Children are innocent, not guilty of any sin

[TedT]

Yeah.
It's tough going when Jesus doesn't say exactly what YOU would want Him to have said.

I'm sorry you feel this way...He said exactly what I would expect Him to say.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm sorry you feel this way...He said exactly what I would expect Him to say.

I believe Jesus said what He said.
I'm not changing or adding to His words....
YOU are Ted.

 

[praise_yeshua]

innocent means not guilty- you have the innocent guilty of sin- guilt of sin equals death and seperation from God. I have proven the innocence of children from the old and new testaments.

you keep digging yourself deeper in the hole

He definitely doesn't understanding the doctrine of culpability.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Then answer: IF infants are not sinful then why do they die???

Many reasons. Neglect, murder and etc.....

The real question really isn't about children...... it is about what is death?

Adam and Eve lived to see their own children die.

A better question is who has the right to live forever? It is why Jesus chided Nicodemus.

Adam and Eve were culpable in the death of their own children

 

[civic]

He definitely doesn't understanding the doctrine of culpability.

Yep

 

[praise_yeshua]

We must be very careful, my brother, and not allow rhetoric to be inflamed to the point of loosing reason.

Then be careful.

Original Sin does not make one guilty, nor does lack of guilt deny OS..

Arminianism has never been a systematic theology of reason.

Original Sin simply states that the effect of Adam’s actions has corrupted the whole of human nature in those subsequently descended from him so that all humanity is born apart from God, and naturally inclined to be enticed to seek their own desires over the desires of God. The result is that all will sin, even if we are not held culpable for our actions until a point of legal and rational accountability.

This is NOT what Arminianism teaches. Arminianism has fabricated it's own "legal" requirement and falsely attributed it to God. Just like you have with Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

I will not seek to establish an age at which this accountability can be applied, but it is certainly sooner rather than later for most of us.

Just got to "love" such claims followed by the "establishing an age RANGE"..... What is the meaningful difference? If there is none, and there isn't...... then what should such statement be taken as????

Unreasonable? Devoid of reason? Such is always the "double talk" with Protestant nonsense.

Cognizance of “right and wrong” and the ability to willingly choose to do that which is knowingly wrong is not a late development in most people, and the “natural” way in which we all have fallen prey to this type of behavior is an expression that we are not prone to moving toward God’s ways, even in the most positive of circumstances and environments.

And this has nothing to do with culpability in the sin of others. Lets break this down....

The claim is that innocent babies,children, adolescents, and whomever get to the point of realizing they've sinned and thusly, they suddenly become "sinners"...... because of Adam.

Amazing..... reasoning.

The “innocence” of early childhood is an expression of accountability rather than the purity of our hearts and minds as they are born naturally. This does not mean that OS is impossible or precluded.

I always have said that we never have to teach a child to say “no”! But we always have to teach them to obey. Obedience is not natural.


Doug

Then why do you still disobey? You haven't outgrown it. Neither have I.

 

[praise_yeshua]

1Ti 1:13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

Notice how Paul details that he was ignorant in unbelief........

Pray tell.... might that be "innocence"?

 

[GodsGrace]

Then be careful.



Arminianism has never been a systematic theology of reason.



This is NOT what Arminianism teaches. Arminianism has fabricated it's own "legal" requirement and falsely attributed it to God. Just like you have with Penal Substitutionary Atonement.



Just got to "love" such claims followed by the "establishing an age RANGE"..... What is the meaningful difference? If there is none, and there isn't...... then what should such statement be taken as????

Unreasonable? Devoid of reason? Such is always the "double talk" with Protestant nonsense.



And this has nothing to do with culpability in the sin of others. Lets break this down....

The claim is that innocent babies,children, adolescents, and whomever get to the point of realizing they've sinned and thusly, they suddenly become "sinners"...... because of Adam.

Amazing..... reasoning.



Then why do you still disobey? You haven't outgrown it. Neither have I.

Hi PY...
I'm surprised.
Actually, @TibiasDad is 100% right on this.

You believe a child could sin? (I can't remember)

Could you state what is necessary for an action to be a sin?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hi PY...
I'm surprised.
Actually, @TibiasDad is 100% right on this.

You believe a child could sin? (I can't remember)

Could you state what is necessary for an action to be a sin?

Hi.

I disagree. I know his theology well. We've "gone at each other" <(my evaluation)..... for some time. He might ignore me. In fact, he might have me on ignore. I think you realize by now that I don't back down from something I believe is wrong.

Sure. Children can sin. Adam could sin. He proved it by sinning. Adam wasn't impeccable. Christ was.

I see sin differently than most people. Also, there are levels to sin. Adam was never what He was proposed to be in the garden. He had no right to Eternal life in the Garden.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Hi PY...
I'm surprised.
Actually, @TibiasDad is 100% right on this.

You believe a child could sin? (I can't remember)

Could you state what is necessary for an action to be a sin?

To be clear, I believe the theological positionS associated with the idea that Adam's "fall" resulted in the damnation of Adam's descendents is absolutely ridiculous. The more I live the more I hate the doctrines that teach such.

The demands of freedom require many things from the descendents of Adam. Many things. Many proofs associated with faith.

God doesn't ask too much of us. He just wants us to believe Him. Anyone that is to be made in the "Image of God" must both be FREE and BOUND to God at the same time. It is the requirements of the very Character of God.

To be in His image required the freedom to choose life.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yep

Brother, you know I love the Lord. I promote Jesus Christ......

I'd like to see a definition of culpability that doesn't make God culpable in the failures people see in humanity. If Adam is culpable (as traditionally taught) then I don't see how God isn't culpable by the same measure. If it is Adam's responsibility to keep His offspring from sin, then how most people apply culpability is wrong. Think about it from a PSA viewpoint.

I'm not saying there isn't a valid view of culpability to be found relative to the innocence of God but that innocence comes from the work of the Atonement for all men.

It's not that God made any mistakes, far from it. It is "what more could God have done"? in producing the willingness of His servants?

There was only one way to make man in the image of God....... it was only through exactly what happened that it could possibly be so. The willing servant. "The "hope" of God in humanity.

 

[GodsGrace]

To be clear, I believe the theological positionS associated with the idea that Adam's "fall" resulted in the damnation of Adam's descendents is absolutely ridiculous. The more I live the more I hate the doctrines that teach such.

The demands of freedom require many things from the descendents of Adam. Many things. Many proofs associated with faith.

God doesn't ask too much of us. He just wants us to believe Him. Anyone that is to be made in the "Image of God" must both be FREE and BOUND to God at the same time. It is the requirements of the very Character of God.

To be in His image required the freedom to choose life.

Well, I agree.
If we believe in God we WILL be saved.
If we are made in the image of God,,,yes,,, we will have free will and we will be bound to God....
abiding in HIm, as Jesus would say.

However, man does sin and there must be a reason for this.
What do you think that reason is?
WHAT makes us sin?
Does a 4 year old sin?
Does a 12 year old sin?
Are there any requirements for an action to be a sin?

And not all of Adam's descendants are damned.
Only those that reject their maker.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well, I agree.
If we believe in God we WILL be saved.
If we are made in the image of God,,,yes,,, we will have free will and we will be bound to God....
abiding in HIm, as Jesus would say.

However, man does sin and there must be a reason for this.
What do you think that reason is?

That is a good question. A very good question. There are many reasons we sin. There isn't a "single" reason. The question must be asked "why did Adam sin?" Adam knew better. I asked that question many years ago and I know my answer. It is the reason that Christ is referenced as the second Adam. Adam became sin for his wife, Eve. There is a beautiful picture of redemption to be found in Adam actions.....

Now ask why Eve sinned? Eve was deceived.

There are many reasons why people sin.
The Scriptures detail that man causes other men to sin.

Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

WHAT makes us sin?
Does a 4 year old sin?
Does a 12 year old sin?
Are there any requirements for an action to be a sin?

Yes. Children sin. The do so because they have equal freedom to act contrary to God. Just like Adam did before he sinned.

There are levels to sin. We don't report our children to "Moses" when they curse us because we love them.

And not all of Adam's descendants are damned.
Only those that reject their maker.

Correct. Now endlessly apply that to your theology. The purpose of God in humanity began before this world was even formed. Christ was purpose as a Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world. Death the requirement for Eternal Life...... Not just the death of anyone....

Now please don't tell me that God "saw Adam's sin" and reacted to it in that purpose. I reject such silliness.

Freedom is an absolute. The Character of God demands autonomy. Yet you have the Holy Trinity serving each other as equals. Not only that but GOD.... serving MAN in the Incarnation. It is the Goodness of God beyond measure in the Immaculate Christ and the Holy Trinity.

That gift of love and Eternal life both demands everlasting love and everlasting damnation for those who reject such love. It is necessary that Adam/Eve be free to do as they chose to become "willing servants". Their actions were sin but their sin didn't merit the judgement of everlasting damnation. Especially not from Eve being deceived.

Is there innocence in deception?

Damnation is confirmed in those who want to be free to the point they reject any sense of "their maker". They will get freedom but they will not have any privileges of what comes from the mercy of God shown to them in Christ.

It takes time to learn such things. Time and experience.

 

[TibiasDad]

Arminianism has never been a systematic theology of reason.

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but all systematic theology is necessarily logical, and is therefore “reasonable” in nature of being. Whether we agree with the reasoning is another matter, but your assessment is not a correct position.

My query for you is, what is Arminian thought a theology of, if not of reason?

(As an aside, I am a Wesleyan Arminian in my theological understanding as a generalization.)

The claim is that innocent babies,children, adolescents, and whomever get to the point of realizing they've sinned and thusly, they suddenly become "sinners"...... because of Adam.

No, the claim is that we become sinners when we sin! We only become culpable for our sin when we reach a point of being morally cognizant that we have sinned.

We are, because of Adam’s sin, born apart from God and thereby are naturally inclined to moving away from God, and thereby acting in a sinful manner. Being born in sin/apart from God, does not, in my humble opinion, make a newborn a “sinner”, that nomenclature only applies when one knowingly and willfully sins.

Just got to "love" such claims followed by the "establishing an age RANGE"..... What is the meaningful difference? If there is none, and there isn't...... then what should such statement be taken as????

Unreasonable? Devoid of reason? Such is always the "double talk" with Protestant nonsense.

Well I can only admit that my capacity to know when any particular individual is mature enough to distinguish between right and wrong sorely lacking, and I can only use my own experience to inform my judgment about when an individual is morally cognizant of their behaviors. But apparently, you have achieved such omniscience and can pinpoint when we are able to know the difference between right and wrong with unerring accuracy.

Are you Catholic? Your use of “Protestant nonsense” implies that you are!

Just like you have with Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Lastly, I am not a pigeonholed adherent of any one theory of the atonement. There are true elements in all the various theories, and all have their inadequacies.

Historically speaking, Wesleyan thought (ie, Methodism) has typically held to the Govermental theory of the Atonement, and not a strictly PSA. Personally, I would tend to lean toward the Christus Victor theory, but again, find many things biblically consistent in all the theories.

In the end, you are inaccurate in pinning PSA to my thinking. I would not call that my go to theory.


Doug

 

[GodsGrace]

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but all systematic theology is necessarily logical, and is therefore “reasonable” in nature of being. Whether we agree with the reasoning is another matter, but your assessment is not a correct position.

My query for you is, what is Arminian thought a theology of, if not of reason?

(As an aside, I am a Wesleyan Arminian in my theological understanding as a generalization.)


No, the claim is that we become sinners when we sin! We only become culpable for our sin when we reach a point of being morally cognizant that we have sinned.

We are, because of Adam’s sin, born apart from God and thereby are naturally inclined to moving away from God, and thereby acting in a sinful manner. Being born in sin/apart from God, does not, in my humble opinion, make a newborn a “sinner”, that nomenclature only applies when one knowingly and willfully sins.

Well I can only admit that my capacity to know when any particular individual is mature enough to distinguish between right and wrong sorely lacking, and I can only use my own experience to inform my judgment about when an individual is morally cognizant of their behaviors. But apparently, you have achieved such omniscience and can pinpoint when we are able to know the difference between right and wrong with unerring accuracy.

