The "Original Sin" is unbiblical

[TER]

It's hard for me to see how what you're saying here can make sense to you.

It seems like what's happening is that you have this organization that declares about itself that it is the Church that the apostles established. Your reason for believing that is simply that the organization itself says so. And on that basis, anyone who doesn't agree with this organization must think that the Church the apostles established ceased to exist. But the very fact that I don't agree with that organization is why I don't have to think the Church ceased to exist. The Church the apostles established is a spiritual body, comprised of all those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ, having nothing to do with the organization you put your trust in. There's no special group of people out there who get to tell me or anyone else, "We get to decide who can be united with Jesus, because the only way to be united to Jesus is by a valid eucharist, and a eucharist is only valid if you get it from one of us."

The Church existed before the Eastern Orthodox organization came into existence. And it will continue to exist long after that organization is gone.

If you deny that the earliest Christians were members of One Body, One Church, One Ecclesia (which literally means assembly of believers), structured around the One Cup of the Holy Eucharist, then you either simply ignore history or need to study more. just as you ignore the very references to it in the Holy Scriptures, you also ignore it from the testimony of the first century Fathers and saints of the Church. Had you lived circa first century, you would not be preaching Sola Scriptura or saying the Church is some spiritual body which is not organized with Bishops, presbyters and deacons, instead you would be saying, where is this Church which Christ established in the world to feed His flock? How can I become baptized and become a member of this Body of Christ, the Ecclesia as described, taught, defended, by the Apostles who were instructed these things by Christ Himself? Indeed, the Christians have since the beginning sought to become members of this Church, and that is why the three oldest Churches claim to be that One Church. The question for the first 1500 years was NEVER 'is there a real Church in the world, the Body of Christ?' 'It was, 'where is this Church?' Which of the three apostolic Churches is the One Church? It was not until the 1500's when this question became ignored and forgotten and the understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ IN the world was changed in order to suit the needs of certain men.

And BTW, the Eastern Orthodox Church is as old as the Church, as it is the same Church which is described in the New Testament, holding onto the same worship and traditions as described in the New Testament, and can trace itself back through the grace of ordination and apostolic succession to the Apostles themselves.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If you deny that the earliest Christians were members of One Body, One Church, One Ecclesia (which literally means assembly of believers), structured around the One Cup of the Holy Eucharist, then you either simply ignore history or need to study more. just as you ignore the very references to it in the Holy Scriptures, you also ignore it from the testimony of the first century Fathers and saints of the Church. Had you lived circa first century, you would not be preaching Sola Scriptura or saying the Church is some spiritual body which is not organized with Bishops, presbyters and deacons, instead you would be saying, where is this Church which Christ established in the world to feed His flock? How can I become baptized and become a member of this Body of Christ, the Ecclesia as described, taught, defended, by the Apostles who were instructed these things by Christ Himself? Indeed, the Christians have since the beginning sought to become members of this Church, and that is why the three oldest Churches claim to be that One Church. The question for the first 1500 years was NEVER 'is there a real Church in the world, the Body of Christ?' 'It was, 'where is this Church?' Which of the three apostolic Churches is the One Church? It was not until the 1500's when this question became ignored and forgotten and the understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ IN the world was changed in order to suit the needs of certain men.

And BTW, the Eastern Orthodox Church is as old as the Church, as it is the same Church which is described in the New Testament, holding onto the same worship and traditions as described in the New Testament, and can trace itself back through the grace or ordination and apostolic succession to the Apostles themselves.

So, if you were in the first century, and inquiring about Christianity, your first question would be "where is the church"?

Shouldn't it be "what has God said"?

 

[erowe1]

If you deny that the earliest Christians were members of One Body, One Church, One Ecclesia (which literally means assembly of believers), structured around the One Cup of the Holy Eucharist, then you either simply ignore history or need to study more.

You keep saying things like this. But you conspicuously never provide any evidence.

I do believe that the earliest Christians were members of one body, one church, one ecclesia, and that it always has been, still is, and always will be those things. I'm not sure what you mean by "structured around the one cup of the holy eucharist." But I also believe in practicing the ordinance of the eucharist, or communion. Yes, these truths are apostolic.

What I said I don't believe, and clearly the apostles didn't believe either, is that there's some group of people who get to decide who can and cannot be united with Jesus by either giving or withholding the eucharist from them. There is no priesthood in the New Testament, where some special person has to be present and do some special thing to the bread and wine to make it a valid eucharist. Nor is partaking in the eucharist a prerequisite for salvation itself, but rather a practice for those who are saved.

just as you ignore the very references to it in the Holy Scriptures,

One of us backs up his position with Scripture. The other doesn't. Have you noticed which does which?

you also ignore it from the testimony of the first century Fathers and saints of the Church.

What first century fathers? There are hardly any Christian writings from the first century other than those in the New Testament. One exception is 1 Clement. But I don't ignore him, in fact I think you do, since the church structure in 1 Clement is like that of the New Testament, where "bishop" and "elder" are two words for the same office, and it's an office that has multiple people in each local church, rather than a single bishop over a whole city, as we see later in Ignatius.

Which of the three apostolic Churches is the One Church?

You really think this question was being asked in the first century? Show me evidence for that.

And BTW, the Eastern Orthodox Church is as old as the Church, as it is the same Church which is described in the New Testament, holding onto the same worship and traditions as described in the New Testament, and can trace itself back through the grace or ordination and apostolic succession to the Apostles themselves.

Right. And the reason you believe that is because the Eastern Orthodox Church tells you to. But its worship and traditions are plainly not those of the first century. Their saying so doesn't make it so.

Also, all Christians can trace their heritage back to the apostles without exception. I was led to Christ by my parents, and they were led to Christ by people before them, and those by others before them, and it ultimately goes back to the apostles. The thing that makes any form of Christianity apostolic isn't this family tree that each of us has every bit as much as the other. It's the doctrine of the apostles, which you can only find in the New Testament. If you depart from that, then no pedigree will make the novel teachings you espouse into something more ancient than they are.

 

[Sola_Fide]

And BTW, the Eastern Orthodox Church is as old as the Church, as it is the same Church which is described in the New Testament, holding onto the same worship and traditions as described in the New Testament, and can trace itself back through the grace of ordination and apostolic succession to the Apostles themselves.

TER, no it is not. It's not the same church. It does not preach the same gospel of imputed righteousness that Paul preached in Romans 5. It's not the same gospel.

 

[TER]

I would love to answer you now, but have a very busy day ahead of me. I will try to as time permits.

 

[TER]

I leave you with this for now. When the Orthodox Church says that it is "The Church", they are making no pronouncement upon the salvation of anyone inside or outside membership in Orthodoxy. Just wanted to clear that up lest someone thinks by the Orthodox claiming to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church means that those outside of Her cannot be saved.

 

[jmdrake]

It's not a "loophole". It's the correct reading of the text. Verse 13 makes it clear that sin is not imputed. It says it in the verse. That's what you can't get around. Sin can't be "imputed" and "not imputed" at the same time. Nowhere in Romans 5 does it come back and say "Well sin is imputed even though I just said that it wasn't." Instead it says "all sinned". And yes, everybody who lives long enough to be able to read Romans sins. And yes, the sinful nature that we all share is also the death nature. But there will be no toddlers roasting in hell for eternity for some imputed sin for something they never did. Just because I don't agree with your flawed interpretation doesn't mean I don't understand Paul. I just don't agree with your flawed interpretation.

The word "Adam" is only used twice. But that's not a loophole for you to use and pretend that you can't tell Paul's talking about Adam when he says "one man" and "the one" in verses 12, 15, 16, 17, and 19.

Verse 12 explicitly says that the reason all die is that "all sinned," and that this is the same as sin entering the world through one man. All through the passage, it repeatedly says that Adam's sin (or the one man's sin) causes all to die, and in v. 12 it says that "all sinned" is what causes all to die. Then v. 18 says that one man's (Adam's) trespass led to condemnation for all. We are punished for Adam's sin, because when Adam sinned, all sinned. Even people who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam still died, because Adam sinned for them, and thus "all sinned."

 

[jmdrake]

You say Pierzstyx's view, Matt Collins thought, Sola Fide believes.

I don't rely on my own view, or my own thoughts or what I personally may believe, because accepting the fact that I sin daily and I often am wrong, I, like the Ethiopian eunuch, seek the wisdom of the Church and those teachings and practices which have been the universally and consistently held beliefs from the beginning.

The Church or your Church? There is a difference. The point I was making is that while you hold to the idea that Augustine was a saint an someone who can interpret scripture better than you (I guess you do anyway because you never bothered answering my question), you still see Augustine as fallible and you hold to the branch of the church that went a different way. Fine. But that doesn't make you any more "right" than anyone else. And at the end of the day what we're really talking about, whether you wish to come out and say it our not, is your belief. You believe that the Eastern church got it "right" and you hope the Catholic church will move your way. Catholics probably feel the exact opposite. Gnostics think they got it right. I have faith that the Holy Spirit is real and that His promises are real. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead men into all truth. The promise was a promise for all individuals. It wasn't a promise for people to have faith in other men, but faith in God. There's nothing wrong with seeking guidance. But say if the human you're seeking guidance from isn't the "right" one? That's the point of the story I posted from 2 Kings 13, which I'm assuming you haven't read yet. It's all fine and dandy to listen to what other "older wiser" people have to say. But at the end of the day, you are responsible for what God tells you. Going from the Augustine example, if Augustine actually got original sin wrong (as opposed to simply being misinterpreted) then how would a good Catholic who believes he's supposed to have faith in the "church" and look to the "church" for guidance ever figure that out? But if he is being guided by the Holy Spirit he can be led into all truth. Again you bring up the Ethiopian Eunuch example, but I have to wonder how familiar you really are with the story? How long did Phillip stay with the Eunuch? The Bible doesn't say, but it was apparently < 24 hours. And I've seen nothing in the Bible, or church tradition, to suggest that the Eunuch had any other teacher beyond that. Did he learn everything he needed to know in less than a day? Or did Phillip introduce him to the only teacher he really needed? (The Holy Spirit).

As an aside, the Catholic Church's clear rejection of the transference of the guilt of Adam is a new (and welcomed) development amongst contemporary Catholic theologians and is another example (including the 2007 statement denying that unbaptized children go to hell) where the Catholic Church is turning to the orthodox faith.

Here is a snippet about the differences between the two Churches:

Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin. This teaching appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529. This difference between the two Churches in their understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons underlying the Catholic Church's declaration of its dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century, a dogma that is rejected by the Orthodox Church. However, contemporary Roman Catholic teaching is best explicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which includes this sentence: ""original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted

Interesting. I didn't know the Orthodox church differed from the Catholic church in that regard.

 

[erowe1]

It's not a "loophole". It's the correct reading of the text. Verse 13 makes it clear that sin is not imputed. It says it in the verse. That's what you can't get around. Sin can't be "imputed" and "not imputed" at the same time.

It's saying their own sins are not imputed to them. It's not saying Adam's sin isn't. Paul had just said "all sinned." And here he talks about people who couldn't have sinned the way Adam did, because they didn't have a law to break. But if that's the case, then how did "all sin"? They all sinned because the sin for which they are condemned to death is not their own sin being imputed to them, it's Adams. They did not sin in the likeness of the offense of Adam. Adam started out innocent and became a sinner by disobeying God. They started out guilty, and didn't become that way by their own disobedience like Adam did. That's why they died.

Sin isn't imputed when there is no law. Between Adam and Moses there was no law. So there are no sins imputed from the period between Adam and Moses. But at the time of Adam there was a law which carried with it the death penalty, which Adam broke, so there was a sin to impute. The sin imputed to them is not one committed when there wasn't a law, it's one committed when there was a law.

there will be no toddlers roasting in hell for eternity for some imputed sin for something they never did.

