Original Sin is BALONEY: ROMANS 5:18 - 19

This video is not made for those who don't understand the doctrine of Original Sin & Original Ability. The purpose is for those who do know what they are, to discuss the rational behind their usage. Thank You, I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bible
• Sin
• God
• Christianity
• Calvinism
• Original
• Ability
• Theology

[JetpackNinjaDinosaur]

Oh and if original sin is bologna that means that there was no reason for jesus christ to exist since the entire reason god supposedly sent down "his only son" for our sins is to give us a way out of the whole adam and eve screwing everything up predicament.

So that means the entire reason for your religion's existence is pretty much pointless and you should probably be a jew.

[valetudospang]

@JetpackNinjaDinosaur There is a reason! When someone sins they have violated God's law. I'm not stating that people don't sin, I just believe sin is an action, not something inherited or passed on biologically like what people are preaching in the DOCTRINE of ORIGINAL SIN. So there is a huge need for Jesus!

[ColonialPetersen]

@valetudospang

I agree and have said this same thing to people, referring to IF everyone is born sinful because of what Adam did, then everyone will be saved because of what Christ did, which is Universalism, which is not biblical, Matthew 7:13-14 among many other Bible verses that indicate those saved will be few compared to those who will continue to go unsaved and eventually die in their sin. It IS SO REFRESHING to hear someone else say what the Bible teaches exposing OS.

[ColonialPetersen]

I have for 34 years loathed the doctrine of Original Sin, (not that I reject that Adam and Eve sinned, I know they did), but no one can be sinful APART from choosing to sin. Sin is a voluntary committal of the will in which self supremacy reigns. It is said that babies are born self-centred, which is true, but they are not sinful because no choices have yet been made. We are born with minds & bodies that make us VULNERABLE to temptation, sin is therefore the choice to yield constituting guilt.

[ColonialPetersen]

I understand their argument & point of view backwards and forwards of view and the Scriptures that are used which also include Psalm 51:5, and others. The CALVINISTIC interpretation of Romans 5:18-19 supports inherited sinfulness, which I find impossible. I deeply appreciate your exposure and addressing this erroneous teaching which most Christians believe. I'm guessing that you have also read much of the writings of Charles G. Finney, a 19th Century evangelist.

[ColonialPetersen]

I came to now Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour 1/1977. I grew up Lutheran, but once I received Christ Jesus at the age of 21, I began to study the word of God with a diligence I had not known before. Babies cannot be born sinful because sin can not be transmitted biologically or spiritually from one person to another. Where there is sin, their is guilt, babies are NOT guilty of anything since they lack an understanding of God's revealed Word. There is no sinfulness apart from choosing to sin.

[droptozro]

@MontanaMatt79 (cont) ...certain teachings. You should study it objectively for yourself. You do not have to take my word for it. I'm spoken out against many Calvinists and not one can give me an answer why the majority of the early church as a whole spoke out AGAINST their doctrines. You can see my two part video(which is all reading) and then go study it further for yourself.

This is just logical like a game of telephone, the earliest person to receive the message should be most accurate.

[droptozro]

@MontanaMatt79

"Faith alone" is only stated 1 time in Scripture---and the context refutes it. James 2:24 I'm sure you're aware of... so it's clear that to say "alone" is to add to the Scriptures what is not there. So it's man's words, not God.

I do not lift the writings of the early church up above Scripture, and I don't see any man's interpretation as a standard, but do not misunderstand the clarity of the fact that the first 300 years of the church was quite unanimous on certain (cont)

[droptozro]

@MontanaMatt79

Calvin's own words condemn him... he aided in the death of Michael Servetus, and his theology was that of a brand new Christian--and in his original edition of "Institutes" he wrote against the Catholic church for killing heretics, then he later changed it to cover up his murder of the heart. All of these men believed in what they were taught--not Scripture, and it involved a combination of the kingdoms of this world and God--which is unscriptural, worldly--enemies of God.

[MontanaMatt79]

What is un-scriptural about "faith alone?"

[droptozro]

@MontanaMatt79

Luther "reformed" back to Augustine---not back to the early church. He had a great ideal, but his origin was not the true origin... nor was it entirely Scriptural. He came up with the "sola Scriptura"--but he pushed people away from the first 3 Gospels, lifiting up the Gospel of John due to the fact that the other 3 hurt his idea of "faith alone"--which is unscriptural. "Faith alone" is adding to Scripture, it is not there. Luther also fought for the just war ideal.

[droptozro]

@MontanaMatt79

I'm not speaking of Aquinas, never read of him..just hearsay.

Augustine came up with the just war ideal(against the first 300 years of the church and Jesus teachings of non-resistance), total depravity(from birth), Mary being sinless(heresy!), sex within marriage is inherently debased, amillenialism(last 2 are pure Gnosticism), purgatory, and that Jesus teachings don't apply to us--we're in a different age. All backed up from his own writings. (cont)