Bible Study Every Man's Battle: The Way to Win.

[Hopeful 2]

No it's not,

Ezekiel was written after Exodus, and God updated the sins of the father teachings.
No child will bear their ancestors sins, making "Original Sin" a false doctrine.

Scripture is God's, not mine or yours. And Scripture doesn't contradict itself.

Correct, but some things change, as God makes clear with Ezek 18:20.
Like, circumcision is no longer necessary for salvation.

 

[Tenchi]

The fault is yours. Your view of "innocent birth" is not even scientific, epigenetic studies have shown that past generations' traumatic experience and unhealthy lifestyle impact can alter genetic expression, and that can be inherited from BIRTH.

Well, here, you demonstrate that you aren't comprehending what I'm writing. A baby who is innocent at birth is not one who is free of the effects, the consequences, of another person's sin but is a person who is free of any moral guilt of their own by virtue of their very young age.

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Ex. 20:4-6)

This is warning of the effect or consequence of a father's sin; it isn't a warning that God will confer personal moral responsibility and guilt upon the child for the iniquitous deeds of the child's father. We all bear the effects of Adam's sin in our spiritual separation from God from birth, in sickness and physical death, and so on, but none of us are morally responsible for Adam's sin, we aren't held guilty by God for a sin Adam committed.

 

[Tenchi]

So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son (Ham) had done to him. Then he said:

“Cursed be Canaan (Ham's son);
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brethren.” (Gen. 9:24-25)

Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. Nevertheless I will not do it in your days, for the sake of your father David; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. (1 Kings 11:11-12)

Noah did not make Ham's son guilty of Ham's sin but he did enact consequences arising from Ham's sin upon his child. Noah didn't say, "Canaan you are as wicked as your father, guilty of his sin because he is your father." Instead, Noah cursed Ham's progeny as a way of enacting punishment upon Ham.

What God did in response to Solomon's sin was also NOT the assigning of Solomon's guilt to his children, making them responsible for his sin, but punishing Solomon's sin with consequences that touched his son.

That doesn't answer the question - what's the need for salvation? To be saved from what? "Selfishness" is also self-preservation, without which in your ancestors you wouldn't have existed today. Jesus didn't die for "self-interest",

Here, again, you aren't understanding what I've written. Whether a person is born innocent or guilty BOTH need a Savior because both sin. The problem with asserting a newborn baby is guilty of sin, though, is that it is impossible that they have committed sin and the Bible never actually says they bear anyone else's (Adam's) sin.

I've also never said that "Jesus died for self-interest." No, he died for the consequences of God-unregulated and inordinate self-interest.

Jesus didn't die for "self-interest", he even subliminally expressed his own "self-interest" - "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." (Matt. 26:39)

And in doing this, Jesus subjected his self-interest to the will of the Father, just as we all must do throughout every day if we are to avoid sin. This is because every sin we commit expresses a God-unregulated self-interest, as I've said.

It is you whose mind is corrupted by their influence, which is showing in your choice of words - "escape", "regenerated", "unregulated", all of these reek of TMD.

???

I can tell you that I identify with Christ as I fully understand how grevious was my sin that cost the Almighty God, the creator of the universe his only beloved son to have died for me, a holy sacrifice which I could never repay with any amount of "moralism".

A sense of guilt about your sin isn't what the doctrine of identification with Christ is. Read Romans 6:1-11.

God's word demands us to humble ourselves and listen to his ordained teachers (Deut. 6:6-7, Prob. 1:8-9, Acts 8:30-31), which you malign as "appeal to authority".

Deuteronomy 6:6-7
6 "These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.
7 "You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.

Where does this passage "demand" that a Christian person submit to the views of the "Church Fathers" who are, essentially, just Christian men who lived a long time ago? Nowhere. The passage does tell the Israelites to teach the commandments of God - not their own ideas about doctrines of the Christian faith, like the "Church Fathers" - to their children.

Proverbs 1:8
8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching;

I see no demand here given by God that all Christians must defer to the doctrinal views of ancient, non-apostolic Christian men. In fact, God's truth is not indicated as the topic of instruction in this verse, only whatever parents may teach to their kids.

Acts 8:30-31
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Where's the divine "demand" that this verse is offered in support of? And description doesn't equal prescription, @ Carry_Your_ Name. I don't see at all, actually, why you offered this verse in support of your assertion that "God's word demands us to humble ourselves and listen to his ordained teachers." The verse says nothing like this and actually gives no prescription for Christian conduct whatever.

Even Jesus himself listened and discussed with the rabbis in the temple (Lk. 2:41-50), was he "appealing to aurhotity"?

??? I don't understand your question here since Jesus' teaching in the temple is not an example of an appeal to authority. Do you understand what this fallacy actually is?

Ironically, your denial of original sin has only exhibited your own pride, you disregard the wisdom from older generations that have passed the test of time and lean on your own understanding, as though you've discovered something which nobody else ever did, you're smarter than all of them, you alone are right and they were all wrong.

??? I guess you're having a bad day...

Outside of your dark imagination, the truth is that I do nothing like what you assert that I do in the quotation above. I just don't accept that your argument is helped by trying to connect it to what the Church Fathers thought. I can read the Bible as well as they, and when I do, I don't see the false doctrine of Original Sin in it. This isn't a statement of pride but of the plain fact of the matter. And so, there is nothing in the fact that the "Church Fathers" are called the "Church Fathers" that obliges anyone to agree with them. Besides, consider how often they disagreed with one another!

Great, instead of relating to this genuine repentance, now you're slut shaming the psalmist's mother?

??? No...

That what his mother did in the sheets with his father, which had "brought forth him in inquity" is a great sin in your eyes? And using his mother's "condition" to justify your own rejection of the original sin? You need milk, not solid food, you who teach needs to be taught.

Uh huh.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is a deflection from my point. A sort of tu quoque retort that avoids addressing what was said to you.

The only thing you said to me in reply was denial.

I'm not sure what the "those" are in you remark above. It is true that "all have sinned through Adam," but not in the way you think. He broke our spiritual connection with God in Eden, separating us from God such that we migrate inevitably into inordinate selfishness and thus into sin. But none of us bear guilt for the sin of Adam, though we do endure the effects of his sin. Adam's sin is his own and alone is guilty for it, as Scripture plainly and repeatedly states (see my earlier posts).

You're still predominantly blabbering about guilt, blame and liability. The nature of sin is disobedience against God and disconnection with Him, you agree that "our spiritual bond with God" is broken, it originated through Adam's misconduct and entered into the world, and it had plagued the whole world. It does NOT matter "whose sin" it is, as long as we're living in this world, we're affected by the consequence of HIS sin.

Yes. Physical death is one of the effects, the consequences, of Adam's sin - and of our own.

Then please stop denying it - or making excuses.

Uh huh. And so? I see nothing in the above about being guilty of Adam's sin, of inheriting his guilt, or of having committed sin in the womb.

I've told you that this isn't about criminal charges, or some king of "guilty conscience" that makes you feel bad. Sin is in human nature, NOT any particular undesired sinful behavior. It's the root cause of all sinful behaviors.

This isn't how it appears to me. You do seem very eager to "axe grind" about your mistaken doctrine of original sin because you don't actually seriously engage with the points made to you, but simply dismiss them out-of-hand and then repeat you own view.

In any case, you're quite correct that you don't have to read any of my posts - though, no one has said, as far as I'm aware, that you are obligated to read them.

The gospel message is succinct and clear: "Christ died for our SINS, according to the Scripture." (1 Cor. 15:3) Sins, not "unregulated ways" or "selfishness". If you're truly convinced that "unregulated ways" or "selfishness" is the root cause, then go find a therapist for personal improvement. You're misguided, I'm not. I abide by the word of God and its validation by generations of church fathers, and I debunk your false premises.

Their own. Every person bears the guilt and punishment for their own sin. There won't be any blaming of one's sin on others at the Final Judgment.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:16
16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Or how about neither "their own" or "others", but all originated from Adam? It's like one man lights up a cigarette in a room, all lungs breathe in the smoke; one factory pollutes a river, all residents in the downstream suffer from contamination; one worker collects faulty data, all scholars and experts who rely on that data make deadly wrong decisions. Jesus's point is a paradigm shift, a shift from finger pointing to the "works of God". You're thinking like a lawyer, not our lord and savior.

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. (Jn. 9:1-3)

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. (Rom. 5:12)

Sort of.

Then why are you still playing the blame game?

Do you know what a "buzzword" actually is? It seems to me, if you did, you wouldn't apply the term to the words and phrases I've used in explaining what I see in God's word concerning our sin-guiltiness before Him.

Anyway, I don't believe, nor have I indicated, that people are "made into sinners" by dint of some external force or agency against their will, as the original sin doctrine proposes. Though various influences and circumstances may come to bear upon the individual, fostering a certain sinful course of action in them, they are, nonetheless, initially free to choose to sin (though, not in a compatibilistic sense, which is just theistic determinism pushed back a step), or not, and are therefore fully responsible for the choice they make.

Since people are NOT "made into sinners", then you practically agree on sin nature, any external influence and circumstance only restrain or activate the sinful desires which are already in their hearts. It is written: "Each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." (James 1:14-15) What really gives a choice is the new spiritual nature, a choice for good over evil, and that choice is a conscious choice, and it's NOT "initially free". Initially everyone naturally choose evil, because that's the path of least resistance. Ask yourself, which one is easier - conceive, earn and build? Or kill, steal and destroy?

In the pre-flood world, everyone's heart was filled with wickedness, nobody "choose" good, for which God had to flush them all out with the flood. (Gen. 6:5-7) This is not some "determinism“, it‘s human nature.

Just to be clear: "Born innocent" is not the same as saying "born morally perfect." I don't think a baby, unaware of moral distinctions, of God and His commands, and of his/her own conscience can ever be said to be morally perfect since such perfection would, I believe, necessitate an understanding of these things. But the very things that would prevent me from saying a newborn baby is morally perfect at birth, are the things that do permit me to say s/he is innocent.

Spin it with whatever clever words you have, you're essentially defending Nietzsche's humantisic view of "blank canvas". Born innocent or guilty, one thing is clear - all are born in flesh and blood, which cannot enter God's kingdom.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Cor. 15:50)

I would say that a man who is selfish, who desires to serve himself above and before others, living independently of God's will and way, grows prideful (among other sinful things) and hardens, over time, into his selfishness (manifesting in his pride, etc.) becoming increasingly unable to be otherwise. The writer of Hebrews warned of this:

Hebrews 3:13
13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

But many are the stories of God's intervening in the lives of such people, redeeming them from their own sinfulness. Our hardness is not an impossible barrier to God's work of redemption and reconciliation, though He does, generally, respect the freedom He's given us to choose our own course either toward, or away, from Him.

As I said, "selfishness" is just a biological instinct for self preservation, that's not a "choice". Animals don't make choices, they do what they're naturally programme to do. What is a choice - according to God's will - is Lk. 17:33, that is totally counter-intuitive, and that takes faith and risk.

Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. (Lk. 17:33)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

We have to be self-interested or we will die. If I don't attend to my need for rest, nourishment, water, protection from the elements, etc., I will quickly expire. So, there is a natural and right interest in myself that is necessary. But because human beings are born spiritually separated from God due to the Fall, they don't benefit from God's control over them in the way a born-again believer may benefit who has the Holy Spirit residing within them. And so, inevitably, they grow inordinate in their self-interest, violating their conscience and the command of God, as a result.

I get you don't accept that this is the case, but, so far, merely denying my view doesn't actually defeat it. And so, I am perfectly able to hold my view as a legitimate third option to the only two you want to assert that there are, which makes your dichotomy of choice false.

Sinners are either born or made, there is no third option. What you described is the blooming of that sin nature, which you have mistaken as a "third option".

Also, that "self-interest" isn't just about attending to one's own psysiological needs, but doing so at the cost of depriving other's needs; and it's not just "needs" for essentials, but "wants" for excess. If you study commandments six to ten assiduously, you'll notice one common denominator - deprivation. God doesn't forbid you to buy a house identical to your neighbors or marry a wife looks like your neighbors, what's wrong is denouncing your neighbor's right to his property and spouse, and then possess HIS property and spouse for your own. However, that's the path of least resistance, it takes a conscious choice to deny and banish that, then take on a path of more resistance.

I don't understand how this does anything to defeat, or even properly address, the third option I've indicated. I've described a circumstance concerning human sinfulness, drawn from Scripture, that precludes the possibility of a person being brought up sinless, so I don't know why you mention such a person in your remarks above. It seems to me that you're just Strawmanning here...

You don't understand this because you're still promoting the Nietzschean view of "blank canvas", aka "born innocent". You're not indicating any "third option", you're just describing the same sin nature in your own Newspeak. In Rom. 5:12-21, Paul made a stark contrast between Adam and Jesus - "Death in Adam, Life in Christ". "Born as sinners" and "made into sinners" are as dichotomous as Paul's dichotomy in that passage.

You're not understanding what I'm writing. The "behaviors" you've all-capped in the quotation above are the result of God-unregulated self interest; they are not the sin nature itself. To be as clear as I can be: The sin nature is a state in which you and I, and all of humanity, are spiritually separated from God such that our natural and necessary self-interest is not under God's direct control, which inevitably leads to the sinful behaviors of which we become guilty. Sins - pride, wrath, lust, sloth, etc. - are just symptoms, or the result, of this God-unregulated state.

You're still equivocating, you're complicating an otherwise simple matter. You're still clinging to your label "God-unregulated", well how did God regulate? Through LAWs, mosaic law and civil law. Those laws directly regulate sinful behaviors, as they were made in response to those sinful behaviors, is that what you're aiming for? If you truly acknowledged that sin nature is spiritual separation from God, then you shouldn't have muddied the water with your confusing labels of "God-unregulated" and "self-interested".

I repeat, as clear as I can be: God-unregulated self interest, especially at the cost of others' self interet, is the manifestation of that sin nature, NOT the other way around. Pride, wrath, lust, sloth, etc. are intertwined categories of sin, "symptoms" are narcissism, violence, fornication, procrastination, etc. respectively.

Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man. (Gen. 9:3)

For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Rom. 5:13)

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? (Rom. 7:1)

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Rom. 13:3-4)

I'm afraid it is. See above.

And I'm boldly and unapologetically telling you it is NOT. See above.

This all addresses a circumstance against which I have not argued, nor offered an alternative. Really, this seems like you're shifting the goalposts of the matter in question. I have never suggested that there is a third option to God being either present or absent. I've not proposed that there is an option beside either being born again or not. I've not contended that all of humanity is not under the separating-from-God effect of Adam's sin and thus possessed of a nature that is, from birth, not under His control (i.e. the sin nature). So the quotation above is arguing against nothing that I've actually put forward.

I've told you at the beginning that we may have been describing the same thing, I call it the sin nature as it is, you instead prefer your own Newspeak with your jargon "God-unregulated self interest" and pretend that it's a third option.

My point in that post is to debunk a common false philosophy, that good from God and evil from Satan are two separate opposing cosmic forces, humans are "innocently" caught in the crossfire, and they have a choice to pick a side. I'm telling you, that is totally fictional and unbiblical, there is no "third option" in the middle. Back in the garden, Adam didn't choose between God and Satan, he rebelled against God by violating His order and hiding from His presence, and by doing so he automatically turned evil, and sin entered the world.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Noah did not make Ham's son guilty of Ham's sin but he did enact consequences arising from Ham's sin upon his child. Noah didn't say, "Canaan you are as wicked as your father, guilty of his sin because he is your father." Instead, Noah cursed Ham's progeny as a way of enacting punishment upon Ham.

What God did in response to Solomon's sin was also NOT the assigning of Solomon's guilt to his children, making them responsible for his sin, but punishing Solomon's sin with consequences that touched his son.

Since you've repeatedly argued that each individual is guilty of their own sins, why are their descendants being punished - as a biblical fact? Both in general sense and in particular cases? Why not just Ham and Solomon themselves? And as the bible indicates, Canaan and Jeroboam were as wicked as their fathers, if not more. The evils of their previous generations had fully bloomed in their own generations. I wouldn't rush to dissociate their sins from their fathers.

Here, again, you aren't understanding what I've written. Whether a person is born innocent or guilty BOTH need a Savior because both sin. The problem with asserting a newborn baby is guilty of sin, though, is that it is impossible that they have committed sin and the Bible never actually says they bear anyone else's (Adam's) sin.

Then show me which baby is naturally born in the Holy Spirit except Lord Jesus. Show me why all must be born AGAIN - not just naturally born. Both sin because both are SINNERs, any denial or equivocation of that is following the example of the proud Pharisee who boasted his own deeds with contempt of the tax collector - who actually acknowledged himself as a sinner, and who was justified rather than the Pharisee.

I've also never said that "Jesus died for self-interest." No, he died for the consequences of God-unregulated and inordinate self-interest.

No, he died for SIN, God-unregulated and inordinate self-interest are consequences of SIN.

And in doing this, Jesus subjected his self-interest to the will of the Father, just as we all must do throughout every day if we are to avoid sin. This is because every sin we commit expresses a God-unregulated self-interest, as I've said.

Once again, I repeat, sin is in human NATURE, it's not "committed", you commit narcissism, violence, fornication, procrastination, you do NOT commit pride, wrath, lust, sloth, etc.

A sense of guilt about your sin isn't what the doctrine of identification with Christ is. Read Romans 6:1-11.

But a deep sense of guilt is what Paul had personally expereinced, which he expressed in Rom. 7:13-25. Without such a sense of guilt and a yearning for salvation, there won't be any reflection of one's sin and a desire for reconnection with God, and subsequently there won't be any identification with Christ either.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Where does this passage "demand" that a Christian person submit to the views of the "Church Fathers" who are, essentially, just Christian men who lived a long time ago? Nowhere. The passage does tell the Israelites to teach the commandments of God - not their own ideas about doctrines of the Christian faith, like the "Church Fathers" - to their children.

Then why do you teach your own ideas? Why do you cook God's words with your own dressing and seasoning of so called "unregulated self interest" instead of just serving them as what they are? Original sin is one of the fundemantal doctrines of Christianity, I don't come up with it, neither did I demand you to "submit" to it. "God's commandment" in this particular passage is to love God with all your strength, soul and heart, this needs to be taught BECAUSE of the spiritual separation from God, nobody naturally knows and loves God, they all natually hide from God and rebel against God, isn't that precisely what original sin is?

I see no demand here given by God that all Christians must defer to the doctrinal views of ancient, non-apostolic Christian men. In fact, God's truth is not indicated as the topic of instruction in this verse, only whatever parents may teach to their kids.

Who are you to conclude who's "apostolic" and who's not? And who're you to determine what's "God's truth" and what's not? And what do you mean by "views of ancient" - isn't the bible itself a collection of 66 ancient books? What view is "modern" and "apostolic" enough to your taste? You're old enough to be considered "ancient" to me, what makes your view more truthful than those church fathers whom you disparage as "ancient, non-apostolic"?

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, the bible is suffient but not exhaustive, says the bible itself, Jn. 21:25, God's truth includes both his general truth and his special truth, by no means is secular education that passes general truth inferior to ecclesiastic teachings that pass special truth. Since this was authored by Solomon, the wisest man who was directly gifted by God with heavenly wisdom, whatever the topic of such instruction is that he passed down to his son, it shouldn't be dismissed as "ancient, non-apostolic doctrinal views".

Where's the divine "demand" that this verse is offered in support of? And description doesn't equal prescription, @ Carry_Your_ Name. I don't see at all, actually, why you offered this verse in support of your assertion that "God's word demands us to humble ourselves and listen to his ordained teachers." The verse says nothing like this and actually gives no prescription for Christian conduct whatever.

God has given prescriptions as well in terms of "divine demand" - a divine demand to uphold sound doctrines passed down from past generations of church fathers, instead of tuning into whatever you consider more "modern" and acceptable.

It was not my "assertion", but a recorded historical fact in the book of Acts that the eunuch, a highly educated elite in charge of Queen Candace's treasury, not only having access to the Scripture but able to read, a devout prigrim on his way back from Jerusalem, had humbled himself and listened to an ordained teacher of God, the only thing I "asserted" is that I'm not greater or smarter than him, he's a role model which I should follow.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." (2 Tim. 4:3-4)

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. (2 Jn. 1:9-11)

??? I don't understand your question here since Jesus' teaching in the temple is not an example of an appeal to authority. Do you understand what this fallacy actually is?

You tell me why did Jesus even bother to discuss with them at the temple, even at the cost of making his parents worry? Why didn't he dismiss them as "ancient, non-apostolic Jewish men"? I don't appeal to any authority, I simply respect authority and follow that Ethiopian eunuch's example.

??? I guess you're having a bad day...

No I'm not, I'm actually having a good day, an interesting day, thanks for your concern.

Outside of your dark imagination, the truth is that I do nothing like what you assert that I do in the quotation above. I just don't accept that your argument is helped by trying to connect it to what the Church Fathers thought. I can read the Bible as well as they, and when I do, I don't see the false doctrine of Original Sin in it. This isn't a statement of pride but of the plain fact of the matter. And so, there is nothing in the fact that the "Church Fathers" are called the "Church Fathers" that obliges anyone to agree with them. Besides, consider how often they disagreed with one another!

The plain fact of the matter is that Jesus died for our SINS (1 Cor. 15:3), all sins originated from the sin which entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5:12), you're reasoning like the disciples by focusing on guilt, blame and liability (Jn. 9:2), none of those is my "dark imagination". If there were no original sin, then there shouldn't have been any original salvation - from sin, which is contrary to the Scripture, regarding the originality of God's salvation plan:

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (Jn. 1:1-2)

??? No...

Yes.

Uh huh.

If you have nothing to say, keep your uh-huhs to yourself. It is evident that the psalmist was lamenting his own sin nature, not in his wildest imagination would he insinuate his own mother.

Well, here, you demonstrate that you aren't comprehending what I'm writing. A baby who is innocent at birth is not one who is free of the effects, the consequences, of another person's sin but is a person who is free of any moral guilt of their own by virtue of their very young age.

All have sinned, and all means ALL, Rom. 3:9-20, the only exception is Lord Jesus himself. If a baby tragically passes away, then they just perish, Rom. 2:12; whether they're guilty or innocent soly depends on whether their names are written in the Lamb's book of life or not, Rev. 13:8, 20:15, and that's not for you or I to speculate. I don't comprehend what you're writing because there's nothing to comprehend, it's all just your speculations and unverified theories.

This is warning of the effect or consequence of a father's sin; it isn't a warning that God will confer personal moral responsibility and guilt upon the child for the iniquitous deeds of the child's father. We all bear the effects of Adam's sin in our spiritual separation from God from birth, in sickness and physical death, and so on, but none of us are morally responsible for Adam's sin, we aren't held guilty by God for a sin Adam committed.

Original sin is not just any particular sin which Adam was personally responsible for, but the same KIND of sin which we all repeat. Have you ever violated a strict order? Hid from the presence of God? Made excuses to shift blame? If yes, then you're guilty of Adam's sin - repeated in you.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Ezekiel was written after Exodus, and God updated the sins of the father teachings.
No child will bear their ancestors sins, making "Original Sin" a false doctrine.

Then answer me - Have you ever violated a strict order? Hid from the presence of God? Made excuses to shift blame? Those are not false doctrines, not even "doctrines", but Adam's rap sheet all recorded in Gen. 3. If yes, then you've repeated Adam's sin. He who sins will die, but sin doesn't die with the sinner, it's passed down to future generations who repeat and escalate their ancestor's sin.

Correct, but some things change, as God makes clear with Ezek 18:20.
Like, circumcision is no longer necessary for salvation.

God never changes, He's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, neither does his holy word.
Also I've never mentioned circumcision, why do you jump to that?

 

[Tenchi]

The only thing you said to me in reply was denial.

And here is more deflection.

The nature of sin is disobedience against God and disconnection with Him, you agree that "our spiritual bond with God" is broken, it originated through Adam's misconduct and entered into the world, and it had plagued the whole world. It does NOT matter "whose sin" it is, as long as we're living in this world, we're affected by the consequence of HIS sin.

We sin when we disobey God, yes. But we do so because we are selfish to an inordinate degree. And we are selfish in this way because we have been separated from God spiritually as a result of Adam's sin in Eden. These things can't be disconnected from one another in considering the matter of our guiltiness before God. If they are, things like the mistaken notion of Original Sin arise.

I disagree, of course, that it "doesn't matter whose sin it is." God, in His word, says it does matter, as the verses from Deuteronomy 24 and Ezekiel 18 that I've cited plainly indicate. "Whose sin it is" is the core idea of Original Sin: We are all blamed, essentially, for Adam's sin, taking on his guilt for what he did and thus we are all born guilty of sin. As far as I'm concerned, this is an abhorrent idea, making a mockery of divine justice. And it isn't biblical.

Then please stop denying it - or making excuses.

??? I haven't.

I've told you that this isn't about criminal charges, or some king of "guilty conscience" that makes you feel bad. Sin is in human nature, NOT any particular undesired sinful behavior. It's the root cause of all sinful behaviors.

Well, you cited this passage:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. (Rom. 7:7-8)."

What does Paul identify as "sin" in this chapter of his letter to the Roman Christians?

Romans 7:21-25
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Does this sound at all like, "I sin because of inherited sin-guiltiness from Adam"? Not to me. Paul describes two opposing "laws": One, "the law of sin in my members" and the other, "the law of God." They contend within Paul such that he does the things he doesn't want to do, contravening God's law. Paul goes on to explain why, however, in the very next chapter:

Romans 8:5-8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

This is why human beings sin. They have hearts spiritually separated from God by Adam's sin and minds that are, therefore, set on the flesh. This occupation with the flesh rather than the Spirit engenders hostility toward God whose law condemns being inordinately occupied by the things of the flesh. There is no doctrine of Original Sin in what Paul explained, as far as I can see.

