Diserner
Active Member
I trust the Word of God over my sinful intuition.
I'm not sorry if that bothers you or prompts you to slander my motivations.
FOUR reasons I believe in the sinful nature. (original sin/ancestral sin/total depravity)
- Thread starter Diserner
- Start date
I trust the Word of God over my sinful intuition.
I'm not sorry if that bothers you or prompts you to slander my motivations.
civic
Active Member
If all babies are saved by default then God would of saved the babies in the flood and all the other babies that were wiped out by Israel with those pagan nations.
Next I'm going to hear that all the families who's babies died in Exodus that did not have the blood on the door posts that the angel of death killed were saved. No the ones who had the blood on the doorposts were saved, the others were killed.
You see the calvinist and all the others with the original sin beliefs have contradictions in scripture with their systematic. You have some babies saved and others condemned but not all saved and all condemned.
hope this helps !!!
Next I'm going to hear that all the families who's babies died in Exodus that did not have the blood on the door posts that the angel of death killed were saved. No the ones who had the blood on the doorposts were saved, the others were killed.
You see the calvinist and all the others with the original sin beliefs have contradictions in scripture with their systematic. You have some babies saved and others condemned but not all saved and all condemned.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
I oppose the false doctrine not you so stop with conflating them. Try addressing the doctrines not the person and lets not get personal. I'm exposing the contradictions within the beliefs. This thread is titled original sin which is what I'm opposing, not you personally because I actually really like you.
I believed like you for over 4 decades so I know all the issues surrounding those beliefs. Which is why I oppose them. Its Augustinian heresy that he married with Christianity.
Last edited:
jeremiah1five
Active Member
I'm curious what you are referring.
But isn't that the classic teaching from history?
Haven't they changed their theology since then?
civic
Active Member
calvin taught babies are saved even though he taught original sin, TD and sin nature from conception. Its a contradiction. t began with Augustine who married the gnostic teachings with Christianity.
jeremiah1five
Active Member
That does seem a contradiction.
Get a rope!
civic
Active Member
Scripture doesn't teach infants are saved.
Can you point me to it if you believe they are.
jeremiah1five
Active Member
What applies to adults applies to infants and babies in the womb that are conceived.
civic
Active Member
Augustine, lived from 354 till 430 and has sometimes been referred to as, “the father of the Inquisition” because he set the precedent that force and suppression must be used to stop and control those who were deemed heretics: Augustine argued that the emperor,, had the duty of suppressing schism and heresy, and indeed of putting pressure on heretics to oblige them to convert. “Compel them to come in” (Luke 14: 23) was given a new and unsuspected meaning. Augustine had become the father of the Inquisition.
The part in the Bible where Jesus talks about loving your enemies, apparently he didn't adhere to that.
In referring to those he considered heretics, Augustine said:
Why … should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction?”
Augustine also held to many beliefs that line up more with Catholicism than with biblical Christianity. With regard to infant baptism, Augustine stated:
So that infants, unless they pass into the number of believers through the sacrament [baptism] which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness.
Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ’s baptism.
… unless this benefit [baptism] has been bestowed upon them [infants], they are manifestly in danger of damnation.
Unbaptized infants not only cannot enter into the kingdom of God, but cannot have everlasting life.
The part in the Bible where Jesus talks about loving your enemies, apparently he didn't adhere to that.
In referring to those he considered heretics, Augustine said:
Why … should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction?”
Augustine also held to many beliefs that line up more with Catholicism than with biblical Christianity. With regard to infant baptism, Augustine stated:
So that infants, unless they pass into the number of believers through the sacrament [baptism] which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness.
Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ’s baptism.
… unless this benefit [baptism] has been bestowed upon them [infants], they are manifestly in danger of damnation.
Unbaptized infants not only cannot enter into the kingdom of God, but cannot have everlasting life.
civic
Active Member
Augustinian theology was a modified Manichaeism or a semi-Gnosticism.
Consider the following facts:
1-All of the Early Christians, before Augustine, believed in man’s free will and denied man’s natural inability.
2-The Gnostics in the days of the Early Church believed in man’s natural inability and denied man’s free will.
3-Augustine was a Gnostic for many years, in the Manichaeism sect, and converted to the Church out of Gnosticism.
4-After joining the Church and being appointed a Bishop, Augustine began to deny the free will of man and to affirm the natural inability of man
5-The Church, under Augustine’s influence, began to believe in the natural inability of man, which it never before held to, but which it formerly would refute.
