Charles Spurgeon's Sanity Litmus Test (are you insane?)

[Richard_oti]

Depends what it is.
So what do I believe that is not quite Kosher?

So then you admit, that it is possible.

Impute means to make personally responsible. God cannot hold us responsible for a sin we did not commit. However, that sin, commited by the head of all mankind, can be transmitted to every human being born after him. It's not imputed to man, it's propogated to man.
It's passed on to us, and we now have the sin nature, but we did not PERSONALLY commit the sin.

Many sins may be propagated, for the children follow after that which they learned from their parents. And thus the sin is propagated down through generations until comes one that decides to not walk after it.

If you have a different idea, please show it.
I have said that believing that the first sin is imputed to man is a valid understanding of O.S.

You just stated above that it can't be imputed, but is propagated, now you are saying that imputed is a valid understanding.

All covenants are perpetual. I can't think of one off-hand that was abolished. They can be improved, or added to, or made better in some way, but no covenant can be abolished. It would mean God changed His mind.

Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith YHVH, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith YHVH.

It's not in my opinion.
Who do YOU think the Edenic covenant was for?
Adam AND Eve? Where is her name mentioned in the discussion between God and Adam?
Genesis 2:15-17

The covenant would have extended unto everyone living within the Garden, which would have been inclusive of any descendants of Adam and Eve.

Eve was not even formed yet.
THEN in Genesis 2:18 God says that it is not good for man to be alone.

Please show how Eve was involved in the Edenic Covenant.

How was Eve formed?

They both disobeyed. Eve had been told not to eat of the Tree.
But the fall is attributed to Adam.

Adam was right there with her.

You're getting commands mixed up with Covenants.
I can't help you with that.
They were BOTH commanded not to eat.
But the Covenant was with Adam.
This cannot be disputed.

Does a covenant extend to a descendant?

<snip>

 

[Richard_oti]

Where in Leviticus 19 does it say to love your enemy?
Jesus said we are to love our neighbor, that's in Lev 19.

So now we "slice and dice" Leviticus in so that only part of one verse in now applicable or useful? The rest is just discarded, even though there are parts that expound upon just the 10 alone.

But He also said to love our enemy.

Pro 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:

In the OT, many times, it says to hate the enemy.
Psalm 18:40
Deuteronomy 33:27

In Psalm 18:40, who was it that made his enemies turn their backs to him?

Who thrust out the "enemy" in Deuteronomy 33:27 and why were they the "enemy"? Why was that "enemy" to be destroyed?

Why is that sliced and diced if Jesus said to love our enemies also?

<chuckle> With regard to love your neighbor, Leviticus is sliced and diced to only a portion of this one verse, and the rest is now immaterial?

Has God changed here? One moment we're to hate our enemies and the next to love them??

I had previously shown you Proverbs 25. However, since you introduced Deuteronomy 33, who thrust them out? Why were they the "enemy"? Why were they to be destroyed? It was "God" who commanded that they be utterly destroyed.

I don't understand circumcision unto salvation.

Acts 15:1, There were those saying that the unless they were circumcised they could not be saved.

That was the argument which in part brought about the ruling of the 4.

Circumcision was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.

You could almost call it gift, or a reward, for his faithfulness. Which continued on into the Mosaic Law.

If a gentile wanted to be a part of Abraham's tribe, then he had to be circumcised first.

And under Mosaic Law, it would have been required for any Gentile wanting to partake of the Passover.

Don't know what you're getting at.
God always meant for outsiders, gentiles, to be grafted into the vine.

Indeed, even under Mosaic Law. The Exodus itself is a prime example.

There is now no Jew nor gentile.
Galatians 3:28

Indeed. Yet who was grafted into whom?

Acts 15:20-21
James is saying that a letter will be sent to the non-Jewish telling them to do the following if they want to become Christian:
Do not become involved with idols

Is that written in the law?

Keep marriage sacred

From fornication, which is more than just keep marriage sacred. However, is such contained within the law?

Do not eat food that would be offensive to Jews
(blood, for instance)

Not quite what it states. Why should they abstain from something that was put to death by strangulation?

And why from blood? Which, was spoken of prior to the Mosaic Law, and multiple times within the Law. Yet, all portions of the Law which have been sliced and diced away according to what I am reading and understanding from you. The prohibition with regard to blood is first spoken of following the flood, it is re-stated many times within Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

The above was preached by Moses for centuries as the Jews kept the Sabbath.

So why mention such there? From what source were those new found Christians to learn the way of "God"? What source did the Bereans examine to so if these things were so? (cf Acts 17)

It is true that Christians were allowed to eat anything.

