Why no unity?

[nebula]

nebula,

 

I hope that's a typing error, because what you just wrote here sounds a bit odd.

since you did not explain just why you thought it odd, I cannot further explain.

 

I was referring to the part I quoted. You had said:

"Christ would of necessity be born a sinner, since she was born of Mary to give to Christ our human nature."

Did you mean to say Christ is a "she"? ("Christ would of necessity be born a sinner, since she..."

Also, it sounds like you are saying, "Christ was born . . . to give Christ . . ." making it sound like there are two Christs.

 

 

 

Are you saying here that you do not consider us as brothers and sisters in the Lord?

Which Christ and which Lord?  Protestants have hundreds of them.

 

Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Who claims otherwise? Where do you get that Protestants have "hundreds" of Christs and Lords?

YOu seem to think that simply using words makes it a reality.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to.

[OneLight]

nebula,

 

 

I hope that's a typing error, because what you just wrote here sounds a bit odd.

since you did not explain just why you thought it odd, I cannot further explain.

This is to point out what I believe Nebula was referring to.

Christ would of necessity be born a sinner, since she was born of Mary to give to Christ our human nature.

You referred to Christ as a she to start with, and you also imply that Christ needed to be born a sinner. Both are incorrect.

Ok, Christ is clearly a HIM.  However, the next statement would be correct if you tie in the concept of Original Sin with the Incarnation.  The Incarnation means that Christ took upon HImself OUR human nature.  If our human nature is a sin nature, then Christ also must have a sin nature of necessity.  Because all Protestants recognize this clear contradiction they attempt to correct it by then making Christ's human nature not of man, but only a similtude or the form of man or some other description to get around the obvious contradiction.  Since the Council of Trent where the RCC adopted a form of Original Sin to compete, I suppose with the Protestants, they also recognzied their problem and they also attempted to correct it by declaring Mary Immaculate.  Neither of these corrections solved anything. It just heightened the error of who Christ is in His Human Nature.  Both make him something other than one who can save us from death.

I notice you are using a blanket statement by claiming all Protestants believe the same way. This is no more true then if I said all non-Protestants believe the same way. Both are false statements.

Hebrews 4:14-16 clearly states:

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Considering the above passage, how can one say He was born into a sin nature, therefore having sin in Him?

First, all protestants have accepted either the original meaning of the Original Sin theory, or some variation of it.  In any of its forms all protestants believe that man somehow has a sin nature due to Adam,  Along with that idea God imputes sin into man thus man suffers from the guilt of the sin of Adam.  Yet scripture never states this.

You must of been one busy person to of talked to every protestant in the world to be able to say this ... wait, you never spoke to me, so, as I said before, blanket statements are basically lies.

 

I'm not the one that holds to Original Sin. It is not my logic or reasoning.  If one holds to Original Sin, one cannot believe in the Incarnation of Christ Heb 2:14-17.  If you hold to Original Sin then you must of necessity hold to some other form of man that Christ became since He obviously could not have assumed our nature, a nature He received from the Virgin Mary.   You are having a problem following the theological arguments and the meanings of the doctrines of scripture. It is precisely why a lot of protestant explanations are contradictory and quite inscriptural.

I would disagree that one requires the other. Jesus, the Man, came from the seed implanted by the Holy Spirit, from the Father. He did not come from the seed of another human. Yet, His mother was human, allowing Him to be human. He lived as a human and felt the same temptations aw we do, but He had no sin. I find that scripture does point to what is called original sin in Romans 5:12-21

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Sin has entered in through Adam and has affected all of mankind, but I am not 100% sold of that when a baby is born, they have sin in them. I do believe, upon growing and maturing, man has a tendency to become selfish, which is how sin can enter into a persons life. It is a learned process. When a baby is hungry, it cries until it is fed. When a baby is wet, it cries until it is changed. The crying comes from uncomfortable physical feeling, thus learning that when they are uncomfortable, they think of ways to become comfortable, enhancing the selfish desires. The same can be said when a baby smiles. The child has a very comfortable feeling inside and the body reacts. This good feeling is something they wish to have more and more of. If a certain thing causes this reaction in them, they want this certain thing to always be there.

[OneLight]

One of the biggest reasons there is no unity in today's churches, is because the devil and man has changed the meanings of all the TERMS in God's Word.

 

The devil, with the help of man's sinful desire to believe lies has turned God's Truth into lies - Just like the devil did in the beginning with Adam and Eve.

 

The best deceptions are the ones that are mostly truth with a small amount of changes to that truth.

 

"Saved" does not mean what most Christians think it means.

 

"Born Again" does not mean what most Christians think it means.

 

What happens at "Justification" is not what most Christians think happens then.

 

Being a "son of God" does not look like or mean what most Christians think it looks like or means.

 

"Sanctification" does not happen the way or mean what most Christians think.

 

"Eternal Life" is not what most Christians think it means.

 

"God's Kingdom" does not happen or materialize like most Christians think.

 

"Christ's Return" does not happen like most people think.

 

And the list can continue, because most have refused to love God's Truth, so God has sent them an elusion - so that they would believe what they want to believe and be condemned by their love of evil instead of loving God's Truth with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

 

2 Thess 2:10-12 - They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.  NIV

 

This is what is happening in our world today and this delusion has been building for hundreds of years as the selfishness and evil has taken stronger holds in "Christian" beliefs. The lies and deception are not new, but have been constantly growing to meet the demands of the increase in wickedness in God's so called people. Now these lies have become "truth" and part of the churches traditions - they now take the place of God's Truth.

 

There is one major delusion that all the lies come together to support. All TERMS and understandings have been changed to support this one main delusion. It is only the selfishness/evil of man that keeps this main delusion alive - because most refuse to believe and love the real Truth of God.

The scripture you provided as reference to why you believe this way is not talking about today, but the time after the lawless one is reveled. Let's look at these verses in context.

2 Thessalonians 2:5-12

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[Guest Butero]

 

Could you explain exactly what you mean when you say that you have "venerated icons?"  I understand the idea of having objects to remind people of the saints or the virgin Mary, but an object isn't the real thing.  In the Bible, the only one I ever saw having someone kiss his feet was Jesus.  The saints washed each other's feet, but never kissed anyone's feet.  Could you explain why anyone does that?

 

I understand that the saints are still alive in Spirit, as nobody really dies, and I understand there is a great cloud of witnesses.  At the same time, I have never seen where we are taught to ask anyone who physically died to pray for us.  Where did that practice originate?  In the original church, we see the gifts of the Spirit in operation.  Do those in the Orthodox Church have those gifts operating in their congregations, like we see in Acts and Corinthians?  How do those in the Orthodox Church view those who are in other churches, whether it be the RCC or protestant denominations?  You mentioned how many protestants are very anti-Catholic.  How does your church view outsiders? 

 

Thanks in advance for helping me better understand your church.  God bless, and I have enjoyed conversing with you as well.

Icons are pictures of the saints or scriptural events such as the Crucificion, or Ascension, or Transfiguration etc.  We venerate them as the persons who embodied the perfection of Christ. They are our role models, if you will.  The best example I can give is that in our modern world, for good or bad, individuals look up to actors/actresses, sports stars, music stars etc and consider them role models.   

 

About the kissing of feet, I have never done it, because we don't have any feet to kiss since we do not have statues in the Orthodox Church. 

 

Read Rev and in several places it speaks of the Saints gathered around the Throne with vessels filled with the prayers of those on the earth. It is also inferred in that we believe that all are still alive, as you state.  If you would ask your friend on earth to pray for you, why not a saint as well.  You need to understand that ontologically, when we celebrate the Eucharist, it is not done here on earth but in Heaven with all the saints. We have been transported to the Kingdom and share the Eucharist with all the saints, living and dead (in body).