I never said there would be. But there are still toddlers and younger than that who die because of a sin they never did being imputed to them. Adam was the one who knowingly disobeyed on their behalf, and they are condemned for it.

And will there be people in Heaven for eternity for some imputed righteousness for something they never did? The point of Romans 5:12-21 is to answer that in the affirmative, and to use the prior example of Adam's sin being imputed to others to illustrate it.

 

[jmdrake]

TER, no it is not. It's not the same church. It does not preach the same gospel of imputed righteousness that Paul preached in Romans 5. It's not the same gospel.

Right. Because it needs to teach that God hates 80% of humanity and did so before they were born and that you should take 1 verse from Matthew 7 out of context and ignore the rest. /sarcasm

 

[jmdrake]

Except you can read Romans 5 through 100 times and you will never find anything that says "the sin imputed to them is ......" The words "The sin imputed to" is not there in the chapter at all. Instead we have the truth that "all sinned". And again, who is "all"? The most obvious answer is...anyone old enough to read and understand what Paul is talking about. Romans 5 doesn't say "there is another sin besides transgressing the law that gets imputed". You just "imputed" that to Romans 5 on your own. (Well...maybe you got it from Calvin). And if that's your interpretation, fine. Go for it. Just don't try to pretend it's the only interpretation or even the best. What you are trying to say certainly is not in the text as written. You can keep saying it is all you want, but that simply isn't true.

It's saying their own sins are not imputed to them. It's not saying Adam's sin isn't. Paul had just said "all sinned." And here he talks about people who couldn't have sinned the way Adam did, because they didn't have a law to break. But if that's the case, then how did "all sin"? They all sinned because the sin for which they are condemned to death is not their own sin being imputed to them, it's Adams. They did not sin in the likeness of the offense of Adam. Adam started out innocent and became a sinner by disobeying God. They started out guilty, and didn't become that way by their own disobedience like Adam did. That's why they died.

Sin isn't imputed when there is no law. Between Adam and Moses there was no law. So there are no sins to impute from the period between Adam and Moses. But at the time of Adam there was a law which carried with it the death penalty, which Adam broke, so there was a sin to impute. The sin imputed to them is not one committed when there wasn't a law, it's one committed when there was a law.

 

[erowe1]

The words "The sin imputed to" is not there in the chapter at all.

You always do this. You say, "nowhere are the words xyz used." As though the only way to say anything is by using one particular string of words.

Instead we have the truth that "all sinned". And again, who is "all"? The most obvious answer is...anyone old enough to read and understand what Paul is talking about.

That's obviously not what it's talking about, since it includes people who had died many centuries before Romans had been written. In fact, the very words used show us that it's talking about everyone who dies. "Death spread to all because all sinned." And it is perfectly clear throughout this passage that the reason all die is because of Adam's sin. Either Paul is contradicting himself and saying on the one hand that all die because of sins they commit in their own lives while also dying because Adam sinned, or he is being consistent throughout the passage and saying that all die because all sinned when Adam sinned.

There is no way around saying that some sin is imputed to everyone who dies. When Paul says, "all sinned," he's imputing sin to them. What he says in v. 13 is that a sin committed when there is no law is not imputed to them. His whole point is to explain that they still get condemned to die even without a law, and if this isn't for a sin committed when there is no law, then what sin is it for? The sin of Adam, "the one," mentioned again and again through the passage who brought the condemnation of death to all.

It's similar to 2 Corinthians 5:14: "one died for all, therefore all died." It's not saying all died their own deaths, but that when Jesus died all who are in Jesus also died.

 

[erowe1]

Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin. This teaching appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529.

That's only partially true. The synod of Orange does list out and anathematize specific Pelagian and Coelestian teachings one by one. And Roman Catholics took this up in what they consider an ecumenical council at Trent in the 1500's.