So "God" has a double standard. OR, as the new Christians learned, they would come to follow the instruction of "God".

Acts 15 was specifically for the purpose of not offending.

No, it was about not placing a burden upon those coming into the fold.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, no more burden to lay upon you, except these necessary things:

Which would allow them to learn at their own pace, as they heard the Word of "God".

<small snip>

How do you understand from this that God has a double standard?

According to the instruction, not all animals were allowed to be eaten. Now according you (yes, I do realize it is not you alone, so no, I am not trying to single you out) all animals may be eaten. That is a double standard if "God" instructs his people not to eat, but others are now allowed to eat.

Ceremonial law has been abolished.
I'm not Jewish and am not required to NOT eat crustacians or blood sausage or anything else.

Even just the four things contained in Acts chapters 15 and 21 alone contradict what you state above. According to Acts alone, sanguinaccio / salsiccia del sangue / boudin noir would be prohibited. This is a perfect example, you stated above it was about not offending, which is incorrect. It is abstain from sangue / du sang.

Lev 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood.

Lev 17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

Jesus said that it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles, not what goes into the mouth.
Mathew 15:11

Which was in regard to washing their hands.

Re Noah: Je ne sais pas. I don't know what connection you're making --
The ark held animals.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female:

That even prior to the Mosaic Law and the flood, there was already a distinction that was made between the clean and the unclean.

Lev 20:24c ... I am YHVH your God, who hath separated you from the peoples. 25 Ye shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean fowl and the clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by bird, or by anything wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have separated from you as unclean. 26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I, YHVH, am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be mine.

Eze 22:26b ... they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

Eze 44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

To be continued

 

[Richard_oti]

Part 2

Not only do I not know, I really don't care to know.
I've said many times that I know nothing of eschatology...
except that the end is coming.
(I wouldn't mind being informed, but I'm not about to study it)

The first "little horn" out of Greece, forbid the observance of the law, attempted to force the eating of that which "God" called unclean, took away and burnt the manuscripts all under penalty of death if one did not submit. And, slew swine upon the altar, an abomination of desolation. Which can clearly be seen in the Works of Josephus and in 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The second "little horn" out of Rome, likewise attempted to change the set times and law of "God", under penalty of death. Those attempted changes, have remained with us even until this day. As Paul wrote, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work then.

The question becomes:
Were they gathered together the first day of the week and so they broke bread (which means communion)
or
Did they specifically gather together the first day of the week to break bread.

Again though, it still does nothing to nullify shabat. I acknowledge that they met upon the first day of the week, as well as other days.

Act 2:46 And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart

To come together and share what "God" had been doing. However:

What were they generally doing upon shabat?

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.

<small snip>

It would seem to me, that the specifically met the first day of the week, which would be Sunday. The Didache also speaks to this...

<snip quote>

While within the Didache that may be the most probable. Notice that from which you quoted speaks of the evening following shabat, which also was the case in Acts 20. What better time to gather together and share. There is nothing wrong with gathering together and meeting upon the first day. But again, it does not nullify the former.

The actual Didache, which is very short, can also be found on the internet. It's an instructional manual for Christians left by the Apostles.

Allegedly. Did you ever notice the within that same portion of the Didache, it speaks of "clean" and "common"? (cf Eze 44:23)

Christians say that Jesus is our rest. He completed all the commands and kept them in a perfect way. Since Going to service is a ceremonial law, I guess that has been abolished.

Heb 10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days YHVH made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Lev 23:1 And YHVH spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, The set feasts of YHVH, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my set feasts. 3 Six days shall work be done: but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of work: it is a sabbath unto YHVH in all your dwellings.

Contrast:

Dan 7:25a And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law;

<small snip>

All the decalogue is a command.
So if I steal something, I'm going to hell?
Please explain what you believe better.

For what reason did you steal? Was it a loaf of bread to feed you and your children because you were starving?

Or was it that you simply coveted something? You can repent of such and make reparation.

Or how about you were in a store, your hands were full and you put something in a pocket or purse with the intent of paying for it? I am sure if you accidently did not pay for an item, that you would return and make it right.

However, the willful and persistent doing of such ...

Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.

You and I both know the end result of what the willful and persistent doing of such shall be.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins

I'm not very clear on the Sabbath so I find it difficult to engage in any debate over it. I just know that Jesus will fill in the gaps where we're wrong.

No problem, I do understand. And yes, the gaps shall be filled. Sometimes, from a most unlikely source.

