CAN YOU EXPLAIN The whole doctrine of Original sin and its coming into man’s flesh WITHOUT GAP THEORY?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN The whole doctrine of Original sin and its coming into man’s flesh WITHOUT GAP THEORY?
Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

47 Comments

  • Salvatore Tropea Sr
    Reply February 11, 2019

    Salvatore Tropea Sr

    There was war in the heavens when Satan and his rebelling angels sinned According to Revelation. That probably caused the original perfect heavens and planets to be destroyed. Then God’s plan to create creatures for fellowship with Him commenced by refurbishing the Earth as humanities habitat. Satan manipulated free will and salvations plan set in motion. There is no gap needed after that for God spoke and things happened as history then proceeded.

  • George Hartwell
    Reply February 11, 2019

    George Hartwell

    From a psychological point of view one is being nurtured into love or not by your mother and father before you can speak. Your early memories shape your character patterns before you have any choice or ability to reflect on them. By the time you mature and able to reflect and choose you are already locked into a pattern that you are unable to change with your thinking and choices. That means you were made a mess without much choice in it and little capacity to fix it. Thus ‘original sin’ or we all need Jesus.

  • Troy Day
    Reply February 12, 2019

    Troy Day

  • Lyndon Conn
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Lyndon Conn

    What does Gap theory have to do with Original Sin? Original Sin is a false teaching. Gap theory is a possibility, yet not an absolute fact. One has nothing to do with the other. The fall of man happened either way. And so did the work of Christ that takes away the sins of the world.

  • Troy Day
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Troy Day

    Lyndon Conn exactly the point All Pentecostals should believe in original sin. You cannot explain how sin got into earth except with Gap Theory All left without Gap Theory is to say original sin is false teaching – this simply proves the OP Gary Micheal Epping Rico Hero

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day that’s not true at all. The Gap theory in no way changes what happened at the fall. Original Sin is a man created teaching that leave man in a hopeless state of sin. With salvation saving man in his sin rather than saving him from his sin and setting him free. There is no true freedom from sin in Original Sin. It is a false teaching that came to being through Calvinism and was never taught by the early churches.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Troy Day

      tell us where Original Sin came from?

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day the name “Original Sin” seems to say in its name that sin started with Adam and is therefore biblical- being original. But the name alone does not tell us everything that this teaching actually teaches. It actually originated with Augustine and then became popular during reformation times under Martin Luther and made its way into the 5 points of Calvinism. Even Arminianism accepted it ignorantly. Protestantism was directly affected by Catholic doctrines as they carried over such ideas with them. But none of the early church fathers who were completely unaffected by the heresies of Catholic leaders ever taught such a thing.
      Original Sin teaches that man inherited sin in his body from birth, being born a sinner. No newborn baby is a sinner. Sin is not a substance that can be transferred. What we inherit from the fall is spiritual death, which is separation from God – just as physical death is separation of body, soul and spirit. We are all born separated from God. We have to be led to relationship with Him through the teaching of the gospel and filling of the Holy Spirit. But sin is something we choose out of our separation from God, and not out of a so-called “sinful nature”. Such a term is not used in the original language of the scriptures. Sin is not a nature. Although it is “natural” for men who are separated from God to turn to sin, a nature indicates something that we are. If our nature is sinful then there is nothing that can prevent us from sinning. Many people use this idea as a justification for their sins instead of walking in the freedom we have through Christ.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Troy Day

      no – not really – Did the devil sin before Adam? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/did-the-devil-sin-before-adam/

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day this proves that sin is a choice. Adam chose to sin. He didn’t have the fallen “nature” when he first sinned. Just as Lucifer chose to sin without any such nature. There is no such thing as a sinful nature. We are all prone to sin by our separation from God. All we have is our personal needs and desires. And men go after what they feel is needed or desired because they have no reason to do otherwise without knowing God. It is no doubt a fallen state of being! And free will has destroyed men. Not a sinful nature.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Troy Day

      Adam chose to sin BUT where did sin come from to enter into Adam in first place?

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day it came from free will and deception from Lucifer. Otherwise you would have to insist that God created man with a sinful nature, which would be absurd.
      I was taught Original Sin all my life and even taught it myself to others. When I studied it closer I realized that it is not biblical the way men teach it. And it is a foundational support for Calvinism and their false teachings. A lot of confusion and false teachings stem off of it.
      One popular modern false teaching is that we all sin every day in word thought and deed. Followed by the teaching that Jesus “paid for all sin”, therefore none of our sins can affect our salvation. From this teachers will say that no sin we can commit can keep us from salvation, but only the sin of rejecting Jesus can. So as long as you accept Jesus they sin cannot affect you. This is the exact false teaching found taught by the early church heretics known as the Marcionites. Original Sin lays a faulty foundation that supports so many false teachings. Including the modern teaching that repentance is not necessary and it actually insults the grace of God. It leads down many dark paths of heresy.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Troy Day

      what you just described is exactly Original Sin God creating man with sin is more of a gnosticism

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day I’m not sure what your idea of Original Sin is. But I have reason on it, debated it, studied on it in the Bible and history; and what I described is not Original Sin. Keep in mind that Original Sin teachings use scripture and logic, so it can seem biblical and logical. But it really isn’t either. The fact that it uses some truth can make it confusing and sound like other beliefs. Pelagius was condemned for standing against it, when he taught what those before him taught since the Apostles. Augustine falsely accused him of things he did not teach. Pelagius was known even by his enemies as a righteous man. While Augustine was known by his life and teachings to be a sinner who taught others to do the same because of the belief that all are sinners who cannot keep from sinning continuously. This is true Original Sin.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Troy Day

      So are you a Pelagian now? Joe Absher

    • Joe Absher
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Joe Absher

      Not me. Nope

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day I don’t think aligning with Pelagianism would be a bad thing if it were known for what it really taught instead of being defined by the heretical lies of Augustine- the true heretic.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Troy Day

      Pelagianism is a pretty bad thing if you ask me

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day again, you are assuming that Augustine told the truth about him. His writing is the only writing in history against him. Yet Pelagius own writings prove that Augustine falsely accused him of teaching something he never taught. Just like Calvinists like to accuse Arminians of teaching works salvation, “the sovereignty of man”, and so many other false accusations. You can’t trust Augustine’s opinion of Pelagius when he was the sin supporter in his teachings and hated Pelagius because he taught against Augustines false teachings in the streets to the people. Augustine tried hard to have Pelagius condemned as a false teacher twice before councils and failed when Pelagius explained what he really believed. They could find no fault in him. It was when Pelagius was out of the country that Augustine went to the pope and had Pelagius condemned when he could not be present to defend himself. So Pelagius never returned after hearing work of this spineless hate filled action of Augustine. But there is plenty of evidence to show that Augustine was the true heretic, and Pelagius was the man of God who stood for truth. Certainly NOT teaching what Augustine accused him of. What Augustine explains is no doubt heresy! But it is not what Pelagius taught. This is very clear in his letter to Demetrius.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Troy Day

      no I dont assume that Augustine anything I have actually read most of Pelagius own writings

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day I don’t think you understood them if you have concluded it to be “pretty bad”. The language used by Pelagius is the same as from Early church fathers on salvation, grace, and sin. The main difference is that Pelagius was confronting a present issue with false teachings by Augustine that was telling them that living in their sins was normal and acceptable. Pelagius was trying to show that man has the created ability to make choices and to say no to sin. So if man can make the choice to not sin (a single sin, it a sinless life) without Christ (which many sinners do); then how much more capable should they be under grace? He appeal was to the idea that sin is normal and cannot be stopped, when in fact we have been given the power in Christ to overcome its controlling power and be free. This is the same thing Paul taught in Romans 6-8. But even modern Augustinians love to turn to Romans 7 out of context and claim that even Paul couldn’t stop sinning. He was very clearly talking about life under the law, as he mentions law 21 times in that chapter alone. And in Romans 6 he just finished completely condemning sin in the Christian life. They make Paul into a hypocrite.

      With the early church fathers teaching the same as Paul did, and Pelagius teaching the same as the church fathers; then with Augustine teaching the exact same as the Gnostic heresies, it really shouldn’t be hard for people to figure out. But it is so unfortunate that people won’t look into these facts for themselves, but instead trust teachers who taught them falsely.
      I read through the early church fathers writings many years ago and collected many quotes. I use them in a book I write on my site against Calvinism and the OSAS teaching. Their writings are complete consistent and in agreement. And what Pelagius wrote is really no different when you see it.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 13, 2019

      Troy Day

      Thank you for your patience my brother – I am not of the habit of posting during church hours, so I appreciate you having to await my return since you posted right when our service was starting.

      If you are indeed referring to Pelagius the Brit (or “Brito” as the latins called him) I can assure you I have read most if not all of his original Greek (not latin) inclusions and insertions in early church documents. They were a prerequisite requirement for one of my programs. Copies of them were held at the time in only 3 American libraries Emory being the one of choice, since my alma mater Widner was too far for me at the time.

      With his own writings are long gone, I satisfied the requirement by reading the Greek excerpts of his acquittal in Diospolis and later the case in Carthage. I admit that I have not shown enough interest in his dialogues with Augustine and Jerome for obvious reasons. While my Latin is better than my Hebrew, if I have to be honest – she aint so good 🙂

      Now then, from what I’ve read in Greek and then in some later Orthodox writers who picked on Pelagius Hereticus I have formed my own opinion. It is quite sufficient to follow his doctrinal development and especially as it spread in the East. Keep in mind the OP was to prove original sin through a certain theory. If you are simply denying original sin overall, we could start up on Pelagius though IMO there is little to no use for that, but oh well

  • Gary Micheal Epping
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    GEN 3:4 says, “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die,” which shows that the devil already was a liar and sinner before Eve fell to temptation into sin. This verse shows that sin originated before Adam and Eve.

  • Rico Hero
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Rico Hero

    Jesus confirms that the devil , ” He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” (Jn 8:44 NKJV).

    We must conclude the devil was already fallen before Adam and Eve

  • Troy Day
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Troy Day

    there HAD to be a way for sin to ENTER the world

  • Robert Erwine
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Robert Erwine

    why does it have to work that way ?

  • Troy Day
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Troy Day

    tell us the way it should work Robert

  • Robert Erwine
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Robert Erwine

    no , I want to know why it has to work a certain way not what I think

  • Joe Absher
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Joe Absher

    Leviticus 17:11 KJV — For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

  • Robert Erwine
    Reply February 13, 2019

    Robert Erwine

    thats right Joe because when we read Hebrews 9:13-10:18 God demands a blood sacrifice yet none could take away those sins so the son of God was to be that sacrifice to please the Lord

  • Troy Day
    Reply February 14, 2019

    Troy Day

    Robert Erwine George Hartwell are yall explaining without or just explaining ?

    • George Hartwell
      Reply February 14, 2019

      George Hartwell

      I am pointing to the psychological experience of original sin.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 14, 2019

      Troy Day

      Fine – but can you explain the entrance of sin into the creation without Gap theory?

  • Troy Day
    Reply February 15, 2019

    Troy Day

    Lyndon Conn any new original word on original sin?

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day I simply call it “spiritual death”, because of “the fall of man”. Original Sin is a man made term with man’s own ideas added to it. An entire theological system is build on these two words that are full of man’s theology. Of course anything we conclude is subject to personal interpretation, some things are just not so complicated by so many false assumptions and added faulty logic as others like this teaching is. It is because of this false foundation that Calvinism has risen and gained strength, as well as the OSAS teaching and the greasy grace/no repentance needed teachings. The connection between these heresies and many others are amazing. If people would simply see the error and get to the truth then a lot of confusion can be cleared up. And false teachings avoided – which can be destructive.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Troy Day

      I understand you denying the original sin OS as Calvinist / Augustinian but it was believed by the Early church before Augustine and there is nothing Catholic about it – it just what is called as it describes its origin – that’s all My question was more about Pelagian but oh well

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day no it was.not believed by the early church. Not only was the term never used by them even once, but the idea of it as taught today is not in their writings. They actually very boldly taught against it. It was the Gnostics who actually taught it.

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Original Sin
      Clement – Bishop of Rome (A.D.95)
      ‘Thus although we are born neither good nor bad, we become one or the other and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from them.’ Pg 273 vol.8
      ‘But inasmuch as inborn affection towards God the creator is sufficient for salvation to those who love Him, the enemy tries to pervert this affection in men, and to render them hostile and ungrateful to their Creator…But if mankind would turn their affection towards God, all would doubtless be saved, even if when they have some faults they would be open to correction for righteousness, but now most of mankind have been made enemies of God, their hearts the wicked one has entered, and has turned aside towards himself the affection which God the Creator had implanted in them, which He, God, desires that they might have towards Him. Pg.101 Vol.8
      Ignatius to the Magnesians
      Chapter 5
      “Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life. …If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.”
      Justin Martyr (110-160 AD) – Dialogue cxli:
      “God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and man shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably, but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.”
      HIPPOLYTUS (170 to 236AD)
      Chapter 36 Hoodwinking therefore multitudes, he led on into enormities many dupes of this description who had become his disciples, by teaching them that they were prone, no doubt, to sin, but beyond the reach of danger, from the fact of their belonging to the perfect power, and of their being participators in the inconceivable potency.
      Methodius – 260-312 A.D. Bishop of Olympus
      ‘Now those who decide that man is not possessed of free-will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate…are guilty of impiety towards God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.’
      ‘If then, any are evil, they are evil in accordance with the wants and desires of their minds, and not by necessity. They perish self-destroyed, by their own fault.’
      “For a man is not spoken of as ‘murderer’ but by committing it he receives the derived name of murderer. Evil is not a substance, but by practicing any evil it can be called evil…for a man is evil only in consequences of his actions. For he is said to be evil because he is a doer of evil. It is a persons actions that gives them the title of evil. Men produce the evil and are the authors of them. It is through actions that evil exists. Each man is evil in consequences of what they practice. It all has a beginning.”
      ‘Because there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such…man was made with free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he so wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God. For this was the meaning of the gift of free will.’
      ‘For man received power, and enslaved himself, not because he was overpowered by irresistible tendencies of his nature, nor because the capacity with which he was gifted deprived him of what was better for him…I say therefore, that God purposing thus to honor man…has given him the power of being able to do what he wishes, and commends the employment of his power for better things; not that he deprives him again of free will, but wishes to point out the better way. For the power is present with him and he receives the commandment; but God exhorts him to turn his power of choice to better things.’
      Lactantius 260-330 A.D.
      ‘ We should be free from vices and sin. For no one is born sinful, but if our affections are given to that direction they can become vices and sinful, but if we use our affections well they become virtues.’ Ch 16 bk 4 Divine Inst.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Troy Day

      AND WHEN Justin Martyr references Adam’s role in introducing sin into the world (165 CE)?

  • Steve Losee
    Reply February 15, 2019

    Steve Losee

    short answer: yup.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Troy Day

      give it a shot – so many have failed before you

    • Steve Losee
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Steve Losee

      Simple: I believe the fall of Daystar happened in eternity; the absense of space & time. It also happned between Gen. 1:1 & 1:2 (which needed NO time in eternity), so he was already fallen, and humanity’s adversary, by chapter 3.

  • Troy Day
    Reply February 15, 2019

    Troy Day

    Lyndon Conn the Greek fathers taught that humanity inherited Adam’s punishment, death, but not Adam’s guilt. Guilt could only be the result of a freely committed personal act The early Greek Christian theological emphasis on free will and human accountability was a deliberate counter to the various forms of determinism and fatalism of much classical religion and philosophy from the time of Homer through the era of the Roman Empire

    Tertullian (155-220 CE) was the first of the Western church fathers to believe in the “traducian origin” of the soul, that is “In procreation a fragment of the father’s soul shapes itself into a new soul bearing all the hereditary qualities of the father” Ambrose of Milan (339-97 CE) was the first to speak of Adam’s sin as a “fall” brought on by his pride; he wanted to be equal with God. Furthermore when Adam fell he came to bear the ugly scar of sexuality, which was the means by which Adam’s sin was passed on to his posterity. That necessitated the virgin birth of Christ so he could be sinless.

    NONE of them were able to prove original sin without Gap Theory …

    • Lyndon Conn
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Lyndon Conn

      Troy Day what does Gap theory have to do with Original Sin? The early church didn’t teach either. And all who have taught Original Sin over the centuries did not believe in Gap theory. While I see Gap theory as a possibility, yet not at all a fact, I deny Original Sin. I’m not seeing where anyone uses one to teach the other.

    • Troy Day
      Reply February 15, 2019

      Troy Day

      exactly – Gap Theory helps explain how original sin entered the world through Satan; now then, can you explain original sin without Gap theory ?

  • Troy Day
    Reply February 16, 2019

    Troy Day

    Lyndon Conn I just read your comment here

    Pelagius own writings prove that Augustine falsely accused him of teaching something he never taught. Just like Calvinists like to accuse Arminians of teaching works salvation,

    WHICH Pelagius own writings do you speak of? I strongly doubt you have ever seen any of them in their original – Thanks

  • Joe Absher
    Reply February 16, 2019

    Joe Absher

    The life is in the blood

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.