Are you Catholic? Your use of “Protestant nonsense” implies that you are!



Lastly, I am not a pigeonholed adherent of any one theory of the atonement. There are true elements in all the various theories, and all have their inadequacies.

Historically speaking, Wesleyan thought (ie, Methodism) has typically held to the Govermental theory of the Atonement, and not a strictly PSA. Personally, I would tend to lean toward the Christus Victor theory, but again, find many things biblically consistent in all the theories.

In the end, you are inaccurate in pinning PSA to my thinking. I would not call that my go to theory.


Doug

Great post TibiasDad!

I agree also on the atonement theory mentions you made....
I also like the Christus Victor and I'd go with the Satisfaction Theory instead of the Penal Substitution because the PS changes the character of God.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is a good question. A very good question. There are many reasons we sin. There isn't a "single" reason. The question must be asked "why did Adam sin?" Adam knew better. I asked that question many years ago and I know my answer. It is the reason that Christ is referenced as the second Adam. Adam became sin for his wife, Eve. There is a beautiful picture of redemption to be found in Adam actions.....

There is indeed a reason why we sin.
The reason is what I've been posting and which you deny and which would give you your answer.
Man is born stained.
Man is born with a sinful nature, some call it the flesh, some call it concupiscense.
We tend toward sin until we are born again, at which time we walk in the spirit.
Galatians 5:16-18
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

Paul teaches that we have a nature, flesh, that is against God.
Until we are born again (John 3:5) we will walk in the flesh,
but after we will walk in the spirit.

This sin nature, flesh, concupescense, is what makes us sin.

Now ask why Eve sinned? Eve was deceived.

I love the story of A and E...but this is not the place.
We cannot know for sure why Eve OR Adam sinned,
we only can know that they did and obeyed satan instead of God.

There are many reasons why people sin.
The Scriptures detail that man causes other men to sin.

Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Yes. The above is very nice...but it doesn't explain HOW.
You never address the HOW (or why).
You only address that we all sin.

Yes. Children sin. The do so because they have equal freedom to act contrary to God. Just like Adam did before he sinned.

PY....Adam knew God.
God gave to Adam a command.

Do children know God? (in the biblical sense)
What commandment of God do you think children should know about since they don't even know about God??

Please show me WHERE in the bible it states that one person is responsible for the sin of another person....
Are YOU responsible for Adam's sin personally?
Or are you just stained by it?

There are levels to sin. We don't report our children to "Moses" when they curse us because we love them.

In your theology....
WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE!
Whether or not your"bring them to Moses" (to be stoned to death)
they would still die in sin and go to the evil one.

Correct. Now endlessly apply that to your theology. The purpose of God in humanity began before this world was even formed. Christ was purpose as a Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world. Death the requirement for Eternal Life...... Not just the death of anyone....

Agreed.
Not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

Now please don't tell me that God "saw Adam's sin" and reacted to it in that purpose. I reject such silliness.

It's silliness that God knew that Adam would end up sinning and made a plan for man's salvation?

1. Does God know everything or not?
2. Would a loving God make provision for our sinning?

Freedom is an absolute. The Character of God demands autonomy. Yet you have the Holy Trinity serving each other as equals. Not only that but GOD.... serving MAN in the Incarnation. It is the Goodness of God beyond measure in the Immaculate Christ and the Holy Trinity.

Agreed.
But nothing to do with sinning.
(except that this is God's provision for us).

That gift of love and Eternal life both demands everlasting love and everlasting damnation for those who reject such love.

PERFECT!
HOW does an infant or child reject God if they don't even know about God?

We have to be responsible before we can be held accountable.

It is necessary that Adam/Eve be free to do as they chose to become "willing servants". Their actions were sin but their sin didn't merit the judgement of everlasting damnation. Especially not from Eve being deceived.

Is there innocence in deception?

When a child lies,,,,does he think he's deceiving his parent...
or God ?
When a child understands that he is deceiving not only his parent, but ALSO GOD...
this is when the child become responsible for his sins.
It happens at different ages for different children and I know this for a fact, having taught them.

