The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum ORIGINAL SIN-Jim_M

Jim_M said:
Jesus did not make a distinction of what aspect of a child was good or bad, so i take it to be the whole child."God is forced to love us" This kind of reasoning is called"setting up a straw man,so you can easily knock him down" and is not credible reasoning. The scripture is replete with the teaching that all men sin, does it teach anywhere that babies sin? "After how long" after they know to choose to do good or evil, the same as Adam. "Perfect obedience", another straw man. Babies do not need forgiveness, but basically this is some more"straw man" reasoning. Gen.6:5 offers no clarity to this discussion at all. We are created in Gods image and at the same time we are "distorted", i think we distort ourselves later on when we choose to do evil. Romans 5: All have sinned. To sin is to transgress the law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact—that all men experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin themselves— as, indeed, how can they sin in any other way?—and that therefore they die. If men maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference? Hey guys feel free to jump in here, this is an open forum, at least i hope it is, i would like to know what everyone thinks!