The gospel message is succinct and clear: "Christ died for our SINS, according to the Scripture." (1 Cor. 15:3) Sins, not "unregulated ways" or "selfishness". If you're truly convinced that "unregulated ways" or "selfishness" is the root cause, then go find a therapist for personal improvement. You're misguided, I'm not. I abide by the word of God and its validation by generations of church fathers, and I debunk your false premises.

Yes, Christ died for our sins. But, as Paul wrote in the passage above, our sin reflects an inner condition caused by Adam's sin. In consequence of his sin, we are, as a default position of mind and heart, separated spiritually from God and thus think and act "according to the flesh," attending to our own fleshly interests and not the things of the Spirit. So, again, Christ did die for our sins but he had to do so for these underlying reasons that Paul has explained, not because we all bear the guilt and sin of Adam. You may not want to look at these reasons since they challenge your Original Sin idea, but I can see that they have an important bearing on the question of inheriting Adam's guilt and so will speak of them no matter how you feel about them.

In any case, I don't need to "find a therapist" in dealing with sin in my life; I have the Holy Spirit dwelling within me who makes modern psychological therapy and drugs quite unnecessary and whose power exerted on my behalf in my life entirely liberates me from the old Self, the source of all my sin.

As far as "being misguided," well, you're entitled to your opinion but I don't think folks reading our exchange are going to think as you do. Certainly, I don't think you are abiding by the word of God since it seems clear to me you have a rather limited understanding of it. Thank God, that can change.

Have you "debunked my false premises"? I don't see that you have at all...

Or how about neither "their own" or "others", but all originated from Adam? It's like one man lights up a cigarette in a room, all lungs breathe in the smoke; one factory pollutes a river, all residents in the downstream suffer from contamination; one worker collects faulty data, all scholars and experts who rely on that data make deadly wrong decisions. Jesus's point is a paradigm shift, a shift from finger pointing to the "works of God". You're thinking like a lawyer, not our lord and savior.

Uh, yeah.... I won't bother with this stuff since I address it farther along in my last few posts to you.

Then why are you still playing the blame game?

Projection here, I think. If anyone plays a "blame game," it's the one who supports the Original Sin doctrine.

 

[JLB]

There is no being led of the Spirit apart from a thorough knowledge of the will and way of God revealed in His word. Scripture is absolutely vital to knowing and following the leading of God, the Holy Spirit, which is always in accord with God's Truth laid out to us in the Bible.

While reading, studying and doing what the Bible says is vital for us to be instructed in righteousness and know God’s will, we often tend to be unbalanced in these things without the guidance of the Spirit; without coming to the Lord and having a quality relationship with Him.


Abraham had no scriptures yet he was called a friend of God, and one who pleased God because he obeyed His Voice.


because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws. Genesis 26:5


Abraham learned directly from the Lord about His commandments and laws, which is how we who have His Spirit within are to learn.

We have His laws written on our heart and mind and are taught by the Lord Himself. This is the promise of the New Covenant.
Jeremiah 31:31-34


John the Apostle who loved the Lord said it this way -


But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27

• but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true

Again John says -

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. John 5:39-40



There is a balance.




JLB

 

[Tenchi]

While reading, studying and doing what the Bible says is vital for us to be instructed in righteousness and know God’s will, we often tend to be unbalanced in these things without the guidance of the Spirit; without coming to the Lord and having a quality relationship with Him.

I agree. Many are the Christians I've encountered who have a wide intellectual grasp of Scripture but virtually no experience of life in the Spirit. Sometimes, it almost seems to me like they're mutually-exclusive things, in the thinking of these believers.

Abraham had no scriptures yet he was called a friend of God, and one who pleased God because he obeyed His Voice.


because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws. Genesis 26:5


Abraham learned directly from the Lord about His commandments and laws, which is how we who have His Spirit within are to learn.

I think I'd choose a New Covenant believer like Paul, Peter, or John, as a person representative of Christian living. Paul, in particular, had good stuff to say about the value of God's word to walking with Him:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Unlike Abraham, you and I have the Holy Spirit dwelling constantly within us, who, in tandem with Scripture, "leads us into all truth." (John 14:26; John 16:13)

John the Apostle who loved the Lord said it this way -


But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27

• but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true

Again John says -

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. John 5:39-40



There is a balance.

Well, I'm reluctant, myself, to say this. I think the Holy Spirit takes the superior position over Scripture, since it is he who illuminates Scripture to us, bringing it to our remembrance at appropriate moments of application. As God, the Holy Spirit is the Source of Scripture, too, and this further elevates him above the Bible. I would not go so far as to say, however, that the Holy Spirit acts in our lives entirely separately from Scripture. An important purpose of God's word is to constrain those who would radically subjectivize Christianity, declaring that they have "a new revelation" from God, a "new word from the Spirit," that departs from, and even contradicts, Scripture. By the word of God, we can discern false teaching and teachers which isn't so if our experience of the Spirit is so divorced from the Bible that the Bible ceases to have any objective, authoritative truth-value.

 

[Tenchi]

What really gives a choice is the new spiritual nature, a choice for good over evil, and that choice is a conscious choice, and it's NOT "initially free". Initially everyone naturally choose evil, because that's the path of least resistance.

I see a glimmer of Reformed/Calvinist thinking here. In point of fact, quite apart from spiritual regeneration, the Bible says of certain men things like the following:

Job 1:1
1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.

Genesis 6:8-9
8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Acts 13:22
22 "After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who will do all My will.'

Acts 10:1-2
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

None of these men were born-again while in the condition described above. I can't agree with you, then, that "What really gives a choice is the new spiritual nature." And how does any person bear proper responsibility for their sin if, at bottom, they never had any real choice about doing so?

 

[JLB]

Well, I'm reluctant, myself, to say this. I think the Holy Spirit takes the superior position over Scripture, since it is he who illuminates Scripture to us, bringing it to our remembrance at appropriate moments of application.

Amen.

 

[JLB]

I think I'd choose a New Covenant believer like Paul, Peter, or John, as a person representative of Christian living. Paul, in particular, had good stuff to say about the value of God's word to walking with Him:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Unlike Abraham, you and I have the Holy Spirit dwelling constantly within us, who, in tandem with Scripture, "leads us into all truth." (John 14:26; John 16:13)

The Lord Jesus made covenant with Abraham before He became flesh and His Spirit was in Abraham and enabled him to obey His Voice and keep His commandments and laws the same way we are to obey and keep.

The Ecclesia (church) began with Abraham. It has always been called a holy nation.

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: Acts 7:38

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. Genesis 17:1

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Revelation 1:8

Abraham being a prophet had the Spirit of Christ in him.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Then answer me - Have you ever violated a strict order? Hid from the presence of God? Made excuses to shift blame? Those are not false doctrines, not even "doctrines", but Adam's rap sheet all recorded in Gen. 3. If yes, then you've repeated Adam's sin. He who sins will die,

No.
Not since the destruction of the old man, (Rom 6:6), and being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

but sin doesn't die with the sinner,

You will need a verse or two to elaborate on your POV..

it's passed down to future generations who repeat and escalate their ancestor's sin.

Verses please.

God never changes, He's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, neither does his holy word.
Also I've never mentioned circumcision, why do you jump to that?

God doesn't change, but He does on occasion change His mind.
How many times did He say He would destroy the Jews in the desert ?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And here is more deflection.

And more denial. And dismissal.

We sin when we disobey God, yes. But we do so because we are selfish to an inordinate degree. And we are selfish in this way because we have been separated from God spiritually as a result of Adam's sin in Eden. These things can't be disconnected from one another in considering the matter of our guiltiness before God. If they are, things like the mistaken notion of Original Sin arise.

So you've admitted that it's "a result of Adam's sin in Eden", right? Not just "self-interest" for self-preservation? Then what are we still arguing about? Just over semantics? "Original Sin" is not a mistaken notion, it's plainly stated in Rom. 5:12 and it's the logical conclusion of God's original salvation plan.

I disagree, of course, that it "doesn't matter whose sin it is." God, in His word, says it does matter, as the verses from Deuteronomy 24 and Ezekiel 18 that I've cited plainly indicate. "Whose sin it is" is the core idea of Original Sin: We are all blamed, essentially, for Adam's sin, taking on his guilt for what he did and thus we are all born guilty of sin. As far as I'm concerned, this is an abhorrent idea, making a mockery of divine justice. And it isn't biblical.

What isn't biblical is your denial of human sin nature. You denounce original sin because you don't understand that although the wages of sin is death, sin doesn't die with the sinner, the only thing mankind has learned from history is that mankind has learned nothing from history, as history always rhymes itself. Of course you're only guilty of your own sin, but where did that sin originate from? Hmmm?

You know, throughout this whole time you're playing the trick of redefing the word "sin" in your own terms - first a behavior, then limited to what Adam personally had committed in Gen. 3. Well excuse me as my mind is not as narrow as yours, and I believe it does NOT matter as Jesus said in Jn. 9:3.

??? I haven't.

See, still in denial.

Well, you cited this passage:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. (Rom. 7:7-8)."

What does Paul identify as "sin" in this chapter of his letter to the Roman Christians?

Romans 7:21-25
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Does this sound at all like, "I sin because of inherited sin-guiltiness from Adam"? Not to me. Paul describes two opposing "laws": One, "the law of sin in my members" and the other, "the law of God." They contend within Paul such that he does the things he doesn't want to do, contravening God's law. Paul goes on to explain why, however, in the very next chapter:

Romans 8:5-8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

This is why human beings sin. They have hearts spiritually separated from God by Adam's sin and minds that are, therefore, set on the flesh. This occupation with the flesh rather than the Spirit engenders hostility toward God whose law condemns being inordinately occupied by the things of the flesh. There is no doctrine of Original Sin in what Paul explained, as far as I can see.

What Paul identifies as "sin" is what the law has reflected. The "law of sin" is his sin nature, the "law of God" is the mosaic law that reflects that sin nature. This conflict is the same conflict between his fleshly self and spiritual self, as he later elaborated in Gal. 4:21-31 using the analogy of Issac and Ishmael. In Rom. 5:10 Paul described our old fleshly selves as "enemies of God" which were only reconciled to God through the sacrifice of Jesus, and that natural tendency deep within Paul's phyche - "the things of the flesh", as you call it, against his will to obey God is the Original Sin.

Yes, Christ died for our sins. But, as Paul wrote in the passage above, our sin reflects an inner condition caused by Adam's sin. In consequence of his sin, we are, as a default position of mind and heart, separated spiritually from God and thus think and act "according to the flesh," attending to our own fleshly interests and not the things of the Spirit.