 

The gifts of the Spirit are definitely operative in the Body, not necessarily all in one congregation.  It is also more in the orders, the monastics and ascetics that experience the higher levels of those gifts.

the Orthodox views all others as not being in communion.  It does not address their salvation since we do not presume to know how God can operate outside of his revelation. There will be many who have never heard Christ as you and I have, who will be in heaven.  Each person is given a measure of grace to know and come to Christ from Adam to the last person ever born, and each will give an account for the grace that was given to each.

 

I was giving thought to your reference to saints gathered around the throne with vessels filled with the prayers of those on earth.  That was something I hadn't considered, so I didn't want to dismiss it without at least giving it serious consideration.  Then this occurred to me, and I would be interested in your thoughts.  At any given time, there is no way to know how many people are praying about something, but when we pray to God, we know he is able to hear us, as he know all of our thoughts.  This would not be possible with a mere human being.  With that in mind, lets suppose I wanted saint Peter to pray for me concerning something, so I ask him to seek the Lord on my behalf.  I would have to think that with all the Catholics and Orthodox believers in the world, others are making requests at the same time.  How can a man, whether in heaven or on earth, process all those prayer requests at the same time?  I know God can, but when we are speaking of the saints, or even Mary, they are not God. 

[Thaddaeus]

OneLight,

 

 

You must of been one busy person to of talked to every protestant in the world to be able to say this ... wait, you never spoke to me, so, as I said before, blanket statements are basically lies.

 

Of the two major groups of protestants, Calvinism and Armenianism it is embeded in their theology.  Unless one does not actually hold to the interpretation of these groups and still call themselves either one, they are quite dilusional.

 

In  being several years on the web I have yet to find any protestant who does not believe or hold to the Original Sin theory.  So, if you are different, might you explain just what you hold as to the fall of man?  After all, you could brake the mold.

 

 

 

I would disagree that one requires the other. Jesus, the Man, came from the seed implanted by the Holy Spirit, from the Father. He did not come from the seed of another human. Yet, His mother was human, allowing Him to be human. He lived as a human and felt the same temptations aw we do, but He had no sin. I find that scripture does point to what is called original sin in Romans 5:12-21

 

What you are explaining is one of the false teachings regarding the birth of Christ. It would of necessity require both. Theologically you cannot hold to the Original Sin theory and hold to the Incarnation of Christ as explained in scripture.   This was declared false in the Council of Chalcedon 451. He was human as we are human. He assumed our human nature, our fallen, mortal nature, which He received from Mary. It is also not that He had no sin, but that He did not sin. Huge difference. He was as we are in every respect but did not sin.

 

If you are referring to death, physical death, the condemnation that resulted from Adam's sin, then you understand the fall correctly. However, this is not what is referred to as Original Sin.

 

 

 

Sin has entered in through Adam and has affected all of mankind, but I am not 100% sold of that when a baby is born, they have sin in them. I do believe, upon growing and maturing, man has a tendency to become selfish, which is how sin can enter into a persons life. It is a learned process. When a baby is hungry, it cries until it is fed. When a baby is wet, it cries until it is changed. The crying comes from uncomfortable physical feeling, thus learning that when they are uncomfortable, they think of ways to become comfortable, enhancing the selfish desires. The same can be said when a baby smiles. The child has a very comfortable feeling inside and the body reacts. This good feeling is something they wish to have more and more of. If a certain thing causes this reaction in them, they want this certain thing to always be there.

 

Sin may have started with Adam. But no other man is effected by the actual sin or guilt of Adam.  Adam answers for his own sin just as any other human being will answer for their sin. It does seem you also hold to Original Sin theory.

 

What has effected man due to that sin is that Satan took dominion over man and as God told Adam, He would die. Man lost life, eternal existance. He became mortal, dust to dust, Gen 3:19. It is through this mortal nature that we sin so easily. And we are all born mortal, but innocent. Unless you can explain just how someone can sin in the womb? Sin is an act, not a state of being. Our mortal nature is a state of being and influences us to sin, thus we are sinful.

 

If you read carefully, vs 18 of Rom 5 you see that it is the judgement, the condemnation that came to all men, death, and as well, the one righteous act of Christ gave life,(physical life, eternal life) to all men. This is again summarized in I Cor 15:22. Christ came to defeat Satan who hold the power of death. Heb 2:14. By His resurrection Christ defeated death, physical death. His resurrection gave life to the world, not just mankind.

[Thaddaeus]

 

 

Could you explain exactly what you mean when you say that you have "venerated icons?"  I understand the idea of having objects to remind people of the saints or the virgin Mary, but an object isn't the real thing.  In the Bible, the only one I ever saw having someone kiss his feet was Jesus.  The saints washed each other's feet, but never kissed anyone's feet.  Could you explain why anyone does that?

 

I understand that the saints are still alive in Spirit, as nobody really dies, and I understand there is a great cloud of witnesses.  At the same time, I have never seen where we are taught to ask anyone who physically died to pray for us.  Where did that practice originate?  In the original church, we see the gifts of the Spirit in operation.  Do those in the Orthodox Church have those gifts operating in their congregations, like we see in Acts and Corinthians?  How do those in the Orthodox Church view those who are in other churches, whether it be the RCC or protestant denominations?  You mentioned how many protestants are very anti-Catholic.  How does your church view outsiders? 

 

Thanks in advance for helping me better understand your church.  God bless, and I have enjoyed conversing with you as well.

Icons are pictures of the saints or scriptural events such as the Crucificion, or Ascension, or Transfiguration etc.  We venerate them as the persons who embodied the perfection of Christ. They are our role models, if you will.  The best example I can give is that in our modern world, for good or bad, individuals look up to actors/actresses, sports stars, music stars etc and consider them role models.   

 

About the kissing of feet, I have never done it, because we don't have any feet to kiss since we do not have statues in the Orthodox Church. 

 

Read Rev and in several places it speaks of the Saints gathered around the Throne with vessels filled with the prayers of those on the earth. It is also inferred in that we believe that all are still alive, as you state.  If you would ask your friend on earth to pray for you, why not a saint as well.  You need to understand that ontologically, when we celebrate the Eucharist, it is not done here on earth but in Heaven with all the saints. We have been transported to the Kingdom and share the Eucharist with all the saints, living and dead (in body).

 

The gifts of the Spirit are definitely operative in the Body, not necessarily all in one congregation.  It is also more in the orders, the monastics and ascetics that experience the higher levels of those gifts.

the Orthodox views all others as not being in communion.  It does not address their salvation since we do not presume to know how God can operate outside of his revelation. There will be many who have never heard Christ as you and I have, who will be in heaven.  Each person is given a measure of grace to know and come to Christ from Adam to the last person ever born, and each will give an account for the grace that was given to each.

 

I was giving thought to your reference to saints gathered around the throne with vessels filled with the prayers of those on earth.  That was something I hadn't considered, so I didn't want to dismiss it without at least giving it serious consideration.  Then this occurred to me, and I would be interested in your thoughts.  At any given time, there is no way to know how many people are praying about something, but when we pray to God, we know he is able to hear us, as he know all of our thoughts.  This would not be possible with a mere human being.  With that in mind, lets suppose I wanted saint Peter to pray for me concerning something, so I ask him to seek the Lord on my behalf.  I would have to think that with all the Catholics and Orthodox believers in the world, others are making requests at the same time.  How can a man, whether in heaven or on earth, process all those prayer requests at the same time?  I know God can, but when we are speaking of the saints, or even Mary, they are not God. 

 

First, how do we know, if anything what man would be capable of in heaven.  Secondly, why would it be assumed that he can only receive one at a time.  He is gathering them in those vessels and presenting them on your behalf to Christ.  We do the same on earth. If you use a prayer list, or have been asked by others to pray for them, you can handle more than one at a time.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

Could you explain exactly what you mean when you say that you have "venerated icons?"  I understand the idea of having objects to remind people of the saints or the virgin Mary, but an object isn't the real thing.  In the Bible, the only one I ever saw having someone kiss his feet was Jesus.  The saints washed each other's feet, but never kissed anyone's feet.  Could you explain why anyone does that?

 

I understand that the saints are still alive in Spirit, as nobody really dies, and I understand there is a great cloud of witnesses.  At the same time, I have never seen where we are taught to ask anyone who physically died to pray for us.  Where did that practice originate?  In the original church, we see the gifts of the Spirit in operation.  Do those in the Orthodox Church have those gifts operating in their congregations, like we see in Acts and Corinthians?  How do those in the Orthodox Church view those who are in other churches, whether it be the RCC or protestant denominations?  You mentioned how many protestants are very anti-Catholic.  How does your church view outsiders? 

 

Thanks in advance for helping me better understand your church.  God bless, and I have enjoyed conversing with you as well.

Icons are pictures of the saints or scriptural events such as the Crucificion, or Ascension, or Transfiguration etc.  We venerate them as the persons who embodied the perfection of Christ. They are our role models, if you will.  The best example I can give is that in our modern world, for good or bad, individuals look up to actors/actresses, sports stars, music stars etc and consider them role models.   

 

About the kissing of feet, I have never done it, because we don't have any feet to kiss since we do not have statues in the Orthodox Church. 

 

Read Rev and in several places it speaks of the Saints gathered around the Throne with vessels filled with the prayers of those on the earth. It is also inferred in that we believe that all are still alive, as you state.  If you would ask your friend on earth to pray for you, why not a saint as well.  You need to understand that ontologically, when we celebrate the Eucharist, it is not done here on earth but in Heaven with all the saints. We have been transported to the Kingdom and share the Eucharist with all the saints, living and dead (in body).

 

The gifts of the Spirit are definitely operative in the Body, not necessarily all in one congregation.  It is also more in the orders, the monastics and ascetics that experience the higher levels of those gifts.

the Orthodox views all others as not being in communion.  It does not address their salvation since we do not presume to know how God can operate outside of his revelation. There will be many who have never heard Christ as you and I have, who will be in heaven.  Each person is given a measure of grace to know and come to Christ from Adam to the last person ever born, and each will give an account for the grace that was given to each.

 

I was giving thought to your reference to saints gathered around the throne with vessels filled with the prayers of those on earth.  That was something I hadn't considered, so I didn't want to dismiss it without at least giving it serious consideration.  Then this occurred to me, and I would be interested in your thoughts.  At any given time, there is no way to know how many people are praying about something, but when we pray to God, we know he is able to hear us, as he know all of our thoughts.  This would not be possible with a mere human being.  With that in mind, lets suppose I wanted saint Peter to pray for me concerning something, so I ask him to seek the Lord on my behalf.  I would have to think that with all the Catholics and Orthodox believers in the world, others are making requests at the same time.  How can a man, whether in heaven or on earth, process all those prayer requests at the same time?  I know God can, but when we are speaking of the saints, or even Mary, they are not God. 

 

First, how do we know, if anything what man would be capable of in heaven.  Secondly, why would it be assumed that he can only receive one at a time.  He is gathering them in those vessels and presenting them on your behalf to Christ.  We do the same on earth. If you use a prayer list, or have been asked by others to pray for them, you can handle more than one at a time.

 

I could take prayer requests, but not with thousands asking at the same time.  In addition to that, who is taking down the prayer requests?  If I ask Jesus to pray to the Father on my behalf, Jesus is God, so he can easily do that, but if I ask Saint Paul to pray for me, while thousands of others do so, he couldn't possibly do it.  This doesn't seem logical to me.

