Thread: Correcting some misinformation about Original Sin.

Oz, this is a mess.

I know.

I would just like to say that I'm glad we can change hats so easily between threads. The Travelling to TT Territory thread is fun.

You don't get to pick which condemnations and which affirmations of the RCC to side with and then use the result of that as a weapon. Noone is going to listen to that.

Calvinists are rank and file heretics in the eyes of hardcore Catholics.

Originally Posted by Colonel

You don't get to pick which condemnations and which affirmations of the RCC to side with and then use the result of that as a weapon. Noone is going to listen to that.

Calvinists are rank and file heretics in the eyes of hardcore Catholics.

The RCC is like Grandpa's axe. Head's been replaced twice and the handle three times but it's still the axe Grandpa used.

The current RCC teaches that there is one God, there is the Trinity, and that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and died for our sins. They're valid to use where relevant aren't they? The RCC's an organisation that's just "happened" and some of the stuff it's picked up along the way is genuine Biblically correct stuff. Sixteen hundred years ago when the church, in whatever format it was, was still a genuine part of the Body of Christ things were determined. That the RCC or any other religious body believing the same thing now doesn't change that.

So you assert.

Actually Colonel this has turned out to be a sad thread.

TT and fuego seemed to misunderstand the origins of the Doctrine of Original Sin so I informed them of it being around a lot lot earlier than the time they were speaking of, and as a universal church doctrine, not just the doctrine of a specific theological view. Do I get thanked? This is all I get.

Originally Posted by Cardinal TT

Don't you ever sleep

Originally Posted by fuego

You gotta love it. A Calvinist trying to correct doctrine. :)

And there I was correcting a date, not a doctrine. Go figure

And yourself?

To you indirectly I said "There are some here who believe at least part of the Pelagian denial of Original Sin as I believe this following post testifies".

Perhaps you could have re-replied with this from "America you need to......."

Originally Posted by Colonel

Why do you spend so much time trying to manipulate discussions until they land where you want them to land ?

well the intent was and has been to lead you to the point where you recognised and admitted that you denied the Doctrine of Original Sin but then I came to recognise that you knew that you denied it all along.

There are possibly a number of paths that one can take to get to the point of rejecting Original Sin but the consequences can be enormous. Specifically one's whole understanding of how salvation works has to differ in some way.

If you've not changed your view by now there's nothing I'd be able to do. But maybe, just maybe someone else is reading these threads and now understands that the some of the foundations of some of the things you say are not just incorrect, but were declared to be a heresy 1600 years ago. And perhaps now they'll be a bit more discerning when reading what you say.

What's so annoying about discarding the biblical teaching about original sin is that it offers man hope apart from the cross. It basically says you never had to sin. You could have made it through life without Christ. When you sinned, you didn't really have to do it...you chose to do it. That's very dangerous teaching in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Bookman

What's so annoying about discarding the biblical teaching about original sin is that it offers man hope apart from the cross. It basically says you never had to sin. You could have made it through life without Christ. When you sinned, you didn't really have to do it...you chose to do it. That's very dangerous teaching in my opinion.

But then they might say something like "I believe that the sinful nature is inherited in the body" (REF) which is potentially like a spirit = good / flesh = bad belief (not saying referenced person is there though).

Originally Posted by Bookman

What's so annoying about discarding the biblical teaching about original sin is that it offers man hope apart from the cross. It basically says you never had to sin. You could have made it through life without Christ. When you sinned, you didn't really have to do it...you chose to do it. That's very dangerous teaching in my opinion.

Nope, I do not believe it works like that. There is also eternity to contend with. See the other thread.

Originally Posted by FunFromOz

Actually Colonel this has turned out to be a sad thread.

TT and fuego seemed to misunderstand the origins of the Doctrine of Original Sin so I informed them of it being around a lot lot earlier than the time they were speaking of, and as a universal church doctrine, not just the doctrine of a specific theological view. Do I get thanked? This is all I get.


And there I was correcting a date, not a doctrine. Go figure

And yourself?

To you indirectly I said "There are some here who believe at least part of the Pelagian denial of Original Sin as I believe this following post testifies".

Perhaps you could have re-replied with this from "America you need to......."
well the intent was and has been to lead you to the point where you recognised and admitted that you denied the Doctrine of Original Sin but then I came to recognise that you knew that you denied it all along.

There are possibly a number of paths that one can take to get to the point of rejecting Original Sin but the consequences can be enormous. Specifically one's whole understanding of how salvation works has to differ in some way.

If you've not changed your view by now there's nothing I'd be able to do. But maybe, just maybe someone else is reading these threads and now understands that the some of the foundations of some of the things you say are not just incorrect, but were declared to be a heresy 1600 years ago. And perhaps now they'll be a bit more discerning when reading what you say.

I do not deny original sin. There are several versions of the doctrine, that's all. Quit trying to place square posters into round holes so that you can have an easy category to relate to and debate. That's very troll-like.