Sorry. You're talking about Daniel.
Je ne sais pas.

No problem. My apologies.

The "expected" anti-christ according to the understanding of most it seems, is the one spoken of in Daniel 7:25. From my POV, this has already occurred, just as it occurred under Greece and the little horn spoken of in Daniel 8.

Both attempted to change the set times and laws of "God" under penalty of death.

As I've said, the day was changed from Saturday to Sunday because it was believed that Jesus resurrected on a Sunday. This is questionable.

Indeed.

But He did say "This temple will be raised in 3 days".
Of course, do we know for sure He died on Friday at 3 pm?
That would have made Sunday the 3drd day. By Jewish timing.
I don't know enough about this to make intelligent comments.

I know that @KBCid has a good handle upon the timing.

He would have died upon a Wednesday, by the time Joseph of Arimathaea went to Pilate, gets permission, buys new linen, returns, removes the body from the cross, transports the body, wraps the body, and then places the body in the tomb (cf Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:42-46, John 19:38), it would be right near sunset.

The Friday through Sunday scenario can not even be forced to work along with the sign of Jonah. No matter how one attempts to shoehorn it in. Some claim that the sign of Jonah should not be taken into account, that it is a later addition to the text and carries no weight.

The resurrection would have occurred at about the time shabat was at it's end. According to John (cf 20:1), it was still dark when they were approaching the tomb and found it empty.

<snip>

You take good care GodsGrace, for I truly do only wish you the best.

 

[GodsGrace]

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.
Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

FUNNY!!!
First of all, how do you know I've always taken persons to court?
Second of all, as I said, between Christians we should try to resolve our differences,,,not everyone is Christian and some suits are legitimate.

If two are living in the Kingdom of God here, then they should follow those rules. Unfortunately, not even all Christians are trying to live in the Kingdom.

There's not much more to say about this....

 

[bbyrd009]

I thought scripture, not me or you, would be the 'morals police" on abortion being murder or not?

then you also have to recognize that the Bible declares plainly Who you should be praying to, i guess

My morals say it is ok to steal from the rich. I wonder if I am at "one mind" with my congregation OR scripture on that one.

if we talk to anyone long enough, even our mates, we might find something to disagree with, right. Imo seek where you agree, not where you disagree.

You would outlaw praying to Mary but you think each individual gets to decide if abortion is murder?? Fascinating.

ha, no, i wouldn't really do that, the point is that if you want to get judgemental, it is better to judge yourself

 

[GodsGrace]

So you are saying that which Moses wrote was not from "God" even though Deuteronomy 4:2 states that it (Deuteronomy) shall not be added unto nor diminished from. Jesus repeatedly quoted Deuteronomy as authoritative. In fact, if memory serves, Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy more than any other.

"God" gave Israel a bill of divorce (cf Jer 3:8).

Jesus didn't change anything with regard to divorce, he just made clear that which occurred by divorce. In those days, you could divorce a woman for as little as burning your toast. Was it intended from the beginning, no. Jesus made it clear, that divorce with except for cause of adultery, caused the two become adulterers if they should take another. Which Moses also made clear, that when one divorces another, should that one remarry, the first may not take them again as a spouse.

Many of the "laws" came about due to problems that had arisen earlier. Such as, don't take sisters as rival wives. Look at the trouble with Jacob, Rachel and Leah. The "laws" regarding incest, from the beginning, it was not always so.

I have already stated it in that which I have posted.

<chuckle>

You yourself have stated a change...
Can one give a certificate of divorce for burning toast or not???

I say NOT.
So something WAS changed and Jesus had to change it back to the original intent.

And yes, I confess. Man helped God along a bit in all those rules that had to be kept. Once God made Himself be known to the Hebrews, they then attributed everything that happened to Him -- even those things God did not cause. What I say has been taught to me--I don't make up my own ideas.

I can't decide if you're a Christian who wants to follow the O.T. or a Jewish person who believes Jesus is the Messiah...

 

[bbyrd009]

People pray to Mary?...
I thought God was a jealous God...
Funny thing is that Christ never even asks people to pray to himself but. the Father.... in my name.

well, i was raised Pentecostal, and many or most of them pray to Jesus, i guess.
and you might think that these systems would universally produce bad examples, but IRL it doesn't seem to work that way,
even if both systems are reaping what they have sowed.
imo if you find yourself in an exclusive club, wherein you are an "us" and everyone else is a "them," you got bigger problems anyway i guess. (not you, KBC, the common you)

 

[GodsGrace]

So then you admit, that it is possible.

