Children of Nature

Original Sin And Gnosticism

The theoretical seeds of Original Sin were started in the  world of Plato and morphed to become a doctrine of the Catholic church, and later protestants. The gnostic seeds for Original Sin have been visible since the end of the 1st century AD, but didn't appear in catholic theology formally until about 350 AD, but some Catholic writers expressed these ideas from 180-250. Since Gnosticism was a product of Plato, and later Neoplatonists, they came from the same theories.

The Greeks had a washing and naming ceremony for infants at 10 days old, this later corresponded to infant baptism, with many coming from the Greek philosophers practicing the tradition. As you read on you will be able to fill in the blanks.

Original sin theory, in Catholic theology, was formulated to fight some false theories from Gnostics, these theories were meant to solve some theological issues that Gnostics had concerning Christ. One Gnostic contradiction was to explain how Jesus could be without sin, though human flesh. In their beliefs and myths flesh was sin, and anyone made of flesh had to have sin. They had to solve how Jesus could be sinless. This wasn't the only issue but it was a major stumbling block to them.

When reading the anti-Nicene church fathers, one must realize almost all had ties to Gnosticism. Some came from Gnosticism and carried that baggage with them. Others embraced gnostic theories while fighting some parts of Gnosticism. Some church fathers were actually students of Neoplatonist masters.

Genesis is written with information proving all of Christ's ancestors, going back to Adam, were conceived through physical intercourse. All the conceptions of the seed line are recorded with the phrase, "Adam knew Eve his wife", "Cain Knew his wife". Gen. 4:1; 4:17;  4:25; It was important to show Christ was human, and he had no spirit angelic men in his lineage who were not fully human. All of Christ's ancestors were fully flesh and came from flesh. The genealogy of Matthew 1 ties Christ to Abraham and David by marriage. The Luke 3 genealogy ties Christ to Adam, Abraham, and David through Mary by intercourse.  Mary's genealogy reveals all of her ancestors were human and flesh.

Both Abraham and David were Christ's legal grandparents by Joseph by marriage; all three, Adam, Abraham, and David were Christ's physical grandparents by Mary. Matthew employs the term "begat," while Luke uses "of," emphasizing the physical lineage.

Gnostics had to create the immaculate conception doctrine to get around Christ's human lineage. They created the lie to assert Christ was spiritual and not fully flesh, by the sinless conception of one ancestor. This because the original sin doctrine misrepresented sin, and anyone flesh would have been a sinner.

The word begat in the genealogies is very important, it means to come into existance through the act of the person that begat. It is of an aorist active tense, meaning the father of each was actively participating. Some gnostics believed the soul was reincarnated from previous lives, but the word begat means to exist from the act. The soul of each man did not exist in a previous eon. They came into existence through the act of their father. This was expressed in Tertullians theory about the creation of the soul, as each begat their offsprings body and soul. We have no way of knowing if the soul is created moments before copulation or at copulation, but we can know each human did not exist in eons past. The word begat doesn't allow that theory.

Catholics believed the soul was created by God before conception, Tertullian believed the soul came via copulation at the time the body was conceived. The word begat just means the father of each human was active in the process, without leaving God out of the process. God can be active in the conception of humans as well.

Jesus was not said to be begat by a human father, this term was only used of Christ's lineage through the marriage relationship, from Adam to Joseph; Jesus was of human descendancy by being conceived in Mary and all of her ancestor lineage tied her to Adam. He was made flesh and begotten in Mary through the Holy Spirit, and begotten again through the resurrection. The term begotten can refer to Christ being fashioned in Mary's womb John 3:16, or Christ coming forth from the tomb by being raised Psalms 2. The word begotten is not used of Christ's existence before creation as misrepresented in the council of Nicea. This usage was of Gnostic origin. The voters at the council of Nicea had Gnostic influences.

It stemmed from the Gnostic question, that man including Christ, had a pre-existing soul that existed for eons. The Council said Jesus was begotten before time and existed for eons, thus pre-existing. We know Jesus as part of the Godhead is eternal, he wasn't begotten sometime before creation. Jesus preexisted creation, but that does not justify the Gnostic theory, Jesus pre-existed because he was eternal.

Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 

Thus, Jesus was the Son Of God directly, not simply through adoption as Christians are. It is a great mystery that man cannot understand the process, we only have faith it happened. The early disciples witnessed the results. I cannot claim any direct knowledge of the process the Holy Spirit used, no man can. 

Gnostics believed God was too holy to be in contact with a sinner, they believed God would cause the human to die immediately. So they fashioned a theory allowing for Mary to be sinless so that she could have contact with the baby in the womb. The theory that won the day was the immaculate conception, though it had no clear biblical basis, only theory.

The theory God could not touch a sinful woman was false, God touched man when fashioning him of the ground, God touched Eve when fashioning her of a rib. The Holy Spirit had fallen upon the prophets of old and new. Jesus had touched children and those diseased, and the unsaved. In Acts 10 the Holy Spirit had fallen upon the House of Cornelius before their baptisms. The examples are numerous, it is obvious that God is not affected by man's flesh or his sin.

If Mary was justified as Abraham had been, when believing the angel Gabriel, she would have been sinless by justification under the Old Testament standard. There was no real reason to invent the immaculate Conception theory. It was only necessary if blinded by Gnosticism.

Gnosticism and Plato

Plato seems to be the first to articulate the concept of the immortal soul, which was a doctrine in 2nd century Neoplatonism. The immortal soul was also adopted by Catholics, so we see a strong connection to Plato. Gnosticism which came from Platonism, shared the belief in a soul, there was a world soul and an individual soul. The word soul can be used collectively. In Gnosticism eternal souls were removed from the world of light due to rebellion and cast into a world of darkness, with the exercise of going through various lives to gain gnosis, to be restored. Only through gnosis can the soul be liberated from darkness, that was one of their major theories.

In second century Gnosticism there were several explanations for the soul, thus many theories and myths, giving rise to different types of Gnostic sects, but for now keep in mind the Catholic agreement that the soul is immortal. Since there were many sects, it is hard to tie down one exact theory, we really could write a book containing the theories, for this work you need to know,

1. They believed in the immortality of the soul.

2.  Many believed the soul of man had darkness from the spiritual war in heaven.

3. Many believed the soul had sin.

4. Almost all believed the flesh had sin.

Some Gnostics taught man came from beings from the underworld, and man was a creature from darkness in their view. Since Jesus was flesh, he would be darkness like all other men, unless there was an intervention. We know their reasoning was faulty as they misunderstood man's origin and nature. Neoplatonism on the other hand taught man's corporeal body was sinful, but man's soul was from a pre-infused soul of the world, man's soul was from good. Some Catholic doctrines tend to support Neoplatonism, some Gnosticism, since one came from the other it is sometimes one and the same. Religions before Christianity had teachings about the origin of sin, and many coming to Christianity from their religions brought their beliefs with them. Some followed the Genesis account of creation and some were Jewish myths from Genesis, having a perverted creation story. Some followed Plato and Aristotle. 

Gnosticism can be from many religions, as many came from Plato and Aristotle. Alexander the Great and his exploits spread these ideas throughout his empire. Alexander was a student of Aristotle, Aristotle was a student of Plato. The group was aware of the theory of the soul. Alexander conquering made it certain the world would in some way believe in an eternal or pre-existing soul.

There were different types of Christian Gnostics during the 2nd thru 4th centuries, so you may have different views about Gnostics you learned in the past, I will mainly be speaking about one type. Augustine was a Manichaean Gnostic before converting to Catholic, he wrote a work on the subject and was acquainted with the theories. Catholics were Gnostics who were trapped halfway between truth and lie, their theories ended up copying the lies.

Rome and Gnostic Neoplatonism

That Gnostics and Neoplatonism affected Rome can't really be doubted, since Irenaeus wrote that with each Bishop arose one who taught the doctrine, some flourishing in Rome, and even publicly or privately teaching the church. Plotinus, the leader of Neoplatonism, lived eleven years in Alexandria and later lived in Rome, having schools in both.  So, from 230 to 270

3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren. Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church. 

Against Heresies Book 3 Ch.4

That the city of Rome was a hotbed for Christian Gnosticism isn't disputed. Plus, the evidence for Neoplatonist schools in many cities is evident. Schools in Rome and Alexandria were strong. If Rome was filled with Gnostics, it stands to reason that other cities were as well. These teachers flourished throughout the Roman empire and in Africa. Neither Gnosticism nor Neoplatonism took over Christianity, they simply imbedded their theories into discussions, leading to theological corruption. They did move churches in Rome and other regions toward false ideas. 

Original sin and infant baptism were important corruptions. Gnostic thought throughout the empire hastened the adoption of infant baptism. Irenaeus used the wording "intermediate period of the church", which to him was different than our intermediate. To him it was before AD 200. Perhaps much earlier. Gnosticism was influencing Rome very early.

Gnosticism brought the idea that man was conceived a sinner with a dark soul, conceived in darkness, guilt passed via copulation. Since the immaculate conception was about darkness in man, it is a clear indication it was based on gnostic theory about the darkness of the human soul. It can be traced back to Gnostic thought very easily. Neoplatonism the philosophy whereby Gnosticism came, was opposite, teaching a light filled and sinless soul. Plato believed man's soul could act wrongly, but only when believing wrong information, man would follow his conscience, thus not intentionally doing wrong. This is a difference between Pauline Christian theology and Plato. Paul taught man could violate our own conscience. Neoplatonism altered man's view of man's sinfulness.

Many books have been written about sin. Some ask misguided questions to justify original sin theology.

1. Is sin an action?

2. Is sin a state?

3. Is sin a disposition?

4. Is sin simply being less than God?

5. Is sin willful disobedience.

Neoplatonism taught man's soul was good, but the body evil or corporeal, so the two philosophies blended agree on the idea of a sinful body that corrupts the soul. Neoplatonists and Gnostics argued over the issue and in the end you had different schools, with lots of confusion.

Catholic thought about original sin and the soul was a blending of the two groups. Plotinus was born around 204 AD and began schools in the 240AD period, just a few years before Origen wrote concerning infant baptism, Origen was a student of Neoplatonism. The timing of the rise of original sin and infant baptism can be accurately tied to Origen's stint in Neoplatonism. Origen wrote from 248-255. According to Wikipidea,

Origen taught that, before the creation of the material universe, God had created the souls of all intelligent beings. These souls, at first fully devoted to God, fell away from him and were given physical bodies.  

His idea of the souls origin was distinct, with few in exact agreement with him, but the idea that the souls of all men were already sinful and guilty before being joined to the body, meant man's soul was sinful, not just the body. His concept was similar to Neoplatonism and Gnosticism in some ways. In Neoplatonism the soul came forth from God's soul before the body, and Gnosticism saw the fall of creatures before the creation of the corporeal world. He started a school in Caesarea and was considered the top teacher there, he was influental over a wide area.

Origen clearly had Gnostic background beliefs that persuaded his teaching.

Origen believed babies needed baptism because their souls were guilty before man's body was created. It wasn't all that biblical. His ideas came from non-biblical sources. He was a student of Neoplatonism, his judgment was clouded.

Origen was in opposition to Genesis 2:7 which views the soul's existence from creation, man became a living soul, not just a life but one with learning ability and choices. The just shall live by faith, so man had a life to live from that point. Man could not obey or disobey in a previous life since he had no life, this started in the Garden. Some forms of Platonism agreed with Origen that man was a living soul before creation.

Early writers such as Irenaeus did not mention the term original sin, though he mentions Adam and Eve, it is clear they believed in the sin in the garden, but Irenaeus does not mention a pre-existing soul.

Iraneus, since he called for unity and acceptance of Rome, admitted historically that Rome had lost its theological reputation among many Christians. This with its acceptance of Gnostic and Neoplatonist teachers. Irenaeus wrote,

we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also  the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere. 

Notice Irenaeus incorrectly says Peter and Paul founded and organized the church at Rome, which is not accurate. Irenaeus wasn't always accurate. He also admits that "unauthorized assemblies" were being attended, as it seems some had split off from the Church at Rome and were not having fellowship with it. The fact that Irenaeus called for loyalty to Rome shows that it was already a problem where many did not agree with Rome specifically. An unauthorized assembly would be objective, both groups would call the other heresy. It is impossible to know from any church father's writing which group was the authentic body of Christ. The other side's writings aren't preserved, and in a court where appeals are made both sides arguments are preserved. All that is preserved pertaining to all parties is the Bible.

Irenaeus seems to believe the church was great and ancient, ignoring the congregations started before Rome such as Antioch and Jerusalem. It almost reads as a later insertion, since at the time of Irenaeus it wasn't ancient. It could only be great and ancient if it stemmed from the mystery religions before Christianity. If one believed the church was a continuation of those rites going back hundreds of years.

Throughout this period from 90AD to 500AD many moved from Gnosticism to the true church and into other faiths, Augustine wasn't the only one coming from Gnosticism to the Catholic, there were many. I John 2:19  mentions those who were leaving the church for false theology like Gnosticism, so there was a flow of converts both ways. Many came from Gnosticism and some went toward Gnosticism, and from one gnostic group to other gnostic groups. This caused an intermixing of ideas. A little leaven leavens the whole lump is what Jesus taught. Catholics became a leavened lump.

Gnosticism was an offshoot of Neoplatonism, they were cousins you might conclude. One came from the other so there were similarities, but each school and teacher had nuances. Several types of Gnosticism emerged. Origen followed one type that saw the soul existing eons before creation.

We can conclude that Catholic thought concerning original sin actually came from the argument between sects in Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. The Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato morphed into the ideas expressed by a later philosopher Plotinus. Most Catholic teachers sided with Plotinus concerning a pre-existing soul, and from him arose Catholicism. Some believed the two could be synchronized into their shared ideas and so Plutarch wrote a commentary while being leader of the school in Athens. Plutarch's main topic was the soul.

Plutarch was versed in all the theurgic traditions of the school, and believed, along with Iamblichus, in the possibility of attaining to communion with the Deity by the medium of the theurgic rites. Unlike the Alexandrists and the early Renaissance writers, he maintained that the soul which is bound up in the body by the ties of imagination and sensation does not perish with the corporeal media of sensation.[1] 

Chisolm 1911

He believed the soul lived beyond the death of the body. The mention of the theurgic traditions is important, since they seem to mirror Catholic traditions.

• Proclus (c. 480): theurgy is "a power higher than all human wisdom embracing the blessings of divination, the purifying powers of initiation and in a word all the operations of divine possession."[5] (the practice of infant initiation became infant baptism)

• Keith Thomas: "Spiritual magic or theurgy was based on the idea that one could reach God in an ascent up the scale of creation made possible by a rigorous course of prayer, fasting and devotional preparation."[6] (Irenaeus used prayer and fasting before baptism, but prayer and fasting were not incorporated with baptism in Acts of the Apostles)

• Pierre A. Riffard: "Theurgy is a type of magic. It consists of a set of magical practices performed to evoke beneficent spirits in order to see them or know them or in order to influence them, for instance by forcing them to animate a statue, to inhabit a human being (such as a medium), or to disclose mysteries.[1] (Thus the relic miracles and prayer toward statues)

The Apostle Paul's admonition to avoid evidence from "science" falsely so called was a warning to avoid Aristotle and Plato, who taught experiential learning, what we can see and hear, and forms of magic. Paul taught the Gospel could not be seen prior to its revelation to man. It couldn't be understood via secular reason or magical demonstration of mysteries. No man could learn the Gospel from Aristotle or Plato since it wasn't revealed yet. 

"what eye has not seen nor ear heard"  I Cor.2:9

Science wasn't able to pick up on it since science was based upon human reason. Paul clearly taught people away from Platonism. A society led mainly by what can be seen, heard, felt, is normal, but often such a society reasons experience incorrectly. Such a society doesn't include God as much and discounts his word for secular theories. Neoplatonism was an unproveable secular theory about God and the soul. The following can be shown to evolve from Platonism or Gnosticism. Both of which believed in magic.

• Christ begotten before creation; Christological Emanation described by Neoplatonists

• Polytheism with a true God and a creator god.

• original sin, darkness and sin passed through copulation.

• infant initiation or infant baptism.

• worship toward relics, a type of necromancy.

• worship toward saints

• spirit inhabiting objects

• immaculate conception, idea of zero darkness in the soul. Interrupting original sin to Mary and Christ.

• aesthetic monasticism

• prayer and fasting before baptism, baptism was immediate, not put off a day or weeks.

• divine mysteries not in scripture.

• immortality of the soul. 

• Transubstantiation of Christ. Christ says bread is his body as a figure, but nowhere mentions a human priest invoking transubstantiation. The scriptures are silent of such a priestly function.

Debates over ideas almost always leads the population to the center of the ideas, leaving both sides somewhat out of the truth. Catholics ended up out of the truth in some ways, as did others. The center is almost always incorrect, and compromise isn't always a path to truth. Some ideas that were false survived, many that were true did not survive in their bodies. Not in their theology, anyway. The center may lead to peace with man, but the center is rarely entirely correct, it doesn't lead to peace with God.

Catholics simply had to find scripture to validate points of Platonism, they didn't have to prove the points, only make them theoretically possible. In many cases these were disproven, but Catholics could find verses to be used on the ignorant.

Origen, the first actual to give expression toward infant baptism, his writings were the first listing baptism with physical birth, was a Christian /Neoplatonist teacher in Egypt and Later Caesarea. Origen was a student of the Neoplatonist teacher, Porphyry, who was a student of Plotinus. It is obvious Origen used their philosophy in refuting gnostic thought. Much of early debates was using Platonism to refute Gnosticism which was a daughter of Platonism, tenets of Platonism were embraced while a few doctrines of Gnosticism survived.

Irenaeus had some inclination toward Neoplatonism, but not as pronounced as Origen. It is unclear if he embraced original sin or infant baptism, his writings may just involve sanctification of infants.

We can list four distinct groups, Christian, Gnostic, Neoplatonist, and Jewish soul deniers like the Sadducees. All four groups figured into the debates over man's origin and the soul.

This is why church councils can't always lead to the preservation of truth. Some church councils led to the center to have peace, and some church councils were off from scripture or perverted scripture. Some were caught up in Neoplatonist philosophy. Unfortunately we don't have all documents, many were destroyed by Catholics to erase the memory and arguments they possessed, I am writing from those that remain, but mainly from scripture. It is sufficient to form some truths.

A difference between Christian and Gnostic and Platonic thought was centered around the origin of man and the soul. The arguments over traducianism and creationism and Emanation were an offshoot of Gnostic and philosophical confusion. 

1.Traducianism is the belief the human soul is from human copulation, from intercourse.  It was used mainly with a myth that man came from the intercourse of fallen beings from the underworld, but could also be used with the creation story of Genesis. In either case it is from intercourse of man. 

2.Creationism is the belief that each human soul is a creation of God. The creation of Adam and then the creation of each soul after. The soul created then infussed with the body.

3. Emanation is the belief man came from the substance of God as light effuses from the sun. Each human is from God's soul through effusion during creation. These souls then fell into sin, so God created our bodies.

There were a plethora of theories and combinations of theories.

It is possible to believe in traducianism and emanation together, if one believes Adam became man by emanation and then the soul passed to others by traducianism, it is possible to believe in a combination of both. Catholics believed Christ was begotten before time by emanation. So in their theory, Christ came through emanation of God's substance before creation, but man by creation. The soul infused into Adam. Thus, Christ wasn't fully flesh in their teaching.

The council of Nicea borrowed from the philosophers to teach how Christ came into existence, having an eternal substance but not an eternal personality. Emanation as sunlight comes from the sun. Platonists taught the Sun was like God, always giving of his power to create light, but never getting weaker. We today know this is false, the sun does get slightly weaker over time. The sun isn't God nor a god. Nor is the true God getting weaker. The Platonists argued from what they could see, but reasoned incorrectly.

In the 2nd through the 4th centuries there were key debates, and many councils, centered on this topic, or it was foundational for the topics they were discussing. It matters theologically what is correct, since it effects salvation doctrine theory. Much of the doctrines from the 2nd thru the 4th centuries hung on these three theories. Salvation differed among sects depending on which of these theories they adopted. In many cases all were wrong.

Paul taught Christ becoming man was a mystery, in other words the church councils would have no actual knowledge of how it happened, only that it did. The Gospel was no longer a mystery, but how God made Christ a human was still a mystery.

1 Timothy 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 

It is obvious God offers few technical details about how Christ came to be flesh. It is obvious that nothing can be proven about the technical details, only theories abound. Those aspects are still mysteries. We can rest in the fact it happened. Yet, most debates are from pride, as if one man's reasoning was able to tell what God didn't reveal. Man had a guessing contest.

Salvation is easy if you simply do what God says and for the reason he says it. Obedience of faith is the goal. Debate over unproveable ideas often confuses everyone. The discussion over Trudacianism and Creationism was confusing unless you had a nice concordance, few did. It would be fairly easy to pull the wool over people's eyes. They thought of creation as Adam in the Garden of Eden, and creation in the womb following. They often argued about both.

The Soul

I believe the soul is created as did Catholics, the fleshly body is through the natural process of conception. Yet, the growth of the body may require God's help along with the natural processes. We must distinguish between the divine soul of man and the life spirit giving thought. Since we are referred to as creatures, the word itself implies a creation. the same Greek roots for creature and creation. In some way, all men are created. Soul, body, spirit, or all three. God doesn't have to tell us how. We just are. We are formed and fashioned by God. This is biblical.

In the New Testament God is said to be creator. speaking of past acts, but is also described by "creating", a present tense in English or perfect in Greek, describing a past act that is still being managed and upheld, our conceptions are being done with God's involvement. Even the physical processes are under God's attention. We are all creatures. 

Romans 1:25

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 

The soul as a word evolved over time, at some point the word soul changed to mean a separate entity than the body. Study of the word before Christianity reveals this evolution, so when Christ arrived it was used as a separate entity. Even the Septuagint, written around 300 BC, differs some from the Masoretic text of 300 AD in its usage. So, words change over time. Occasionally by manipulation.

In Genesis the word soul can mean a person, including their body and spirit. It can mean divine soul as in 2:7. A divinely made creature. In the law Moses changes this usage to differentiate between human elements. Soul, mind, spirit. Deuteronomy 6:5 Jesus seems to be in agreement with Moses Matt.10:28. Mankind is a soul and mankind has a soul.

Many Jews did not believe in a soul separate from the body, they believed man was a soul, and when man died he just died, there was no soul that survived for eternity. This because Genesis doesn't separate the soul and body, it highlights the state of living, as Paul described, "the life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God". Life can be lived.

In scripture there are two words for soul. Psuch'e and Psyche. One is Old Testament and one New Testament.

Genesis 2:7 is the idea of a divine soul, perhaps created by the divine, or created as divine. Either idea could be meant. Man was in God's image, perhaps by being able to reason or speak. We can actually communicate with God.

"and man became a living soul" or "man became a discoursing soul" - Targum from 2nd century

The New Testament word can just mean a person or the person's soul. the word evolved into the word psyche, describing mental and emotional state. The soul seems to stand for the identity of the person versus the body.

 Catholics taught the soul was immortal, but it is obvious that it is immortal only if God allows immortality,It is not self realized immortality. Those teaching man received his soul through effusion from God's soul, claimed to be immortal as God is immortal, since they would have come from God. So, it's another example of Catholics adopting doctrine from philosophy.

Gnostics believed man was divided up into three types, one type in their theology was immortal, others died or went to their version of purgatory called Demiurge. Since Adam stood for the race, Gnostics couldn't use Genesis accurately for all three and reconcile the three types of humans. In Gnosticism all were not considered immortal. In Gnosticism only the spiritual were immortal.

The Christian doctrine concerning immortality was that only Christ was immortal, Christ, the rest must wait for immortality.

1 Timothy 6:16

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen. 

Christians must wait for it to be granted in the judgment. The fact no man has seen this light would include John and Revelation. It would and human souls Gnostics invented, who they believed came from the light.

1 Corinthians 15:53

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality. 

Some would argue this speaks of the body only, but I believe it speaks of the totality of man, body and soul. The soul is subject to the 2nd death.

2 Timothy 1:10

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 

Since men were still dying physically, it is speaking of the eternal death that was future, death was abolished for Christians, we would have an immortal body and soul. yet this verse is likely speaking of Jesus overcoming death for himself, being the first and only at that point. Through Christ immortality was brought to light. This would have excluded Mary if this was written prior to her death.

Romans 2:10

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 

Our glory is dependent on our life here on earth.

Remember that Catholics consider the soul immortal, Christ acknowledged the soul can be destroyed by God, but man has no such self-determination. Man can neither destroy the soul or preserve it, we can only rely upon God to grant immortality and preserve it. The Catholic idea lacks reality. One could argue the soul is immortal until the judgment, but that isn't complete immortality.

Gnostics had a myth where Light and darkness had a war, darkness tried to conquer the light. This story has some truth, since there has been a spiritual war, but the myth had darkness defeating the light as they reasoned that Satan defeated God in the fall of man in the Garden, and in the crucifixion of Christ. Neither were defeats for God, God had foreseen both, it was in his plan. The book of Revelation has chapters on the spiritual battle, God has Satan removed from heaven to await his demise. Revelation and the myth are different in many respects, and this can explain why Revelation has that information. God doesn't want us following the myth. Spiritual war was real, it wasn't between heaven and an underworld, but occurred in heaven, Satan was kicked out to await his eternal punishment. The underworld is where Satan ended up. Hell was created for the Devil and his angels. 

2 Peter 2:4

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 

The chains of darkness aren't the final judgment. Yet, we know they were cast down to hell, the sin or battle wasn't there. We also don't see a time afforded where such beings were given a reprieve to copulate here on the earth, their sentence is until the judgment. Adam and Eve did not come such being as Origen and many Gnostics envisioned.

