Mark

Hi Cheryl,

I appreciate your attempt to defend the doctrine of original sin. I agree wholeheartedly here with you. However there were a few things i thought you might like to flesh out a little for me.

You said “God never prophesied that Eve might rebel and eat from the tree of life after the fall because Eve still had the ability to not sin.”

I wonder how you hadle texts such as these with your theology…

Eph 2 “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. “
1 John 3:4 “sin is lawlessness”
I’m not convinced that the bible ever gives the indication that any single person has ever had the capacity to ‘not sin’ after the fall, even Eve. What texts support the idea that Eve was able to not sin after her original sin. Please cite your texts

You said “ That error that has been taught by many is the doctrine that Adam’s offspring are charged by God with Adam’s sin. The Bible lays this error to rest by stating that the son will not bear the punishment for the father’s sin.” You then quote Eze 18.

Now this may simply be terminology issues. I agree that no-one is responsible for another’s sin, Adams or otherwise. But are you saying that children do not suffer the punishment for the sins of their parents (on earth i mean, not eternally). If so, how do you understand these texts…
2 Kings 23: 25-27 “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.26 Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27 And the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

Here Judah is punished for the apostasy of an earlier king Manasseh. The effects of the sin of the king result in the destruction of Jerusalem, regardless of Josiah’s reforms. Also…

Numbers 13:18 “The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Here quite plainly the children are punished to the third and forth generation. Can you clarify your position?

Also you said “since Christ is able to remove not just the sin of one man, but the transgressions of the many (Romans 5:16). The passage is an extremely important apologetic passage for the universality of Christ’s sacrifice”

Again maybe this is just terminology, but are you promoting a doctrine of ‘universalism’, namely that all people are saved and none perish in hell?

Thanks