This Kind of Thinking is Scary.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=TheSword99;72696]

Originally Posted by B2M5L2

I think "outmoded" isn't the correct word, but in a sense we don't rely on the creeds to define doctrines as we have the Holy Scriptures.

Back then when creeds were first written up, not everyone could read nor owned a Bible. Lots of heresies crept in. The Catholic church wanted the bible to remain in Latin and thus a lot of people were bible illiterate.

I am sorry that no one likes the way I put this.. The creeds were needed badly when they were first penned.. Now we have the bible in it's complete form and having the creeds is unnecessary.. Their place is filled by the Bible .. I used the word outmoded because a mormon seemed to understand that it's the creeds that are not needed, not the doctrines they confess. We all have the full Bible now. Having a creed meant to be memorized and therefore taken with a believe is no longer needed.. Are the doctrines outmoded? NO!! That will never be.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Richard

So the keys are given to Peter, James and John and the apostles and you have no idea what became of them, this is what I'm hearing.

The original Apostles were given a one time mission: to lay the foundation of Christ's church. Nowhere else after that in the NT history do we read of a need for ongoing Apostles. We have elders and deacon and evangelists. Not the elaborate hierarchy that we see in mormonism and catholicism. Peter tells us of the royal priesthood of all believers. The keys do not belong to a specific religious group or cl***. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers opposes the unbiblical doctrine of the existence of a Brahman-like priestly cl*** within the church. All who believe in Christ are priests.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Richard

We stand in good company, Prophets and Apostles with the keys of the Kingdom. Now we know the keys were given to Peter, wonder who he p***ed them onto?? The Catholics maybe, or maybe they were taken back when the Apostles were killed and not replaced.

If you read the rest of the NT you will see that the keys were also given to the other apostles and then to all believers. You seem not to understand that thanks to Christ, we now have access to Heavenly Father and need no human mediators.

There was no need to replace the Apostles, there's was a one time mission.

[B2M5L2]

[QUOTE=James Banta;72701]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

I am sorry that no one likes the way I put this.. The creeds were needed badly when they were first penned.. Now we have the bible in it's complete form and having the creeds is unnecessary.. Their place is filled by the Bible .. I used the word outmoded because a mormon seemed to understand that it's the creeds that are not needed, not the doctrines they confess. We all have the full Bible now. Having a creed meant to be memorized and therefore taken with a believe is no longer needed.. Are the doctrines outmoded? NO!! That will never be.. IHS jim

Jim, when the creeds were developed, they already had the Bible. And the way you made your comment previously, which you're repeating here, is to make both the Bible and the creeds "outmoded." In fact, what you're doing here is with "outmoded" and "creed" is what you did with the word "cult," and that is to misuse it. And instead of admitting your error, you try and gloss it over. Why can't you simply admit that you're wrong? Is your heart swelling with so much pride that you honestly believe that whatever rolls off your keyboard is the absolute truth and that you cannot be corrected when you in the wrong?

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

The reason why councils were set up was to combat heresy and also to more clearly define the True doctrines of Christianity, lest some be swayed by the heretics. Creeds are the outcome of some of these councils. Its a statement of Faith. So Joseph Smith was just reinforcing his dislike of the Christian church and the creeds when he said they were all wrong. It certainly did not come from God because the creeds reaffirm His Word.

The lds have their creed: the articles of faith.

Sorry but you are wrong on this. For you the creeds are the limit of your faith. For us, the articles of faith are just the beginning.

The 9th of Article of Faith: 9 We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

That is the greatest difference between the two. In the past the creeds were used to divide the orothodox sheep from the heretical goats. And the goats were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy by burning at the stake or hanging.

Marvin

[B2M5L2]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Sorry but you are wrong on this. For you the creeds are the limit of your faith. For us, the articles of faith are just the beginning.

No, you're wrong on this, not understanding what the creeds are from a Christian perspective. As for your articles of faith, you guys violate them so often around here, one has to wonder why you even bring them up.

That is the greatest difference between the two. In the past the creeds were used to divide the orothodox sheep from the heretical goats. And the goats were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy by burning at the stake or hanging.

Marvin

Once again, your ignorance of just what the creeds are, much less their content, only proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Otherwise, please share with us just exactly what is wrong with the follow creedal statement:

I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I believe] one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge on Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by B2M5L2

No, you're wrong on this, not understanding what the creeds are from a Christian perspective. As for your articles of faith, you guys violate them so often around here, one has to wonder why you even bring them up.



Once again, your ignorance of just what the creeds are, much less their content, only proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

For the first 19 years of my life, I recited the Apostles Creed in the Presbyterian Church my parents took me to. I guess I know something about at least one of the creeds.

Originally Posted by B2M5L2

Otherwise, please share with us just exactly what is wrong with the follow creedal statement:

I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I believe] one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge on Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Like I said, this is the limit of your faith. The creeds were used to divide the believers from those who believed differently. If anyone attempt to believe any more than what the creed dictated, they were cl***ified with the unbelievers. That is quite different from the Articles of Faith which is just the beginning of our faith. And the Articles of Faith were never used to cast out unbelievers.

Marvin

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Sorry but you are wrong on this. For you the creeds are the limit of your faith. For us, the articles of faith are just the beginning.



That is the greatest difference between the two. In the past the creeds were used to divide the orothodox sheep from the heretical goats. And the goats were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy by burning at the stake or hanging.

Marvin

I can see why you think the creeds are a limit to the Christian faith. Because its vastly different from what the lds church has taught you. As an lds you have been taught there are ongoing revelations. By claiming that the canon is still open, it allows a religious group to introduce more and more unbiblical teachings. But the Apostle Paul said not to go beyond what is written. Jesus said: "It is finished." Believers now have direct access to the throne of God. Thanks to Christ we are reconciled to God. We do not need priests or any human mediator. if you truly have done the research in christian history, you will see that the creeds were written up to clearly define doctrines. This was defending the Christan faith from those who introduced false teachings. All Christians are commanded by Christ to contend for the faith. To preach His Gospel to the world.

The lds have their 13 articles of faith yet deny its a creed. Mostly the lds will not make teachings official doctrines, as they are always changing at the whim of so many leaders. How may I ask can the doctrine of God, Jesus Christ and Salvation keep changing? God said he is unchangeable, immutable, the same yesterday today and forever. Your BoM also says that. There is only one plan of salvation and that's through Christ alone. Not church rules, rituals, and a myriad of ordinances and laws.

It is always the non christian, the unbeliever who goes back to the "burning at the stake." Always the finger pointing. Yet the lds has a violent, bloody history. Mountain Meadows and blood atonement.

Unfortunately, you believe Smith when he said all christian churches, creeds and professors were corrupt and an abomination. Yet Orthodox Christianity has fought to remain faithful to the teachings of Christ and the holy bible. Mormonism is a 19th century religion among many others who's founder is a man and not Christ.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=B2M5L2;72718]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Jim, when the creeds were developed, they already had the Bible. And the way you made your comment previously, which you're repeating here, is to make both the Bible and the creeds "outmoded." In fact, what you're doing here is with "outmoded" and "creed" is what you did with the word "cult," and that is to misuse it. And instead of admitting your error, you try and gloss it over. Why can't you simply admit that you're wrong? Is your heart swelling with so much pride that you honestly believe that whatever rolls off your keyboard is the absolute truth and that you cannot be corrected when you in the wrong?

Unless you are ready to tell me now that the m*** of the people were educated to the extent that they could read the Bible that was available I am still saying that the creeds were there to give the people away to take the Gospel message with them everywhere though committing the creed to memory.. Not Being able to read the creeds were a great tool of that era for putting the message of the gospel in the hearts of the people.. Do we need this today.. No.. The creeds are served their purpose.. IHS jim

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

I can see why you think the creeds are a limit to the Christian faith. Because its vastly different from what the lds church has taught

The LDS church has taught me very little about the creeds and nothing of what I have said here. This I have learned on my own by reading history.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

As an lds you have been taught there are ongoing

Without on going revelation just like in the Bible, you can't have the Church of Jesus Christ. Subs***utes are not acceptable.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

By claiming that the canon is still open, it allows a religious group to introduce more and more unbiblical teachings.

And by unbiblical you mean something different than what you already believe. this is what the Pharisees also said and Christ told them they did not the scripture.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

But the Apostle Paul said not to go beyond what is written.

The why did Paul so often go beyond what was written?

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Jesus said: "It is finished."

And what did he mean? And don't even try to tell me that he was saying that the age of prophets was over.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Believers now have direct access to the throne of God.

When was the last time you saw the throne, like Isaiah did? And why would that negate the need for a prophet? Isaiah was still a prophet even though he saw the Throne of God.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Thanks to Christ we are reconciled to God.

Really? You might have the possibility but just because you read something in a book doesn't mean that you have it.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

We do not need priests or any human mediator.

Christ was human! Does that mean you don't need him since the Bible calls him the mediator between God and man?

Originally Posted by TheSword99

if you truly have done the research in christian history, you will see that the creeds were written up to clearly define doctrines.

And to limit what the true believer could believe and still be called a Christian. Funny how Christ never needed a creed to define who was a Christian! Or to teach or define the doctrines of the Gospel.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

This was defending the Christan faith from those who introduced false teachings.

And those who failed to believe the creeds were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

All Christians are commanded by Christ to contend for the faith. To preach His Gospel to the world.

They were told by Paul or Peter to always be ready to give a reason for the faith that they had not to contend against another's faith. But I never read anything that told them to kill other nonbelievers. But that is what they did, all in the name of God and Christ.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

The lds have their 13 articles of faith yet deny its a creed.

They are not for the reason I explained.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Mostly the lds will not make teachings official doctrines, as they are always changing at the whim of so many leaders.

Just because you are ****n about by every wind that comes by doesn't mean we haw to be. There is a difference in our belief between doctrine and teaching. That is our belief. Your beliefs may not distinguish as we do but that is your belief, not ours.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

How may I ask can the doctrine of God, Jesus Christ and Salvation keep changing?

The doctrines don't change but the teaching may.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

God said he is unchangeable, immutable, the same yesterday today and forever. Your BoM also says that. There is only one plan of salvation and that's through Christ alone. Not church rules, rituals, and a myriad of ordinances and laws.

It is always the non christian, the unbeliever who goes back to the "burning at the stake." Always the finger pointing. Yet the lds has a violent, bloody history. Mountain Meadows and blood atonement.

So now you are trying to deny your history? These burning at the stake are historical facts.

Can you cite any real documentation that any people were killed by the doctrine of blood atonement? And don't cite any 18th century sensational books or novels. Give me real historical facts not sensational yellow journalism.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Unfortunately, you believe Smith when he said all christian churches, creeds and professors were corrupt and an abomination. Yet Orthodox Christianity has fought to remain faithful to the teachings of Christ and the holy bible. Mormonism is a 19th century religion among many others who's founder is a man and not Christ.

All I had to do was compare what I had been taught for 19 years by the Presbyterian church to what the missionaries taught me to know that what they were teaching was from a God of love and not the made up God of the philosophers.

The LDS do not have a creed because the articles of faith are just the beginning of faith not the limit.

Marvin

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Without on going revelation just like in the Bible, you can't have the Church of Jesus Christ. Subs***utes are not acceptable.


The why did Paul so often go beyond what was written?


When was the last time you saw the throne, like Isaiah did? And why would that negate the need for a prophet? Isaiah was still a prophet even though he saw the Throne of God.



Christ was human! Does that mean you don't need him since the Bible calls him the mediator between God and man?

Marvin

''Christ was never fully human in that he wasn't also fully God. Since he was always God and did not give up his deity during his earthly ministry, he alone is our Mediator, no one else.

Paul's writings were scripture. They were recognized as such by the Christian churches and even Peter acknowledged this.. Paul was an apostle of Christ, called by Christ to fully preach His Gospel.

Christians receive God’s revelation in two forms: the Bible and the Holy Spirit’s ongoing revelation. These two types of revelation support each other, as the Bible repeatedly teaches that the Lord will speak to us and guide us by the Spirit, and the Spirit always urges us deeper into the Word. We can only understand the Bible properly with the Holy Spirit’s revelation, and we test individual revelations or prophecies by the standard of Scripture. We should reject any so-called revelations that contradict the Bible, no matter who claims to have received them. The Lord does not contradict Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

When was the last time you saw the throne, like Isaiah did? And why would that negate the need for a prophet? Isaiah was still a prophet even though he saw the Throne of God.


The doctrines don't change but the teaching may.


The LDS do not have a creed because the articles of faith are just the beginning of faith not the limit.