Damnation is confirmed in those who want to be free to the point they reject any sense of "their maker". They will get freedom but they will not have any privileges of what comes from the mercy of God shown to them in Christ.

Again you speak of rejection and again I agree.
But answered above.

It takes time to learn such things. Time and experience.

In the meantime...perhaps you could spend some time learning about a very
important lesson that Paul teaches throughout his writings:
Man is battling with the flesh.
Until a child understands this...he cannot be responsible for knowing what God commands.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is indeed a reason why we sin.
The reason is what I've been posting and which you deny and which would give you your answer.

I don't know why you're repeating the obvious. I know what you believe. I once believed it myself. What you believe is nothing more than tradition.

Man is born stained.

Mankind are born babies. They can't help themselves. They mimic what they're taught.

God referenced this through prophet Ezekiel

Eze 16:3 and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.
Eze 16:4 And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths.
Eze 16:5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.

When a child should be pitted like God did for those abandon by their own.... You want to charge them with a sinful nature.

Rubbish.

Man is born with a sinful nature, some call it the flesh, some call it concupiscense.

The good ole early Modern English. That word comes from Latin into English. You should learn Greek. You will find it simply means lust. Concupiscence is doctrine that originated in Augustine. Dig a little deeper. Your beliefs have been tainted by others. Not Adam, those that taught YOU.

Children are taught to lust.

We tend toward sin until we are born again, at which time we walk in the spirit.
Galatians 5:16-18
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

Adam was no different in the Garden. Prove he was. I already know the answer, you can't. Adam was taken from the ground outside the garden. He was placed in the Garden. He didn't have eternal life.

Sure Adam sinned but it had nothing to do with a propensity to sin. Yes. Eve sinned, but it had nothing to do with a propensity to sin. Abel didn't sin after the manner of Adam. Abel was righteous. God approved of Abel.

Now lets unravel your belief a little more.....

Since you equal "sin" with a propensity to sin, then Adam must of had a propensity to sin himself..... right?

Now don't repeat what you've heard from others in responding. I know the traditions. Tell me exactly what Adam didn't have a propensity to sin.... "given what you believe".....

 

[praise_yeshua]

Great post TibiasDad!

I agree also on the atonement theory mentions you made....
I also like the Christus Victor and I'd go with the Satisfaction Theory instead of the Penal Substitution because the PS changes the character of God.

"Great post".... Geesh. Put your "pom poms" up.....

There is no meaningful difference between Substitutionary theory and Penal Substitutionary theory.

By all means, tell me how they're different. What caused the need for the "substitution"? If you say "the law", then you're teaching Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but all systematic theology is necessarily logical, and is therefore “reasonable” in nature of being. Whether we agree with the reasoning is another matter, but your assessment is not a correct position.

Just how can something that is wrong be reasonable? You're preaching evil as good and good as evil.

My query for you is, what is Arminian thought a theology of, if not of reason?

No need to repeat to you what I have said before. Are you having memory problems. Go reread what I've already said to you.

(As an aside, I am a Wesleyan Arminian in my theological understanding as a generalization.)

Yeah... I remember. Charles is your idol. Poor John.

No, the claim is that we become sinners when we sin! We only become culpable for our sin when we reach a point of being morally cognizant that we have sinned.

I know the argument well. We talked enough about it for you to realize I know it well. What you don't know is to how define culpability. Then when did Paul become culpable?

We are, because of Adam’s sin, born apart from God and thereby are naturally inclined to moving away from God, and thereby acting in a sinful manner. Being born in sin/apart from God, does not, in my humble opinion, make a newborn a “sinner”, that nomenclature only applies when one knowingly and willfully sins.

Abel didn't. Remember Abel? Abel proves you wrong. Stop disparaging Abel. He was righteous.

Well I can only admit that my capacity to know when any particular individual is mature enough to distinguish between right and wrong sorely lacking, and I can only use my own experience to inform my judgment about when an individual is morally cognizant of their behaviors. But apparently, you have achieved such omniscience and can pinpoint when we are able to know the difference between right and wrong with unerring accuracy.

