Who would say such a horrible thing? Not this Calvinist.

Pay no attention to that calvinist he really knows not what he speaks your child is with God just believe this happy Mother's Day

Jesus who spoke only the fathers words said that all children's angels behold the fathers face. So what was the original sin? Separation from God. Yet God still spoke to Adam after the fall. Through out the old testament God was without but in the new its God within. The children of isreal were told over and over the Lord thy God in the midst of you. In the new testament its in him we live breath and have our being. The Lord God omnipotent and sin cannot separate us from him. Remember he is the lamb slain before the foundation of the word. He does not change. So the sin is the belief that God is somewhere else.

I had a similar conversation a few years ago, and I cannot help myself but frown as I imagine how the conversation would have been. "HOW ABOUT THE UNBORN CHILD? BECAUSE HE/SHE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO BELIEVE, IS HE/SHE IN HELL?" - that was the question I was being asked, in a somewhat condescending way, daring me to hurt the questioner's feelings. I mean, unless you are a psychopath, you do not literally say "Your baby is in hell!" - but it is true that we all need to have & receive faith in Jesus Christ so that we may be redeemed and saved from eternal destruction we humans (as we are indeed abominations in sin) deserve. I could not and would not make a compromise for fear of hurting someone's feelings by contradicting the very basics of the Christian faith.

@@Mimu1983 Not sure what faith you speak of. So many Christians are indoctrinated with absolutley false beliefs. Lets go to the garden where it began and stop at. God said let us make man in our image. Skip forward to and man became a living soul. Then we go to it is appointed once for man to die and then the judgement. At the cross there were three people being hung for crimes. Now we know Jesus was innocent and took our punishment. There was a murderer who mocked Jesus and told him to heal himself. The thief though told the other to shut up. Jesus was innocent. He was told this day you shall be with me in paradise. He wasnt even baptized nor did he say he was his lord. Now to the prodigal son. You know the story. He came to his right mind. You see, children come into this world in a completely innocent state. They have no clue what hate is, or murder, and cant sin. Now lets see more in the new that knocks the crazy double minded god preached still (god is not double minded). For God so loved the world. The love of God in Jesus. God was in Jesus reconciling the world to himself. When you think that he took upon himself the worlds sin for eternity. Do you really think he would send an innocent baby to hell to burn forever? Utter nonsense and crazy. God is love and anyone who has not love has not God. Let God be true and every man a liar.

To be fair to Augustine, he was the first of the fathers to read scripture in Latin rather than Greek, and the Latin translation he had access to wasn’t particularly good. Especially relating to Roman’s 5. He was definitely wrong though.

@@HunterShawMusic Augustine had ample time to read the Scriptures in Greek, therefore allowing him to come to an accurate interpretation of the text. He didn't, and I would say he didn't want to because of his gnostic philosophies such as fatalism, predeterminism derived from the Manichaeism sect he was in.

@@remnant8898Augustine’s Greek wasn’t good by his own admission. In Confessions he goes on about how much he hated reading the Greek classics. It’s not his fault that he had a faulty translation of this verse which informed his doctrine of original sin. He was also not responsible for his works becoming the foundation for western theology. When he died he was only half way through a book of retractions to his earlier writings. For the record, as an Orthodox Christian I agree that the Saint.

​@@TheOtherNathanielwhos fault is it

@@JesusForKing2030 St. Augustine is responsible for his own errors. St. Jerome is responsible for the mistranslation. Later theologians are responsible for not correcting those errors. My theological history gets very poor after Augustine so I can't comment on why his doctrine of original sin became so popular in specific theological schools of Western Christianity (the reformed school). I am pretty sure that the Roman church today does not teach the view of original sin that Heiser is critiquing.

I'm going the same thing, especially on original sin. The thought of my miscarriage sister being in hell for something she did not ask for is sickening to me, and it makes me nauseous that fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are happy that she would be suffering there. I'd recommend reading more of Heiser's stuff. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's incredibly helpful. And I'd also recommend the UKposts channel InspiringPhilosophy. He's a Christian apologist and philosopher.

Just curious, what theology are you holding that defies common sense? You should be careful with that way of thinking- “common sense” is a relative term and can lead you away from the way scripture reasons. For instance, the message of the cross is foolishness to the common person. How can God decide to just give us eternal life at his own cost? Wouldn’t it make more sense that he would tell us to earn it and pay him back for the dishonor we showed to him? Just an example.

@PizzaDisguise I don't know that I'm currently holding any theology that defies common sense. If I find out that I am, I will work to resolve it. Also, I don't think scripture reasons outside of common sense. I think there are people who misunderstand scripture who reject common sense due to their misunderstanding. I believe the doctrine of original sin is one example of this. Common sense doesn't necessarily mean most people believe it. Common sense means it's an obvious truth available to everyone to know and understand. It's certainly possible to deny common sense, but I can't see how a proper understanding of God and scripture could possibly be at odds with common sense, such as the common sense that a newborn infant could not possibly be a sinful abomination to God. It defies basic logic and reason to say an infant is sinful since sin requires the breaking of God's law, and infants can't break God's law. Therefore, the doctrine is most likely based on a misunderstanding of scripture, and I believe a careful reading of scripture would reveal that truth.

@@lukegaier9490 The doctrine of original sin doesn’t, by necessity, make you conclude that babies are a sinful abomination to God. Paul argues that babies, and in fact all humans, were dying before the Law was given (so they couldn’t transgress it), so he reasons from effect to cause: they were dying because of Adam’s sin. That is what original sin means. It’s the key to understanding how Adam is a type of Christ- just as the guilt of Adam can be imputed, so the righteousness of Jesus can be imputed to us. Romans 5:16 [16] And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. Oh interesting! I just got this. He’s also saying that the sin that we committed in killing the Christ is not going to result in death for us like Adam’s sin- it’s going to result in life for us because of the grace of God. Man, the Lord Jesus is so beyond searching out- only God could turn our sin into salvation through his grace and patience.