Gnosticism saw Light losing in a sense temporarily, Or, they changed who was light and darkness. Christianity saw God winning. There were religions that saw Cain as superior to Abel, Cain was in their eyes from the highest God, Abel from a lessor creator God. Cain had Gnosis while Abel was carnal in their beliefs. You see how backwards religions can be.

 Cainites taught a series of baptisms taking place over 40 days, this is why Catholics were so strong against rebaptism, teaching you may only be baptized once. Catholics and Neoplatonists were fighting a Gnostic sect called Cainites. That is why they fought with Donatists who re-baptized catholics. Catholics were correct, baptism is only once if it was a biblical baptism. Don't confuse Donatists with gnostic, they only re-baptized if a person's baptism lacked necessary details of understanding or faith, they did not baptize for forty days. . They were correct as well. People can be re-baptized if the first baptism was un-biblical. Of course, that can be subjective.  So, Catholics hunted them seeing it was a bad example before the world to rebaptize, with gnostics gaining ground. Since Catholics were also fighting gnostics they seemed to renounce any re-baptism, as in Acts 19, in, Ephesus where disciples lacked Christian baptism, so Paul baptized them again.

They did not go through a second Christian baptism, since their first was John's baptism, and they had no understanding of the gift of the Holy Spirit. We shouldn't think baptism can be repeated every time we sin or enter a different congregation, only in cases of a lack of understanding. I would certainly baptize those initiated as babies or baptists who believe their sins were remitted prior.

Both Christian and Gnostic stories involve light and darkness, since the earth was created in darkness and void, but God said for light to appear and be present. Thus, gnostics dreamed it a material world of darkness and evil, being filled with some light. Man was fashioned from the earth which before light was darkness. The myth and reality were similar. Revelation does speak of an underworld, but the war was in heaven, the underworld seems to have been designed for Satan's removal from heaven.

Revelation 11:7

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 

This verse seems to be after the war in heaven.

Satan never overcomes God, his attacks are toward the weaker, the created, not the creator. When Jesus became flesh Satan hoped he could destroy him, but he failed, only his flesh died. Christ's soul wasn't hurt, and his flesh was resurrected. So, Satan didn't win.

This led to questions about life and death of the body, and life and death of the soul. Catholics have taught the soul is immortal, it cannot die. This is false according to Christ, there is a death of the soul. "fear him who can destroy the soul", many say this word means to degrade and not destroy, since it mentions the body it is speaking of death and not degradation. We degrade by aging, then we die physically. It seems the soul can die as well, by God's power and not man's. Man can kill the body but not the soul.

When Jesus spoke Matt. 10:28 he was preparing the disciples for his physical death, it sounds like he is preparing them for their persecutions, but it applied to him as well. They could kill his body, not his soul. Christ had a soul as we do.

Acts 2:31

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 

The disciples were scattered in the Garden at his arrest, so they didn't always keep it in mind all that Christ said, some things you ponder after the fact, like on the road to Emmaus. Mankind only grasps the facts about death through reflection.

The myth says there were evil beings from the world of darkness who copulated and produced Adam and Eve as their offspring, and some light had been placed in the world of darkness during the war, light was meant to overcome darkness eventually. Thus the myth, Adam and Eve were viewed as material evil offspring who had a small amount of light within them. Their flesh was considered evil and from the world of darkness. This is where man got one theory that man's flesh was evil. Man was copulated and not created in their eyes. Though this myth was overcome by Christianity, facets of the theory remained. The idea man's flesh was evil and its sin is passed thru human copulation. Augustine kept this theory and intermixed it with his beliefs, though he didn't say the soul came through copulation. He saw the body as sin and expressed that view. He was undecided concerning the soul.

Augustine differed with Origen to some degree, Origen expressed beliefs about an evil soul that sinned before creation, Augustine only the idea of a dark soul, perhaps one was arguing from Neoplatonism and the other from Gnosticism. 

If the body, the flesh, is passed through conception at intercourse, but the soul is created, then the soul itself may not be sin. This is really the debate, was the soul created and if so how does it become sin. Is it when it is wed to a sinful body, or a sinner prior, or a sinner when sinning in this life?

There is no way to prove sin is passed to the soul at conception. It is a theory, nothing more. There are other ways man can become guilty, without this theory.

Other Church fathers believed the soul is created in copulation, men like Tertullian and others, but he did not believe in infant baptism, so they did not believe traducian doctrine caused a need for infants to be baptized. Tertullian used the word infant in a spiritual sense, so children being taught the faith, he did not believe in baptizing young spiritual infants at the moment of an immature faith, but wanted more maturity. I think it was true of some church fathers that they understood infant baptism as spiritual infants, and not physical infants. I believe it slowly lost this distinction. 

To men like Tertullian the idea of infant was related to a new faith, not physical infancy. Hippolytus saw them as speaking age and able to articulate their faith in most cases. Ireneus, though quoted in a passage that doesn't mention baptism, saw them as old enough to fast and confess.

Tertullian

Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. 

anti-nicene fathers vol 3

Teaching or instructing were big parts of all Church fathers.Usually it was used with the word sanctification. Augustine used sanctification for post-baptism, but sanctification could be for bringing people to baptism or after baptism. Teaching before baptism and after as in Acts 2. They were taught before and after baptism in that chapter. Irenaeus spoke the same. He wasn't Calvinist.

Ireneus

Those who are persuaded and believe that the things we teach and say are true, and promise that they can live accordingly, are instructed to pray and beseech God with fasting for the remission of their past sins, while we pray and fast along with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are reborn by the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were reborn; for they are then washed in the water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, "Unless you are born again you will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven." Now it is clear to all that those who have once come into being cannot enter the wombs of those who bore them. But as I quoted before, it was said through the prophet Isaiah how those who have sinned and repent shall escape from their sins. He said this: "Wash yourselves, be clean, take away wickednesses from your souls, learn to do good, give judgement for the orphan and defend the cause of the widow, and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as wool, and though they be as crimson, I will make them as white as snow. If you will not listen to me, the sword will devour you; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things" 

Isaiah is quoted by Iraneus, Isaiah is using sins plural, in other words the sins they had in life, not infants. Infants can't take wickedness from their souls.

What we know from this quote is that Irenaeus and those he was writing to were not baptized as infants. He said he and the others were reborn the same way and that was through believers baptism for the remission of sins. They were in the water, so immersion.

Ireneus quotes Isaiah who saw man's responsibility as "learning to do good".  So, baptism isn't a magical act where we are changed miraculously, but change is a learning experience. It requires growth in knowledge and a certain ability to overcome obstacles against doing good. Since "removing wickedness from the soul" was a requirement after washing, we know baptism itself did not remove wickedness that was imbedded through habit. Man had to struggle against it and overcome it to complete God's will. Babies would not be sanctified from evil in baptism.

Ireneus is quoted in a passage below that mentions teaching and sanctification, it doesn't mention baptism. It mentions being re-born, but may be using it in a future sense. Ie, the infant, child, youth, Old are taught as Christ was the perfect teacher. Of course, teaching and modeling love from infancy can lead to baptism later in Life. He is discussing the teaching example of Christ that includes teaching infants through modeling love. It isn't teaching infant baptism per se.

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). 

Rebirth involves baptism, but involves more than baptism. It often means to have faith in Christ. We are born of the Spirit and sealed with the Spirit. The Spirit infused knowledge through the Apostles and then seals us at baptism. Sanctification starts in infancy and is culminated when we put on Christ.

Since the first quote of Ireneus talks about believing, he is teaching believer's baptism in the passage. The two quotes above from Irenaeus are in the same work, it helps us see the context isn't infant baptism. it is infant sanctification leading to obedient faith. The word re-born in both quotes can be aorist tense that says something happens, without disclosing the time it occurs. In essence, babies may be re-born later in life, the tense seems to verify this context. So the second passage may not teach infant baptism at all. It emphasis that sanctification of all ages brings them to Christ, Christ is said to sanctify infants, in essence setting them apart by love or teaching or childhood experience even as infants. Christ was a model of love for all ages to bring them to himself. This provides a model of loving all, young and old, even if they aren't able to understand the message yet. Our love and their sanctification starts when they are babies. Our love develops a relationship that will later provide the relationship to bring them to Christ.

Christ indeed came to save

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:4 [A.D. 215]). 

These were old enough to speak for themselves, some would not be articulate or would be shy, so parents helped them speak.

We can see a change about 250 AD where writers used infant in a physical sense, Origen, and then writers from 388 to 415, Augustine. There is likely much opposition since they are answering critics, but the critics works are likely destroyed. It was common for Catholics to destroy such works.

Traducianism

The theory that the soul was made through copulation was a question similar to the body being created, the debate was influenced by Gnostic questions. There were Christian teachers that believed the soul itself was fashioned through human intercourse. This seems to have started in Africa and spread over time. It led to the rise of infant baptism, since admitting the soul itself was tainted by fleshly copulation, would require one to consider that the soul is tainted with sin from conception. This became more pronounced by saying each man has Adam's soul passed to all men. Adam being the only created, all others are from his body and soul through intercourse.

1. Some believed part of Adam's soul was passed to each human, thus all are guilty sinners.

2. Some believed the flesh was passed from Adam, but the soul of each human created. They could still visualize the sin being passed from flesh to soul.

3. Some believed in a combination, hybrid.

Mankind's conception isn't wholly natural, God fashions us in the womb and forms the spirit within us. We are fearfully and wonderfully made.  The theory of traducianism led to the doctrine of original sin, and then infant baptism. Their idea was the soul becomes tainted from Adam directly or indirectly. Just remember there are no scriptures directly teaching this.

We should remember that man is more than a physical being, but we are carnal. The word carnal doesn't mean evil per se. It means immature, where one thinks as an animal vs being a spiritual thinker. We only know life from a fleshly perspective. This isn't sin per se. Babies are carnal in that they think in areas like hunger, comfort, noises and fear. They have not developed a spiritual outlook on life, though some have taught man is born with an innate desire to worship God. It isn't proven, we can see babies don't have a mature spiritual outlook. Yet, they haven't been led away and corrupted by the world's examples either. Babies aren't sin.They are somewhat neutral in their outlook.

Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb? 

Job 32:8  But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding. 

God fashions our bodies and our understanding. Our spiritual understanding is from God's help.

We aren't copulated evil, but are formed in weakness. We aren't created with a spiritual outlook, that is fashioned by God as we mature. Copulation between man and woman is only part of the process. Change towards God's image can be a lifelong process. There does appear to be God's part in every human conception and growth. Traducianism can't explain it all, creationism can't explain all. Adam's offspring are in fact products of human intercourse and God's creation, but we are formed and made. Is the body formed and made, or the soul, or both?

Man's theories can't always define it all.

Many believed baptism took away original sin and allowed the Holy Spirit to indwell, leading to a life of sanctification, where people could grow in spiritual maturity. So that the reason for infant baptism was to create sanctification in a child. Without baptism the child would grow up wholly carnal and sinful in their opinion. Carnal means spiritually immature. We know that infant baptized Christians often remain carnal. Baptism doesn't of itself remove our carnal nature. It changes slowly at times.

1 Corinthians 3:3

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 

The theory that baptism sanctifies from original sin supposes original sin to be true. We can't really prove a doctrine by supposing it true.  is false because some baptized as infants become ax murderers. The New Testament reveals teaching that proceeds coming to Christ. If baptism sanctified the child why have God parents to sanctify? Why have them learn for the rest of their lives? Original sin isn't anywhere stipulated to be true in the scriptures.

Catholics had dogmas created to overcome gnostic theory and myth, an example is man was created perfect and at the fall degraded into sin, man became sinful flesh, we fell in our nature. Adam was created in God's image but fell into a sinful nature. This maintained the creation account and overcame the demonic copulation theory, but kept a way to introduce flesh's evil nature and sinfulness. 

This theory isn't true because Genesis 2 reveals man was flesh before the first sin. God made man flesh in the beginning. This Paul alludes to in Romans 8, the idea of being made in God's image could be an idea different than perfection in choice. We are still in God's image even after sinning, in some limited way.

Romans 8:20

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope, 

The theory of the fall of man into evil flesh explains some aspects, but is as false as the myth it overcomes.

We see that God made man flesh to subject him to vanity. Genesis 2:21 reveals God closed up Adam's flesh. In Genesis 2:23 Adam declared Eve was "flesh of my flesh". Man was sinful flesh before the first sin and all subsequent humans shared Adam's flesh. God made Adam sinless without guilt, but knew he was to be sinful as a creature, since flesh would be a weakness providing for an avenue of choice and temptation. As man met with law and choice, sin would be part of his life. Adam was created sinless since the first disobedience was the first and hadn't played out yet, there was no guilt to accuse him before he sinned. Adam was sinless yet sinful in the beginning. 

Romans 8 is speaking of the death of the body. So the death from Adam's sin was death of the body. This was the death that was passed to the rest of mankind through appointment.

Romans 8:10

And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness. 

The Greek reads "body dead through sin", not "because of sin", the word dia is used when something is instrumental in cause. The body isn't sin, but death came through sin. If flesh were sin, man would have the death sentence before eating the fruit. The sin in Romans 8:10 was Adam's sin and all that are included in his nature, all of mankind, because man is a fleshly being, all are created to miss the mark of life. They are born flesh and on the path to death. Man will always seek desires of the flesh and many of those desires are opposed to God's will. Just remember not all of man's desires are sinful.

One basic error of original sin theology is it doesn't recognize the difference between death of the body and death of the soul, physical death and spiritual death. We aren't to fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. - Jesus Matt. 10:28  The body can die without the death of the soul. The word soul can be used of a living person on earth, or of the personality of the person continuing after physical death; such as Christ's soul not being left in Hades.

Matthew 10:28

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 

Acts 2:27

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 

Our bodies die but our spirits or soul can live on. James wrote the body without the spirit is dead. It doesn't say the soul is dead but the body is dead.

Each verse, we must determine what is meant by death. Some verses mean physical death speaking of the body dying and decaying, and some verses mean spiritual death. When quoting men's writings we must determine their usage.

Some believe there is no difference in types of death, one dies and the person lives on as a disembodied spirit. This theory doesn't list three parts to man; body, soul, and spirit. The idea of disembodied spirits may not be accurate. The body without the spirit can mean to be without life force given by God when breathing into Adam's nostrils. The spirit leaves the body and the body dies, but we don't know how spirit differs from the soul. Hebrews 4:12 talks about the division of soul and spirit. Some believe only those in Christ are resurrected, the rest remain disembodied for eternity. There are verses that seem to indicate this idea. Yet, other verses indicate all will be raised and judged. 

There are many examples where men of high learning took the idea of death wrong. Catholics have made mistakes like the Jews did.

John 8:52

Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 

The Jewish leaders didn't understand the difference between death of the body and death of the soul at the judgment. Many verses can only speak of physical death, and some verses cannot mean physical death. Consider,

Luke 9:27

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. (must mean physical death for it is on earth before the judgment. They are already sinners, so isn't speaking of spiritual death from sinning.)

John 8:51

Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. (cannot mean physical death for all die spiritually before salvation and all die physically regardless)

In determining the origin of physical death there are three possibilities, God made man to die physically from creation, or God made an appointment man would die physically after Adam's sin. When God said "you will surely die" God could mean physically, spiritually, or both. 

Since Genesis 3:19-21 speaks of returning to the ground, he meant physical death in that verse. Though Adam also died spiritually. The word Adam in this verse represents all of man, including women. We all sweat and eat of the field and all return to the dust. Genesis 5:2 says male and female were named Adam. Thus,Male and female, eat herbs, we sweat, we both return to the dust, all the race of human beings.

The death of the soul was through personal sins. Adam's sin led to his own spiritual death as well, but Gen. 3:19-21 speaks of Adam as a figure for all mankind, it included eve and all his offspring. All of us return to the dust and rot in corruption. Except for Jesus whose body saw no corruption. So, all die physically but not all die the second death, which is being thrown into the lake of fire. Death, Hades, and man.

Death in the Old Testament usually referred to physical death. Adam was the only created, Eve was taken from Adam and fashioned, and all subsequent from that one seed were fashioned in the womb. The flesh of Adam is our only seed, therefore he stands for all. In a DNA sense we are Adam. All human flesh is from Adam. In Adam all die. You can use a word search for Old Testament uses of dead or death or similar words, most speak of physical death. There are exceptions. Most in Genesis are like the following.

Genesis 21:16

Let me not see the death of the child

Gen 27:2

I know not the day of my death

In the New Testament death can be speaking of physical or spiritual.

Ephesians 2:1-2 describes spiritual death, not physical death. They were dead while still living physically, and then made alive in Christ, while still awaiting death physically.

Ephesians 2:1

And you [hath he quickened,] who were dead in trespasses and sins; 

Ephesians 2:2

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 

Their disobedience isn't caused by Satan in the garden through Adam, but a direct assault by Satan in our world after the Garden of Eden. Satan affected our world after the garden. Ephesians 2 is speaking of this ongoing influence.

This death required trespasses, sins, walking, and disobedience. This was through our bodies/flesh passed from Adam, but a death based upon personal sins and personal guilt. At the time the Ephesians were converted they were dead physically in a future sense, they were appointed to die physically through Adam, but dead currently through personal sin and spiritual death.