What can we conclude by these facts except that when Augustine converted to Christianity out of Gnosticism, he brought with him some Gnostic doctrine? His views on human nature and free will were never held by the Early Church, but were held by the Gnostics. How can we possibly account for the fact that all of Christianity held to the freedom of the human will while only the Gnostic’s taught a corrupted and sinful nature, until Augustine joined the Christian Church out of Gnosticism? It seems abundantly clear that Augustine departed from the theology of the Early Church and remained in agreement with the Gnostics on the issue of human nature and free will. Church doctrine and theology has been infiltrated and polluted with Gnostic heresies. The Church went wrong at the time of Augustine. Christian theology violently crashed like a train, falling off the tracks, and has continued to charge and move forward on the wrong path and in the wrong direction ever since.
The greatest contributors to modern Christian theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Augustine was influenced by Manichaean thought and Luther and Calvin were influenced by Augustinian thought. Therefore, it is no surprise that Augustine denied free will as the Manichaeans did, and Luther and Calvin denied free will as Augustine did. The Manichaeans influenced Augustine and Augustine in turn influenced Luther and Calvin.
Luther defended his position against free will by saying, “Augustine… is wholly on my side…”[74] Calvin, like Luther, appealed to Augustine to support and defend his position. Calvin said, “Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest” Calvin be charged with “being opposed to all antiquity…”[75] Calvin tried to dismiss the charge of being opposed to the Early Church by saying, “Augustine hesitated not to call the will a slave…”[76] Charles Partee said “In his teaching on total depravity and bondage of the will Calvin is essentially following Augustine and Luther and not creating a so-called Calvinistic doctrine.”[77]
Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God.
This view has been held in both Catholic and Protestant Churches, taught by both Arminian and Calvinist theologians. Augustine taught many false doctrines such as the sinless life of Mary, praying to the dead, persecuting heretics, infant damnation, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Yet it is his false teaching in regards to human nature and free will that has spread beyond the Catholic Church into the Protestant realm.
Consider these facts that have been shown:
Augustine’s mind was highly influenced by the teachings of Manichaeism on the topic of human nature and free will; and in his views on the subject, he clearly departed from the views of the Early Church.
The minds of Martin Luther and John Calvin were highly influenced by the teachings of Augustine on the topic of human nature and free will and admitted to departing from the views of the Early Church.
The greatest contributors to modern theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.
Isn’t it abundantly clear that Gnostic doctrine has infected the Church? The Gnostic doctrine of the bondage of the will, or the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God, has crept into the Church through a “Trojan horse” and has been masquerading as Christianity ever since. It has survived the centuries through Augustinian, Lutheran, and Calvinistic theology. These groups have preserved and promoted the doctrine of natural inability. This belief has spread like a dangerous plague, finding acceptance in many denominations and churches, but what it is not what orthodox Christianity believed.’ crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/
hope this helps !!!
Consider the following facts:
1-All of the Early Christians, before Augustine, believed in man’s free will and denied man’s natural inability.
2-The Gnostics in the days of the Early Church believed in man’s natural inability and denied man’s free will.
3-Augustine was a Gnostic for many years, in the Manichaeism sect, and converted to the Church out of Gnosticism.
4-After joining the Church and being appointed a Bishop, Augustine began to deny the free will of man and to affirm the natural inability of man
5-The Church, under Augustine’s influence, began to believe in the natural inability of man, which it never before held to, but which it formerly would refute.
What can we conclude by these facts except that when Augustine converted to Christianity out of Gnosticism, he brought with him some Gnostic doctrine? His views on human nature and free will were never held by the Early Church, but were held by the Gnostics. How can we possibly account for the fact that all of Christianity held to the freedom of the human will while only the Gnostic’s taught a corrupted and sinful nature, until Augustine joined the Christian Church out of Gnosticism? It seems abundantly clear that Augustine departed from the theology of the Early Church and remained in agreement with the Gnostics on the issue of human nature and free will. Church doctrine and theology has been infiltrated and polluted with Gnostic heresies. The Church went wrong at the time of Augustine. Christian theology violently crashed like a train, falling off the tracks, and has continued to charge and move forward on the wrong path and in the wrong direction ever since.
The greatest contributors to modern Christian theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Augustine was influenced by Manichaean thought and Luther and Calvin were influenced by Augustinian thought. Therefore, it is no surprise that Augustine denied free will as the Manichaeans did, and Luther and Calvin denied free will as Augustine did. The Manichaeans influenced Augustine and Augustine in turn influenced Luther and Calvin.
