I just posted from Romans 4, but I see that I posted all of it 4 years ago. I am going to let that answer the question for me. Because I cannot argue with skillful wolves., I will let God the Holy Spirit answer with scripture He inspired, which is true forever

Oh I just found the book at the website

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZmsm6WBqZiWiJYsi=6hroRUsEdTPFSbLy

u mean Jesse?

And it is the character of God that is at issue here, to the point where I'm not sure I even believe in the same God that Calvinists believe in. I heard it said that Calvin's God was Augustine's God and that Augustine's God was Plato's God.

If you'd actually studied Augustine’s theology, you'd know his unbiblical doctrine of Original Sin was concocted to support the equally unbiblical practice of paedobaptism and his denial of free will came straight out of his background in Manichean gnosticism.

@@Berean_with_a_BTh You have no clue what you are talking about. Original sin is a biblical doctrine and was taught by all the Church Fathers, as was also infant baptism. St Augustine also didn't straight away deny free will, but he taught that free will was weakened after the sin of Adam, and needs God's grace to be freed, which again is an entirely biblical doctrine.

​​​​​​​@@the4gospelscommentary Such authoritative ignorance! Contrary to your uninformed assertions, early church writers overwhelmingly believed infants were born innocent, nor did they teach or practice infant baptism (paedobaptism). For example, the _Apology of Aristeides_ (c.125, 15.11), the _Epistle of Barnabas_ (c.130, 6:11), and the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.100-c.160, 27:1; 101:1-3) all expressed the conviction that children are born in a state of innocence.There is also no evidence at this early stage of paedobaptism. Indeed, the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4) reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before. Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61). Had Justin believed infants were born in a sinful state, he would hardly have thought that being "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) was a worthwhile outcome. Note, too, how Justin viewed one's sinful state as resulting from one's upbringing, not as something inherited. Irenaeus (c.130-202) expressed the view that Christ sanctified infants and children: “becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age” ( _Against Heresies II,_ 22.4) and that faith in Christ was necessary for the remission of sins ( _Against Heresies III,_ 12.2, 7). Concerning the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’, Irenaeus wrote: _For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom_ ( _Against Heresies III,_ 16.4). It is difficult to argue these infants were regarded by Irenaeus as being in a sinful state. Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) wrote _For so also we lie under Adam’s sin through similarity of sin_ ( _Fragments_ 2.4, c.195). Note that there is no hint of inherited sin in this allusion to Romans 5:12. The first steps towards the development of a doctrine of original sin as it later came to be understood were recorded by Tertullian (c.160-220). Writing c.205-210, Tertullian objected to what appears to have been the newly-introduced practice of paedobaptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20). In _The Apostolic Tradition_ (c.215), Hippolytus of Rome (c.170-c.235) endorsed paedobaptism (21.16) but gave no theological justification for the practice. Origen of Lyons (c.185-254) thought souls had a pre-incarnate existence ( _De Principiis_ 1.7.3-5) and people were born into a state reflecting the relative departure from good done by them during that existence ( _De Principiis_ 2.9.1-7). Hence, everyone was born in a state of sin ( _Homilies on Leviticus_ 8:3, _Commentaries on Romans_ 5:9). Nevertheless, they shared with Adam only physical descent and the mortality with which he was punished ( _Against Celsus_ 4.40). Quoting Romans 5:12-21, Origen rejected the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam ( _Commentaries on Romans_ 5:1). Perhaps the first Christian theologian to formally posit the inheritance of the sins and guilt therefore from Adam was Cyprian of Carthage (c.200-258). Cyprian said infants were contaminated by descent from Adam and baptism provided forgiveness for any sins thus inherited ( _Epistle_ 58.5; 64.5). According to Cyprian, personal repentance (cf. Acts 2:38) was not a prerequisite for baptism, which was considered efficacious for salvation in its own right ( _Epistle_ 73.7). Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) regarded infants as being born morally neutral but, because salvation required positive righteousness, were eligible to be baptized so as to acquire it; otherwise they would be left in a state of limbo. Conversely, Christians who desired baptism but died beforehand were lost ( _Oration_ 40.17, 22-23). Therefore, baptism was crucial to salvation. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for paedobaptism. John Chrysostom (c.349-407) expressed the firm view that infants are born innocent, writing “the soul of a little child is pure from all the passions” ( _Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew_ 62.4). In this context, one might note the qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) and for those already in the church (1 Corinthians 14:20). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) implied that infants are born innocent, saying: _ye have “been baptized into the Lord’s death,” and into His resurrection, as “new-born babes”._ (5.3.16). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). Paedobaptism was neither approved or disapproved in this passage. Elsewhere, however, baptism was restricted to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). Jerome (c.347-420) held the view that all sins are forgiven at baptism ( _Letter_ 64.2, 4, 7; _Letter_ 123.11), which even children require ( _Letter_ 85.6) for inherited guilt - for which he cited Cyprian and Origen as authorities ( _Against the Pelagians III_ 18-19) - and in spite of noting scriptures opposing that stance (e.g. Ezekiel 18:4, 20) ( _Letter_ 39.4). Augustine of Hippo (354-430) 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 the existence of Original Sin ( _On Marriage And Concupiscence_ 1.22) and was a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture. He saw his task as being to identify the relevant Scriptures, not to question the practice or the tradition. 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 _Commentary 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, _On Marriage And Concupiscence_ I.1). In subsequent debates with Julian of Eclanum, Augustine’s chief opponent and who knew Greek, Julian repeatedly criticised Augustine’s reliance on Ambrosiaster’s endorsement of the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12. Yet, Augustine continued to defended his interpretation (cf._ Answer to Julian,_ 6.75; _Unfinished Work Against Julian,_ 2.48-55; _Faith, Hope and Love,_ 45, 47; _On Nature and Grace,_ 48; _Letters,_ Vol. 3, 157, Vol. 4, 176). Coupling his reliance on the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b 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, _On Marriage And Concupiscence_ 1.22). Augustine, it should be noted, had no knowledge of Hebrew and only a superficial knowledge of Greek, limitations that undoubtedly hindered his ability to extract the original meanings of the texts he worked with. Nevertheless, Augustine had enough familiarity with the Greek manuscripts to know he was relying on a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:14 also ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.13). So, until 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. So much for your ignorant claims that Original Sin "was taught by all the church fathers, as was also infant baptism".

@@the4gospelscommentary The doctrine of Original Sin is a plain contradiction of: *Deuteronomy 24:16* _The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin._ *Ecclesiastes **7:29* _Behold, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices._ *Ezekiel 18:20* _The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself._ What Scripture clearly shows is that people are not to be held accountable for the deeds of others, 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. 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 First, it is completely irrelevant what translation of Romans 5:12 we use, because in one way or another Romans 5 teaches that through the one sin of Adam all his descendants have become sinners, as St Augustine abundantly proves in his books On the Merit and Forgiveness of Sins, And the Baptism of Infants. It is simply a lie that the original sin interpretation of Romans 5 is based on one single supposed "mistranslation" of Romans 5:12. Second, the doctrine of original sin was defined by the Council of Carthage, which received papal approval from Pope St Innocent I. Thus, even if you could cite one or two Fathers against the doctrine, it doesn't matter, because the dogmatic definition of the Church trumps whatever any individual Father might have said. Third, for the most parts the Fathers you have cited as saying that infants are born innocent, can be interpreted as saying that they are not guilty of any personal sin. It does not follow, however, that infants are not held guilty on account of the sin of Adam. Similarly, when the Fathers teach that baptism is for those who believe, they are talking about the adults, who must accept the faith before they are baptized. This does not mean, however, that the adults are not supposed to bring their infants with them, according to St Peter: "For the promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN." Acts 2:39 Now to the individual Fathers. St Irenaeus consistently teaches original sin. To give just one example: "But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and did not give credit to His word, so was it also by these same that He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed WE HAD OFFENDED in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For WE WERE DEBTORS to none other but to Him whose commandment WE HAD TRANSGRESSED at the beginning." [Against Heresies 5:16:3 (A.D. 189)] Tertullian never says that infants are innocent. Rather he says: "In expressing vexation, contempt, or abhorrence, you have Satan constantly upon your lips; the very same we hold to be the angel of evil, the source of error, the corrupter of the whole world, by whom in the beginning man was entrapped into breaking the commandment of God. And (the man) being given over to death on account of his sin, the entire human race, TAINTED IN THEIR DESCENT FROM HIM, were made a channel for transmitting his condemnation." [The Soul's Testimony 3] Origen does not teach merely the sins from the preexistence of souls, but - just as Augustine and other Fathers - that we all sinned IN ADAM. You are correct about St Cyprian and St Jerome, so I pass over them. But for some reason you just ignore St Hilary: "When we are renewed in the laver of baptism through the power of the Word, we are separated from the sins THAT COME FROM OUR ORIGIN, and are separated from its authors." [Commentary on Matthew 10:24] You also ignore St Ambrose: "In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; GUILTY AS I WAS IN HIM, so now justified in Christ. If, then, death be the debt of all, we must be able to endure the payment." [On the Death of Satyrus 2:6 (A.D. 379)] "For we men are ALL BORN UNDER SIN, and OUR VERY ORIGIN IS IN EVIL, as we read in the words of David: For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth. Therefore the flesh of Paul was a body of death, as he himself says: Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? But the flesh of Christ condemned sin, which He felt not at His birth, and crucified by His death, so that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, in which before there had been pollution BY GUILT." [On Repentance 1:3:13 (c. A.D.384)] St Gregory Nazianzen does not regard infants as morally neutral. He writes: "But further - Jesus goes up out of the water...for with Himself He carries up the world...and sees the heaven opened which Adam had shut against himself AND ALL HIS POSTERIY, as the gates of Paradise by the flaming sword." [Oration 39:16] "None can see or enter into the Kingdom, except he be born again of the Spirit, and be CLEANSED FROM THE FIRST BIRTH, which is a mystery of the night, by a remoulding of the day and of the Light, by which every one singly is created anew." [Oration 41:14] Now, what is this cleansing from the first birth? Obviously he doesn't mean a physical cleansing, so the only thing he can mean is the cleansing of sin, derived from birth. You completely misrepresent St Gregory of Nyssa. It is true that he says: "But in the case of infants prematurely dying there is nothing of that sort; but they pass to the blessed lot at once...", but what you conveniently left out is what he adds right after: "... IF THOSE WHO TAKE THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER SPEAK TRUE." So the possibility of salvation of unbaptized infants is not his own, but the opinion of others. He himself, on the other hand, denies that unbaptized infants can go to heaven. At other places he clearly teaches original sin, such as: "So it is with us, we inherit the sinful ways of our parents - sinner from sinner from sinner. As a result, sin - in some sense - LATCHES ONTO US WHEN WE ARE BORN and grows within us until our life comes to its end." [Sermon 6 on the Beatitudes] It is true that St John Chrysostom was one of the rare exceptions among the Fathers, in that he was weak on the doctrine of original sin, but even he says this: "Christ came once and found us bound by the paternal handwriting which Adam wrote. He showed THE BEGINNING OF THE DEBT, through our sins the interest increased." [Homilia ad neophytos (in St Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:26)] So, even he believed that there is some debt that needs to be paid, that is solely on account on Adam's sin, and not also our personal sins. I could quote several other Fathers, but in order to keep it short, let me just add one, a contemporary of St Augustine, the one who was fluent in Greek and who definitely didn't rely on a "Latin mistranslation" of Romans 5. St Cyril of Alexandria says this: "Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: thus has the power of the curse ceased, and the dominion of death been brought to decay. And this too Paul teaches, saying, 'For as by the disobedience of one man, the many became sinners, so by the obedience of the One, the many became righteous.' Romans 5:19 For THE WHOLE NATURE OF MAN BECAME GUILTY in the person of him who was first formed; but now it is wholly justified again in Christ." [Sermon 42 on the Gospel of Luke] ........................................................ AS THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE DOGMATICALLY DECLARED: "Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration."