The temptation of Christ ...

[Guest]

However, in Romans 5, it seems to me anyway, that Paul is using a one to one relationship between Adam and Jesus. If we receive justification through Jesus Christ spiritually than what is wrong with concluding we receive condemnation spiritually from Adam?


That's a good observation Micah and you may be right. However although it appears to be a one to one relationship since Paul mentions both Adam and Jesus and sin and death all together the key phrase IMO is that Jesus sacrifice is "much more then" Adam's transgression.
I know this seems like splitting hairs but i don't think this condemnation from Adam means original sin. You would think if meant original sin there would be confirmation elsewhere in the bible but you find just the opposite.

[Guest]

That's a good observation Micah and you may be right. However although it appears to be a one to one relationship since Paul mentions both Adam and Jesus and sin and death all together the key phrase IMO is that Jesus sacrifice is "much more then" Adam's transgression.
I know this seems like splitting hairs but i don't think this condemnation from Adam means original sin. You would think if meant original sin there would be confirmation elsewhere in the bible but you find just the opposite.

True, I guess I just have a different version of original sin. Couldn't we all be sinners (babies included), but one is not held accountable for their sin until they reach the age of wisdom, where they know the difference between right and wrong?

Right and practically speaking IMO it really does'nt make any difference except for people who believe that children that die and have original sin may be doomed to hell.

If you believe we are born with a bent toward sin versus original sin wouldn't you have the same problem with say a 3 year old child who sins by telling a lie and then dies before accepting Christ. Would that child go to hell in your opinion?

[Guest]

i certainly believe that God would not condemn a child to hell who does not have the intellectual capacity to repent and to be a disciple of Christ.

this may open a can of worms but i cant imagine it being otherwise.

TK

[Guest]

i certainly believe that God would not condemn a child to hell who does not have the intellectual capacity to repent and to be a disciple of Christ.

this may open a can of worms but i cant imagine it being otherwise.

TK

Romans 9:11 NASB for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

Romans 9:18-22 NASB So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

[Guest]

If you believe we are born with a bent toward sin versus original sin wouldn't you have the same problem with say a 3 year old child who sins by telling a lie and then dies before accepting Christ. Would that child go to hell in your opinion?

Not if he does'nt understand the difference between right and wrong on a meaningful level.
In answer to your first question, the whole point of original sin is that you are guilty because of someone else's sin therefore you can't be unaccountable.

[Guest]

Romans 9:11 NASB for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

Bluttman, This really belongs on the Calvinism thread and i bet Romans 9 has been hashed out over there.
We know God intervenes sometimes but that does'nt mean he intervenes in everything all the time.

[Guest]

Not if he does'nt understand the difference between right and wrong on a meaningful level.
In answer to your first question, the whole point of original sin is that you are guilty because of someone else's sin therefore you can't be unaccountable.

But isn't it possible that one can be held unaccountable if the blood of Jesus covers the sins of those who don't understand the difference between right and wrong on a meaningful level?

[Guest]

But isn't it possible that one can be held unaccountable if the blood of Jesus covers the sins of those who don't understand the difference between right and wrong on a meaningful level?

Micah, Anything is possible with God but the way i understand "original sin" is that a baby or child is deemed guilty because of nothing they did but simply because they are part of the human race. So if they are not guilty based on what they did or did'nt do , their imputed guilt overides their personal innocense.
Another words Jesus's blood can cover innocents but imputed guilt prevents one from being positionally innocent before God because the guilt is not based on the child's knowledge or lack of.

[Guest]

Romans 9:11 NASB for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

Bluttman, This really belongs on the Calvinism thread and i bet Romans 9 has been hashed out over there.
We know God intervenes sometimes but that does'nt mean he intervenes in everything all the time.

OK, Pardon the interruption.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I can see your point. I think you might be right, although I still find it hard to contemplate the idea that one theoretically could live without sinning even though the Bible states all of us have sinned. So then, what is your opinion then on Jesus...Was he born with a sinful nature or not? I think I would still say no because he didn't have a biological father. It seems to me to be the only logical conclusion as to why he would be born from a virgin. Also, the Bible states he is the second Adam which sort of implies he was imitating Adam before the fall and not after it.