Anything is possible.

Many sins may be propagated, for the children follow after that which they learned from their parents. And thus the sin is propagated down through generations until comes one that decides to not walk after it.

YOU are not reading from the same book I am.
I'm using the bible.
You're using the Tanakh and accompanying Jewish rules that are taught to this day by Rabbis.

Sin is not imputed. We are each responsible for our own sin.
How could I be responsible for my father's sin?
Deuteronomy 24:16

You just stated above that it can't be imputed, but is propagated, now you are saying that imputed is a valid understanding.

I said from the beginning that understanding that Adam's sin is imputed to us is a valid concept believed by theologians.
I don't agree. I agree with those that say it is propogated, not imputed.

Not everything in the bible is black or white.
Some legitimate differences can exist.

Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith YHVH, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith YHVH.

What does the above have to do with a Covenant being perpetual?

The covenant would have extended unto everyone living within the Garden, which would have been inclusive of any descendants of Adam and Eve.

How was Eve formed?

Are you serious?
After all I've said, you ask the above?

Adam was right there with her.

Does a covenant extend to a descendant?

<snip>

This is an interrogation and not a discussion.
I suggest you study Covenants.
It seems to me you're lacking in understanding them.
Begin with the Edenic, not the Adamic.

 

[GodsGrace]

Part 2


The first "little horn" out of Greece, forbid the observance of the law, attempted to force the eating of that which "God" called unclean, took away and burnt the manuscripts all under penalty of death if one did not submit. And, slew swine upon the altar, an abomination of desolation. Which can clearly be seen in the Works of Josephus and in 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The second "little horn" out of Rome, likewise attempted to change the set times and law of "God", under penalty of death. Those attempted changes, have remained with us even until this day. As Paul wrote, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work then.




Again though, it still does nothing to nullify shabat. I acknowledge that they met upon the first day of the week, as well as other days.

Act 2:46 And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart

To come together and share what "God" had been doing. However:

What were they generally doing upon shabat?

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.

<small snip>



<snip quote>

While within the Didache that may be the most probable. Notice that from which you quoted speaks of the evening following shabat, which also was the case in Acts 20. What better time to gather together and share. There is nothing wrong with gathering together and meeting upon the first day. But again, it does not nullify the former.




Allegedly. Did you ever notice the within that same portion of the Didache, it speaks of "clean" and "common"? (cf Eze 44:23)




Heb 10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days YHVH made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Lev 23:1 And YHVH spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, The set feasts of YHVH, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my set feasts. 3 Six days shall work be done: but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of work: it is a sabbath unto YHVH in all your dwellings.

Contrast:

Dan 7:25a And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law;

<small snip>



For what reason did you steal? Was it a loaf of bread to feed you and your children because you were starving?

Or was it that you simply coveted something? You can repent of such and make reparation.

Or how about you were in a store, your hands were full and you put something in a pocket or purse with the intent of paying for it? I am sure if you accidently did not pay for an item, that you would return and make it right.

However, the willful and persistent doing of such ...

Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.

You and I both know the end result of what the willful and persistent doing of such shall be.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins




No problem, I do understand. And yes, the gaps shall be filled. Sometimes, from a most unlikely source.




No problem. My apologies.

The "expected" anti-christ according to the understanding of most it seems, is the one spoken of in Daniel 7:25. From my POV, this has already occurred, just as it occurred under Greece and the little horn spoken of in Daniel 8.

Both attempted to change the set times and laws of "God" under penalty of death.




Indeed.




I know that @KBCid has a good handle upon the timing.

He would have died upon a Wednesday, by the time Joseph of Arimathaea went to Pilate, gets permission, buys new linen, returns, removes the body from the cross, transports the body, wraps the body, and then places the body in the tomb (cf Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:42-46, John 19:38), it would be right near sunset.

The Friday through Sunday scenario can not even be forced to work along with the sign of Jonah. No matter how one attempts to shoehorn it in. Some claim that the sign of Jonah should not be taken into account, that it is a later addition to the text and carries no weight.

The resurrection would have occurred at about the time shabat was at it's end. According to John (cf 20:1), it was still dark when they were approaching the tomb and found it empty.

<snip>

You take good care GodsGrace, for I truly do only wish you the best.

That's very nice of you RO.
And, just for the record, I finished all my schooling many years ago and am not into taking tests, which is what you write sounds like.

I've taught the Christian faith and have used questions to make persons think. This is a good method.
However, when there are too many questions and no answers provided, it begins to feel like an interrogation.

I do suggest that you study the covenants a little more than you have.
That's my only suggestion to you.
I also wish you the best.

 

[bbyrd009]

Scripture says when your sister sins against you, and they think they haven't sinned against you, we are take our differences/disagreement to the Church to decide who is right. You don't have a church that you can go to?

that is strictly for the hard of heart imo, and when that works right your congregation will be letting both of you know that. Of course we pretty much all do that little exercise the exact opposite anyway, right? Instead of private convo, convo with witnesses, and then condemn, we condemn, gossip to all the witnesses, and then have a mano-a-mano showdown.

So the formula is there to illuminate one's hard-heartedness, which is how the disagreement arose in the first place, because the Scriptural formula is already being ignored

 

[bbyrd009]

FUNNY!!!
First of all, how do you know I've always taken persons to court?

i was quoting a v there, not addressing you personally, sorry

Second of all, as I said, between Christians we should try to resolve our differences,,,not everyone is Christian and some suits are legitimate.

under the law, certainly, yes.

If two are living in the Kingdom of God here, then they should follow those rules.

ah, if two are living in the Kingdom, they don't need these rules at all

Unfortunately, not even all Christians are trying to live in the Kingdom.

well, we have been raised from the cradle to be codependent upon the state, so the transition is a hard one, no doubt. Luckily if even one of the parties is living in the kingdom, at that moment, there will be no dispute i guess.

 

[GodsGrace]

i was quoting a v there, not addressing you personally, sorry

under the law, certainly, yes.
ah, if two are living in the Kingdom, they don't need these rules at all

well, we have been raised from the cradle to be codependent upon the state, so the transition is a hard one, no doubt. Luckily if even one of the parties is living in the kingdom, at that moment, there will be no dispute i guess.

Im not dependant on the state.
No one should be who can avoid it.

Why would the rules not be needed in the kingdom?
What if I drive through your fence one day?
What would you do?
Are You living in the Kingdom?

 

[bbyrd009]

Why would the rules not be needed in the kingdom?
What if I drive through your fence one day?
What would you do?

ha, depends, what would you do first? i guess if i were there at the time, i would make sure you were ok, and then see how you wanted to proceed, and go from there, but tbh you have kinda picked a bad example as i am a tearer-down of fences anyway. And locks too, don't use em.

Are You living in the Kingdom?

tbh, i'm not sure that is for me to say. i guess i am, except when i am not?

 

[bbyrd009]

How could I be responsible for my father's sin?

by following in his footsteps of course

 

[bbyrd009]

I agree with those that say it is propogated, not imputed.

nice, i agree. Imo the word "imputed" was meant to relay the sense of "propagated," and Babbel then takes care of the rest, so that men may do what they will do, make up doctrines to control others, or whatever, and thus be revealed to all.

 

[bbyrd009]

Im not dependant on the state.
No one should be who can avoid it.

well, that might describe you, but generally speaking "western" Christians are vastly codependent upon the state now

 

[GodsGrace]

ha, depends, what would you do first? i guess if i were there at the time, i would make sure you were ok, and then see how you wanted to proceed, and go from there, but tbh you have kinda picked a bad example as i am a tearer-down of fences anyway. And locks too, don't use em.

tbh, i'm not sure that is for me to say. i guess i am, except when i am not?

It is for you to say and know.
Don't you know?
I've heard you may not even be Christian.
You seem to be.

 

[GodsGrace]

nice, i agree. Imo the word "imputed" was meant to relay the sense of "propagated," and Babbel then takes care of the rest, so that men may do what they will do, make up doctrines to control others, or whatever, and thus be revealed to all.

Impute means I'm personally responsible.
Propogated means it's passed on but not due to my action.

Do you find a difference?
I do.
There is personal sin.
Adam's sin is not my sin.
HE ate, not me.

 

[GodsGrace]

well, that might describe you, but generally speaking "western" Christians are vastly codependent upon the state now

I think I've been gone a long time now...
Doesn't feel like it.

 

[bbyrd009]

Do you find a difference?
I do.
There is personal sin.
Adam's sin is not my sin.
HE ate, not me.

yes, the "imputed" part is the nature, not the sin itself, and we are basically now dissecting why the doctrine of Original Sin is a lie, i guess; because the sin is now imputed, to full effect. Unfortunately our parents impart this concept to us from the cradle, don't talk to strangers, etc, so we cannot really see the forest for the trees.

It is a hard lesson to learn that God can actually protect your little kid, too, and
"don't talk to strangers" = "i do not trust God, and you better not either."