Marvin

The spiritually born again believer in Christ has access to God's throne through prayer. Marvin, you seem not to understand that God is a spirit and we must worship him in spirit and truth. The BoM also says that God is spirit, but you changed that doctrine. Alma 31:15: Holy, Holy God… we believe thou art holy and thou wast a spirit, and thou art a spirit, and thou will be a spirit forever

Gill's Exposition says this about Hebrews 4:16 and the throne of God:

Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace,.... Either to Christ, who is before spoken of as an high priest, and who was typified by the mercy seat and coming to him as a priest upon his throne is very proper: to him saints come for pardon and cleansing, and for a justifying righteousness. Or else to God the Father, since Christ, the high priest, is the way of access to God, and it is by him the saints come unto the Father; who is represented as on a "throne", to show his majesty, and to command reverence; and as on a "throne of grace."

As for this throne of God. You see, Marvin, the lds believe God can be seen. All because one young man claimed he saw God and this god had a body exactly like ours. For this young man to claim he saw god is calling God a liar. God said in His Word: No man can see my face and live. And please don't tell me that Moss saw God's "face." All Moses saw was the remnant of God's glory after He p***ed. God had covered Mose's face to protect him, otherwise it would have killed him. The Bible also says that no man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

But Smith changed those p***ages that said no man can see God... to no man can see God except him that believes. Its interesting the changes Smith made to John, when John's gospel is about the deity of Christ."..

You say the doctrines don't change but the teaching may. Sounds like double speak. If the doctrines always remain the same, then why do your teachings on them change? The BoM says there is only one God. He is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today and forever. But your other works say differently. So yes you do change your doctrines and this is only one example. The fact is the BoM mostly does not teach mormonism. Many of your teachings are not in this so-called "most correct book."

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Without on going revelation just like in the Bible, you can't have the Church of Jesus Christ. Subs***utes are not acceptable.


And to limit what the true believer could believe and still be called a Christian. Funny how Christ never needed a creed to define who was a Christian! Or to teach or define the doctrines of the Gospel.



And those who failed to believe the creeds were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy.


So now you are trying to deny your history? These burning at the stake are historical facts.

Can you cite any real documentation that any people were killed by the doctrine of blood atonement? And don't cite any 18th century sensational books or novels. Give me real historical facts not sensational yellow journalism.

Marvin

Why would Christ, who is God, need a creed or anything for that matter? The creeds clearly defines the doctrines of Christianity. In the early history of the Christian church when heretical teachings crept in, it became necessary to defend the faith and clearly define true doctrines in order to stamp out heresies. The reason why the lds do not consider their articles of faith a creed is because your teachings keep changing. But God and His plan for Salvation never changes.

The Roman church forced people to convert or else were threatened with death. Where did I ever say I approved of this or was an adherent of the church of Rome?

Read Brigham's Destroying Angel: Chapter V of Bill Hickman's autobiographical m****cript. Contains the full transcripts of actual events including the murder of Richard Yates, the M***acre of the Aiken party from California, and other incidents related to Danite activities, "blood atonement," and the "Utah war" of 1857-58.

Read: "On the Mormon Frontier; The Diary of Hosea Stout."

"In 1868 the Deseret News encouraged rank-and-file Mormons to kill anyone who engaged in sexual relations outside marriage....


Read "The Mormon hierarchy: Extensions of Power", Dr. Quinn presented compelling evidence showing that "blood atonement" was endorsed by church leaders and actually practiced by the Mormon people. Quinn gives the names of a number of violent men who served as "enforcers" for Brigham Young.

Go ahead and dismiss these as "sensational books" The truth is out there and you are in denial if you say these things never happened.

Doesn't matter if this took place in the 19th century. its still recent history compared to the Church of Rome's burning at the stake.

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by Sir

What sins does a newborn infant commit?

All humans are born with a sin nature. That means they have the capacity to sin. If we were born innocent with no sin nature, then why is it no one can be free of sin??

You and I have sinned over and over. This we cannot escape from and the apostle Paul said this was the very reason he had no confidence in the flesh.

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

All I had to do was compare what I had been taught for 19 years by the Presbyterian church to what the missionaries taught me to know that what they were teaching was from a God of love and not the made up God of the philosophers.



Marvin

The lds missionaries are trained to only give the milk. You don't get the meat until after you convert and are baptized in the lds church. And even then the church is slow to give the real meat. Many lds still don't even know all that their church teaches.

The Christian God is a God of love. The gods of the philosophers are pagan/mythological.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by ErikErik

The lds missionaries are trained to only give the milk. You don't get the meat until after you convert and are baptized in the lds church. And even then the church is slow to give the real meat. Many lds still don't even know all that their church teaches.

The Christian God is a God of love. The gods of the philosophers are pagan/mythological.

I have had these children at my door.. Milk is all they know.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

I do not think children are "born in sin"...and thus in need of being forgiven...

I think that the sin tendency grows as a natural path that even small children walk ....
But the Scripture tells me that Paul believe that at one time he was "alive" before the Law came into his life.
From looking at the normal life of a Jewish male child, I take the words of Paul to be talking about his being "alive" before he reached the older age when he was taught the law by his Jewish elders.

So when the law came into his life as he grew older, and he started to know what was the difference between right and wrong, sin sprang to life in his mind, and he died...

Thus before that time Paul believe that he was 'alive" and this means that he could not have been "born in sin".....or in need of being forgiven.



I also believe that even as a child grows older that God "overlooks"the sins of childen as a parent would of their dear children knowing that with age will also come the greater ability to learn from mistakes and to take more responsibility for themselves that younger kids just don't have right now.

[TheSword99]

Eph. 2:3 says we are all "by nature children of wrath."

If man is not born in sin, then wouldn't some people be sinless throughout their lives?
If we are born innocent and good, why aren't there at least some people who have continued in this state and remained sinless? The fact is everybody sins because we are sinners by nature.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I do not think children are "born in sin"...and thus in need of being forgiven...

I think that the sin tendency grows as a natural path that even small children walk ....
But the Scripture tells me that Paul believe that at one time he was "alive" before the Law came into his life.
From looking at the normal life of a Jewish male child, I take the words of Paul to be talking about his being "alive" before he reached the older age when he was taught the law by his Jewish elders.

So when the law came into his life as he grew older, and he started to know what was the difference between right and wrong, sin sprang to life in his mind, and he died...

Thus before that time Paul believe that he was 'alive" and this means that he could not have been "born in sin".....or in need of being forgiven.



I also believe that even as a child grows older that God "overlooks"the sins of childen as a parent would of their dear children knowing that with age will also come the greater ability to learn from mistakes and to take more responsibility for themselves that younger kids just don't have right now.

It doesn't matter what we believe. Its what God's word says. The lds church teaches that Adam and Eve did not sin and that the Fall was a good thing. Thus they teach that we are all good. This is in opposition of what the Scriptures says. Paul wrote that before our conversion we were dead in our tresp***es. If we are by nature children of wrath as Eph 2 says we are, it can only be because we are by nature sinners.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I do not think children are "born in sin"...and thus in need of being forgiven...

I think that the sin tendency grows as a natural path that even small children walk ....
But the Scripture tells me that Paul believe that at one time he was "alive" before the Law came into his life.
From looking at the normal life of a Jewish male child, I take the words of Paul to be talking about his being "alive" before he reached the older age when he was taught the law by his Jewish elders.

So when the law came into his life as he grew older, and he started to know what was the difference between right and wrong, sin sprang to life in his mind, and he died...

Thus before that time Paul believe that he was 'alive" and this means that he could not have been "born in sin".....or in need of being forgiven.



I also believe that even as a child grows older that God "overlooks"the sins of childen as a parent would of their dear children knowing that with age will also come the greater ability to learn from mistakes and to take more responsibility for themselves that younger kids just don't have right now.

Where does the Holy Bible say that God condones sin?

[disciple]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Where does the Holy Bible say that God condones sin?

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. David wrote in Psalm 51 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. "
I believe we are all born after our own kind...sinful man.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by disciple

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. David wrote in Psalm 51 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. "
I believe we are all born after our own kind...sinful man.

I was born in sin and keep relapsing.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I was born in sin and keep relapsing.

unfortunately, me too.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Eph. 2:3 says we are all "by nature children of wrath."

If man is not born in sin, then wouldn't some people be sinless throughout their lives?
.

the tendency of people to sin is great....but for a few of us ...like they who never age...or they who have mental issues, I have no trouble believing that "they never sinned"

Also, as a person draws closer and closer to the Lord they drift away farther and farther from sinning....So I have no trouble believing that with growth in the Lord, sin becomes simply unknown in your personal life...

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. David wrote in Psalm 51 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. "
I believe we are all born after our own kind...sinful man.

We die because we are the phisical children of Adam, and as Adam died so to do we...

But my sins ae my own....I do not blame Adam for my sins, nor do I allow Adam's sin to be credited to me.
I have to answer for only my own sins....not yours...not my co-worker's....not my mom's....and not Adam's