Once again, you denounce Original Sin not because it's false, you just don't like the sound of it, you have to reframe it in sophisticated terms which make you feel more comfortable. But the bottom line is, if there were no original sin, then this "default position", "spiritual separation" wouldn't have existed.

So, again, Christ did die for our sins but he had to do so for these underlying reasons that Paul has explained, not because we all bear the guilt and sin of Adam. You may not want to look at these reasons since they challenge your Original Sin idea, but I can see that they have an important bearing on the question of inheriting Adam's guilt and so will speak of them no matter how you feel about them.

I don't feel "challenged", it's not like I'm a fan of original sin with a sadistic nature of something, I'm just in the same struggle as Paul confessed in Rom. 7. And as I've clarified, of course you're not held guilty for Adam's or any of your ancestors' sins, but also, as I've questioned, have you ever exhibited the same behavior pattern that Adam did? First break the law, then cover it up in fear, and when get caught, make excuse to shift blame? If so, then you're as guilty as Adam.

In any case, I don't need to "find a therapist" in dealing with sin in my life; I have the Holy Spirit dwelling within me who makes modern psychological therapy and drugs quite unnecessary and whose power exerted on my behalf in my life entirely liberates me from the old Self, the source of all my sin.

As far as "being misguided," well, you're entitled to your opinion but I don't think folks reading our exchange are going to think as you do. Certainly, I don't think you are abiding by the word of God since it seems clear to me you have a rather limited understanding of it. Thank God, that can change.

It is you who have a limited and erroneous understanding of sin, and subsequently a limited understanding of Christ's atonement for sin. I never feel challenged, since Original Sin is never my idea to begin with; It is you who has such an enormous ego, that you not only can't accept a different opinion, but can't even accept a similar opinion in different terms - have you not read 1 Jn. 1:8? "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us". I can tell you that I've been living in peace and contentment with no guilt in life and no fear in death, Lord Jesus had set me free.

Have you "debunked my false premises"? I don't see that you have at all...

Your false premise is redefining sin as a behavior instead of human nature, see above.

Uh, yeah.... I won't bother with this stuff since I address it farther along in my last few posts to you.

Then don't, I don't expect you to.

Projection here, I think. If anyone plays a "blame game," it's the one who supports the Original Sin doctrine.

"Original Sin" doesn't mean that we're held guilty of Adam's sin, but the sins we're guilty of all originate from Adam's sin, which by no means contradicts Deuteronomy 24 and Ezekiel 18.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I see a glimmer of Reformed/Calvinist thinking here. In point of fact, quite apart from spiritual regeneration, the Bible says of certain men things like the following:

The bible also says that all have sinned, there's none righteous, no, not one; the only one who was truly sinless is Jesus. All those men had their own shortcomings: Job was insecure and paranoid, as he feared that his sons may have sinned in their hearts (Job 1:5); Noah got drunk and later found himself in a compromised position (Gen. 9:21-22); David committed adultery with Bethsheba; Cornelius was a centurion, and a centurion was responsible for suppressing local Jewish rebellions and overseeing crucifixion (Lk. 23:47); in addition, some Roman soldiers - under the centurion's supervision - were guilty of intimidating and exhortion (Lk. 3:14), how innocent could Cornelius be? How high could be rise above his job description? You're just turning a blind eye to all of these.

None of these men were born-again while in the condition described above. I can't agree with you, then, that "What really gives a choice is the new spiritual nature." And how does any person bear proper responsibility for their sin if, at bottom, they never had any real choice about doing so?

Anybody can do good and behave well out of fear, those are merely works of the law, Rom. 7:1. We're all sinners propelled and regulated to do good because God has ordained civil institutions to punish evil: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (Rom. 13:3-4) What new spiritual nature entails, though, is LOVE for God, a fundamental transformation from a God fearer to a God lover.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No.
Not since the destruction of the old man, (Rom 6:6), and being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

"Not since" indicates this Adamic behavior pattern of sin did exist, which Christ died for. If there were no original sin, there would be no "old man" to destroy.

You will need a verse or two to elaborate on your POV..

All have sinned, Rom. 3:9-18.

Verses please.

Sin entered the world through Adam, Rom. 5:12-14. As for the "escalation", here's a good example - from one golden calf to two golden calves.

And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” (Ex. 32:4)

Therefore the king asked advice, made two calves of gold, and said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt!” (1 Kings 12:28)

God doesn't change, but He does on occasion change His mind.
How many times did He say He would destroy the Jews in the desert ?

Except he didn't, it was a test.

 

[Hopeful 2]

"Not since" indicates this Adamic behavior pattern of sin did exist, which Christ died for. If there were no original sin, there would be no "old man" to destroy.

If by "original sin" you mean "first sin", I agree.
But not if you mean the catholic's dogma of original sin.
The old me took after Adam and Eve.

All have sinned, Rom. 3:9-18.

Jesus didn't sin.
Your citing has an expiration date on it.

Sin entered the world through Adam, Rom. 5:12-14. As for the "escalation", here's a good example - from one golden calf to two golden calves.

How can a sin die ?
How can a sin live ?
It is just something one does, or doesn't do.
It is like saying walking lives and dies.

Therefore the king asked advice, made two calves of gold, and said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt!” (1 Kings 12:28)
Except he didn't, it was a test.

You've lost me...