This was a death that was of the spiritual soul that exceeded the physical death appointed from Adam's sin. Adam's sin caused physical death for all man and spiritual death for Adam, since his sin doesn't cause us to be guilty, it can affect man's physical death without it causing spiritual death. Our own sins cause our spiritual death as in Ephesians 2 above. Every man shall give an account of himself in the judgment.

Matthew 12:36

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 

The sin of Adam doesn't bring death to the soul of all man except that it guarantees man would be flesh and flesh would be a platform for sin to occur. As in the verse above, man's flesh can engage in idle words and other sins. We have a choice to speak that way, Jesus warned us so we would control our speech. Yes, the idle words Augustine wrote will be in the judgment.

Adam and Eve were created flesh before being guilty of sin, since we are in Adam we should follow the same rule, so man is conceived and born flesh before we become guilty of sin. Babies aren't conceived with sin though flesh. Sin comes to dwell in us as we develop sinful thoughts and habits. When Paul said sin dwelled in him there was no reference to his conception or infancy. When David wrote Psalms 51:5 he was possibly speaking of his son's death and that judgment that expedited his son's physical death, the son claiming his conception was in sin, as David and Bathsheba conceived in sin. When Job asked, "who can bring a clean thing from an unclean", God can. God can form man in the womb sinless even if our parents are sinners.

 So, babies shouldn't fear spiritual death. Ezekiel 18:1-4 says the soul that sins it shall die. The 2nd death, that of the soul, is based upon personal sins. So, there is no actual need for infant baptism. When studying quotes of Church fathers who accepted infant baptism, they almost always miss this point. They were ignorant of the difference between physical death and spiritual. They were from the ignorance of gnosticism pretty much, as if it hadn't dawned on them. Gnosticism blinded them even if they weren't Gnostic.

Catholics instituted infant baptism because they believed a baby's physical death also affected the soul. It did not. Jesus taught physical death doesn't always affect the soul. They were wrong and not considering what Jesus said. It was a lie of ignorance. If Adam's guilt was passed to man it would affect the soul, not just the body. Adam's guilt only affected his own soul in the judgment. His sin did bring physical death to us all. Our personal sins can expedite the physical death of our children.

Another reason Catholics accepted infant baptism was the argument of wording, but they are misleading us. When being challenged over infant baptism they tried to reverse engineer passages to teach it. We really need to be aware of three different Greek words, all translated infant or children. When you study the words you should realize they disprove the Catholics teaching. Brephos, paisia, tekrois, All three in their own way disprove catholic theology.

Brephos (Infants)

Luke 18:15

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when [his] disciples saw [it,] they rebuked them. 

1. The word infant can be used in a spiritual and educational sense. As Peter wrote "as newborn infants desiring the sincere milk of the word" One who is new to the faith or an educational underling. The children in the temple were being taught and able to speak. The same children had belief in Matthew 18:6. It is used here of educational infants.

2. The word infant in a physical sense means suckling, we know that babies were kept on the breast past age 5 in this era. It can be of those fed spiritually. Spiritual infants being taught in the temple. In Judaism they began education at age 5.

3. This was before Christian baptism, so not a precedent for infant baptism. Christ hadn't commanded it yet. So when Christ interacted with these children the focus wasn't immediate baptism.

4. The word baptism isn't in the passage. Catholics make an argument despite silence of the word in the passage.

5. This word was used of Timothy knowing the scriptures from infancy. The word can be a teachable age. II Tim 3:15

2 Timothy 3:15

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

Paisia

Luke 18:16

But Jesus called them [unto him,] and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 

This word children is a different word, normally just being under another's authority regardless of age.

1. This word children was used for Jesus when in the temple at age 12.

2. This word was used of children crying "Hosanna thou son of David"

Luke 2:43

And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not [of it. ] 

Tekrois

This word is used in Acts 2:39, 

Acts 2:39

For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. 

This uses the idea that the promise is to their children. Promises are for those old enough to understand them. It is to those called. 

1. This word is used of spiritual offspring mainly, not just physical offspring. It implies a spiritual likeness. It is used when children follow their parents spiritually. Here are some New Testament uses.

a) children of the devil.

b) children of God.

c) a spiritual child of Christ or Israel

Matthew 9:2

And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 

This is used of a child who is an adult. A sinner with personal sins. So, it doesn't imply physical infancy and can be used when a person is born spiritually. The word can imply children who follow their parent's spiritual path, such as Jewish children raised to believe the promises. The promise is to their children, but must be embraced by the children. Children becoming atheist wouldn't fit the word very well. This implies a dire need for Christian parents to raise their physical offspring as spiritual offspring.

Catholic children are baptized with a promise the child will be taught, but Christian baptism is fulfilled because the child was taught. It is a culmination and seal of the teaching, not a lead into teaching.

There is no grammatical argument for forcing the three words into infant baptism. Quite the opposite. The words can in all three cases refer to a teachable age. Catholics know they can't sustain the argument, they just want a plausible explanation even if it isn't true. Plausable deniability it is called.

Since Jesus says, "of such are the kingdom of God", it may reference the children's education leading one day to the Children becoming Christians, and baptism. They were likely being taught in the temple about the coming messiah. This tends to uphold Christian education for youth, without it forcing the idea of infant baptism. Since baptism isn't in the text, there is no viable way to take it that far, though many did.

God was fair in bringing physical death to all including babies, we will all be sinful even if not guilty yet, typically babies don't become sinful until their minds develop, but people who invented infant baptism tried to use a reverse analogy, if God could bring death because of one then God could bring righteousness because of one. In their view we can be saved by other's faith apart from our own. We are saved by Christ's righteousness.

Their theory has flaws when applied to baptism. All people follow Adam by being flesh, but not all follow Christ in being righteous. Many righteous adults have unrighteous children. Many christians can have atheist children. So the comparison isn't apples to apples. The sin of one brought physical death to all because we all have his nature, but the righteousness of one didn't make all righteous. It only makes some righteous if they interact positively. The righteousness of one can overcome physical death for all since one of the same nature didn't sin, thus breaking the appointment in Adam from the garden, thus God has a reason to delay judgment till the resurrection, we will be raised to go through the judgment. Christ has overcome physical death for all, and spiritual death for those who have trusted in him through obedient faith. We will continue to die because God has determined flesh should continue but be condemned through death. Then death itself will be destroyed.

We are always saved through other's faith, 

1. if they teach us

2. if they participate in the process by supporting those who teach.

3. There are many actions that are through others faith that lead to our salvation. Like encouragement.

Augustine's blunder wasn't that he taught men are saved through other's faith in some actions, but he refused to accept that God can require the subject's faith in some actions as well, if he chooses. Baptism and confession are two of those. Both of these require faith before the action by the subject.

Abraham and circumcision are examples used by Catholics of circumcision as a baby, but babies being circumcised wasn't the same as Abraham's circumcision. The babies circumcisions were a sign of what happened with Abraham. Faith and righteousness came before circumcision with Abraham. Babies received a sign pointing to Abraham and his example. Baptism can't be equal to circumcision because forgiveness and imputed righteousness comes at baptism and righteousness is imputed then, baptism and circumcision have opposite orders. Circumcision came after imputed righteousness with Abraham, Baptism is before. They aren't the same at all. They are opposites in order.

Romans 4:11

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 

Abraham was imputed righteousness through long continuance after given the promise in Genesis 12 and reaffirmed in Genesis 15, but before circumcision in Genesis 17. Baptism is before forgiveness, we are raised to walk a new life. 

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Baptism corresponds more with God giving the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12. That is when Abraham started his new journey.

Romans 6:4

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 

Since baptism requires us to walk in newness, it implies an old walk babies have never gone through, we can't have a new walk without an old walk.

It is obvious not all activities were meant to be solely through another's faith. Some things that are through other's faith doesn't mean it is apart from our own faith. The church exercises its faith when baptizing, but God may not accept the church's faith alone, God may require the subjects faith.

Augustine's arguments simply leave out this detail.

We aren't saved by their faith as if direct transference of their righteousness. All people are saved through other's faith, we are all taught by someone verbally or through writing. But we are not saved by their faith alone. Just as we aren't saved by our faith alone.  Through is different than by. We can't be saved without our own personal faith. There are many verses acknowledging we need our own faith.

Colossians 1:23

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 

There are circumstances where another's faith or righteousness cannot save others.

Ezekiel 14:14

though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.

One must have their own righteousness of faith to be saved in baptism. One is taught first, not after as in Catholic theory. Others participate in our salvation but not the way Catholics and Anglicans say. We can't be baptized solely on the church's faith, without our own faith. The same is true of confession. Some confession was meant to come from our own hearts and mouths.

Original sin theology didn't come from Judaism, though they had the story of Adam and Eve and all the works of the Old Testament, Jews still saw sin as something you do, not a guilt you inherit. The truth is, physical death is an appointment from God, not an inheritance. Heb. 9:27 says death is appointed, Job 30:23 says death is an appointment, this is for all men, not just sinners at Adam's level. It doesn't take personal sin to die physically, but the entire race has the appointment. One doesn't have to be a sinner since the forgiven die, also. David was forgiven yet he died. He didn't have sin to his account if forgiven. Abraham was justified, yet he died. Christ was sinless yet he died. Men died who were accounted justified and accounted sinless. Justification didn't take away physical death. Justification does free us from the death after the judgment. These verses point out man can be sinless in God's accounting, and still die physically.

Romans 4:3

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 

Romans 4:5

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 

Romans 4:8

Blessed [is] the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 

The point is sinless babies die, the forgiven and justified die, and sinless Christ died. All of these deaths are physical. God never intended for man in our fleshly bodies to live forever.  Nor did God expect us to die forever since he knew Christ would overcome death. By death God condemned sin in the flesh. It would not continue eternally, but was useful for God's purpose on earth. This led to the second mis-use of original sin doctrine.

What happened in the garden wasn't Satan outsmarting God, God expected and foresaw every detail. Satan didn't win as in the Gnostic myth.

Original Sin was a doctrine created conveniently by man to make God look righteous while allowing death. Mankind blamed God as if he was unfair in allowing death, so people twisted truth to protect God. God didn't really need man's help, man was a creation with no inherent right to life, God did not need a reason to let men pass away. Man was less than God's glory. Babies are sinless but still less than God's glory. Babies are flesh, which isn't sin, but it is sinful in its participation with evil later in life. Flesh is where sin plays out. So, babies are of sinful flesh and this plays out into sin later in life. God was justified in allowing physical death, he even warned Adam about it beforehand. God knew it would come. God didn't need us to give him the justification.

Life is of grace, grace comes from the word joy, meaning God was happy to bring life to man even with no duty to do so. God had no requirement to give man life. The idea of undeserved favor misses the meaning of grace in that it doesn't express God's joy in giving life to man. Undeserved favor is part of it, but doesn't express the reason behind grace which is inherit in the word. Joy. God had joy.

The word sinful in Greek is to err, going from a safe path to an unsafe path. It actually proves man starts in a sinless yet sinful state, not guilty until erring. Our flesh can be living well and then in a moment violate God's law. We can do, think, say the wrong thing in a moment. The flesh has no power to keep us hitting a target of righteousness. The flesh isn't sin but it has no power to keep us righteous. Paul describes it as the weakness of sinful flesh. It isn't a taint, but a condition we are subject to. It isn't sin in and of itself. Flesh is imperfect and our flesh is passed from Adam and Eve. Don't confuse this with original sin doctrine, which presupposes the guilt of sin passed at conception. God made an appointment on the race, not the individual.

We do not need Adam's original sin to be weak and erring, the flesh without Adam's guilt from sin is weak enough to allow sin to occur. So original sin as a theory is unnecessary. 

This alone shows that original sin is an invalid theory. Those supposedly freed from original sin by baptism still sin and still die. The theory can't explain this. People baptized as babies to remove original sin in their theology, have no power to cease from sinning, since they are still flesh. The theory is debunked. Yet they try to negotiate by saying with original sin present in our bodies all actions are evil, but without original sin you have some power to do good, this is false since man could always do good from creation. We just had no strenghth to avoid all evil works in life. The reality is we are still flesh and flesh still errs. 

Nothing really changed though they try to convince man it has. Mankind will continue as sinful flesh until the judgment, physical death wouldn't end until the judgment. We are set free from our sinful bodies at death.

Physical death is an appointment regardless if a sinner or not. We all lack God's glory so God has no obligation to save, sinner or not. Forgiven or not. Spiritual death is an appointment for those who sin, but not appointed for the forgiven and justified. This is how we can tell Hebrews 9:27 speaks of physical death, it occurs before the judgment and can't be overcome until the resurrection, regardless of sin status. Yet, through Christ it will be overcome, and spiritual death is overcome.

It was Augustine's generation that pushed hard for the Gnostic view of sin, even making it a reason for arrest. Augustine was a confused man in many ways.

Original Sin comes from the idea that flesh is evil and endowed with sin. The Christian view is that the flesh has influence that can be good or bad. Desires can be good, like God desiring all men come to the knowledge of the truth. Man can have positive desires. Paul said, "that which I will not to do, that I do", so man can have righteous desires, even before baptism. Paul lived with a clean consciounce even before being christian, he was a superbly moral Jew.

Original sin, because it believed guilt of sin was passed from Adam to all men through procreating the flesh, they developed a supposed need for infant baptism. It was this supposed need that Augustine used for a moral argument to persecute those who resisted it. This persecution gave rise to a wide-spread acceptance of infant baptism by force and coercion. Before Augustine most of Christianity did not accept infant baptism. It wasn't universal in all regions. It would have been if all apostles taught it. An example would be northern Africa, where infant baptism was rejected by the Presbyters like Tertullian and all of the churches in that area. 400 bishops of the Donatists rejected it. Keep in mind they weren't calling themselves Donatist's, but were part of the Christian body there. Tertullian who wasn't a Donatist also rejected it.

Catholics claim there was no record against infant baptism, that is because it didn't appear very early. It started well after the apostles, so there was no need for opposition until it started. There was no record for or against it, because it didn't exist yet.  When it appeared in the days of Tertullian it wasn't that widespread. Nevertheless, the Catholic and Anglican argument that there was no opposition till much later is simply untrue. It is a lie. Pelagius in his argument against Augustine was against infant baptism. Tertullian rejected infant baptism and taught the sin of Adam brought death of the flesh.

"then as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam..." Against Marcion 5

Tertullian saw it as death in the flesh, not the spiritual death of our own sins. Our own sins would be helped by the flesh brought from Adam. The guilt pertaining to the death of the soul was from our personal sins. So Tertullian

1. Believed we got flesh nature from Adam leading to sinfulness.

2. Believed physical death came through Adam

3. Did not believe babies inherited Adam's personal sin or guilt.

Most quotes from Church fathers pertained to physical death, based on Adam standing for a race of beings who were alike. Death passed to the entire race regardless if all had personally sinned. It did not pertain to spiritual death. Thus, quotes were used deceitfully by Catholics and Protestants alike. There are some who use death for death after sinning, but these are not in the context of original sin.

For instance, quotes from the Shepherd of Hermas dealing with sin and baptism was talking about spiritual death from personal sins. Not physical death from Adam

"they had need said the Shepherd to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the Kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life...they go down into the water [spiritually] dead and come out of it alive..." shepherd 9

It doesn't say our soul dies from Adam's death, but it does show immersion. It shows a spiritual death from our own sins from "former lives". Another quote was from Theophilus of Antioch,

"from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death"

Notice Theophilus spoke of physical death of the body. He doesn't tie our personal spiritual death to Adam's guilt. He fell prostrate in death is physical, since spiritual death allows us to continue life even after we sin.

Catholic quotations are mostly after 180 AD and bear little actual connection. Irenaeus said we came from Adam and that we (all men) were disobedient in the Garden. He said we all sinned there. That isn't quite Biblical. It is used metaphorically. Tertullian said it was Adam's transgression. Irenaeus wrote,

"we are all from him and bear his title" 

"whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning"

Nothing he says here really helps the Catholic cause. 

Tertullian didn't believe babies were guilty from Adam's sin, but is used by Catholics regardless. Tertullian wrote

"On account of his transgression man was given over to death"

"because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection"

"as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam"

It is possible he meant physical death. He doesn't really help Catholics. Origen stated we had the taint of sin, but provided no quote from the Apostles directly saying sin was an inherited taint. 

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote,

"One man's sin, that of Adam, had power to bring death to the whole world"

"death reigned over the world"

"if that man first formed ushered in universal death"

We see that his context was likely physical death.

Anyway, if God condemned the race to death and not just the first man, God would have no need to change Adam's nature after he sinned, he could stay his original flesh and pass it to the race that would be born of him. If God did change Adam's nature after the sin, we wouldn't be In the state of Adam's flesh, he couldn't actually represent mankind.

From a Christological perspective, many Gnostics refused to accept Jesus was flesh because, in their view, flesh was inherently evil. This was the spirit of anti-Christ. Total depravity among Calvinists was an offshoot of original sin. The idea we can do no good at all. The belief Jesus couldn't be flesh, the view he also had original sin wasn't acceptable to them.

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 

Jesus proves flesh isn't sin, since he was flesh just like you and I.

