infants was not introduced until much later in history.

Now you have made a great jump in history.
The RCC (and possibly some others) began to reason that if baptism was necessary for the salvation of adults, then why shouldn't it be necessary for infants as well. Then they could be assured of their salvation soon after they were born. It never was an issue of OS; it was an issue of salvation, and forgiveness of sins in general. Salvation was the central theme here. OS had nothing to do with it. The whole thing was a misinterpretation of baptism.

When John Smyth was a Baptist he believed in original sin. He eventually became a Mennonite at which time rejected his belief in original sin.
Well if you change religions Winman, what do you expect???
After Smyth General Baptist churches succeeded him, most of which would have believed in OS.
But suddenly you are up to the 16th and 17th centuries. That is a big jump from Augustine's era. Baptist churches existed long before that time. Go look on the Baptist history forum.

I believe in OS, and I believe in free will. The two are not contradictory. Most non-Cals on this board believe in the depravity of man or OS. It is you that is contradictory at this point. The depravity of man is a basic fundamental truth of the Bible.
Note that I do not believe in the Calvinistic doctrine of "Total Inability." I believe in the depravity of mankind, that from birth on they inherit a sin nature. There is a difference from which the Calvinist believes.

 

LOL, the reason babies weren't baptized at first is because at the first the church did not believe in Original Sin! It was the introduction of OS that introduced the baptism of babies.

When Augustine finally established OS as an official doctrine, then the need to baptize babiies arose, being believed they were born dead in Adam's sin.

He was not a Baptist at first. But the facts are, when he was a Baptist he came to reject OS. Yes, later he did move to the Mennonites.

Look, I was making "general" statements. My statements were "generally" accurate. You will nit pick to find error.

Of course they are, if you MUST sin you are not free. Absurd.

Most do not give it serious thought or they would realize they believe a contradiction.

Correct. You REALLY do not believe in OS. You do not believe the will is so enslaved that it MUST choose sin. You do not baptize babies because you believe a person must be mature enough to understand sin before they can believe. You believe all babies and small children who die go to heaven because you really do not believe they are accountable for sin.

You don't get it, it is you that does not really believe in Original Sin. If you did, you would baptize babies like every good Roman Catholic does.

 

Oh, yes; as sure as brown cows produce chocolate milk! I agree.
By all means, we should agree with whatever you say just because you say it. Right? You are your own authority.
David Benedict in his "History of the Baptist Denominations," 1813, says:

IOW, infant baptism in the first five centuries was not a common practice at all. It is hardly worth the discussion.

I know; your authority is Augustine. Mine is the Bible. However, again you state opinion as fact. Is the moon made of blue cheese? Any opinion stated as fact in your opinion must be true, right?
It doesn't matter to you what the Bible teaches; just what Augustine teaches. Augustine's teachings were not "official" in any sense of the word. He wrote "the City of God," and some other works. So what. Not even the RCC recognized his opinions as "official dogma."
First, Augustine "framed the concept of OS." (Wikipedia)
Second, Irenaeus, bishop of Linus in the 2nd century, formalized the doctrine of OS when involved in a controversy with the Gnostics. "All human beings participate in Adam's sin and share his guilt," he said. (Wikipedia).
Needless to say OS was a doctrine commonly believed among early Christians. Baptism did not have anything to do with OS.
Baptismal regeneration, as the name implies, had to do directly with salvation, that baptism saves. That has nothing to do with OS, nor with infant baptism which was not common in the early centuries.

Right, so the majority of Baptists, Cal and non-Cal believe in OS. So do the majority of all Protestant denominations. Aside from a very few groups, only those sitting on the fringes of historic orthodox Christianity do not.

How about "generally" confused.

I am not a Calvinist Winman. Why don't you believe me? Do you think I am lying? It is not absurd to believe the doctrine of the depravity of man, as the Bible does teach this doctrine, and the free will of man, as the Bible does teach this doctrine. Why would you think it is absurd to believe what the Bible teaches??

There is no contradiction. After all the Bible doesn't contradict itself, but you are contradicting the Bible.
Here is where your confusion lies.
1. The neo-Calvinist or Reformed view of the Depravity of man (also similar to what Augustine believed). It is not the depravity of man. It is called Total Inability.
I am not a Calvinist, and I do not believe in Total Inability. Be able to differentiate between these terms.

2. The depravity of man: that man is born with a sin nature. That is what Irenaeus believed, and whom I quoted above.
"All human beings participate in Adam's sin and share his guilt."
IOW, we are born sinners with a sin nature. That does not negate the fact that in God's sovereignty he still allows us to choose freely.

3. Then there is the RCC view of the depravity of man.
You simply can't lump all people together with the same view.

No, that is the Calvinist or Reformed doctrine of Total Inability.

Every one of us are accountable for our sins. Concerning infants and others I leave in God's hand. I have learned to trust Him. Have you?

Your the one that doesn't get it. I have explained it in this post to the best of my ability. I hope it helps. To deny the depravity of man is to put oneself outside orthodox Christianity. To take the depravity of man to an extreme is also error.

 

I'll simply quote Catholics from their own site

Argue with the Catholics (you probably will).

Source

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

 

And that is why I do not generally use the term "original sin." I don't like the term. I admit it is "Catholic" in nature.
We have an "Adamic" nature, a sinful nature, that has been passed down from us from generation to generation. You were the one to introduce OS on this thread, not me. The doctrine has been called the depravity of man. I am ok with that. I try to avoid "Total Depravity," by which they mean "Total Inability." The sinfulness of mankind, the sinful nature of mankind, that which he inherited from Adam, is what we have been discussing.

As I mentioned to you above:
1. Calvinist definition.
2. Non-Calvinist definition.
3. RCC definition.

Now why would you quote to me the RCC definition, when you know I am not talking about the RCC doctrine, but rather a Biblical doctrine?
:tonofbricks: