Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Original Sin/the Sin Nature

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Why would an innocent child need to be trained in the way he should go?  If he is innocent, he is already in a good way.
 

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Hmm, who would a child of innocence need correction?

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

Why would an innocent child need to be beaten with a rod?

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

An innocent child left to himself brings his mother shame? 

As I said, your ability to understand is addled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice misapplication of Scripture, Winman.

Be converted and become as little children was not speaking of becoming like infants. 

Tell us, where is this fountain of youth you have received your reverse-age process from?  It clearly has fermented and addled your understanding capability.

 

And you are mistaken. The word "converted" means to turn or repent. So Jesus is telling his disciples they must repent and become as little children to enter heaven. They must become sinless to enter heaven. No defiled thing enters heaven, I already showed you that. 

 

Little children are not evil, Jesus said they have angels who ALWAYS behold his Father's face. They are not separated from God. 

 

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
 
Was the prodigal son lost originally?
 
Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
 
You should read Luke chapter 15. Jesus tells three parable which are one, and they are all about sinners who repent. None were original lost as Original Sin falsely teaches.
 
Was the lost sheep originally lost?
 
4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
 
The lost sheep did not start out lost, he was in the shepherd's flock. Originally the shepherd had one hundred sheep. This refutes Original Sin that teaches all men are born dead in sin and separated from God. Jesus show the EXACT OPPOSITE. 
 
How many silver pieces did the woman originally have?
 
8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?
 
How many pieces of silver did the woman originally have? TEN. How many were lost? NONE. Boy, Jesus must have forgotten all men are born lost when he told these parables, because he is clearly speaking of lost sinners in this chapter. 
 
10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
 
Jesus got it right that a sinner has to repent, why does he mistakenly teach the sinner was not originally lost? Something is wrong here. 
 
And then he tells us about the prodigal son. Was he originally lost?
 
Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
 
Nope, Jesus said the father had two sons. They weren't lost. 
 
The prodigal didn's start out lost, but he soon decided to leave home and fell into sin. It was then that he was joined to a citizen (the devil) of that far country. 
 
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
 
This is when the prodigal became lost and spiritually dead, when he knowingly and willingly left home and went out in sin. It was then that he was joined to that citizen (the devil) of that far country. 
 
Could he repent? Yep, and he did. 
 
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
 
Did the prodigal lose the ability to repent as many falsely teach? NOPE, he headed for home. And notice that the father saw the boy coming when he was still a great way off. Hey, that's God's foreknowledge, God can see who will repent before they actually do!
 
But now, what did Jesus say the father said when the boy repented?
 
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
 
Whoa! Wait a minute! What is Jesus saying here??? What does Jesus mean, the prodigal is alive AGAIN? That's impossible, we are all born dead in sin, none of us was ever alive until we repented. Right? Right?? Right????
 
BOOM! Original Sin is destroyed by Jesus himself. When the boy repented Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. You have to be alive once to be alive AGAIN, just like Paul said in Romans 7. 
 
Did Jesus forget we are all born dead in sin? Did Jesus forget that all of us are born separated from God? How could Jesus make such serious mistakes?? 
 
Surely Jesus must have been mistaken when he said the prodigal was alive AGAIN. That is impossi.....  what? He said it again? Where?
 
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
 
No, no, no, say it ain't so Joe!! Jesus said it again! He said the prodigal son was alive AGAIN! What was Jesus thinking? Doesn't Jesus know we are all born dead in sin? 
 
It just can't be so, it just can't be so, it just can't be so.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Why would an innocent child need to be trained in the way he should go?  If he is innocent, he is already in a good way.
 

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Hmm, who would a child of innocence need correction?

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

Why would an innocent child need to be beaten with a rod?

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

An innocent child left to himself brings his mother shame? 

As I said, your ability to understand is addled.

 

You do not comprehend. I have never denied that children do not do wrong things. I have eight children, I bet that I understand this better than you. 