@PizzaDisguise Paul says plainly in verse 12 that people die because they sin. If he were going to make a case for Original Sin, he wouldn't have said this. He says Adam introduced sin into the world, but we all die because we all sin. When he says, "sin isn't counted where there is no law," he surely isn't saying God excuses sin where there is no law. He's saying we don't keep track of our sin where there is no law for us to reference. God certainly held people accountable for their sins before the law was given. We see this with Cain, the people in the flood, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. He goes on to explain that death reigned over those whose sinning was not like Adam's transgression. He means that even though they weren't breaking a direct command from God, like Adam did, their sin still resulted in death. Lastly, the free gift is not like the trespass because it is exactly the opposite. The trespass introduced sin and death, but the free gift introduced forgiveness and life. This is a common sense reading of this text that doesn't require us to invent mysterious doctrines of imputed guilt.

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

he's the closest thing to jesus you'll ever know

​@@barkwahlmergthats a bit much bro

I think that was John the Baptist, fren

One of my favorite comments on UKposts dude .. love it and agree ! Unless the rest of the list is rank order then I have a few quibbles :)

@@barkwahlmerg do keep in mind that even he slips up from time to time, still he is a great person to introduce someone to the bible properly among other scholars like him

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

Being Catholic isn't the problem, but being a Roman Catholic definitely is

...if he left the Catholic Chuch then he left a Church build by Christ...

😳😵‍💫

@@sandydepiedras6372Your statement would be correct if you replaced Catholic with Orthodox. Unfortunately the many lies, innovations and outright worldly heresies of the Roman Catholic are undeniable.

@@JudoMateo .... unfortunately also the orthodox is just a breakaway from the Catholic Church....

Everyone seems to appreciate his teaching here... I feel ignorant in that I just didn't "get it" ...would you be so kind as to explain the gist of this video/teaching to me? Thank you.

In scriptures I see both the legal framework and the relational framework at play, no? Especially in the Torah…I see both.

@@gracenroses7471The Torah wasn't seen as a legal framework until after the Babylonian Exile and, IIRC, the Persian influence. Before it was "instruction", and just described what set YHWH's people apart from other people.

@@Traildude yes, I understand. Torah doesn’t actually mean “law”. A better translation would be instruction or teaching. However, the Israelites had judges and priests over them as early as the wilderness who judged between discrepancies and made decisions (judgments) based on witnesses etc. in accordance to the instructions on how to relate. in this sense, certain aspects of the instructions for the people were treated as legal matter. That is my point some was legal, some was relational, some was for priestly duties, some were for ritual purity etc.

Yes when the Bible is studied properly it is a legal framework… we are born condemned and when we accept Christ we are “ declared” righteous… all legal terms in the Hebrew and Greek

yup. federal headship of Adam, he died on that day he ate the fruit everyone after him is born dead

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

@@theguyver4934 ‭Revelation 21:8 KJV‬ [8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

2 Samuel 12:22 and 23 (paste): And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

And then you have Solomon being born, which means Peace, from the root - Shalom. This fulfills God promising a man of peace who will build the temple and at the same time be reflective of David's peace after the 3 days he mourned. If the child were forever damned, David would have no reason to stop weeping, and to look forward to any type of peace then or for the rest of his life, and we know that's not how he lived.

Whenever people bring this up now I have to bring up David. David is the biggest proof of what happens to children when they die. David was comforted when the child died because he knew there was no point in weeping anymore, and he would see the child again. As long as there was a chance for life he wept. If the child was eternally damned like Augustine claims, then David would have never stopped weeping for that child.

@@jrconway3 Yup. This isn't that hard. I'm not sure why people get so confused about this. God demands an account for what we do in life, implying that we are account-able. Infants can give no such account, they are a victim of circumstance.

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

@@theguyver4934 What do you mean they were vegetarian? They weren't. Jesus had a passover meal which included lamb. Jesus preparred fish and bread to the mulititudes. Jesus made fish of the sea on a fire and ate the fish from the Sea of Galilee John 21.9. Nothing you have written is accurate in any way

You mean EO teaches original sin, or doesn’t teach original sin?

​@TheMOV13 EO doesn't teach the western version of orginal sin. People are not culpable for Adam's sin. We inherit the effects of it (the fall) not guilt. But death. EO is saying the same thing as Dr. Heiser is saying

@@angelocos1 Yes! I'm EO myself, I just wanted to make sure I understood the comment correctly - it's a shame that Michael makes that rather blanket statement about "The Fathers" as though they all got it wrong - original sin was a later aberration.

Immaculate conception. If a problematic doctrine creates problems, just make a new doctrine to make the old problems go away

. It was already exclaimed by angel Gabriel calling her "full of grace".....being full of grace means her salvation started before her conception at the time Mary was conceived by Ann up to her last time on earth and up to her unification with God...

@@sandydepiedras6372wow! So then Stephen was also immaculately conceived too! But that ALSO means Stephen was PERFECT IN POWER TOO! So was he ALL POWERFUL? Acts 6:8 (ESV) 8And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.

@@AliciasUKposts-kq6mw....kindly check how "full of grace" was use gramatically with regards to the context...it was use .in Acts 6:8 God filled St. Stephen with grace in preparation for his martyrdom being commissioned as an apostle...and to add John 2:14 Jesus full of grace was used because of being God...while Luke 1:28 full of grace was use by angle Gabriel addressing Mary's same as" title" or "identity" showing she received God's grace from the time of her beginning and remained in that state.

@epiedras6372 wow. Talk about Eisegesis. Yes. Google it.

no. All humans are created at our creation, and we are created LIKE our parents, Jesus existed before his conception and just took the perfect human FORM. What it tells us is that our sinful nature is NOT an essential aspect of being human, it is a result of a FALLEN nature.

Hi, but the Bible says Jesus was fully human. Saying that he had a human body only is the Word- flesh early church problem which means he was God with a flesh body. This means he never had a nature like ours and there can not identify with us in every way as Hebrews says. As Gregory of Nazianzus said: “That which He did not assume, He has not healed”​@@iglesiaagapecalvarychapelr6982

@@HJM0409 He knows what it is like to be TEMPTED like us. He has not experienced our failure or sinful nature, only our HUMAN nature. It tells us that our HUMAN nature does not include our sinful nature. So that is the ONLY distinction. Remember SIN is not a thing, it is not the absence of good eather. It is a moral judgment of an action that is not aligned with our perfect purpose. Our fallen nature does not intuitively KNOW the right thing to do, and that is what causes sinful actions. Thinking of it this way, the Scripture that says he can sympathize with our weaknesses since he was tempted on ALL points like us...along with the fact that as Paul said, "In Him, we live we move and we have our being" means that he DOES fully understand us since he was both fully GOD and fully MAN.

@@RobertlawrenceBDCMinistries Hi! Thanks for the response. You say sin is the moral judgement of -an action. So there we are under judgement for what WE do. I agree Jesus did not sin, so therefore was never under the moral judgement of any sinful act. But as Jesus, with a human nature,he was tempted in every way we are. You said “our fallen nature does not intuitively know the right thing to do”, then how do you explain Romans 2:15 they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts as their conscious bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts according to my gospel through Jesus Christ.

@@HJM0409 what you are referring to in Romans 2 is a description o Natural Law and God's revelation of his moral truths through the Holy Spirit as Jesus said, "he will convict the world of sin." so this is still not part of our human nature to know right from wrong. This is understood only through knowledge we learn or God reveals.

Best comment on here. You actually use the tetragrammaton which is the true name of our creator. Not the term god

@@robertwatley5249 Thanks. I just feel i'm being disrespectful when i call YHWH in the same way that i call the other gods.😊

@@happyevardo3258 that's awesome brother/ sister. I know it brings thr creator great joy seeing his name written upon his people's hearts

YHWH IS NOT WHO YOU THINK . Why does “god” say in Genesis “ let’s make man in OUR ( plural) image and likeness ?…just saying ….

I believe Romans 5 and 7 should be interpreted as St. Paul explaining how he imitated Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. What is wrong with viewing the original sin in the Garden of Eden as being likened to original drunk driving? The original drunk drivers oriented society to the problem of driving while drunk, which resulted in a stigma, prejudice, and punishments against future drunk drivers (even for those who do not get into accidents). Adam was weak through the flesh and was in bondage to the serpent (the law of sin in his members). Romans 7 is largely an explanation as to how he imitated Adam's original sin. This can be seen by looking at the law as the knowledge of good and evil.

The Hebrew text of Psalm 51:5 _doesn't_ say David was born a sinner. Translations that render it that way are importing the translators' theology into the text.

David's father, not his mother, conceived him. The idea of a mother conceiving her baby alludes to the idea that the father is a sex maniac who does not like to be responsible for his fathering of his children. This is sinful and carnally minded. One of the great weaknesses of American culture is the false notion that an abortion is none of the husband's business. Being spiritually minded means the father cares about his children, as in the story of the Prodigal Son.

@@raykidder906 What a bizarre notion! Everywhere conception of a child is mentioned in Scripture, it is the mother alone who conceives. See: Genesis 4:1, 17; 16:4-5; 21:2; 25:21, etc., etc.

@@Berean_with_a_BTh You have made an interesting and valid point. In the Bible, it seems to me that "conceived" means, "become pregnant". Sometimes the father is mentioned, but sometimes he is not mentioned (where is says that she conceived "me" or "them"), I sense that sin is also referenced. Psalm 51:5 Song of Solomon 3:4, and Hosea 2:5 allude to a woman conceiving a child through her own decision and enticements, Of these 3 places, only the Song of Solomon verse does not reference or imply sin, which suggests that a woman CAN entice a man to get pregnant without sin as long as be is held responsible.

@@raykidder906 Hosea 2:5 _does not_ suggest any sinning in the act of conception. Read the context!

Heiser actually does address the issue of this in a discussion on eternal security. I'd have the find the exact video but to summarize, ultimately, if we are saved and justified through faith, then our works (and our failings) become inconsequential. What cannot be earned through works cannot be lost through them. That doesn't give us a license to sin of course and if we seek salvation so that we can sin without guilt then clearly, we aren't living in accordance with the faith we proclaim, but I digress. This doesn't mean that a believer cannot become an unbeliever once again, as they can if the choose to do so...GOD doesn't drag people to heaven kicking and screaming. However, it also means that if we earnestly place our faith in Christ then HE becomes the source of our salvation.

It's pretty well known that the one of the first words children learn is "no." And they call it the "terrible twos" for a reason.

English didnt even exist in Ausgustines time ???? Lmao

@@menknurlan That was an error. I meant: Greek into Latin (the Vulgate). I was thinking of the erroneous modern English translations of the Greek which often follow later Augustinian notions rather than the actual Greek.

If you can't inherit guilt, then you destroy the argument that by Christ's obedience, "the many will be made righteous." 18 Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19 (RSV)

@@PizzaDisguise None of that requires inherited guilt, which is impossible anyway. It requires a fall- but not inherited guilt. We are sinners because Adam fell, but that doesn’t mean that we inherit his guilt. It makes zero sense to say that a child is guilty of Adam’s sin.

logic is not the standard that interprets the bible.

I agree. Paul makes the case that we all sinned “like adam”, not “in Adam”

Absolutely true.

​@@folktheologytransition3756exactly.

Yeah because “all sinned” not because “Adam sinned”.

Yes I agree, though not sure what point you are making, Jesus said they same thing John 8:31-37. we all sinned and become under the bondege of sin, But if we abide in him (keep his commandments john 15) he will set us free and like in Romans 6 which you quoted we have a responsibility to submit our bodies to righteousness, But if we being free, Submit to sin we will again become slaves and the wages of our sin will still be death God always said the same thing the wages of each one "own"" sin is death, NOT the wages of Adam's sin 17 “Yet the children of your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ But it is their way which is not fair! 18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it. 19 But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it. 20 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways.”

The text is not about physical/biological death. It is about spiritual death - alienation from God.

@@meleket Which text? Romans 5:12-21? Romans 6:23? Both?

Archangel Gabriel himself said that the Spirit of God will overshadow her fleshly nature, so even if He (God) took on human flesh, He would not be sullied with any taint of sin in the flesh. That was in effect sanctification.

That’s a different argument. I’m not sure which verses you’re referring to, but if someone “did wrong”, that distinguishes them from an unborn baby or infant who doesn’t have the ability to knowingly “do wrong”. That’s one of the points Dr. Heiser was making.

Those would be people old enough to get right with the Lord through faith

so are you saying many means ALL?? If so what do you do with the other half of the verse you conveniently did not post so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Are you a universalists too?? There is a reason both sides are included in the verse As far as Eph 2, you need to take scripture as a whole, Jesus said whoever commits sin is a slave to it, and Paul went through great detail on this in romans 6 Yes we all sin not because we have been born with sin in our flesh otherwise Jesus would have inherited adams guilt too But it is written all have sinned, this si true but not because we were born guilty of Adams sin, there is no verse for that

​@@victorcritelli5790 jesus was born because of the holy spirit overshadowing mary. spotless lamb of god. paul states ephatically it is because of sin nature that we sin romans 7 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. sin producing death in me --- i am of the flesh sold under sin --- i dont understand my own actions, indicating their is interfereance with his new nature.- iits NO LONGER I WHO DO IT !!!! BUT SIN THAT DWELLS IN ME !! - NOTHING GOOD DWELLS IN ME and in galatians 5- he speaks about the war of the two natures 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. part 2 romans states the whole world is guilty before god and we all know that we are sinners, or we are decived and suppressing this knoledge 9 What then? Are we any better?[a] Not at all! For we have previously charged that both Jews and Gentiles[b] are all under sin 10 as it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. 11 There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away; all alike have become useless. There is no one who does what is good, not even one.[ his seaking of the whole human race. what is the opposite of rightousness. sinner. and he says, there is not ONE ! who is rightousness 19 Now we know that whatever the law says speaks to those who are subject to the law,[k] so that every mouth may be shut and the whole world may become subject to God’s judgment. 20 For no one will be justified[m] in His sight by the works of the law, because the knowledge of sin comes through the law. the whole world -you and me - - the human race --subject to gods judgment. that means you are pronounced guilty before god- and as we see, everyone has this internal knowledge of sin, even without the law. but suppress it 8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. if we say we do not have sin, we decive ouselves and the truth is not in us. 1 john. the denial that sin is present in us just like paul exaplain in romans and galatians. john knows that sin nature is present and that jesus was manifest to destroy the works of the devil.

@@catalinak6320 Ok what does it mean sold under sin?? You just have to go one chapter back to romans 6 Paul states Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? And since we are all slaves Because we all SINNED we all need Christ Power from Grace Through Faith to be freed from sin and death like the Israelites need God to rescue them from Israel this is actually what his is supposed to show us In fact Romans 5:12 states all died because ALL sinned, And listen where do we get our sense of Justice from if not God? Would anyone agree with severely punishing a severely autistic child for disobeying instructions they could not follow?? Does that make any sense The Good news is it does not make sense to God either he says The soul who sins shall die. Over and Over and over again “If, however, he begets a son Who sees all the sins which his father has done, And considers but does not do likewise;But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes- He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live! THis this is the heart of GOD Here read in full a lot of gems in this whole chapter A False Proverb Refuted 18 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. 4 “Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die. 5 But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right; 6 If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity; 7 If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; 8 If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man; 9 If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully- He is just; He shall surely live!” Says the Lord God. 10 “If he begets a son who is a robber Or a shedder of blood, Who does any of these things 11 And does none of those duties, But has eaten on the mountains Or defiled his neighbor’s wife; 12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy, Robbed by violence, Not restored the pledge, Lifted his eyes to the idols, Or committed abomination; 13 If he has exacted usury Or taken increase- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him. 14 “If, however, he begets a son Who sees all the sins which his father has done, And considers but does not do likewise; 15 Who has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife; 16 Has not oppressed anyone, Nor withheld a pledge, Nor robbed by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; 17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes- He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live! 18 “As for his father, Because he cruelly oppressed, Robbed his brother by violence, And did what is not good among his people, Behold, he shall die for his iniquity. Turn and Live 19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? 24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. 25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair? 30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”

@@catalinak6320 There is no one righteous You have to take this in its Context Paul actually draws a lot from the old testament especially in romans and makes Long points especially in romans and in partially here in the begging and again in roman 9-11 as that is also a whole thought together long argument drawn from old testament Ideas So yes are we all guilty before God Yes we ALL sinned this is a fact, Did we all do all the things listed NO, clearly NO, but its hyperbole language in this case actually used for contrast the many and the few and he is drawing from 2 old testament Psalms that do the same thing and he is mirroring those psalms in both of these psalms I believe 14 and 53 possibly it starts with the fool says in his heart there is no God, then it goes into the many the no one is righteous no not one and all the evil they all do But then it states what do the no not ones do, but the eat MY people the my people are clearly not of the NO NOT ONES, likewise Pauls contrast is those who live by faith using Abraham as the example Romans is all about context

@@catalinak6320 the whole world you and me - - the human race --subject to gods judgment. that means you are pronounced guilty before god and as we see, everyone has this internal knowledge of sin, even without the law. but suppress it ok again with this this whole romans 1 actually is a better argument against OG sin anyway, it does show that it is because what THEY do they are guilty that they DO have responsibility because they DO have knowledge, and REFUSE and are given a lie because they REFUSE the truth not because they are unable But again on top of that you have the few like Abraham the contrast os if often done in this type of scripture, Abraham did NOT suppress the truth, did not turn to his own way, was not violent, given over to a depraved nature also not all are given over to the depraved nature either we see that in society today, but its like a disease the further down the scale the more the symptoms, If you read the text carefully you will see that, Who is given over to doing what is against nature man with man woman with woman is this everyone? You have to stay within the context, its generalities as if You were to look down from heaven you will see this you will see in generality I tell you the truth there is so much of this that the majority do it suppress the truth and this include most 99% of the professing Christians who attend church's in the US But there always the few Who belive in God what he can do the power of it and the promises to even now diliver them from sin John 8:31-37 and Romans 6.Titus22:11-14

It does sort of make you wonder if we are only guilty on account of our own conscious and volitional sin, does that make us only righteous on account of our own good works? At one point in the clip, he basically said that infants and mentally-handicapped people are sinless. If they are sinless, then they don't need a Savior and therefore the gospel doesn't apply to them (despite trying to weasel out of implying that). Congratulations Heiser, you've destroyed the heart of Christianity.

Yes the doctrine of imputation is very unibiblical - its actually against laws in the torah. We are specifically not condemned for the sins of our previous parents. We are judged as invidivals for our decisions. We are created in the same image of the fallen parents because they were the only two at the time who were perfect. By default all of us are broken into a state where we are corrupted, but thats a conquence of their sin. We are born into the collatoral damage. A consquence is not a "judgement"- thats what is confusing to people because they are compounding them. If you inheredited diabetes from your mother, is that your fault? No. Is it your responsiblity to manage your condition? Yes, it is. Sin works the same way because we cannot escape the condition. Everyone wil give an account for their personal lives, we do not stand in judgement for anyone but ourself, or Samuel, or your father's mistakes, or our very first parents Adam and Eve.

@@vngelicath1580 Sin requires awareness and will - because you have to account and atone for your actions. Sin requires you to willingly violate the will of God. Without the will or the capacity, this is not possible.

Would depend on how/when a rapture occurs which is a sticking point depending on one's eschatological viewpoint. So, the answer would be "it depends". Noah and his family were the only one's preserved but there were other factors present including the commingling of angels with humans.

Well there is no "Rapture" (in the modern traditional definition) but that's besides the point. Most Christians who believe in said "Rapture" believe all babies will automatically be taken. That's how its handled in Left Behind for example.

its not that all MUST sin, its all WILL sin. GOD knowing what you will do because he is outside of time does NOT mean you dont have a choice.

@@34ccsn There has never been a human being who has not sinned (aside from Christ but he was a divine person) and according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners (without exception). It follows that we must sin inevitably otherwise there should be an exception out of the billions of people who have existed. If all are sinners, how are we free not to sin?

@@bayreuth79 That fact that we all WILL doesn't mean we must, that is not a logical conclusion.

@@34ccsn Could I have avoided sinning? The distinction you make is one without a difference. The fact that everyone has sinned and that everyone will sin implies that we cannot not sin. The question then becomes: why are we all sinners? It seems to me that whatever answer we give it must involve some kind of necessity otherwise there would be at least one exception out of billions; but it’s part of Christian doctrine that all are sinners. You cannot say that all are sinners and all will sin but that we could also avoid sinning. It’s logically possible that even though all are sinners, all did not have to be sinners, and yet all are sinners, and that needs to be accounted for. To me it suggests necessity.

@@bayreuth79 In theory yes, buy only Jesus accomplished it.

Did we inherit sin or the ability to sin?

​The concept of sin is primarily objective in nature, not subjective. Original sin by Adam is our sin also. Our subjective sins are a result of Adam's original sin. Not only does mankind commit current sins, mankind's sins are an extension of original sin. Death is the result. Can mankind stop death? No, of course not. Therefore original sin ( death ) continues today because of Adam's sin. Semi-pelagians like the Catholic church do not believe that Adam's original sin is relevant today. They believe that ' subjective ' sins are more serious than original sin. The concept of sin is not primarily in what we ' do ' Sin is primarily a state of ' being ' not what we commit. It is impossible to not sin. It is not that we do wrong things ( which we do ) it is being condemned to sin because we are already sinners. Who can rescue us from this state? Praise God through his son Jesus Christ who has bore all our sins ( past present and future sins ) on the Cross. This is GRACE.

It was only after infant baptism was introduced that a doctrine of original sin was invented to support the practice. Before Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent. Augustine argued that the sin of Adam - including the guilt for it - is inherited by all humans ( _Letter_ 55.8; _Letter_ 164.6, 19; 250.2). Fundamental to Augustine’s hermeneutics was his belief that the practice of paedobaptism necessarily evidenced a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture and it was his job to identify the relevant Scriptures. The core of Augustine’s argument supporting paedobaptism was that Adam’s sin was inherited, an argument he largely based on an interpretation of what he _knew_ from Ambrosiatser's _Commentaries on Romans_ to be a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b, which construed Adam as the one ‘in whom’ all sinned ( _A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians_ 4.7). Coupling this with an interpretation of poorly-translated texts of Psalm 51:5a and Job 14:4-5a, Augustine argued that even infants are held guilty because of Adam’s transgression ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.34, III.13). Hence, according to Augustine, having inherited Adam’s sin, infants needed baptism for its remission ( _Letter_ 158.1). When we come to the Reformation, we find Luther (an Augustinian monk) uncritically adopting Augustine’s teaching and Calvin endorsing Luther. Calvin openly admitted his theology was entirely Augustinian, writing, _"Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings"._ What has passed down to us from Adam is the collateral consequences of Adam's sin. This is no different than if you or I were to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it; we would be punished but our dependents would also suffer as a result. What Adam’s descendants inherited from Adam as a result of his sin was his mortality and what they lost was access to the Tree of Life.

​@@Berean_with_a_BTh you have not addressed the consequence of original sin.

​@@jaggedlines2257 Your premise is flawed. The doctrine of Original Sin is itself false. Indeed, it is a plain contradiction of Ecclesiastes 7:29. What Scripture clearly shows is that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception than the source from whence it comes.

Maybe you detest it because you don’t understand the reasoning? It’s really to our benefit that the guilt was imputed to us- otherwise, the righteousness of God cannot be imputed to us. If the sin of Adam cannot be inherited, then you also can’t inherit the righteousness of another person. So Christ can’t die for the sins of another person, and you can’t be counted as righteous because of his death. If we’re all only responsible for our own actions, then we’re also responsible to produce our own righteousness. There would be no mechanism for someone else to take responsibility for us and “cover” us or “redeem” us. Again, it’s clear that even though the sin of Adam WAS imputed to us, that is no longer the case because of what the “last Adam” did.

I mean think about it- Romans 5:12 is talking about the age between Adam and Moses. The next verse puts us into an even worse state- not only are we born as sinners, now we’re transgressing the given Law. So we’re transgressing multiple thousands of times worse than Adam did. Romans 5:13-14 [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Once Christ came, original sin was dealt with. So ultimately, I believe Heiser’s conclusion is correct, even if he denies the meaning of the verse. He gets there because he understands that the resurrection removes the guilt of the first sin for all, but it only removes the personal sins of those who believe.

If you think about it, Jesus is the only one who fulfilled Ezekiel 18. Ezekiel 18:19 [19] “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. Jesus is the only one overcame this world and died sinless. Thus, God reversed the judgment of adam (man) on him.

@@PizzaDisguise quote; for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Once Christ came, original sin was dealt with. Yes it was dealt with in addition to all the other sins of mankind, but original sin still exists for us in that we all still die including infants who have never committed personal sin. Christ's sacrifice removes our guilt (original sin and personal sin), but only if we repent, believe and are baptized, just as Jesus said. If there is no repentance and belief, then we are still in our sins. Even if everyone only had original sin, and no personal sins at all, we would still suffer death, and need a savior.

@@jzak5723 but all people are going to be raised from the dead, regardless of belief. But all people are not justified. That was the basis for what I was saying about babies having original sin wiped away apart from belief- the judgment of death is reversed, which means the guilt of Adam’s sin must have been removed. We’re arguing from effect to cause, as Paul does.

Dr. Heiser has fallen asleep, friend. Cancer.

@PizzaDisguise Thank you. I hope it was not terribly painful; he's in Good Hands now...

@@georgefisher8610 He was a trooper in it, I didn't see him get bitter. I'm sure he doesn't regret it now, good witness.

Heiser actually agrees with the view of a propensity to sin. I think he writes about it in his book The Unseen Realm. And it honestly makes me nauseous just how many Christians (mostly males, confidently enough) take joy in the thought of infants suffering in hell for the sin of a long dead human.

Not sure you’re fully listened to him cause that’s what he’s getting at lol

This whole argument is about an age that no longer exists (before the Law was given). So people died in Abraham’s day for a “propensity to sin” before they actually commit a sin? How is that solving the problem of perceived injustice with Adam’s guilt being transferred. The point is that we were dead on arrival because of what someone else did, and we’re saved because of what someone else did.

​@MenorahRadio, unfortunately, that is nowhere said in the text.

Jonah 4:11 also shows that there is a type of age of innnocence. Jonah is mad that God is sparing Ninvah becuse a large number of them are children and therefor the wrath does not apply to them. "And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much kcattle?” If children cannot make concrete distinctions, such as knowing the right hand from the left, then they cannot be especially to make abstract moral one either. If children are just as capable/culpable of understanding and participate in evil, then why is God worried about this?

Correct. It takes the will + awareness to violate God's law. Plus, we are also going to make account for our lives. Without choice, awareness, or will - accounts are not possible.

Original sin, as concocted by Augustine and adopted by the Catholics and Reformers means that the Guilt of Adam's sin is inherited to all of humanity at birth. I believe Augustine was trying to rationalize why infants are baptized and why they die without sinning. Fallen nature, as per Augustine and the Reformers means that we are pure evil from conception and can do nothing good. The bible says similar but differntly. The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. Fallen nature means that our hearts and nature are sick, that we are inclined or bent towards evil in our hearts and minds. We have fallen from our created nature. We inherit this fallen nature, but not the guilt of Adam's sin. The consequence of that sin was death(physical) and our own sin causes death(spiritual/relational with the God).

@@mikeschaller9233 Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have a few questions. We know that God created Adam with a human nature that was good so why did he fall? God is the Creator of all life so does this mean that God creates individuals with a fallen human nature? If God desires that none are lost, why would He create us with a fallen nature that is only able to sin? If we are created with a broken sinful nature why and how can a wise and just God expect us not to sin? Adam was created with a human nature. He was tempted and fell. It seems to me that God creates all humans with a human nature and that we all fall because we choose to rebel against our Creator. This is why children are innocent until they willfully and knowingly sin. The problem is that ALL sin. I can understand why we want to blame it on being born with a fallen nature but it just doesn't line up with scripture. Personally, I think we all give into our flesh because we are born into a fallen carnal world that tempts us and pulls us away from God constantly. God could have destroyed us and created some other kind of creatures but He didn't. He chose to rescue us instead.

Also, if all humans are born with a fallen flawed nature that would have to mean that Jesus was born that way as well.

I agree, I was just explaining what Christians believe with these terms, not that I agree with them. I think you should look into the Eastern Orthodox Church. The don’t follow the same understandings of Original Sin. They see us as able to do good, but we are sick and in need of healing. Or something like that. Augustine seems to have blended different philosophies with Christianity. Neo-platonism, Stoicism, Manichaeism, and the reformers were Augustinian. The Eastern Church calls many of their teachings heresy, and I don’t disagree. I think we just need to understand that we aren’t what we are meant to be, and on our own we are helpless to do anything about it.

Yes, Jesus was like us in every way, yet he was without sin. Looks like we don’t inherit sin like some believe. This is why so many doctrines were created about Mary to try and show that Jesus wasn’t like us. Jesus was tempted, like we are, and could have given in, but didn’t. The thing to take away from this is that we have a God who is for us, He knows how we are tempted and how we suffer, how we fear death, and are weak in our flesh, because He experienced it.

Ya. I've been researching not only that That doctrine. Flat earth and young earth Those three. Turn many away from the lord.

Is there an actual age of accountability or is it just when a kid can understand the gospel?

@@jelly7310 A common belief in the "age of accountability" exists, and there's evidence to suggest its true. Jesus for example says that you have to become "like one of these little ones". He refers to children as being "innocent". David said he knew he'd see his dead child again who was stillborn (I think the child was stillborn anyway). If such an "age of accountability" does exist, it probably exists on a case-by-case basis. To be held accountable you need to understand what you're doing is wrong and be capable of repenting. Mentally deficient people might in fact fall under this as well, not being able to understand what's going on to be capable of repenting.

It actually does include spiritual death. Which could have only been restored by Christ alone. Because he was both god and man.

Death does include spiritual death which is the result of sin. But we need to put just as much emphasis on the resurrection as we do on the cross. If there’s no resurrection, then death is not defeated. The Eastern church states that Christ addressed Death first prior to sin. Through Christ we have victory over death. Ultimate result of sin was death which had to be address first. Jesus had to address the result first (death). Jesus was forgiving sins during his ministry (“your sins are forgiven you”; “go your way and sin no more”) but these people still ‘died’ because ‘death’ had not yet been defeated. The resurrection of Christ is why the dead are raised at all! If Christ didn’t rise, NO ONE (sinner or saint) would resurrect, hence why at the general resurrection both sinner & saint rise. (Life = with God, death = without God) As for the cross, his blood was the redemptive price (Passover) and the atoning work (purification) and the covenantal shift which released us from sins by forgiving our acts, cleansing from its impurities, and delivering us from its power. But it’s because of the resurrection; deaths defeat, why there is new creation and through the “Life-giving” Spirit (which was poured out AFTER death was defeated) is how we have overcome death! We have forgiveness of sins, but if he did not rise, that wouldn’t matter.

The curse is of physical death. What did God tell Adam in the garden after the fall? It was because of his sin that we are going to die physically, spiritually Adam was made whole again through Adam's repentance and God's forgiveness. Spiritual death comes from unrepentance, an unrepentant heart. We die physical death because we are humans, we die spiritual death because some will be unrepentant and continue to sin. Now here's the kicker, who died for sin once and for all? All we have to do is ask for forgiveness, admit our sin, turn from our sin(repentance) and believe Jesus as the risen savior and accept His forgiveness. Then we will be made right in the eyes of God. Without Jesus and the resurrection we have no hope.

There is no such thing as "spiritual death."

@@axderka depends on how you look at it. Eternal separation from God is death, is it not? True, our spirit will live eternally somewhere, but apart from the Creator we are as good as dead because there is no life except in Him.

quote; I have often wondered how we can be born sinners if scripture says that we do not inherit our fathers sins. If you read the context of that passage in Ezekiel 18, it's really not talking about the sin of Adam being inherited, but that the child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The last part of that verse (nor will the parent share the guilt of the child) should tip you off that it is speaking of personal sins of those capable of committing them. An infant or young child cannot commit sins of their own.

The doctrine of Original Sin is a plain contradiction of Ecclesiastes 7:29. What Scripture clearly shows is that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception than the source from whence it comes.

@@Berean_with_a_BTh You don't understand what the result of Adam's sin was. Paul said in Romans that all are sinners, even those who didn't sin in the pattern of Adam, so how do you explain that?

@@jzak5723 Oh, but I do. What has passed down to us from Adam is the collateral consequences of Adam's sin. This is no different than if you or I were to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it; we would be punished but our dependents would also suffer as a result. What Adam’s descendants inherited from Adam as a result of his sin was his mortality and what they lost was access to the Tree of Life. What you won't find anywhere in Scripture is support for the imputation of: 1. Adam's guilt or sin nature to anyone; 2. our guilt to Christ; or 3. Christ's righteousness to us. These are just inferences Calvinists and others have imported into Scripture (i.e. eisegesis) to support their doctrine. What we do see, though, is that faithfulness to God was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness (Romans 4:3, 9, 22). See also Romans 4:5-6 for righteousness on the basis of faithfulness being imputed to others also. Moreover, 2 Corinthians 5:21 says Christ was _made_ sin for us (not that our sin was imputed to Him) and that we _become_ the righteousness of God through union with Christ (not just have it imputed to us). See also Romans 3:22; 5:19; Galatians 3:13 & Philippians 3:9. The language of 2 Corinthians 5:21 suggests Christ was made a sin offering (a sacrifice for sin), as per John 1:29; Ephesians 5:2 & Hebrews 9:26.

Perhaps they are raised in the Millenium with mortal bodies.

Federal headship is a direct violation of the torah. It's precisely why the laws in the torah say this isn't so. We are born into the collatoral damage of our first parents, but a consquence of their sin is not the same as a personal "judgement". We are not judged for their sins, or anyone elses. We only stand in judgment for our own actions, not a linage of actions. The bible is clear that there is an age of accountiblity. Sin requires will + action, not just being alive and breathing. Essentially, sin a communicable disease of the spirit.

The argument Paul is trying to make in Romans has nothing to do with what Augustine or Calvinists believe. No Christians believed this false gospel before Augustine dragged it into the church by his own extra-Biblical beliefs.

Incorporeal? Adam was made from dust, at what point did he become incorporeal. And if he was incorporeal, how did he even eat the fruit? Maybe you’re using a different definition of corporeal?

@@PizzaDisguise Glad you asked. This is the incorporeal Adam, Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ... God is incorporeal. I hope that this makes sense.

precisely correct

Belief in a corruption caused by Adam's original sin is likened to a belief in a corruption caused by original drunk driving. Adam's sin oriented humanity to how the law is weak through the flesh, resulting in judgement upon those who inherited Adam's original condition. Isn't the knowledge of good and evil the same as the knowledge of the law?

Who is suggesting that babies are condemned? The Bible never explicitly says one way or the other what happens to babies that die, but I think we can speculate that a just and merciful God will save them by some means, even if they have the imputed sin of Adam attached to them from conception, just as Psalm 51:5 says implies.

@@jzak5723 well, that’s kind of the issue here, is people were trying to say logically babies are condemned because of original sin, and so therefore, they are denying original sin because they cannot believe that God would condemn babies. I’m just trying to say that you affirm original sin, and still say that that does not necessitate that God condemn babies. It seems the early church started baptizing babies for this very reason.

@@PizzaDisguise I got you.

@@jzak5723 "Who is suggesting" Many, many people suggest this. Especially Calvinists. This is why many denominations believe in infant Baptism. Now, that's not why infant Baptism ORIGINALLY started, but it was probably one reason to explain away why infant Baptism (which is a false belief not taught in Scripture) came to be.

@@jrconway3 Tell me, why did infant baptism begin, since you brought it up?

@@josephpchajek2685amen!

If you think Mary was sinless then I guess she is the savior of the world too? So sad you believe she was sinless! Even Mary called God her savior in Luke.

@@cinna4given569 Baruch 4:1 , read. PROVERBS Chapter 8 as well Also read ACTS. 3:13 ACTS 4:27 , ACTS 4:30. Here CHRIST is written to be a servant of God, not His son.

Because Abel inherited the "knowledge of good and evil" from Adam. He couldn't enter eden for the same reason Adam couldn't, because he was now like "one of us" and had to be kept from eternal life. Adams sin brought sin and death into the world. These forces needed to be conquered/defeated as they enslave us all Jesus was victorious over them. Death reigned by Adam's sin, now grace and righteousness reign through Jesus.

@@mikeschaller9233 yeah interesting. I’m not sure what the “knowledge of good and evil” actually is- I know that they obtained it through lust, though

Abel couldn't enter Eden because of Genesis 3:24. What has passed down to us from Adam is the collateral consequences of Adam's sin. This is no different than if you or I were to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it; we would be punished but our dependents would also suffer as a result. What Adam’s descendants inherited from Adam as a result of his sin was his mortality and what they lost was access to the Tree of Life. The doctrine of Original Sin is a plain contradiction of Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 & 24. See also Ecclesiastes 7:29. What Scripture clearly shows is that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception than the source from whence it comes.

@@Berean_with_a_BTh Hi Berean, hear me out. If your conclusions are completely accurate, then there is no way to deduce that everyone you meet has sinned. Suppose you meet a twelve year old from a devout Messianic Jewish family. Is it possible that this young person could literally have never sinned in God's eyes? And what is to stop this sinlessness progressing throughout the rest of their lives? Furthermore, Christ partook of all of those consequences of Adam, including death- he was not born in the Garden, his family was poor and oppressed by the Romans/Herod, and yet he never sinned. So the problem isn't the consequences, it's the nature inside human beings. Even if we accept what you're saying about the spirit, the problem put to us is that we are not spiritual beings, but carnal because of the flesh. If sin resides in the flesh, and the soul is tied to it- as soon as the command of God comes, sin comes alive and raises it's head. Romans chap 7: 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. If everyone inherits their fallen body from Adam, then they are, by nature, born a sinner - the rebellion is already inside of them before they have done anything good or bad.

@@PizzaDisguise That everyone sins is axiomatic (Romans 3:20) but we need to hold together both this idea and what Scripture says about the guilt of sin not being inherited but arising during one's youth. One can't simply play one Scripture off against another so as to have one trump the other to fit whatever theological system we prefer. It does not follow from Romans 3:20 or 5:12 that one's sinful nature or guilt for sin has anything to do with some inherited trait. If you study Scripture closely, you will find it provides no support for the Lutheran/Calvinist doctrine of Original Sin (i.e. imputation of Adam's sin/guilt to and the inheritance of Adam's 'sin nature'). The early church believed infants were born innocent. It was only after infant baptism was introduced that a doctrine of original sin was invented to support the practice. Before Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr (by implication), Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent. Augustine argued that the sin of Adam - including the guilt for it - is inherited by all humans ( _Letter_ 55.8; _Letter_ 164.6, 19; 250.2). Fundamental to Augustine’s hermeneutics was his belief that the practice of paedobaptism necessarily evidenced a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture and it was his job to identify the relevant Scriptures. The core of Augustine’s argument supporting paedobaptism was that Adam’s sin was inherited, an argument he largely based on an interpretation of what he _knew_ from Ambrosiatser's _Commentaries on Romans_ to be a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b, which construed Adam as the one ‘in whom’ all sinned ( _A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians_ 4.7). Coupling this with an interpretation of poorly-translated texts of Psalm 51:5a and Job 14:4-5a, Augustine argued that even infants are held guilty because of Adam’s transgression ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.34, III.13). Hence, according to Augustine, having inherited Adam’s sin, infants needed baptism for its remission ( _Letter_ 158.1). When we come to the Reformation, we find Luther (an Augustinian monk) uncritically adopting Augustine’s teaching and Calvin endorsing Luther. Calvin openly admitted his theology was entirely Augustinian, writing, _"Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings"._ You refer to one being carnal instead of spiritual. That doesn't mean the unsaved person has no spirit. Everyone has one. That's what it means to be a living soul. People are souls compromised of a body and a spirit.