 

I did read your posts on original sin, and I completely disagree.  I do believe that mankind is guilty because of Adam's transgression, and that it was necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin, so he wouldn't have Adam as his Father and share his guilt.  The sacrifice had to be spotless, as the lamb had to be spotless for a sin offering under the law of Moses.  Had Jesus had an earthly Father, he couldn't have met the necessary qualifications to pay the penalty for our sins.

[OneLight]

OneLight,

 

 

You must of been one busy person to of talked to every protestant in the world to be able to say this ... wait, you never spoke to me, so, as I said before, blanket statements are basically lies.

 

Of the two major groups of protestants, Calvinism and Armenianism it is embeded in their theology.  Unless one does not actually hold to the interpretation of these groups and still call themselves either one, they are quite dilusional.

 

In  being several years on the web I have yet to find any protestant who does not believe or hold to the Original Sin theory.  So, if you are different, might you explain just what you hold as to the fall of man?  After all, you could brake the mold.

First, I do not agree 100% with either the Calvinist or the Armenians. I claim to be neither.

The fall of man is just how scripture tells us it was. What you were inferring to was if we are born into a sinful nature. When I look into a newborn eyes, I see purity. I can't accept that this newborn has sin at their core. I can accept that they learn how to be sinful in time.

 

 

 

I would disagree that one requires the other. Jesus, the Man, came from the seed implanted by the Holy Spirit, from the Father. He did not come from the seed of another human. Yet, His mother was human, allowing Him to be human. He lived as a human and felt the same temptations aw we do, but He had no sin. I find that scripture does point to what is called original sin in Romans 5:12-21

 

What you are explaining is one of the false teachings regarding the birth of Christ. It would of necessity require both. Theologically you cannot hold to the Original Sin theory and hold to the Incarnation of Christ as explained in scripture.   This was declared false in the Council of Chalcedon 451. He was human as we are human. He assumed our human nature, our fallen, mortal nature, which He received from Mary. It is also not that He had no sin, but that He did not sin. Huge difference. He was as we are in every respect but did not sin.

 

If you are referring to death, physical death, the condemnation that resulted from Adam's sin, then you understand the fall correctly. However, this is not what is referred to as Original Sin.

How is it false? Can God sin? Is there sin in God? If anyone believes Jesus had sin in Him, then they do not believe He is God upon birth. I do not dispute that Jesus was tempted in every was as we are, but I cannot believe He was bone of a sin nature.

 

Sin has entered in through Adam and has affected all of mankind, but I am not 100% sold of that when a baby is born, they have sin in them. I do believe, upon growing and maturing, man has a tendency to become selfish, which is how sin can enter into a persons life. It is a learned process. When a baby is hungry, it cries until it is fed. When a baby is wet, it cries until it is changed. The crying comes from uncomfortable physical feeling, thus learning that when they are uncomfortable, they think of ways to become comfortable, enhancing the selfish desires. The same can be said when a baby smiles. The child has a very comfortable feeling inside and the body reacts. This good feeling is something they wish to have more and more of. If a certain thing causes this reaction in them, they want this certain thing to always be there.

 

Sin may have started with Adam. But no other man is effected by the actual sin or guilt of Adam.  Adam answers for his own sin just as any other human being will answer for their sin. It does seem you also hold to Original Sin theory.

 

What has effected man due to that sin is that Satan took dominion over man and as God told Adam, He would die. Man lost life, eternal existance. He became mortal, dust to dust, Gen 3:19. It is through this mortal nature that we sin so easily. And we are all born mortal, but innocent. Unless you can explain just how someone can sin in the womb? Sin is an act, not a state of being. Our mortal nature is a state of being and influences us to sin, thus we are sinful.

You state that no other man is effected by the actual sin of Adam, but then you go on to state that because of Adam, we die and are under the domain of Satan, which I say we are under sin nature - meaning it is natural to sin, not Satan. We have the ability to choose who we follow. He may have more influence then before, but I do not sit under his domain.

So, which is it? Are we affected or not? Can't have it both ways.

