Original sin - Undermines God's nature

[KingJ]

If you have fallen into any temptation, you're guilty of Adam's sin as you're committing the same sin he committed, that's what James 1:12-18 is talking about. Right now you're obsessed with a doctrine you made up, that's as guilty as Adam made up his rule, "nor shall you touch it."

If I fall into temptation I am guilty of Adam's sin? You correctly said previously that I am not. I think you mean I become guilty of the same thing Adam did, namely sin.

No, I am not guilty of any sin Adam did. What he did is between him and God. What I do is between me and God.

Rom 2:6 - Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Eze 18:20 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

Didn't I already tell you that when they die they go to the GRAVE per Gen. 3:19? What's the point of this conversation if you just keep repeating the same talking point?

My post you quoted was not to you.

 

[KingJ]

There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise to suggest babies go to hell.
Even toddlers and pre-teens to a degree have not learned Right from Wrong well enough and even about God at such young ages.
It makes no sense for them to be sent there when there is:
Inability to understand
No opportunity to learn and understand (Stillborn, aborted, died young, mentally delayed, etc.)

In fact, before Jesus where did people go? Not hell. Though God and the Bible doesn't come right out and say, inference says these young ones are treated differently.
They are also NOT eternally baby/child souls after death. Inference again says that those that die before puberty is done are "aged up" to an appropriate age and their knowledge and mindset are as well.
No? Would God force a person to be an eternal baby, toddler, or pre-teen? No.

There are so many things about Catholics and that group that set off my instincts. They claim the "information" to support this in books they have but are not "inspired by God" and are part of "tradition".

Agree 100%. Thanks for your post.

 

[KingJ]

No, it’s not a seperate topic because by Adams sin there came a sin nature into the world, and death by sin.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Let me ask you, if death comes by way of sin, then why do babies die?

It is a separate topic. You are just not thinking on it properly.

Sin nature = weak flesh. My arms can slap you or hug you. If my arm slaps too many, I will need to chop it off to enter heaven Matt 5:30.

Original sin = evil arm. It was born guitly of slapping people. There is no option to remove it or not, it must be removed.

You are using scripture that speaks to a sin nature to make a case for original sin. That is false teaching and quite hilarious.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

If I fall into temptation I am guilty of Adam's sin? You correctly said previously that I am not. I think you mean I become guilty of the same thing Adam did, namely sin.

No, I am not guilty of any sin Adam did. What he did is between him and God. What I do is between me and God.

You misunderstood. The sin you and I committed is in the SAME NATURE of the sin Adam committed - disobedience to God. Adam was held accountable for making up his doctrine which God didn't say, you're held accountable for making up YOUR doctrine which God didn't say either. You repeat what Adam and Eve did, and that is indeed between you and God; but who first did what you did? Adam and Eve.

My post you quoted was not to you.

No, but it revealed a fact that you're stuck with your talking point and unwilling to move anywhere else in this conversation.

 

[KingJ]

You misunderstood. The sin you and I committed is in the SAME NATURE of the sin Adam committed - disobedience to God. Adam was held accountable for making up his doctrine which God didn't say, you're held accountable for making up YOUR doctrine which God didn't say either. You repeat what Adam and Eve did, and that is indeed between you and God; but who first did what you did? Adam and Eve.

No disagreement on this. I only disagree when you start using this line of thinking to support original sin. A completely unrelated and separate matter.

No, but it revealed a fact that you're stuck with your talking point and unwilling to move anywhere else in this conversation.

As I said to you before. Where babies go when they die is the A-Z of my disagreement on original sin and I will bet $1 000 000 that is the same with every person in the world who thinks about it.

You / we get lost in scripture and forget to look at what we are teaching from a different perspective. Very important for us to sit back and look objectively at our beliefs.

You brush it off with a reply that makes no sense. Convince me that you can believe in original sin 'and' babies going to heaven and you have my ear. Until then, what you and others suggest on original sin fails hard before it even gets off the ground.

It is not enough that you can find scripture to support the idea. The devil can also do that Matt 4:1-11.

How to know when you are cherry picking scripture.

 

[StewardoftheMystery]

Most scholars debate the age of accountability. I firmly stand by it being twenty.

There is no age of accountability mentioned in the words of God. That is a man made false doctrine which you are trying to promote.

Your brain correctly grasped that sending all under 20 to heaven would be partiality

My brain grasped that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.

Well done. Now I accept I need to better explain my belief so as not to paint God as a wicked fool.