Luther defended his position against free will by saying, “Augustine… is wholly on my side…”[74] Calvin, like Luther, appealed to Augustine to support and defend his position. Calvin said, “Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest” Calvin be charged with “being opposed to all antiquity…”[75] Calvin tried to dismiss the charge of being opposed to the Early Church by saying, “Augustine hesitated not to call the will a slave…”[76] Charles Partee said “In his teaching on total depravity and bondage of the will Calvin is essentially following Augustine and Luther and not creating a so-called Calvinistic doctrine.”[77]
Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God.
This view has been held in both Catholic and Protestant Churches, taught by both Arminian and Calvinist theologians. Augustine taught many false doctrines such as the sinless life of Mary, praying to the dead, persecuting heretics, infant damnation, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Yet it is his false teaching in regards to human nature and free will that has spread beyond the Catholic Church into the Protestant realm.
Consider these facts that have been shown:
Augustine’s mind was highly influenced by the teachings of Manichaeism on the topic of human nature and free will; and in his views on the subject, he clearly departed from the views of the Early Church.
The minds of Martin Luther and John Calvin were highly influenced by the teachings of Augustine on the topic of human nature and free will and admitted to departing from the views of the Early Church.
The greatest contributors to modern theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.
Isn’t it abundantly clear that Gnostic doctrine has infected the Church? The Gnostic doctrine of the bondage of the will, or the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God, has crept into the Church through a “Trojan horse” and has been masquerading as Christianity ever since. It has survived the centuries through Augustinian, Lutheran, and Calvinistic theology. These groups have preserved and promoted the doctrine of natural inability. This belief has spread like a dangerous plague, finding acceptance in many denominations and churches, but what it is not what orthodox Christianity believed.’ crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
Calvin’s Institutes, where Calvin condemned Servetus. He said that Servetus’ theology was so twisted that it stressed free will to the point that if you followed him, you would be forced to conclude that even infants who died were damned to hell because they were not able to exercise their will to believe in saving faith (Institutes IV, 16, p 31). In that same section, Calvin addresses John 3:36
, and argues that it points to infant salvation, as infants were not able to exercise willing unbelief, so they do could not possibly stand condemned.
Calvin often taught on this issue, and in one instance he even preached a sermon (on Isaiah 14:21) where he explained that reprobation (pre-destination for hell) was true of infants, but that God would allow all of them to grow to a condition of sinful accountability so that they could secure their own damnation (here is a long but fascinating paperwhich takes an in-depth look at all Calvin taught on this subject).
After Calvin and Luther died, their followers went in different directions on this issue. Calvinists stressed the salvation of infants, while Lutherans (and later Methodists) went on to claim the salvation of baptized infants, while remaining largely silent on the fate of others. The Westminster Catechism seems to track with the Calvinists, by arguing that infants who die are in glory (ch. 10, sec. 3 says those “dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ”).
Loraine Boettner explained why the doctrine of infant salvation must be uniquely Calvinistic:
hope this helps !!!
, and argues that it points to infant salvation, as infants were not able to exercise willing unbelief, so they do could not possibly stand condemned.Calvin often taught on this issue, and in one instance he even preached a sermon (on Isaiah 14:21
) where he explained that reprobation (pre-destination for hell) was true of infants, but that God would allow all of them to grow to a condition of sinful accountability so that they could secure their own damnation (here is a long but fascinating paperwhich takes an in-depth look at all Calvin taught on this subject).After Calvin and Luther died, their followers went in different directions on this issue. Calvinists stressed the salvation of infants, while Lutherans (and later Methodists) went on to claim the salvation of baptized infants, while remaining largely silent on the fate of others. The Westminster Catechism seems to track with the Calvinists, by arguing that infants who die are in glory (ch. 10, sec. 3 says those “dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ”).
Loraine Boettner explained why the doctrine of infant salvation must be uniquely Calvinistic:
BB Warfield had earlier written something similar:
Charles Hodge agreed. He wrote, “All who die in infancy are doubtless saved, but they are saved by grace” (Systematic Theology, ii, 11).https://thecripplegate.com/theologians-on-infant-salvation/
hope this helps !!!
Apain
Super Member
Wow that's definitely a detailed explanation. You must have put a lot of time into it.
To me if you read your Bible the sin nature is pretty clearly explained. The Bible goes over and over and over were sin came from and how we're conceived in it. To be honest with you I never knew there was a debate on the subject.
