SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : the first sin

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
brothagary
Member



Joined: 2011/10/23
Posts: 1865


 Re:

your right proudpapa i agree he has much to offer,,tho my hearts resonates with much andrews writes

oh that link you posted was an interestion read andrew

 2012/11/4 23:49Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

I think often times people jump to a strong defense of this doctrine because they think that by denying it that you are some how denying the sinfulness of mankind or somehow suggesting that man is able to save himself apart from the Grace of God or that some how by denying this doctrine, that men are some how denying their own personal sinfulness.

None of the which I find is a true, Preachers whom have challenged this doctrine have been blacklisted from the Church such as Finney.

Of all the sermons that I have heard the one that seems to expose mans depravity the best and most accurately I feel is Ten Shekels and a Shirt by Paris Reidhead.
of whom spoke out strongly against Augustines understanding of original sin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHgsZv1JyJE

 2012/11/4 23:59Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Hi amrkelly, the last post in that thread which by the way I will say was written by a dear sister,but that does not mean that I am in agreement was Augustines position I see very little evidence for it other than the Fact that Jesus was begotten Of God and not Joseph.(a large conclusion to form just from that fact)

amrkelly can you show any evidence of such a position being held by the early church fathers before Augustine?? proudpapa



Hi Brother

No it would be unlikely that you would find such a thing stated in the early church with any substance. As for Augustine I have no further thoughts on Him than those I have stated in other threads.

Just to settle the point made by Sister GinnyRose. We know today that the male has 2 types of spermatazoa x and y sided. The male sperm is larger and physically stronger than the female sperm. Regardless of this physical reality however the only woman who could have existed without having any concepted inheritance was Eve. Every woman born of Eve was conceived of Adam and his seed was the determining influence physically as to whether the offspring would be male or female. But whether male or female that offspring was of his seed. This means that his first daughter would have inherited his nature as well. Mary though she was a virgin with regards to Joseph her betrothed husband (not actual husband) was blessed amongst women, not above women. "Blessed art thou amongst women" said the angel. So the point about the nature of the flesh which Jesus had with regards to His physical body is an academic one at best and misleading if gone into too theoretically. Jesus had a physical body which was according to a woman and according to the working of God. As far as the woman was concerned it was a genetic implication which she bore in her own DNA and which was itself a lineage of every male and female born of Adam and Eve.

The fact that sin is accounted from Adam is a completely separate issue altogether and is a misleading topic if it is confused with the physical body we all inherit from our parents. In conclusion I would say myself that although Jesus did not have any direct DNA from Joseph, He did inherit the DNA of his mother. And the DNA of his mother came directly from Adam. This does have an implication but it is only with regards to taking account that Jesus was truly tempted in every way as we are. That is to say Jesus was physically the same as we are, yet He was without sin. Its interesting to me that Adam's personal conduct is never mentioned in the bible once after his decision to take the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from the hand of his wife, Eve. Yet by Genesis chapter 6 "all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth".

 2012/11/5 0:08









 Re:

Yes thanks Gary. We are fine and well. The Lord is good and faithful.

 2012/11/5 0:10
stevet83
Member



Joined: 2012/9/9
Posts: 77


 Re:

Brothagary,
My bad bro, my intention wasn't to label, just to point out an obvious distinction between those who believe in this doctrine(myself included) please accept my sincere apology... I to do not consider myself a Calvinist or any other "ist", but some things are to clear to deny in the Scriptures.

Your bro in Christ,
Steve.

 2012/11/5 0:30Profile
brothagary
Member



Joined: 2011/10/23
Posts: 1865


 Re:

no brother steve ,i never said what i said ,to get an apolagy,,no need to apolagiz ,,i never concidered it an attack ,,bless you ,,just thought i would make my possision a little more clear that all

blessings

 2012/11/5 0:45Profile
brothagary
Member



Joined: 2011/10/23
Posts: 1865


 Re: the first sin

hi proud papa

iv herd ten shekels many times ,and listent to the link you posted ,,,,

and what iv noticed and disagree with is that both do not deal with or explain that scripture that expressed the idea of us all being made sinners by adams desobedence

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

we all know what parise says and agree that we wanted to sin so we are sinners for that reason

but the bibles we were made sinners by adams transgreshen


and this is not delt with

we can all rave talk about the false doctrine one like augustine held and blame him for the reformed churches teaching orignal sin ...which may be partly true

but whoes going to explain and give and exposae of the verses like the one above and the others i posted like

roms ;5 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men

which shows i believe verry clearly we are condemed in adam becasue of the first and ordiginal sin comited by our parents

thats the question

i here everyone esteam the bible and so we should ,,why then do we go to sermons from others who in my view have not givern a fullexposision on the versees that are usesd to suport the doctrine of oridginal sin to explain what the verses are realy saying

paris reid head does not touch at all on these verses

i cant work out why this is ,

blessings

 2012/11/5 1:02Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: brothagary

Hi brothagary

Why did God make man??

Why did God create man so that he could sin??

Why Did God place the temptation right in the midst of the garden ??

Romans 5 is speaking of physical death, no one is denying that the fall had serious implications for all of mankind and all of creation, My point is that the infant is naked and not ashamed he has no guilt in his conscience because he understands no law as Romans 5 says "sin is not imputed when there is no law." nevertheless Death still reigns as we agree Adams sin has consequences for all of creation being removed from the Garden from God from the tree of life causes everything to naturally die.


Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Just as when we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead righteousness is imputed on us at this moment.

When we personally come into a state of understanding as Paul speakes of in Romans 7:9 and we fail our own understanding (our own judgmentof right and wrong guilt enters into the conscience and condemnation (Sin) is revived from our parents unto our own. Paul says at this state "I died."
guilt entered his soul and as in Adam all die.
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation

edit: I was working on two post at the same time accidently pressed the wrong submit repasted instantly and replaced post, because I was not finished with the other one and it did not make any sense with what I had written thus.

 2012/11/5 1:43Profile
brothagary
Member



Joined: 2011/10/23
Posts: 1865


 Re:

hi proud pappa

you asked andrew kelly weather it was taught before agustine wiki seems to indacate that this doctrine was beleieved in the second centry

The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy (written in Greek) with the dualist Gnostics.[2] Its scriptural foundation is based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22). Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that mankind shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation

i havent verfied this in the writings of the church fathers

but i dare to say is probaly correct

 2012/11/5 1:49Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: brothagary

Hi brothagary no one is denying the fall, It is the extreme conclusions that theolgy has placed upon the fall.

wiki also says ///The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[10][11] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[12][13] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[14][15]///

I feel that I am in agreement with this

 2012/11/5 1:56Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy