Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Does man have free will to choose salvation?
- Thread starter electedbyHim
- Start date
Seriously, not one Scripture reference to support her opinion. Nothing.
Danielle Shroyer a forner pastor. That should tell you everything.
Woman are forbid to be Pastors, why?
Because woman are easily deceived according to Scripture as is this woman you quoted.
1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:13 For it was Adam who was first formed, and then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into trespass.
Ahh , it is in the book , you will have to order a copy
.In this book, Danielle Shroyer takes readers through an overview of the historical development of the doctrine, pointing out important missteps and overcalculations, and providing alternative ways to approach often-used Scriptures.
Original Blessing: Putting Sin in Its Rightful Place
"The categorical capacity to refrain or not to refrain from a given moral action" is determined by your "desires".
In other words ... Your desires = "the categorical capacity to refrain or not to refrain from a given moral action."
So I repeat: ... God is the first cause of all things ... you can't create your self-determined desires out of nothing for from nothing nothing comes and you were nothing at one time.
or to put it in your terms ...
God is the first cause of all things ... you can't create your self-determined
Your "desires' or what you call "the categorical capacity to refrain or not to refrain from a given moral action" ... what is the CAUSE of your desires?
... or maybe you don't follow what you desire to do what you want to do the most at the time which I am assuming you do.
No one has debunked the OP.
There have been attempts, but mostly claiming that humans are born sinless.
Let me rephrase the OP.
There have been attempts, but mostly claiming that humans are born sinless.
Let me rephrase the OP.
Does man have free will to choose salvation?
To me Ephesians chapter one is perfectly clear...matching with many other passages. Such as in John 6. No man can come to the me unless the father draws him.
Agreed.
Ephesians is straight to the point, but humans want to share in God's glory in His saving process.
I cannot understand that thinking.
Grace and peace to you.
- Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Your book all the days [of my life] were written before ever they took shape, when as yet there was none of them. [Your life is written (not recorded) by God]
- Proverbs 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
- Jeremiah 10:23 O Lord [pleads Jeremiah in the name of the people], I know that [the determination of] the way of a man is not in himself; it is not in man [even in a strong man or in a man at his best] to direct his [own] steps.
- Matthew 11:27 All things have been entrusted and delivered to Me by My Father; and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Son except the Father, and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son deliberately wills to make Him known.
- John 1:12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh [the flesh is carnal and flesh always lusteth against the Spirit], nor of the will of man, but of GOD. Martin Luther: they become the sons of God, neither by the birth of the flesh, nor by a devoted observance of the law, nor by any devoted human effort whatever, but by a Divine birth only. Those three negative statements stress the fact that salvation is not obtainable through any racial or ethnic heritage ( blood ), personal desire ( flesh ), or man-made system ( man ). (See also Matthew 8:11–12; Luke 3:8; Galatians 3:28–29.) John MacArthur
- John 3:27 John replied, “A man can receive nothing [he can claim nothing at all] unless it has been granted to him from heaven [for there is no other source than the sovereign will of God]. Does man have a “Free-will” over God, that God should do and obey in those things which man will? Surely not.
- John 6:29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.”
- John 6:63 The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help!
- 1 Corinthians 4:7 For who regards you as superior or what sets you apart as special? What do you have that you did not receive
- 1 Corinthians 12:3b And no one can [really] say, Jesus is [my] Lord, except by and under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.
- hundreds more verses
- about 4 or 5 verses for the other side, said verses dependent upon the ambiguous meaning of "world" or "all"
- If God knows, that by creating you, you will end up in hell, how is he not determined you to end up in hell by creating you?
- If freewill is true why has there never been a sinless human?
- Why do “freewill” proponents say “Lord willing"? James 4:15
- If freewill is true why "pray" for the salvation of another?
- If freewill is true why do people so strongly tend to have the religious or non-religious views of their parents?
- If you think that you have this freedom from God, this autonomous free will, then you would not need to play by God's laws in the first place. It's ironic, responsibility violates the idea of free will.
- Explain how you can metaphysically disconnect yourself from God how can God then for know what you're going to do?
- When we pray for something, we often are praying that another’s “free will” will be curtailed by outside circumstances and physical limitations.
- Billions of people have died without knowledge of Christ. How do they exercise Free Will to believe in Christ in order to be saved?
- Amazingly, free will, somehow works differently than the rest of the universe. You can magically chose to choose what you want to choose despite your greatest desire, despite “cause and effect”, despite your depraved disposition sustained by God. How can this be?
- yada, yada
Thank you for this.
I would love to see answers to these questions.
Free will is a myth of man.
You can't have free will because that means your will supersedes god's will....it only appears we have free will...god is sovereign...Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Eph. 1:11 - "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL."
Free will as it is taught is not supported by Jesus or any of his teachings.
The word "free" as it is used in "free will" can only mean that a person can think thoughts, make choices, and perform activities completely on his own with nothing CAUSING him to think, choose, or perform. If a person can think a thought or make a choice or perform an action, then he did not do it FREELY. He may have done it Voluntarily, but not FREELY.
God gives us THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of choices according to our own wills. It's just that NONE of them are exercised WITHOUT INFLUENCE (or a cause that makes us do as we do).
Try some experimenting. Sit still and try to come up with a thought, choice or action that has zero influence. There are no effects in the physical or mental universe that have no causes.
"Once the World has been actualised or created, then no Individual has the Free Will to do ‘other than’ what God saw in His mind prior to Creation"
"NO ONE CAN come to Me if ever the Father Who sends Me should not be drawing him" (John 6:44).
It is not our mythical Free Will.
Question:
Do all men, by virtue of Adam’s fall, have a propensity towards sin and a corrupt nature from the moment of their conception and birth, entering this world in a sinful condition?
Answer:
Socinians and Anabaptists deny this entirely. Even if they are convinced by corruption manifesting itself in small children before they can learn by imitation of an evil example, they resolve this by saying that something is evidently present, but refuse to acknowledge this “something” to be sin. Arminians minimize original sin and lean towards denial. We, however, wholeheartedly answer this question in the affirmative.
That all men from the moment of their conception are in a state of degeneracy and corruption is evident:
First, from clear passages of Scripture which express this truth in a variety of ways.
Thirdly, it is a known fact that children die even prior to their birth. However, death is a judgment upon sin, as is confirmed in Romans 5:12 and has been demonstrated above. It is therefore a certainty that they are sinful.
Fourthly, it is also confirmed by the fact that children are in need of Christ, for without Christ there is no salvation. All who are in need of a Redeemer are of necessity sinful, and this is therefore also true for children. Circumcision was a clear proof of this, for this sealed the putting off of the body of sin (Col. 2:11). This is also confirmed by the necessity of the new birth, for if all were well at the first birth, there would be no need for a second birth. This second birth, however, is a necessity if one is to be saved (John 3:5).
Objection #1:
All sin must necessarily be committed consciously and with the acquiescence of man’s free will. Original sin is not committed consciously and with the acquiescence of the will. It can therefore not be considered a sin.
Answer:
It is not true that all sin is committed consciously and with the acquiescence of the will. Not only is this idea extra–biblical but it is also contrary to Scripture. It is one thing to do something against one’s will and another to sin without the conscious acquiescence of the will; and indeed, the first sin was committed with the full acquiescence of the human nature.
Objection #2:
It is written in 1 Corinthians 7:14, “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” Children are therefore without original sin.
Answer:
This text expressly declares all children to be unclean, and thus as having original sin. It also states, however, that children of members of the covenant are holy. This holiness is not the holiness of God’s image, but consists in being separated from other children, and in being incorporated in the church and the covenant of grace, so that they must be viewed as true members of the covenant until the contrary manifests itself. 40In Ezekiel 16:21 they are called, “My children.”
Objection #3:
Children are harmless and cannot discern between their right and left hand (Jonah 4:11). They are innocent (Ps. 106:38), and have done neither good nor evil (Rom. 9:11). The man who was born blind, was blind neither because of his sins nor the sins of his parents (John 9:3).
Answer:
These texts refer to sinful deeds and not to the sinful nature which already begins to manifest itself from the very outset. Neither the man born blind nor his parents were without sin, nor were they perfectly holy. It was not the Lord Jesus’ intent to infer this, but He wished to state that they were neither greater sinners than others, nor that it was for that reason he was born blind.
[1]
The Christian's reasonable service, Volumes 1 and 2 : In which Divine truths concerning the covenant of grace are expounded, defended against opposing parties, and their practice advocated as well as The administration of this covenant in the Old and New Testaments. Published in electronic form by Christian Classics Foundation, 1996. (electronic ed. of the first publication in the English language, based on the 3rd edition of the original Dutch work.) (1:390). Morgan PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications.
Do all men, by virtue of Adam’s fall, have a propensity towards sin and a corrupt nature from the moment of their conception and birth, entering this world in a sinful condition?
Answer:
Socinians and Anabaptists deny this entirely. Even if they are convinced by corruption manifesting itself in small children before they can learn by imitation of an evil example, they resolve this by saying that something is evidently present, but refuse to acknowledge this “something” to be sin. Arminians minimize original sin and lean towards denial. We, however, wholeheartedly answer this question in the affirmative.
That all men from the moment of their conception are in a state of degeneracy and corruption is evident:
First, from clear passages of Scripture which express this truth in a variety of ways.
- “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). There is no evidence that David here referred to the sin of his mother. This is equally clear in both the original text and in our translation. David was referring to himself: “I was.” He humbled himself before God about the commission of his sin. However, in order to view the nature and magnitude of this sin and be humbled even more by it, he focused on the origin of this deed, confessing that his sin was not an incidental act, but that it proceeded from the wicked condition of his heart. He confessed to having this wicked condition already from the first moment of his conception, and thus was naturally inclined towards this sin. He acknowledged that from this evil condition nothing but pollution could come forth, and he was thus abominable in nature and in deeds. He was a man as all other men, and all other men are as he. Together they have the same origin, and therefore are in the same sinful condition. Each person must therefore say the same about himself.
- Add to this such texts in which it is demonstrated that it is impossible to enter this world in any other condition but a sinful one. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one” (Job 14:4); “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6). Adam was sinful, and therefore could not do otherwise than bring forth a son in his own likeness rather than in the likeness of God (Gen. 5:3). All men are sinful, and no cause is capable of generating something which is superior to itself. Consequently, a sinner will bring forth a sinner: “neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Mat. 7:18).
- This is also confirmed by those texts which declare that man from his earliest childhood is nothing but evil in thoughts and deeds. “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5); “For the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21). Such evil thoughts are very clear evidence that the fountain is corrupt (James 3:11).
- This is also confirmed by the apostle: “and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph. 2:3). There we see that all men are children of wrath, being so by nature. They are therefore not children of wrath only due to their sinful deeds, but are already the objects of wrath prior to that. Man’s nature, as soon as it comes into existence, is the object of and the reason for divine wrath. Since they have this nature, they are children of wrath. However, no one is an object of God’s wrath but by virtue of sin. Man is therefore by nature sinful, guilty in Adam, and has in himself a propensity towards evil.
Thirdly, it is a known fact that children die even prior to their birth. However, death is a judgment upon sin, as is confirmed in Romans 5:12 and has been demonstrated above. It is therefore a certainty that they are sinful.
Fourthly, it is also confirmed by the fact that children are in need of Christ, for without Christ there is no salvation. All who are in need of a Redeemer are of necessity sinful, and this is therefore also true for children. Circumcision was a clear proof of this, for this sealed the putting off of the body of sin (Col. 2:11). This is also confirmed by the necessity of the new birth, for if all were well at the first birth, there would be no need for a second birth. This second birth, however, is a necessity if one is to be saved (John 3:5).
Objection #1:
All sin must necessarily be committed consciously and with the acquiescence of man’s free will. Original sin is not committed consciously and with the acquiescence of the will. It can therefore not be considered a sin.
Answer:
It is not true that all sin is committed consciously and with the acquiescence of the will. Not only is this idea extra–biblical but it is also contrary to Scripture. It is one thing to do something against one’s will and another to sin without the conscious acquiescence of the will; and indeed, the first sin was committed with the full acquiescence of the human nature.
Objection #2:
It is written in 1 Corinthians 7:14, “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” Children are therefore without original sin.
Answer:
This text expressly declares all children to be unclean, and thus as having original sin. It also states, however, that children of members of the covenant are holy. This holiness is not the holiness of God’s image, but consists in being separated from other children, and in being incorporated in the church and the covenant of grace, so that they must be viewed as true members of the covenant until the contrary manifests itself. 40In Ezekiel 16:21 they are called, “My children.”
Objection #3:
Children are harmless and cannot discern between their right and left hand (Jonah 4:11). They are innocent (Ps. 106:38), and have done neither good nor evil (Rom. 9:11). The man who was born blind, was blind neither because of his sins nor the sins of his parents (John 9:3).
Answer:
These texts refer to sinful deeds and not to the sinful nature which already begins to manifest itself from the very outset. Neither the man born blind nor his parents were without sin, nor were they perfectly holy. It was not the Lord Jesus’ intent to infer this, but He wished to state that they were neither greater sinners than others, nor that it was for that reason he was born blind.
[1]
The Christian's reasonable service, Volumes 1 and 2 : In which Divine truths concerning the covenant of grace are expounded, defended against opposing parties, and their practice advocated as well as The administration of this covenant in the Old and New Testaments. Published in electronic form by Christian Classics Foundation, 1996. (electronic ed. of the first publication in the English language, based on the 3rd edition of the original Dutch work.) (1:390). Morgan PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications.
I am here from the hills of Alabama and I am here to help you . I am here to help you ferret out and find exactly where this elusive corruption is at the moment of conception .
As we read this bold statement from the land of windmills there was been a lot of water under the bridge since it was written , no doubt .
The man that wrote this is no longer here to help us as we go on our search for the corruption , so onward we go .
It was said the corruption is there at conception so the question , is the corruption present in the sperm of the male parent or in the egg of the female parent or is it possibly present in both ? We will work from here if you are up to it that is . I will do my best to waste no one's time .
As we read this bold statement from the land of windmills there was been a lot of water under the bridge since it was written , no doubt .
The man that wrote this is no longer here to help us as we go on our search for the corruption , so onward we go .
It was said the corruption is there at conception so the question , is the corruption present in the sperm of the male parent or in the egg of the female parent or is it possibly present in both ? We will work from here if you are up to it that is . I will do my best to waste no one's time .
Tenchi
Member
This is Begging the Question. Your statement here assumes theological determinism which I don't accept. So, you can offer this bald assertion, but it is not all, by itself, in the least persuasive. It is merely an assertion.
For a wide variety of reasons, theological determinism (even if you call it "compatibilism") is untenable. For one, determinism dissolves people of personal responsibility. As I said in an earlier post, if a dog-owner has trained his dog to bite postal carriers on sight, he ought not to whip his dog when it bites one. The fault for the bitten postal carrier lies with the dog-owner who has trained his dog to do exactly what it did to the postal carrier. The dog bears no responsibility for what it's owner ultimately caused it to do. So, too, with the person whose desires and actions are ultimately ordained of God. He alone bears the blame for the wickedness people do; for He is the one who ordained their evil desires.
Right and wrong, too, cease to be important distinctions when all that is done - immoral or moral - is the consequence of meticulous, divine ordination. Why should we object if Bob suddenly punches Susan in the face when we believe God has meticulously ordained that he should? Who are we to object to the will of God? It is our place only to subject ourselves to His will. And so, child abuse, rape, murder, genocide - you name the evil - all are merely the will of God playing itself out.
The problem of theological determinism plays havoc, too, with your contending for Calvinist doctrine. Under Reformed thinking, those of an alternative soteriological view are ordained by God to hold their view. So, then, who are you to persuade them to a different one, in contradiction of God's will? Do you see, perhaps, the absurdity of the Reformed view of divine sovereignty? But what am I saying?! Of course you can't. You're divinely ordained NOT to see the absurdity.
God's word also becomes a very strange read when we take human free agency out of it. For example:
Acts 16:30-31
30 and after he (the Philippian jailer) brought them out, he said, "Sirs (Paul and Silas), what must I do to be saved?"
31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
??? On Calvinism, the response of Paul and Silas, here, to the jailer is an odd thing, it seems to me - even false, actually. The response of Paul and Silas - if Calvinism is correct - should have been something like:
"If God has ordained that you should be saved, you will be. You have no real choice in the matter, only the illusion of it, at most. Your belief - or not - is entirely God's choice, not yours."
Nope. "Refraining" is a verb, a mental action, not a noun, as a desire is. This refraining (or non-refraining) action is taken when a circumstance offers to an individual a variety of possible options. Desire may contribute to the choice a person makes in a given circumstance but it is not by any means always the sum-total of the basis upon which that person chooses x rather than y. Having free agency doesn't mean one has no influences whatever acting upon their choices, but only that, in a given choice, there is no external agent, no other person, dictating what one will choose. I don't, for example, attend my local library and wander among the many bookshelves looking for something interesting to read until someone comes along and directs my choice of book, commanding me to read a particular one. No, as I search for a book to read, I roam the library unconstrained by the will or preferences of another concerning what book it is that I'll choose.
Insofar as choosing to be saved is concerned, the idea that my choice is meticulously ordained of God and not really a choice at all, confounds the many verses in the NT that indicate it is a choice, for which I'm held responsible in an eternal degree. (John 3:16, 36; Acts 2:37-38; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; 1 John 5:10-13, etc.)
I've never suggested that God isn't the First Cause of all things. Obviously, as a Christian, I believe God is the uncaused First Cause, existing as a necessity of His own being. But this doesn't mean He meticulously ordains every thing I do.
But it isn't always a desire, or desires, that order my choices. The nature of a circumstance may do so, constraining me to act in just one particular way. Another person may direct what I do, quite against my will, even, in some cases. At other times, my choice may be quite random, choosing the left fork in a hiking trail rather than the right entirely on a whim. And so on. Desire doesn't, it seems to me, always constrain every choice I make.
Last edited:
Tenchi
Member
When you write these sorts of things, you mark yourself as a dogmatist, a propagandist, actually, who has no real interest in anything other than promoting your own point of view however challenged and flawed it has been shown to be.
You have not shown that you were born guilty of having committed a sin when you were a newborn. This is so because it is impossible for a newborn to have committed any sin. What's more, God, in His word, flatly denies that one person is held responsible for the sin of another. We are all responsible only for the sin we commit.
Deuteronomy 24:16
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20
20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
And so, though every person is born with an unregulated fleshliness (as a result of the Fall), called the "sin nature," which will lead us all inevitably into sin, we are, nonetheless, born innocent of having committed a sin. Nothing that has been put forward by you or any other Calvinist propagandist in this thread has shown that this is not the case. Instead, you pretend that what has been explained above has not been explained and your Calvinist views stand unopposed.
To answer you new question: Yes, though necessarily aided by God to do so, people do choose to be saved - or not.
"The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Romans 8:7). This means that man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability – man must obey God even if he cannot obey God. We are responsible if a higher power (God in this case) to us to do something. God tells us to sin no more and we are responsible to obey even though none of us can do it.
You are wrongly conflated God's will. It may be God's will that Joe goes to hell and it can also be God's will that Susan related the gospel to Joe. In fact God has told us to spread the gospel to the elect and reprobates. We don't know who he has chosen. We know it is God that does the choosing (John 1:12-13) and we know that only God has 'free will'. When you assert we have 'free will' you are saying God must respond to us; the superior serves the inferior.
God ordains his method of salvation. He says "faith cometh by hearing" and they Christians are to spread the word. This is what's happening here. Simple.
Causality is a connection of phenomena through which one thing (the cause) under certain conditions gives rise to, causes something else (the effect). The first cause must be from a source that is eternal. God is the only eternal entity [and thus his being is causeless] and thus the ‘first cause’ of all things. Thus, the God is the cause of the human will, thus man’s will is not free; rather, it is designed by God.
God knows the future completely. Before creation God's only source of complete knowledge of the future was Himself. Thus, simple logic says God must determine all things.
"No one seeks God", yet you submit otherwise.
If we were free to choose God then why is a large majorities belief system the same as their parents. Empirical hard evidence show "free will" (the ability to self-determine salvation) to be a lie.
At conception of both parents is whatI believe. Although I am not certain how important that is.
Psalms 51:5a Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
H2342a
חוּל
chul or
חִיל
chil (296d); a prim. root; to whirl, dance, writhe: — am in anguish(1), are writhing(1), be in anguish(1), be in travail(1), brings forth(1), brought forth(5), brought forth through labor pains(1), brought you forth(1), brought you forth through labor pains(1), burst(1), calve(1), calving(1), causes(1), causes the wilderness of Kadesh to tremble(1), danced(1), in labor pains(1), is in anguish(1), labor(1), labor pains(1), take part(1), travailed(1), tremble(5), trembles(1), wait(1), waited(1), wait patiently(1), was in labor pains(2), were in anguish(1), whirl(2), whirl down(1), whirled(1), whirling(1), wounded(2), wounds(1), writhe(2), writhed(3), writhe in anguish(1), writhe in great pain(1), writhes(3), writhes in pain(1).
Psalms 51:5b And in sin my mother conceived me.
H3179
יחם
yâcham
BDB Definition:
1) to be hot, conceive
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be hot, become hot
1a2) to mate (of animals)
1a3) to be or become hot (figuratively of anger)
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to conceive (sexually)
1b2) to be in heat (of animals)
Part of Speech: verbA Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 860
Here is my question again so you can quote it if need be .
It was said the corruption is there at conception so the question , is the corruption present in the sperm of the male parent or in the egg of the female parent or is it possibly present in both ?
Your answer below .
It was said the corruption is there at conception so the question , is the corruption present in the sperm of the male parent or in the egg of the female parent or is it possibly present in both ?
Your answer below .
Do you mean the corruption is in both the sperm and the egg ? Please clarify for me .
We are going forward with your help to seek out the importance of the discussion .
At conception of both parents.
I do not know the particulairs unless I research it in depth. The Bible teaches at conception per Pslams 51:5.
Imputed sin.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Romans 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the trespass of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.