However, already at Ephesus in 431, which is recognized as an ecumenical council both by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, Coelestius is explicitly condemned as a heretic.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.ii.html

 

[jmdrake]

You always do this. You say, "nowhere are the words xyz used." As though the only way to say anything is by using one particular string of words.

Sure. You can come to a different conclusion from interpretation. I get it. Just admit that it's your interpretation and be done with it already! You interpret "all" to mean one thing when you need it to, and something entirely different when it suits you. There is no rhyme nor reason nor consistency to your exegesis. But it's yours so I'm sure you'll stick with it.

 

[jmdrake]

Im so glad that wile Rome is burning people are fighting over what a poorly written FICTIONAL story meant.

Romes will come and go (as will you), and this story you think is fictional will live on.

Its fictional. You know it, I know it. You are just trying to save face because you where raised to believe it, at some point in time around 8 or 10 began to understand it was BS. And now you don't want to admit you let social pressures run your life and opinion so you continue to live a lie...

Look. you and all others will disagree with me on this but its true. I have to much respect for you and others to think you actually believe any of that stuff. I mean, come on. you would have to have some kind of mental handicap to TRULY buy in to any of it. I know your are smart so I know you are faking it to give in to peer pressures. God forbid you have to say what I just said to you to your grandmother or friends.

Well, interesting that you would speak for me, but I am older than 8 or 10 and not only do I believe it, I would give my life for it. Why don't you leave this thread to people who are interested in learning about Christ and stop interjecting your trolling posts.

Your right. I had no reason to troll the thread. My apologies.

You know Carehn, will I disagree with your position, I ain't mad at you. I can see why someone from the outside can look at a group of people all claiming to believe in the same while squabbling with each other with each claiming that their approach to the scripture must be the right one and come to the conclusion that it must all be a bunch of hooey. The peace and harmony in the "Buddhist parable" thread is in sharp contrast to this one. What can we say? Jesus came not with peace but with a sword.

 

[TER]

The Church or your Church? There is a difference. The point I was making is that while you hold to the idea that Augustine was a saint an someone who can interpret scripture better than you (I guess you do anyway because you never bothered answering my question), you still see Augustine as fallible and you hold to the branch of the church that went a different way. Fine. But that doesn't make you any more "right" than anyone else.

Actually, I disagree. I am convinced I am either right or wrong in this regard. Either Augustine got it right, or the Church Fathers for 300 years before him got it right. I choose the latter not only because logic and reason leads me to this conclusion, but because my soul knows that a just and loving God would not hold me responsible for the sins of another. That would squarely go against the divine attributes of a loving and just God. (also, the Holy Scriptures when read in Greek correctly also confirms this!). It is therefore my conclusion that this is the faith from the beginning (for as you clearly say, we all must make in the end our own conclusions, conclusions which we will be held accountable for). I have also learned that when someone humbles themselves, checks their baggage at the door, and studies the history and writings of the early Church, they too will find that with regards to this particular topic, the earlier Church Fathers had it right and St. Augustine had it wrong.

And at the end of the day what we're really talking about, whether you wish to come out and say it our not, is your belief.

Of course, I am responsible for my decisions and actions and what I consider to be true, instructive, and correct. In addition, I am told to test the spirits in order to find the truth. And after a long search and careful study, I am convinced that the Orthodox Church is the Church of the New Testament and I hold the teachings and interpretations of the Fathers of the Church above mine since I have proven over and over that I am a great sinner, prone to seeking my own will in order to fulfill my own sinful passions, and cannot hold a candle to the grace filled knowledge the great saints of the Church received from God above by the Holy Spirit. You are correct that this is my belief, and it is a belief I feel strongly about based not only on historical evidence, but more importantly by my own personal experience as a unworthy member of the Church, that while as great a wretched sinner I am, our Lord has shown me mercy and comfort and revealed His love for me in ways indescribable and ineffable.

With that, I bow out of this discussion and leave everyone else to have the 'last words' on Original Sin. I have tried to explain quite clearly what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches about this topic, and to whoever wishes to review it, post 110 is a good, impartial summary.

Thank you all for your time and for the spirited discussion and for your patience in dealing with me.

 

[jmdrake]

Actually, I disagree. I am convinced I am either right or wrong in this regard. Either Augustine got it right, or the Church Fathers for 300 years before him got it right. I choose the latter not only because logic and reason leads me to this conclusion, but because my soul knows that a just and loving God would not hold me responsible for the sins of another. That would squarely go against the divine attributes of a loving and just God. (also, the Holy Scriptures when read in Greek correctly also confirms this!). It is therefore my conclusion that this is the faith from the beginning (for as you clearly say, we all must make in the end our own conclusions, conclusions which we will be held accountable for). I have also learned that when someone humbles themselves, checks their baggage at the door, and studies the history and writings of the early Church, they too will find that with regards to this particular topic, the earlier Church Fathers had it right and St. Augustine had it wrong.

Ummmm.....if you've bowed out of this discussion, I'll have to PM you. I'm not sure how you can say you disagreed with my position that you think that Augustine is a saint, but that he was also fallible, and yet you say St. Augustine had it wrong. It sounds to me like you're agreeing with what I said. Please explain the difference between the positions. Or, maybe you think that Augustine was a saint, but he couldn't interpret scripture better than you? I guess what I'm saying is, who interprets scripture better than who is irrelevant. At the end of the day, even what St. Augustine said or St. Ireneus said is as much open to interpretation as what St. Paul said.

Of course, I am responsible for my decisions and actions and what I consider to be true, instructive, and correct. In addition, I am told to test the spirits in order to find the truth. And after a long search and careful study, I am convinced that the Orthodox Church is the Church of the New Testament and I hold the teachings and interpretations of the Fathers of the Church above mine since I have proven over and over that I am a great sinner, prone to seeking my own will in order to fulfill my own sinful passions, and cannot hold a candle to the grace filled knowledge the great saints of the Church received from God above by the Holy Spirit. You are correct that this is my belief, and it is a belief I feel strongly about based not only on historical evidence, but more importantly by my own personal experience as a unworthy member of the Church, that while as great a wretched sinner I am, our Lord has shown me mercy and comfort and revealed His love for me in ways indescribable and ineffable.

Great! And I'm glad your journey led you to where you are! I'm sure you've found much solace in the writings of Ireneus. When I have time I wouldn't mind reading what he wrote myself. I found reading Calvin and Spurgeon interesting even though I didn't end up becoming a Calvinist. (In fact I found information to support views I already had, much to the chagrin of Sola_Fide.)

With that, I bow out of this discussion and leave everyone else to have the 'last words' on Original Sin. I have tried to explain quite clearly what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches about this topic, and to whoever wishes to review it, post 110 is a good, impartial summary.

Thank you all for your time and for the spirited discussion and for your patience in dealing with me.

Thanks for the discussion. And I'll re-read that post.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Right. Because it needs to teach that God hates 80% of humanity and did so before they were born and that you should take 1 verse from Matthew 7 out of context and ignore the rest. /sarcasm

How do you know how many people and what percentage God has elected? It's not possible to know, so I don't know why you are throwing out percentages.

And still, I see you saying things in this thread like "sin is not imputed where there is no law" and then applying that to people today. This does not apply to anyone today. "Sin is not imputed where there is no law" is a description of a time period--the time period between Adam and Moses.

The law did not impute sin during that time, but men still died as a result of Adam's disobedience to the command of God in the garden. But now since the law has been given, God has added to our punishment in Adam. Our sin has increased as a result of the giving of the law, and every person is utterly condemned to death.

Do you know why God gave the law? It's in verse 20:

Romans 5:20

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

From the time of Adam until now, men suffer death because of Adam's sin. But God gave the law through Moses so that our sin would increase! Think about that. God gave the law so that man would become utterly sinful and every evil desire would arise in man's heart to utterly condemn him before God. God was teaching man, and still teaches man today, that there is nothing inside of them that they could offer up to Him. God gave the law to utterly condemn man.

A man is condemned by imputation, and saved by imputation:

Romans 5:18-19

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

All the men in Adam are made sinners by Adam's disobedience, and all the men in Christ are made righteous by Christ's obedience. There is nothing in man that he can give to God in this equation. If men are saved, they are saved only by grace alone.

 

[jmdrake]

How do you know how many people and what percentage God has elected? It's not possible to know, so I don't know why you are throwing out percentages.

It's a guestimation. But it's clear from Matthew 7 (if you read the entire chapter) that those that make it to heaven are in the minority.

Matthew 7:13,14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

And still, I see you saying things in this thread like "sin is not imputed where there is no law" and then applying that to people today. This does not apply to anyone today. "Sin is not imputed where there is no law" is a description of a time period--the time period between Adam and Moses.

The law did not impute sin during that time, but men still died as a result of Adam's disobedience to the command of God in the garden. But now since the law has been given, God has added to our punishment in Adam. Our sin has increased as a result of the giving of the law, and every person is utterly condemned to death.

Ah. So you cherry pick a particular version (NIV) so that you can glom on to one particular word. Like I haven't see you try that silly trick before.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

The word "abound" is not synonymous with "increase".

Do you know why God gave the law? It's in verse 20:

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Of course you have to read believe the entire Bible to understand what Paul is actually saying as opposed to honing in on one text. Read the story of King Josiah finding the law to understand the purpose of the law. It's not what you think.

But before I respond any further to this thread, answer this one question. Do you think God takes aborted babies and toddlers and roasts their souls in eternity in hell in order to "satiate His wrath"? That's a simple yes or no question. While I disagree with restorationism because that fall into the same Islamist "God must have preordained all of this or He isn't God" trap that Calvinists falls into (yes, you are like Islam in this regard), at least restorationists aren't making God into a demon Himself.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Ah. So you cherry pick a particular version (NIV) so that you can glom on to one particular word. Like I haven't see you try that silly trick before.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

The word "abound" is not synonymous with "increase".

Distinction without a difference. Whether the law was given so that sin would increase, or so that sin would abound, it was given to make man's condition worse.. The letter kills, literally. It was given to make the sin we already had in Adam even worse.

It's interesting this thread is about original sin, which the OP thinks is too harsh. But he doesn't understand that not only does Romans teach that all men are under Adam's curse of death, they are also under Moses' curse as well. The law says "Cursed is he who does not continue in EVERYTHING written in the law." The law demands absolute, sinless perfection.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Of course you have to read believe the entire Bible to understand what Paul is actually saying as opposed to honing in on one text. Read the story of King Josiah finding the law to understand the purpose of the law. It's not what you think.

The law is perfect, holy, and good. The law is good, if one uses it lawfully. Using the law as a measurement for your righteousness before God is an unlawful use of the law. Jesus said to all those who look to their obedience:

John 5:45 NASB

Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.

In the last day, if your hope is in your own obedience to the law, rather than Christ's obedience to it, there is no
hope for you. How could there be? What hope is there for man apart from Christ? The law is man's death sentence.

But before I respond any further to this thread, answer this one question. Do you think God takes aborted babies and toddlers and roasts their souls in eternity in hell in order to "satiate His wrath"? That's a simple yes or no question. While I disagree with restorationism because that fall into the same Islamist "God must have preordained all of this or He isn't God" trap that Calvinists falls into (yes, you are like Islam in this regard), at least restorationists aren't making God into a demon Himself.

Wow. Talk about a loaded question there. I believe God exercises the same freedom in electing infants that he does adults. God is under no obligation to save even one of us. But He does, according to His rich mercy.

Islam teaches that on the last day, Allah will weigh your good works and your evil works on a scale, and whichever one is greater determines your fate. This is not Christianity...at all. Islam is like every other works based man made religion in the world. They don't understand God's law and they don't understand God's grace, just like Roman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, etc. All these theologies are works based religions that don't understand what Jesus said above, that on the last day, Moses will be their accuser because they have not perfectly kept the law.