Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kjam22
I said it isn't worth arguing with people who hold the same theology that we have, even if they developed it believing that the Genesis account is a parable.

I've read all of your posts completely. The bible says that scripture is for "reproof" - which means we are to correct people who are in error. Argue with the bible.

It is very possible for a person to read it as a parable in which God is telling them that they are lost.

Yes, it is; but that does not mean we should let our brother or sister continue in error, does it.

Quit blaming it on Adam.

I didn't blame it on Adam - I simply posted Paul's verse. Feeling froggy?

I don't believe children are born condemned. Paul tells us they are born with a sinful nature, but sin occures when a person is old enough to know right from wrong.

There is no biblical proof either way. One thing is sure - babies sin. Ever hear a toddler say, "mine, mine, mine" - they are not taught to be selfish are they?

You and I choose to sin when we reach an age of knowing right from wrong.

Wrong. Sins can be intentional or untentional. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Read leviticus and learn about unintentional sins. You can sin in word, thought or deed - a billion different ways. Jesus said if you hate with your heart it is the same as murder; if you lust with your eyes, it is the same as adultery. Sin starts in the mind and heart. The ONLY question is whether children are held accountable before they can understand the gospel. The bible does not say. However, If a child knows what something is wrong and does it - it is sin - I don't care what age they are.

Anyway, I don't mean to be harsh. I wish you well friend. But the truth is the truth and I will not apologize for speaking it. God bless you.

263 posted on 12/06/2001 1:18:33 PM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies ]


To: exmarine
I didn't blame it on Adam - I simply posted Paul's verse. Feeling froggy? This is an accurate statement. You posted one verse that is used in combination with a lot of others while developing the doctrine of original sin. I don't read the bible that way. One verse at a time. Maybe you do. I sure don't develope that doctrine of original sin off of one verse.

I would contend that the bible does teach us that children are not born condemned. I think there are a number of examples that demonstrate that to us. But you know.... it seems to me that if our babies were bound for hell, that Paul in Romans 5 might have suggested to us that we needed to baptize them or do something to prevent this terrible event. But we don't find any sort of command within scripture to baptize babies. In fact, every time baptism is mentioned it is after repentance. And repentance can only occure when one realizes sin and turns from it. You are one of the first an only persons I know who would attribute "the sin of omission" to those who are not old enough to know right from wrong. There simply is no text to base that idea on.

You are correct.. all scripture is profitable for reproof. And that means more than just one verse in Romans 5. It has to all be read as one message. But I know you know that.

You suggested reading Leviticus. Would you like for me to quote to you what Paul says about the law? Try reading Colossians 2... about verse 8 through the end of the chapter.

Best wishes

268 posted on 12/06/2001 1:32:16 PM PST by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson