/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Or rather, who is responsible and who is accountable?

Both are responsible, both are being held accountable.

Also we have a QTDDTOT thread up so that's where you should ask

Adam.

We are.

Humanity.

>indf men

>>740714

>Luke 17:1

>Jesus said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

Looks crystal clear to me mate.

>All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23

You fall short of the glory of God if you sin, and everyone has sinned

>The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord Romans 6:23

Each sinner is accountable because the Bible says he deserves death because of his sin, but that accountability can be paid by Christ

I realize you're talking about the fall, I just wanted to clarify for all the other sins

>And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Tim. 2:14 NAS)

Even though it was by deception, Adam and Eve were held accountable.

>And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev. 20:10 NAS)

The deceiver will also be held accountable

>>740711

good short answer

I have a more root question: would a just God damn anyone for the crimes of others?

What about ancestors?

Is it consistent with God's goodness that he would damn people for some inherited guilt from Adam?

>>740716

>I have a more root question: would a just God damn anyone for the crimes of others?

>What about ancestors?

>Is it consistent with God's goodness that he would damn people for some inherited guilt from Adam?

Of course not, as you can see the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that, so its obviously wrong.

Now comes the, how do we know the difference between good and evil if we have not eaten the fruit?

>>740720

>how do we know the difference between good and evil if we have not eaten the fruit?

Because we watched bob the builder as children.

>>740720

>Of course not, as you can see the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that, so its obviously wrong.

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin. 292

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

You are

and I am

>>740729

I'm in agreement with your conclusion and that's the point I'm trying to make.

giving yourself a rating and posting some movie screenshot is really cringey though, please stop

This limbo doctrine is a catholic workaround to the obvious injustice related to original sin, and the obvious answer is that original sin (as in, guilt) is false

I would say the very idea of limbo is also counter to God's justice and at odds with the Bible sans apocrypha

>19But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" And they said, "He is dead."

>20 So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate.

>21 Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food."

>22 And he said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.'

>23 "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam. 12:19-23 NAS)

Did David go to limbo, or did his innocent baby go to heaven?

>>740732

>movie screenshot

I'm sure the guy that made the image would be a bit flattered you think that this is a movie screenshot, but moving on.

>This limbo doctrine is a catholic workaround to the obvious injustice related to original sin

Cute idea but no, not really.

So far, to me, this confusion seems form your idea that all sins bring people to hell, which is untrue.

>Did David go to limbo, or did his innocent baby go to heaven?

Neither. His baby went to Abraham's Bosom since this was before Jesus Christ's death. Not a single human has passed by to Heaven or even Purgatory yet.

>>740736

>your idea that all sins bring people to hell, which is untrue.

<For the wages of sin is death, (Rom. 6:23a NAS)

>Not a single human has passed by to Heaven or even Purgatory yet.

<And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Lk. 23:43 NAS)

>Abraham's Bosom

That's heaven, because that's where Abraham is.

That same paradise is where the tree of life is:

<To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God (Rev. 2:7 NAS)

This paradise is heaven

>>740737

>That's heaven, because that's where Abraham is.

What is the biblical illiteracy regarding Abraham's Bossom lately?

>Lk. 23:43

That was said on the same day Jesus Christ died for humanity's sins. Is that your best citation? Don't you have a earlier example of someone going to heaven?

>For the wages of sin is death, (Rom. 6:23a NAS)

1 John 5:16-17 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Funnily enough, Catholic doctrine is the only one that approaches and explains 1 John 5:16-17. Just wanted to point that out.

>>740739

>That was said on the same day Jesus Christ died for humanity's sins.

I misunderstood you saying "Not a single human has passed by to Heaven or even Purgatory yet" to mean this our point in time. Did you mean to say "had" but now they're in heaven?

>1 john 5

The death here is the first death, but the death of Romans 6 is the second death

There are sins that bring you to death, especially through execution

If you die, you can no longer repent (Heb 9:27)

If you lie, "a sin not leading to death", it's not certain you will physically die as a result

Every theological system has to address all doctrines mandated by scripture. The Catholic one is immediately self-contradictory with Romans 6 and 3, so extrabiblical systems have to be devised with "venial" and "mortal" sins, just like purgatory and limbo

>>740739

another evangelical answer is that the sin unto death is ultimate rejection of Christ resulting in eternal death

>>740741

>Did you mean to say "had" but now they're in heaven?

Yeah.

>The death here is the first death, but the death of Romans 6 is the second death

That seems a bit inconsistent. 1 John 5 is talking Heaven, and the bit I quoted has this:

>you should pray and God will give them life

Life here means being alive in the Faith of Jesus Christ, correct? That relates to spiritual death, not physical death.

Additionally, If someone is going to die, would it not make sense to pray to them? Specially before their death where they might think things over and genuinely repent?

Why not pray for them?

>>740747

life means "eternal life", not dying the second death.

I think you've cornered me on the execution thing, that can't be right. A murderer on death row can still repent.

Can you restate the catholic position for my benefit? is it "mortal" and "venial" for "to death" and "not unto death"?

>>740706

For whose sin?

>>740752

I wish to further my position.

>life means "eternal life", not dying the second death.

Yeah. So when on 1 John 5:16-17, John mentions "I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death.", he is talking about Spiritual Death, because the context of the verse has been set on spiritual.

On Catholic Doctrine, perhaps you can translate this to,

"Pray to those that commit venial sins",

"But if someone sins mortally, you must talk to him about it".

>Can you restate the catholic position for my benefit?

Mortal sins send to hell, which is the second death.

Venial sins can lead someone to mortal sins and are evil, but don't send to hell by themselves.

Satan and all that decided to follow him on the angels side, and Adam and Eve on the human side.

Both creatures are responsible for their own sins.