 

But God does not hold them ACCOUNTABLE. Read that until you understand it. God does not hold little children accountable when they do wrong. Why? Because they do not understand their actions. 

 

We are just the same. If a three year old boy picks up his father's pistol and shoots and kills his sister, do we try that little child for murder and then send him to the electric chair? NO. Why? Because the little boy did not really understand what he was doing. He does not even really understand the concept of death. When he sees someone on TV shoot another person, it looks fun. 

 

And God is the exact same way, he does not hold that child accountable, he does not judge that child as a sinner. 

 

Children do wrong things all the time, but that doesn't make them a sinner. God does not hold them accountable until they understand what they are doing. The Jews understood this, and did not hold a boy responsible until he was 13 years old, and a girl 12. 

 

The scriptures are not written to little children, it is written to mature  men and women who understand it. 

 

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 

When the Jews sinned in the wilderness, God would not allow them to enter the promised land, which is a figure of heaven. But he did allow the little children to enter in. Why? Because they did not know between good and evil in the day that their parents sinned.

 

You don't get it, it is the "knowledge of good and evil" that makes us spiritually die. That is why Adam and Eve spiritually died, because they had the knowledge of good and evil.

 

And we are all born with that knowledge, but it take a few years to develop and mature, just like our bodies. At about the same time our bodies grow hair to cover our most private parts, men's minds develop and they understand good and evil. This is when they become accountable before God. Now when they knowingly sin, they DIE. 

Edited by Winman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Become as children does not mean repentance.  It is speaking of trusting. , exercising faith. Unless on converts and becomes trusting as a child is trusting of its parents.


And you are wrong when you say Scriptures were not for children. 

Colossians 3:20 Children, OBey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

You can continue to deny the facts if you wish, Winman, but it won't make them go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Become as children does not mean repentance.  It is speaking of trusting. , exercising faith. Unless on converts and becomes trusting as a child is trusting of its parents.


And you are wrong when you say Scriptures were not for children. 

Colossians 3:20 Children, OBey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

You can continue to deny the facts if you wish, Winman, but it won't make them go away.

 

The scriptures are not written for "little" children. Although a parent should begin early and teach children scripture. But we are talking about MATURITY. God does not hold little children accountable, because they do no know between good and evil. I have already showed you scripture that directly says this. You can read. 

 

It is you that is denying what the scripture plainly says. 

 

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 

Is that big enough for you to read? Do you understand what God was saying? He said he was going to let the little children go in and possess the promised land. Why, because they had no "knowledge between good and evil" when their parents sinned. 

 

It is you that is clearly in denial, nOBody is fooled. 

 

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

 

Are little children born knowing to refuse evil and choose good? NOPE.

 

You are just hurting yourself by denying scriptural truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Original Sin is complete falsehood. 

 

 Sin had to "originate" from somewhere. Please answer this question: From where did sin "originate"?  Did sin just "fall from the sky"?  If there is no such thing as "original sin", then there can be no sin whatsoever in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Sin had to "originate" from somewhere. Please answer this question: From where did sin "originate"?  Did sin just "fall from the sky"?  If there is no such thing as "original sin", then there can be no sin whatsoever in this world.

 

Sin originates from free will. 

 

Satan was created "perfect in his ways" but he chose to sin (Eze 28:15). Why? Because he could. He had free will. The fallen angels were created "very good" but they chose to follow Satan. Why? Because they could, they had free will. 

 

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31) but they had the ability to choose to sin. They had free will. That, and a lack of faith in God is all it takes. 

 

So the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin. 

 

Jesus said offenses "must needs be". Sin cannot be avoided, even by God. Why? Because God is love, and he desires that we love him. But love cannot be forced. You must give a person free will to love you. A person has to choose to love you, but this also gives them the ability to reject you. 

 

We are not rOBots as some seem to teach, we can choose for or against God. This gives us the ability to choose to love God of our own free will, which is what he desires. But this free will also makes it necessary that folks can choose against God and choose to hate him. So sin or offenses, "must needs be"

 

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Edited by Winman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rom 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:

 

This says DEATH passed on all men, because all men have sinned. It does not say a sin nature passed on all men because Adam sinned. 

Edited by Winman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Dave, we're wasting our time with him.  His conscience is seared.  He doesn't want to receive the truth.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, we're wasting our time with him.  His conscience is seared.  He doesn't want to receive the truth.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

Do you know what the word IRONY means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Rom 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:

You said sin originates from free will.

 

The Bible says by one man sin entered into the world.

 

So where did sin originate?

From each man's free will? No - from one man - that is where sin entered from.

 

I am not addressing the "original sin" issue as such, but showing that you are wrong in a statement.

And by the way, I used a Scripture verse.

 

And pointing to the other end of the verse is irrelevant to my point, and an attempt to avoid the actual point by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said sin originates from free will.

 

The Bible says by one man sin entered into the world.

 

So where did sin originate?

From each man's free will? No - from one man - that is where sin entered from.

 

I am not addressing the "original sin" issue as such, but showing that you are wrong in a statement.

And by the way, I used a Scripture verse.

 

And pointing to the other end of the verse is irrelevant to my point, and an attempt to avoid the actual point by you.

 

Satan was the first to sin, so sin originated from him. But it was free will that enabled him to sin. 

 

God wants people who love him, not programmed rOBots. Love requires choice, you cannot force someone to love you, they must do that of their own free will. Unfortunately, when you give a person free will which enables them to love you, this also enables them to reject and hate you if they choose to do so. So it "must needs be" that offences come. 

 

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31), They did not have a sin nature. Yet they were quite able to sin. Why? Because they had free will. 

 

I am answering your questions, and answering them correctly, you just don't want to hear what I am telling you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sin originates from free will. 

 

Satan was created "perfect in his ways" but he chose to sin (Eze 28:15). Why? Because he could. He had free will. The fallen angels were created "very good" but they chose to follow Satan. Why? Because they could, they had free will. 

 

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31) but they had the ability to choose to sin. They had free will. That, and a lack of faith in God is all it takes. 

 

So the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin. 

 

Jesus said offenses "must needs be". Sin cannot be avoided, even by God. Why? Because God is love, and he desires that we love him. But love cannot be forced. You must give a person free will to love you. A person has to choose to love you, but this also gives them the ability to reject you. 

 

We are not rOBots as some seem to teach, we can choose for or against God. This gives us the ability to choose to love God of our own free will, which is what he desires. But this free will also makes it necessary that folks can choose against God and choose to hate him. So sin or offenses, "must needs be"

 

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 

At this point, Winman, can you or someone else explain what a 'sin nature' is, as is proposed. Are we talking about a desire or inclination to do or want things that are sinful, or is it the state of being born guilty for sins being committed by another? Or both?

 

Way back I asked the question why people choose to sin. I asked this because the original poster, although they mentioned 'original sin' in their OP, started asking questions about the peoples' 'inclination'.

 

You responded to my post by saying that my question was irrelevant because desires have got nothing to do with 'sin nature'--having desires to do or want things that God does not want for us is not sinful and therefore is not a 'sin nature'. When I read that I assumed therefore that 'sin nature' is the belief that we are born guilty of sins already committed by others, and it was this belief that was the focus of the discussion.

 

Yet here we are back at a question about inclination and you've said that Adam and Eve being created "very good" means that "the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin".

 

So what is this 'sin nature' that is not needed? You've already said that having desires for what God does not want for us is not a sin nature, so what could a 'sin nature' conceivably be?

 

Also, you say that sin originates from free will, since Satan had the free will to choose sin and he did: "Why? Because he could. He had free will." But he also 'could' have chosen against sin, yet he didn't. So free will doesn't explain why Satan chose a certain way, only that the choice was available. Last time you said to me 'they just do' when I asked why free agents choose a certain way when offered a free choice. If that's your answer, fine, but that is not the same as saying it is free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, Winman, can you or someone else explain what a 'sin nature' is, as is proposed. Are we talking about a desire or inclination to do or want things that are sinful, or is it the state of being born guilty for sins being committed by another? Or both?

 

Way back I asked the question why people choose to sin. I asked this because the original poster, although they mentioned 'original sin' in their OP, started asking questions about the peoples' 'inclination'.

 

You responded to my post by saying that my question was irrelevant because desires have got nothing to do with 'sin nature'--having desires to do or want things that God does not want for us is not sinful and therefore is not a 'sin nature'. When I read that I assumed therefore that 'sin nature' is the belief that we are born guilty of sins already committed by others, and it was this belief that was the focus of the discussion.

 

Yet here we are back at a question about inclination and you've said that Adam and Eve being created "very good" means that "the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin".

 

So what is this 'sin nature' that is not needed? You've already said that having desires for what God does not want for us is not a sin nature, so what could a 'sin nature' conceivably be?

 

Also, you say that sin originates from free will, since Satan had the free will to choose sin and he did: "Why? Because he could. He had free will." But he also 'could' have chosen against sin, yet he didn't. So free will doesn't explain why Satan chose a certain way, only that the choice was available. Last time you said to me 'they just do' when I asked why free agents choose a certain way when offered a free choice. If that's your answer, fine, but that is not the same as saying it is free will.

 

If having desires that tempt us is a sin nature, then Jesus had a sin nature. He was tempted in ALL POINTS (think about that one for a minute) as we are, yet without sin. 

 

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

Most folks think Jesus was only tempted by the devil in the wilderness. NO, Jesus was tempted in ALL POINTS AS WE ARE. Whatever has tempted you, and tempted me, and tempted every single man that was ever born tempted Jesus. This is an incredible statement, but that is what the scriptures say. 

 

Does this mean Jesus had a sin nature? NO, the scriptures say Jesus was HOLY. 

 

Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

 

This is where folks go off the tracks, people think temptation is sin. Temptation is not sin. Sin is when you OBey temptation and transgress one of God's laws. 

 

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

We are told exactly how Eve was tempted in the garden. This is the three worldly lusts shown in 1 John 2:16;

 

#1 Lust of the flesh- the forbidden fruit appealed to her hunger and appetite, it looked good for food. 

 

#2 Lust of the eyes- the forbidden fruit was beautiful and fascinating. 

 

#3 Pride of Life- the forbidden fruit could make her wise. This would make her better than others, this would make her "special"

 

Was Eve sinning here? NO. 

 

God did not tell Eve she could not look at the forbidden fruit or think about it, only that she could not eat it. If Eve would have walked away, she would not have been a sinner. 

 

But Eve broke God's one law or commandment, not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is when she sinned, and this is when she became a sinner. 

 

Being tempted does not make you sinful. It is only when we actually transgress one of God's laws that we sin, sin is the transgression of the law. 

 

1 Jhn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

Now, it is not always easy to determine where temptation ends and sin starts. But temptation is not sin. But I believe most people believe that the fact we all get tempted is a sin nature. No, that is the flesh. The flesh simply lusts for whatever pleases it, it cannot choose what it wants. That is not sin. Sin is when we OBey it when it would transgress God's law. 

 

I heard a fellow say this once, if you see a pretty girl walking down the street and take a look, that is temptation. If you circle around the block so you can come back and look at her again, that is sin. I think this was a pretty good analogy. 

 

Being tempted is not a sin nature, or Jesus would have had a sin nature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

At this point, Winman, can you or someone else explain what a 'sin nature' is, as is proposed. Are we talking about a desire or inclination to do or want things that are sinful, or is it the state of being born guilty for sins being committed by another? Or both?

 

 

Alimantado,

 

Winman is a Pelagian; therefore, he will interpret verses to fit his theology. I posted a verse earlier that proves that because of Adam's sin, mankind was made sinners...