You are not painting God a wicked fool, but your own self.

I believe all children and mentally handicapped will come back in the millennium.

Based on what, your own opinion? All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish.

If He placed the devil with Adam and Eve, He will do so with all.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Cop out. Once more elusive.

I answered your question, but you did not answer mine.

Your belief implies to all that God will send them to Hades. A sick belief which you are not even taking a stab at trying to defend.

Why should I try to defend your implied strawman arguement?

You fail terribly if you teach God is a wicked fool

You are the only one who has implied that God is a wicked fool if people don’t go along with your false doctrine.

See where I am coming from?

Yes, I do.

If you don't know or have a good theory, then please for the love of scripture, don't teach anyone of your cherry picked scripture

At least I’m using scripture to prove my points, you are just making stuff up.

that implies to all with more then half a working brain that God is a wicked fool

Again, you are trying to suggest that if people don’t go along with your false doctrine it implies they are trying to make God a wicked fool. That of course is a foolish thing to say.

Unless it is that you want to be a false teacher and fail at your 'one' Christian duty.

You are a false teacher because you claim all people under 20 get a get out hell for free pass just because they are under 20.

I have heard some foolish doctrine in my days, but that one makes the top 10 in my book.

You have a nice day.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

No disagreement on this. I only disagree when you start using this line of thinking to support original sin. A completely unrelated and separate matter.

It is related, because that's what Romans 5:12 means. All sins can be traced back to Adam and Eve.

As I said to you before. Where babies go when they die is the A-Z of my disagreement on original sin and I will bet $1 000 000 that is the same with every person in the world who thinks about it.

You / we get lost in scripture and forget to look at what we are teaching from a different perspective. Very important for us to sit back and look objectively at our beliefs.

You brush it off with a reply that makes no sense. Convince me that you can believe in original sin 'and' babies going to heaven and you have my ear. Until then, what you and others suggest on original sin fails hard before it even gets off the ground.

It is not enough that you can find scripture to support the idea. The devil can also do that Matt 4:1-11.

How to know when you are cherry picking scripture.

And as I said to you before, this argument was not brushed off by me, but by Yeshua in John 9:3-5. I did not get lost in the Scripture, you got lost in your own doctrine and rejected what the Scripture says about this issue. It's not cherry picking, but a specific response to your specific issue. You don't like it, that's your problem, don't pin it on me.

 

[KingJ]

There is no age of accountability mentioned in the words of God. That is a man made false doctrine which you are trying to promote.

Well it is in Num 32:11. The bible cannot mention everything in detail especially something like this that should be common sense. Quite hilarious that you say this.

My brain grasped that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.

You are so lost in your own idealogy that you don't realize it insinuates God is a wicked fool. Now instead of you trying to grasp that and re-visit your cherry picked scriptures, you type an arrogant line like this. That is evidence of a false teacher.

You are not painting God a wicked fool, but your own self.

I am not the one implying babies go to eternal hell....

Based on what, your own opinion? All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish.

The OP has scriptures.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

The OP has scriptures. It is also painful common sense. Quite hilarious that you hold to your view.

I answered your question, but you did not answer mine.

You did not. Your question is silly, but I will answer it when you do mine.

Why should I try to defend your implied strawman arguement?

Me telling you that you have a wicked idea of God and completely and utterly misrepresent Him to the lost when you say babies have sin and we know the wages of sin is death in Rom 6:23 is most certainly not a strawman argument. It is me calling you out for heresy.

You are the only one who has implied that God is a wicked fool if people don’t go along with your false doctrine.

Look at you looking for support instead of dealing with questions of your belief.

Yes, I do.

At least I’m using scripture to prove my points, you are just making stuff up.

When you Googled 'scriptures on original sin' you found only scriptures many use to push original sin. You cannot do that. That is cherry picking. There are scriptures in my OP. God sending babies to hell would be a perversion of justice. Job 34:12 'God does not pervert justice'.

Do you not know that God is just?

Again, you are trying to suggest that if people don’t go along with your false doctrine it implies they are trying to make God a wicked fool. That of course is a foolish thing to say.

As I said, every person on the planet with more then half a working brain will agree with me. You should take this a lot more seriously as a Christian.

You are a false teacher because you claim all people under 20 get a get out hell for free pass just because they are under 20.

Num 32:11 says God spared them and Acts 10:34 says God is impartial. 1 + 1 = 2.

I have heard some foolish doctrine in my days, but that one makes the top 10 in my book.

You have a nice day.