As for Adam being immortal before the fall, there is no where in scripture that states that. To assume that when God told Adam in Genesis 2:15-18 "Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”" that He meant that Adam was in an immortal state, that is an assumption and reading into scripture what is not there. I wonder if Adam would know what death was if he could not die at some time?

 

If you read carefully, vs 18 of Rom 5 you see that it is the judgement, the condemnation that came to all men, death, and as well, the one righteous act of Christ gave life,(physical life, eternal life) to all men. This is again summarized in I Cor 15:22. Christ came to defeat Satan who hold the power of death. Heb 2:14. By His resurrection Christ defeated death, physical death. His resurrection gave life to the world, not just mankind.

Actually, where there is sin, there is judgment of death. Without sin, there would be no judgment of death. You cannot have one without the other. If the judgement came upon mankind, sin had to be there to be judged.

I would be interested in knowing what you mean about Christ gaving life to the world, not just mankind.

[firestormx]

To all,

 

    Interesting discussion. I have been keeping up with every post. I see the discussion about why there is no unity has drifted into doctrinal issues. I can't say I am surprised. I expected as much. So I will ask a couple questions about original sin doctrine.

 

1. Will the word of God fail?  Does God lie? The scripture states in Romans 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. If a baby is born and then dies 1 or 2 hours after birth, did it sin or is sin present , or is the Word of God wrong about all have sinned? You can't have it both ways. For if the Child has no sin nature, and has not committed a sin in it's short life, Then did this child or baby live a sinless life? Does the child need Jesus to get to heaven or since it did not sin, it got there on it's own merits of being sinless?

 

2. If children even small children have no sin nature, then does that not contradict this verse, which states a situation where children are unclean. 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. If a small child has no sin nature, then how or why could it be unclean?

 

3. On the other side of the argument. The bible states in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. What could a baby or small child do to transgress the law?

 

Final question

 

4. This is a major doctrinal issue. If issues like this can't be agreed upon, then how can there ever be unity?

 

 

If you answer one of these questions, then please take the time to answer all.

 

Firestormx

Joseph

[enoob57]

To all,

 

    Interesting discussion. I have been keeping up with every post. I see the discussion about why there is no unity has drifted into doctrinal issues. I can't say I am surprised. I expected as much. So I will ask a couple questions about original sin doctrine.

 

1. Will the word of God fail?  Does God lie? The scripture states in Romans 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. If a baby is born and then dies 1 or 2 hours after birth, did it sin or is sin present , or is the Word of God wrong about all have sinned? You can't have it both ways. For if the Child has no sin nature, and has not committed a sin in it's short life, Then did this child or baby live a sinless life? Does the child need Jesus to get to heaven or since it did not sin, it got there on it's own merits of being sinless?

 

2. If children even small children have no sin nature, then does that not contradict this verse, which states a situation where children are unclean. 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. If a small child has no sin nature, then how or why could it be unclean?

 

3. On the other side of the argument. The bible states in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. What could a baby or small child do to transgress the law?

 

Final question

 

4. This is a major doctrinal issue. If issues like this can't be agreed upon, then how can there ever be unity?

 

 

If you answer one of these questions, then please take the time to answer all.

 

Firestormx

Joseph

1. Will the word of God fail?  Does God lie? The scripture states in Romans 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. If a baby is born and then dies 1 or 2 hours after birth, did it sin or is sin present , or is the Word of God wrong about all have sinned? You can't have it both ways. For if the Child has no sin nature, and has not committed a sin in it's short life, Then did this child or baby live a sinless life? Does the child need Jesus to get to heaven or since it did not sin, it got there on it's own merits of being sinless?

As with the true born again heart we know that anything God performs  'IS' perfection... We know that what He decides 'IS' the very best of every decision -even if we are not

aligned with it we know we are to align for He 'Is' our only way, truth and life forever.... There is an age of accountability (assumed)  http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

 

Thus you understand the apologetic of God and His Decision making ...   Love, Steven