I always thought that our sin nature and the origins of sin went hand in hand.
Last edited:
Johann
Active Member
synergy
Active Member
In what way? Do you believe that God gives us a sin nature, making God the source of sin, or are we responsible for our own sins?
Johann
Active Member
synergy
Active Member
Absolutely. They are born with the consequences of Adam's sin (future death) but they are not guilty for Adam's sin.
For those who believe otherwise (I don't know your position in this debate yet) in what way are they sinful, for being born?
Johann
Active Member
I am not going to debate this-a futile exercise.
(This is the first of a series of articles that first appeared in 1950 in Truth magazine, published by Milwaukee Bible Institute/Worldwide Grace Testimony, now the Grace Gospel Fellowship. These articles have never before appeared in the Searchlight.)
“…by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
EVOLUTION AND THE FALL
The fall of the human race is more than a theological dogma; it is an unhappy fact with which we are all faced from day to day.
Do you remember the last time you slipped or stumbled and fell? Do you remember how it made you feel?—rather ridiculous, didn’t it?
The late G. K. Chesterton, referring to the so-called “animal kingdom,” once said: “Only man can be ridiculous because only man can be dignified.”
He was right. Does any one ever laugh when a dog or a cat falls? Why laugh when a man falls? What is there about the fall of a man that seems so ludicrous? Why is it that whether injured or not—he is so greatly embarrassed by it? What makes him look about to see if any one has noticed it?
The answer is that man was originally created in the image of God and was meant to stand upright, physically, morally and spiritually. When he fell, thru sin, he made a fool of himself. It embarrassed him acutely and continues to do so, for his fall is one from which he is unable to rise without help from God. Yet, rather than cry immediately for help, guilty man hopes no one has noticed his fallen condition while earnestly, but vainly, he tries to rise to his feet.
It is man’s depraved and fallen condition which the theory of evolution so utterly fails to account for. Seeking to substantiate her doctrine of “the ascent of man” she ignores or denies the Bible account of the fall of man in Adam. The fact is, however, that while “the god of this [age] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” as to the gospel (II Cor. 4:4), man is nevertheless keenly aware of his fallen condition and deeply embarrassed by it. He is well aware that within and about him there is a positive dislocation, a definite disorder of things which constantly troubles him. Things go wrong rather than right and, what is worse, he finds himself all too willing to yield to temptation to do those things which he knows will but increase his misery, sorrow and trouble.
As to the “ascent of man,” there is no evidence that he has become more holy or righteous or loving than he was centuries or millenniums ago. Indeed, his accumulation of knowledge seems to have made him more vicious and ruthless than ever.
In the light of facts obvious to all, evolutionists may as well concede—as some have—that their theory of “the ascent of man” is nothing more than wishful thinking, for whereas the theoretical “cave man” was capable of oppressing and killing a few, man has now attained to such heights of intelligence and morality that he wipes out whole cities at once and, though gripped by the fear that he will yet bring about his own extermination, he nevertheless works feverishly at preparations for wars more deadly than have ever been waged before. The ascent of man! The wars of bygone days were but Sunday school sessions compared with our World War II and the fiercer onslaughts yet contemplated.
BY ONE MAN SIN ENTERED INTO THE WORLD AND DEATH BY SIN
How much more reasonable to accept the Bible account of the fall of man and its plan of salvation through Christ! Indeed, the first step to salvation and a righteous standing before God is a recognition of the fact of the fall. It must be acknowledged that as sons of Adam we are by nature under condemnation; condemned, not first of all because of what we have done, but because of what we are. It is not only sins, but sin that would keep us out of heaven—not only what we have done, but what we are constantly prone to do and would do even in heaven were we admitted in our present state. It is impossible to explain the universality of man’s misery, sorrow and—sin, apart from the fact that Adam, as head of the race, transmitted a sinful nature to all his posterity. All the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, bears testimony to this important and basic fact.
In Psalm 51:5 David, acknowledging his (not his mother’s) sin, says:
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
And in Ephesians 2:3 it is declared that
“…we all…were by nature the children of wrath even as others.”
And this tallies with human experience. Parents, do your children have to be taught to tell lies, steal, do unkind things, etc.? Certainly not. They do all that naturally. You must teach them not to steal, lie and be unkind. But why is it that they so naturally do what is wrong? Simply because they are your children! They were born with sinful natures as you were.