 

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disOBedience many were made sinners, so by the OBedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

He jumped through his hoops of interpreting it as "legal" wording to say that it only set a precedent. That "might" make some type of sense if the word "sinner" only appeared in the context Romans 5...which he attributed this "legal" meaning of "sinner" to. However, the same word for "sinners" is used 45 other times throughout scripture...the same word...not used in legal context.   :scratchchin:

 

I don't have to tell anyone here this, but this is what "sinner" means...this also defines our sin nature...

  1. From Webster's 1828 Dictionary...SIN'NER, n.
    One that has voluntarily violated the divine law; a moral agent who has voluntarily disOBeyed any divine precept, or neglected any known duty.
  2. Greek...ἁμαρτωλός  devoted to sin, a sinner  
    a.  not free from sin 
    b.  pre-eminently sinful, especially wicked  
    1.  all wicked men 
    2.  specifically of men stained with certain definite vices or crimes 1b 
    c.  tax collectors, heathen

I see no "legal" terminology in any of that...simply the fact that a sinner is a sinner. If Adam set the precedent, then how was Paul able to say...

 

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

 

Same word (sinners) used as in Romans 5:19...but he was CHIEF. This should settle whether Christ died for people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. We certainly agree that Christ died for Paul, and Paul was saved...yet he was the chief among sinners? Wow! Unlike Hitler, Paul not only had Jews sentenced to death...he had Christian Jews sentenced to death!

 

We inherited a sin-nature from Adam, and that's the plain teaching of scripture without having to twist it to fit Pelagianism. Just let God say what he said.

 

Winman isn't only a Pelagian, but he teaches that Jesus Christ had to be saved. :offended: That's why I quit responding to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't take the ol' Pelagian boogie man long to make his appearance. 

 

f76a9ea9-9f93-4f9b-bb09-668fe1f7db44_zps

 

Intelligent people are insulted when folks try to use fear smear tactics when they can't present a real argument. The Catholic church did this for centuries, telling folks they would go to hell if they tried to interpret the scripture themselves. 

 

As the mother, so the daughter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "sinner' is always used in a legal context. It is like the word "felon". It is a legal term describing someone who has transgressed one of God's laws, for sin is the transgression of the law. 

 

The scriptures did not throw the word "sinner" around like we do today. To the Jews, not everyone was "a sinner".

 

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

 

Now, the Pharisee called this woman, who was a prostitute, "a sinner". We don't think much of that, because the Pharisees were a self-righteous bunch who commonly said evil things of others. 

 

But note vs. 37 that the scriptures themselves say this woman was "a sinner". This is not saying she was just an average person who does many wrong things in their life, no, this woman was guilty of committing what was considered serious sin. She was "a sinner", and the whole town knew it. 

 

When Adam sinned, he became "a sinner". Likewise, those who transgress God's laws after him are judged or MADE a sinner. That is what Romans 5 is teaching, It makes sense because that is EXACTLY what Paul is telling us. Adam was the legal precedent for sinners. Jesus is the legal precedent or "second Adam" for those who believe. 

 

The scriptures are full of references to men who "made Israel to sin". Does this mean that their personal sin compelled the nation to sin? Nonsense. It simply means this king set a bad example that others followed. This is also how Adam made others sinners. 

 

1 Kin 15:26 And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin.

 

2 Kin 21:9 But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the children of Israel.

10 And the LORD spake by his servants the prophets, saying,
11 Because Manasseh king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols:
 
Manasseh made Judah to sin. That doesn't mean when he sinned that every man in Judah suddently couldn't help himself but was compelled to sin. No, it simply means he set a bad example that others followed. 
 
And this is how Adam made men sinners, by his example. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wondering why the Mods allow Winman to continue to teach heresy on OB,

 

What heresy is that? John Smyth, the man credited with starting the FIRST Baptist church, did not believe in Original Sin. FACT. 

 

It might be you who is the Baptist heretic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...