This post from you was weak and immature. Yet another cop out from you on dealing with your false teaching.

__________________

False teaching that upsets God is those that misrepresent Him to the lost He loves and died for. That is what you are doing as explained in the Op here False teaching.

 

[KingJ]

It is related, because that's what Romans 5:12 means. All sins can be traced back to Adam and Eve.

Jonathan, I am getting tired of this. You are either trolling or not thinking on this.

It is unrelated in the context you and the other guy use it.

Yes, sin first entered the world with Adam and Eve. If that is the A-Z context of original sin, I agree. But that is not what you and the other guy are teaching. Your are teaching that we are born sinners.

And as I said to you before, this argument was not brushed off by me, but by Yeshua in John 9:3-5. I did not get lost in the Scripture, you got lost in your own doctrine and rejected what the Scripture says about this issue. It's not cherry picking, but a specific response to your specific issue. You don't like it, that's your problem, don't pin it on me.

I said to you that a human is a single creation with three parts. Mind, body and spirit. You told me where one part of us goes. That is not an explanation. You are not dealing with the question.

Must I really ask you to look in the mirror and see that you are a single being? Then do you really want me to use my Santa Claus type fantasy faith in imagining my spirit oneday combining with God? When God said He made me a separate being to Him Gen 1:27. You cherry picked a scripture and are terribly misinterpreting it.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Jonathan, I am getting tired of this. You are either trolling or not thinking on this.

It is unrelated in the context you and the other guy use it.

Yes, sin first entered the world with Adam and Eve. If that is the A-Z context of original sin, I agree. But that is not what you and the other guy are teaching. Your are teaching that we are born sinners.

We are born sinners by default, and the wages of sin is death. Babies wouldn’t have died without sin. It doesn’t matter whether it’s their own sin or anybody else’s, what matters is saving their lives. The blind man in John 9 is just an example of that, it’s not what I teach, it’s what the Bible teaches, a Christian is a waiter serving the bread of life, not cooking it, and I’m tired of arguing over that with you on this.

I said to you that a human is a single creation with three parts. Mind, body and spirit. You told me where one part of us goes. That is not an explanation. You are not dealing with the question.

Must I really ask you to look in the mirror and see that you are a single being? Then do you really want me to use my Santa Claus type fantasy faith in imagining my spirit oneday combining with God? When God said He made me a separate being to Him Gen 1:27.

I did answer your question loud and clear, body goes to the grave, spirit returns to God - as demonstrated in Luke 23:46. If it doesn’t return to God, then that’s an evil spirit bound for eternal damnation -

“What have we to do with you, Jesus son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” (Matt. 8:29)

Mind is NOT a separate entity, it’s a part of the body, therefore it goes together with the body. You think they are separate because you’re corrupted by Gnosticism which teaches that the body is a prison of mind. That’s not biblical.

 

[KingJ]

I did answer your question loud and clear, body goes to the grave, spirit returns to God - as demonstrated in Luke 23:46. If it doesn’t return to God, then that’s an evil spirit bound for eternal damnation -

“What have we to do with you, Jesus son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” (Matt. 8:29)

Mind is NOT a separate entity, it’s a part of the body, therefore it goes together with the body. You think they are separate because you’re corrupted by Gnosticism which teaches that the body is a prison of mind. That’s not biblical.

Now, in the case of a baby? Since you believe they 'have' sin and they have not accepted Jesus... you believe.....?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Now, in the case of a baby? Since you believe they 'have' sin and they have not accepted Jesus... you believe.....?

I believe only God knows whether their names are written on the Book of Life or not, judgement is made based on each individual case, it's not up to you or me to make wild guesses. All I know is "ashes to ashes, dust to dust", that's called "decomposing", not annihilation.

 

[KingJ]

I believe only God knows whether their names are written on the Book of Life or not, judgement is made based on each individual case, it's not up to you or me to make wild guesses. All I know is "ashes to ashes, dust to dust", that's called "decomposing", not annihilation.

If we push a teaching of babies having sin, we better have a good answer to the lost that Jesus died for that does not utterly and terribly misrepresent Him to them.

If we don't, I propose we keep absolutely silent and concede to not knowing. IE If you cannot explain how God is not a wicked fool with said belief, keep silent and don't push said belief.

We have 'one' job to do as a Christian 2 Cor 5:20. Our job is not to teach theories that cause the lost to interpret God as not being a good and loving God.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

If we push a teaching of babies having sin, we better have a good answer to the lost that Jesus died for that does not utterly and terribly misrepresent Him to them.