“By ONE man sin entered into the world, and death by sin… through the offence of ONE many be dead…the judgment was by ONE to condemnation…by ONE man’s offence death reigned…by the offence of ONE judgment came upon all…by ONE man’s disobedience [the] many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:12,15-19).
It all began with one act of disobedience, after which Adam and Eve fled to hide, not from each other, but from God. As a result all their posterity became totally depraved—“wholly inclined to evil and that continually,” as the Westminster Confession has it. (This does not mean that man can do nothing that is good by comparison with others, but simply that nothing he does can be pronounced good by a perfect and holy God.)
In the reading of our Bibles we have scarcely passed the account of the fall of man when we find that
“God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5).
And in Acts 17:30 we read that “…God…now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.”
This, of course, implies that all men everywhere are sinners.
AND SO DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED
There is, naturally, the constant effort on the part of fallen man to explain his condition so that the responsibility for it will not rest upon him. Even those who theoretically accept the Bible account of the fall, frequently protest: Why am I to blame? I cannot help it. I was born with a sinful nature.
Such have failed to observe what Romans 5:12 clearly states, that
“death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
But some will object that we have just finished proving that death passed upon all because of the sin of ONE man. Yes, but we were all in that one man when he sinned. We all sinned in Adam. It is too soon forgotten by some that all of us were once in Adam, were part of him, have come from him, and that the sins we are now tempted to commit by our own fallen natures are but the natural fruit of that original sin committed by us all in Adam when he was yet a free moral agent.
The fact that sin and death entered the world through Adam does not excuse us; it but increases and clinches our condemnation for all Adam’s posterity were in Adam when he sinned—“and so death passed upon all men, for that ALL HAVE SINNED.”
THE LAST ADAM, A LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT
Thank God for “the second man…the Lord from heaven,” “the last Adam” who, in contrast to the first Adam, is a life-giving Spirit (I Cor. 15:45,47).
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Cor. 15:22).
But here we must be careful, for just as there are those who teach that the fall came about through Adam’s sin without any responsibility on our part, there are also those who teach that all will be saved by Christ’s death whether or not they trust Him for salvation in this life. This too is false for as we were constituted sinners in Adam, so we can be made righteous only in Christ.
I Corinthians 15:22, quoted above, is a stronghold of the Universalists. In utter disregard of the context they emphasize the words: “…as…all die, even so… shall all be made alive,” whereas the true emphasis lies on the words, “…as in Adam…even so in Christ…,” the “all” in each case referring to those respectively “in Adam” and “in Christ.”
Paul does not speak of the resurrection of all men in this chapter, but of that more glorious resurrection which only the saved shall experience.
He speaks of it as the believer’s hope (I Cor. 15:13-19). Immediately after saying “even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” he goes on to say: “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming” (Verse 23). The unsaved clearly are not contemplated here. He says of the believer’s body: “it is raised in incorruption…it is raised in glory…it is raised in power…we shall…bear the image of the heavenly” (Vers. 42,43,49). All this could not be said about the unsaved, nor could it be said of them that they are made alive in Christ. It is only the believer who is made alive in Christ:
“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him” (I Thes. 4:14; Heb. 13:20).
Yes, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all [i.e., those in Him] be made alive.” They will not be raised merely to be condemned to the second death. They will be made alive in the fullest sense of the word.
To fallen man, then, God freely offers eternal life and perfect righteousness in Christ,
“Even the righteousness of God…unto all and upon all them that believe” (Rom. 3:22).
Psa 51:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Psa 51:2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
Psa 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psa 51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
Psa 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Psa 51:8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
Psa 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Psa 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
Psa 51:13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
Psa 51:14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
Psa 51:15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
Psa 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Psa 51:18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
Psa 51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
https://bereanbiblesociety.org/part-1-adam-and-the-fall/#:~:text=(This is the,Rom. 3:22).
Don’t break this post into pieces, @synergy, and yes, I do believe in original sin-babies are NOT born innocent or sinless.
Also, don’t tag me or bring me into this "debate," since I agree with @Diserner. He was overwhelmed and silenced. Sadly so.
J.
Diserner
Active Member
Who is this Diserner guy, he seems pretty crazy.
Bob Carabbio
Active Member
That would include me, since all humans including Adam, and Jesus HAVE THE SAME HUMAN NATURE, and the details of TEMPTATION are given nicely in James 1. Adam's nature never changed - only his circumstances did. TWO THINGS ONLY were CURSED at the fall - the Serpent, and the earth - for Adam's sake. the "Free lunch was over, and now Adam had to WORK to survive.
Similar threads