Funny. I didn't claim what you claimed. You said you didn't know and then proceeded to define it for "most people". You're double minded.

Are you Catholic? Your use of “Protestant nonsense” implies that you are!.

I have problems with every denomination. Including non-denominationalism. I am "Catholic" in the sense the word simply means "Universal". I believe in the church Univesal. One body.....

Not your's and "Charles's" few.

Lastly, I am not a pigeonholed adherent of any one theory of the atonement. There are true elements in all the various theories, and all have their inadequacies.

So much for being a disciple of Charles Wesley. He preached and advocated the Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Historically speaking, Wesleyan thought (ie, Methodism) has typically held to the Govermental theory of the Atonement, and not a strictly PSA. Personally, I would tend to lean toward the Christus Victor theory, but again, find many things biblically consistent in all the theories.

In the end, you are inaccurate in pinning PSA to my thinking. I would not call that my go to theory.


Doug

I don't believe you really know Charles. So much for being his disciple. Are you loyal to anyone? Maybe Christ?

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know why you're repeating the obvious. I know what you believe. I once believed it myself. What you believe is nothing more than tradition.


Mankind are born babies. They can't help themselves. They mimic what they're taught.

God referenced this through prophet Ezekiel

Eze 16:3 and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.
Eze 16:4 And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths.
Eze 16:5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.

When a child should be pitted like God did for those abandon by their own.... You want to charge them with a sinful nature.

Rubbish.



The good ole early Modern English. That word comes from Latin into English. You should learn Greek. You will find it simply means lust. Concupiscence is doctrine that originated in Augustine. Dig a little deeper. Your beliefs have been tainted by others. Not Adam, those that taught YOU.

I know what concupiscense means PY.
I used to be Catholic and I'm involved with the CC and know their doctrine well.
It means lust and it means sexually.
But it's used for lust IN ANY SENSE.

And the meaning of concupiscense was begun in the NT with Paul.
I also know Augustine and I don't care for him...so we'll leave him out of this.
Perhaps you're upset with his understanding of Original Sin?

Children are taught to lust.

So is lust a sin?
I'd like that 3 carat yellow diamond in the window.
But I'd have to sell my house to get it.
Is it a sin to like a 3 carat diamond?

Adam was no different in the Garden. Prove he was. I already know the answer, you can't.

What do you want me to prove about Adam?

Adam was taken from the ground outside the garden. He was placed in the Garden. He didn't have eternal life.

Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts.
These are:
IMMORTALITY
IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE
ABSENCE OF THE SIN NATURE

Sure Adam sinned but it had nothing to do with a propensity to sin. Yes. Eve sinned, but it had nothing to do with a propensity to sin.

You're right about this. Adam and Eve did not start out with a propensity to sin...they did not have the sin nature...
as I just stated above....one of the preternatural gifts was that they did not have the sin nature.

Abel didn't sin after the manner of Adam. Abel was righteous. God approved of Abel.

I understand this but would like to know better YOUR understanding.
Abel did not sin as Adam because Adam sinned directly by disobeying God and rejecting His love and choosing satan instead.
The rest of us sin because we h ave a propensity toward it - even though you don't agree with this.
What does Paul mean in Romans 5:12-14?
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.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

IOW,,,we are not born already sinners....
but with the tendency toward satan instead of God.

Now lets unravel your belief a little more.....

Since you equal "sin" with a propensity to sin, then Adam must of had a propensity to sin himself..... right?

No. Wrong.
SIN is not the same as PROPENSITY TO SIN.
Two totally different ideas.
IF sin equaled sin nature...then yes, an infant would be guilty of sin.

Now don't repeat what you've heard from others in responding. I know the traditions. Tell me exactly what Adam didn't have a propensity to sin.... "given what you believe".....

Adam was NOT made with the propensity to sin.
God does not create sin.

What you're asking me is that if this is so...then WHY did Adam sin?
Dear PY...this is an unanswerable question.
Just like: Why is there evil in the world if God is all good and all powerful?

If the bible does not tell us.,,,we shouldn't be guessing.
The reformed, of course have an answer to this....GOD decreed that Adam should sin.

But I'm not reformed.