If we don't, I propose we keep absolutely silent and concede to not knowing. IE If you cannot explain how God is not a wicked fool with said belief, keep silent and don't push said belief.

We have 'one' job to do as a Christian 2 Cor 5:20. Our job is not to teach theories that cause the lost to interpret God as not being a good and loving God.

It's you who needs to explain why you keep blaspheming God by calling him wicked. God does NOT cause them to sin, instead he gave up his only son to save babies and all people from sin. You're misrepresenting him, not me. When there's a tragedy of mass shooting, you're the kind of programmed pundits who immediately jump to their talking point of either gun control or gun promotion or any other systematic failure before the victims' bodies get cold. You forget that we ought to "rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep", Rom. 12:15, instead of lecturing them on anything in that situation.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

If we push a teaching of babies having sin, we better have a good answer to the lost that Jesus died for that does not utterly and terribly misrepresent Him to them.

You were wrong to begin with by putting all who die young under the broad category of "babies". That is stereotyping, and it's not God's approach. As I said, God judges each INDIVIDUAL, not people group - or age group!

 

[KingJ]

You were wrong to begin with by putting all who die young under the broad category of "babies". That is stereotyping, and it's not God's approach. As I said, God judges each INDIVIDUAL, not people group - or age group!

'God judges the individual' No baby is different to another regarding accountability.

 

[KingJ]

It's you who needs to explain why you keep blaspheming God by calling him wicked. God does NOT cause them to sin, instead he gave up his only son to save babies and all people from sin.

You said it yourself, only those who repent of sin can be saved by Jesus. A baby cannot repent.

You're misrepresenting him, not me. When there's a tragedy of mass shooting, you're the kind of programmed pundits who immediately jump to their talking point of either gun control or gun promotion or any other systematic failure before the victims' bodies get cold. You forget that we ought to "rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep", Rom. 12:15, instead of lecturing them on anything in that situation.

I don't follow your line of thought. We are discussing the sin of babies correct? You now mention a sin of a mass shooting? Are you insinuating a baby can do that?

We are an ambassador of God. We need to stop people from wanting to pull the middle finger to God after they are done ''weeping and rejoicing'.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

'God judges the individual' No baby is different to another regarding accountability.

You said it yourself, only those who repent of sin can be saved by Jesus. A baby cannot repent.

I told you over and over again that all who died go to the grave, babies included, and that's all they have in common. What is being judged is the spirits, that is based on an INDIVUDUAL cases. God saves sinners - babies included, and judges the evil spirits that cause them to sin. "A baby cannot repent" is just your opinion, you're generalizing all of them in one category.

I don't follow your line of thought. We are discussing the sin of babies correct? You now mention a sin of a mass shooting? Are you insinuating a baby can do that?

We are an ambassador of God. We need to stop people from wanting to pull the middle finger to God after they are done ''weeping and rejoicing'.

You don't really care about babies as much as those pundits don't care about the victims, you're just using them to promote an unbiblical doctrine like them using the victims to push their talking points.

 

[KingJ]

"A baby cannot repent" is just your opinion, you're generalizing all of them in one category.

You don't really care about babies as much as those pundits don't care about the victims, you're just using them to promote an unbiblical doctrine like them using the victims to push their talking points.

You are likening God to a mass shooter and a baby to a victim?

I would certainly have a problem with 'your' god. Wouldn't you? Imagine God sends my babies to heaven and yours to hell because maybe they pooped too much in their nappies..?

As for mass shootings, it is rather crazy that they can get their hands on military grade assault rifles.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

You are likening God to a mass shooter and a baby to a victim?

I would certainly have a problem with 'your' god. Wouldn't you? Imagine God sends my babies to heaven and yours to hell because maybe they pooped too much in their nappies..?

As for mass shootings, it is rather crazy that they can get their hands on military grade assault rifles.

You still insist that dead people go to either heaven or hell instead of grave, don't you? If so we can only agree to disagree, there's nothing more I can say to change your mind.

You should feel ashamed for exploiting a hypothetical death of babies to push your own doctrine and cursing God for what Satan did. This world is a fallen and broken world, INCLUDING swaddle, NICU and the WOMB, hence "in sin my mother conceived me." If a baby dies, it doesn't matter whose fault it is, the result is the same - "wages of sin is death". God did NOT condemn the world, neither did he send Yeshua to, but through Yeshua, the world might be SAVED. He SAVES babies, not punishes them.