John uses "every spirit", so it wasn't just one person or group that went down this path, all slightly different, but a common theme that Jesus wasn't fully flesh. In their view, all humanity were born sinners, except Mary and Jesus. They invented the doctrine of the immaculate conception to make their theory fit.

Catholics believe Mary was the temple where God lived, so Mary couldn't be sinful flesh. The temple of her womb had to be holy, Sin touching God would cause Mary to die in their view. This theory makes no sense, there is no evidence God can't touch a sinner and the doctrine is unnecessary since Mary could be imputed righteous as Abraham was. Mary could be sinful and still be imputed righteous. Just as Christians have the Holy Spirit in us, we don't die from that even though we sin after being imputed righteous.

We as Christians are the temple of the Holy Spirit, as sinners he is in us every moment. We dont die and the Spirit doesn't become poluted by our sin. The reasoning behind Mary needing to be sinless isn't very sound.

The immaculate conception was unnecessary.

At the time of the writing of I John, the doctrine declaring Jesus was not flesh was already beginning, some declared he was physically flesh but lacked its full attributes that allowed sin. They taught Mary and Jesus were conceived different without a dark heart which they viewed was in man, an association of the flesh. This played out in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, so that aspects of flesh were not in theory shared by Mary and then Jesus. This infers a non-human heart or mind. The word flesh in Hebrew and Greek implies a mind and heart joined to the senses provided by our bodies, in their view Jesus lacked such a connection. The word immaculate in Latin means without darkness in the heart. When viewing Gnostic ideas of war between light and darkness, it is easy to trace the idea to the Gnostic myth.

Original Sin theory expresses multiple false ideas.

1. Jesus and Mary were conceived without the full expression of flesh. (spirit of anti-Christ)

2. Man is born a sinner with the guilt of Adam's sin, so infants need baptism. (baptism is for personal sins)

3. It denies the atonement cleared the way to overcome death from Adam's sin. Thus, relying on baptism to overcome the first death. Baptism remits personal sins affecting the 2nd death at the judgment. It doesn't remit Adam's, the atonement does that. (Christ died for all sins and that which brought physical death, paving the way for resurrection of man)

4. It teaches man can do no good on his own without grace, (creation gave man capacity for good, Adam could tend the garden and name the animals)

5. It teaches we are eternally lost because of Adam's sin and not our own sin. (death of body was always temporary, the Father knew from before Adam that Christ would die)

The atonement covered the entire world from Adam till the end. It is because of the atonement that all man can be raised for the judgment. This began with Jesus the first fruit. Jesus overcame the appointment of death through his own death, making reconciliation for the human race. The atonement covers the appointment of physical death mentioned in Hebrews 9:27. If you look at Israel's atonement in the law, it covered past sins for the year and the future year could be lived. Christ's atonement is similar. The atonement of Christ covered Adam's sin whereby physical death came.

Romans 5:11

And not only [so,] but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. (including Adam)

This does not mean all of mankind is released from physical death the day Christ died, it is transitory for Christ's resurrection and later all of man. We are free from the law that would hold us in death eternally.

1 Corinthians 15:21

For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 

Death is an appointment, resurrection is an appointment.

By man came death is speaking of physical death, and the law whereby our own sins would lead to eternal death at judgment was carried forward from before Adam sinned. It was in place before Adam sinned. He says, "in the day you eat of it you shall surely die". The law of sin and death was in place before Adam, the law of physical death was an appointment after Adam.

As Adam brought death it was not immediate, Abel lived into Adult age before death, Methuselah lived over 900 years before death, so the resurrection of one occured 3 days after atonement, the rest will be raised in their order as we die in our own order, perhaps thousands of years later.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 

1 Corinthians 15:23

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 

The atonement covers the sin of Adam that brought the appointment of our physical death. Babies do not need baptism because the atonement covers the law that could keep them in the grave. Physical death will ultimately be destroyed.

Since we were created male and female, we can assume the desires of the flesh in sexual relations existed from the beginning. It was a part of the flesh from the start. Such desires were allowed in the garden, enjoying life with all our senses was allowed. Sex wasn't sin.

Once man sinned they were separated from the tree of life. Man-kind could live eternally as long as they had that tree. So, it wasn't a change in man's nature that sustained death, it was a change in his location and diet. Perhaps his spiritual food. 

Adam also knew good and evil from that moment, even though his children didn't eat of the tree, they would be subject to Adam's teaching about right and wrong. They would develop consciousness of sin, the entire world would know some degree of right and wrong from that moment forward. 

Through one man sin entered the world, by teaching and not solely by flesh. Flesh alone without conscious guilt isn't sin. Adam and Eve were naked but didn't know it until knowledge of good and evil. The world was made conscious of their sin, and the world died. We need to resist the idea that flesh is sinful in its nature alone. It can house sin. It isn't sin.

Paul said sin dwelled in his flesh, flesh includes the mind and heart, Paul did not say how sin dwelled in him, that was assumed by men, often incorrectly.

Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. That doesn't mean he was sinful. It is a precedent that we aren't sinful simply by being born flesh.

Romans 8:2

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 

Romans 8:3

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 

Jesus made us free from the law of sin and death so that we can be raised someday. Jesus himself was flesh, yet not sinning. Flesh of itself isn't sin. It is sinful only in that enjoins in the process that brings about sin. Versus used to claim flesh is sin actually disprove the concept.

"sin in the flesh" shows a distinction between the sin and flesh, two different things. Flesh is the dwelling place as our houses are our dwellings, but not us.

"sin that dwells in me" again the sin and dwelling are distinct, even though joined.

Sin dwells in us over time, not at conception. We must first develop consciousness.

Romans 2:15

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 

All of the mentions of sin in Romans involve knowledge, as in judging others while doing the same things. Judging implies self-knowledge of an acts wrongfulness. Those who boast in the law show knowledge of the law. These are evidence of self-consciousness. Since man became conscious through Adam's sin it was an indirect influence bringing death to man as a race.

Without the tree of life Adam and Eve and their offspring would die. The law of sin and death was applied to man. The first part of the law was death physically, and the second part a second death where man is eternally separated from God by their own personal sins.

There is no reason to doubt that on the basis of Adam's sin we die physically, but it wasn't a change in nature that caused it but an appointment of God as man became conscious of sin.

Hebrews 9:27

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 

It was a law made by God, a divine appointment. This is our physical death which comes before the judgment. Our spirits separate from our bodies, and this can occur from conception to old age. This was an appointment from Adam's sin as God saw mans consciousness of Good and evil. It was through Adam but not a share of Adams guilt. Adam brought about a condition where all men would become sinners.

Romans 5:15

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 

 It was through Adam's offence not as a sharing of personal guilt for the offence. The offence caused the condition. Some people can die without having sinned like babies, some die with millions of sins. Since this death sentence is temporary God isn't unjust to anyone, all justice will be reconciled in the judgment, then a permanent state will begin. God isn't unjust through his system, though man may feel he is at times. No one wants their baby to die, but it doesn't hurt the child eternally, it causes pain in us. The suffering of this life can't be compared to the joy before us.

 It was separation from the tree that deprived us of life. Procreation kept us with the same fleshly bodies. If God could separate us from the Garden of Eden there would be no need to give us different bodies from what man had in the creation. So, there was no real reason to invent original sin. All can be explained without it.

We get our flesh from procreation, that passed from Adam and Eve via creation.  We don't directly get sin from Adam since he is long dead, his thoughts and biases in his life can no longer be shared with us. Through Adam sin entered the world, this sin became a lasting residue as improper thoughts and actions were shared with each generation.  Right and wrong became a part of society. The concept we are born into sin, that is the prevailing sin in our world, is a true saying. It affects us as we grow as a human.

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 

In Romans 5:12 the sin is Adam's, so the first mention of death is physical, the second mention is spiritual. 

Romans 5:12 is actually a mistranslation of Greek, "For that all have sinned" actually reads "upon to which or to whom all have sinned". It says death passed upon all having sinned. Thus, spiritual death for actual sinners. Physical death is for all, this death is for actual sinners. The word "for" is not in the text.

All men are judged according to our works. This is pretty much the end concept for original sin theology.

Revelation 20:12

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 

Romans 5:12 does not teach that sin passed into man from Adam through procreation as assumed by many, sin entered the world through Adam, what passed to all men was physical death. One has to read the Greek carefully and realize it never says original sin passed to all, it says death passed to all. The phrase original sin isn't in scripture, so no verse could say original sin passed to all. Romans 5:12 uses an active word and not passive in describing man's sin. "All have sinned". In death man is passive since it is a law placed upon us without our consent, sin is active.

To understand the correlation between sin and death we have to realize there are two deaths in the scriptures, plus some phrases like dying to self and dying to sin. Revelations 20 speaks of the 2nd death. Some verses speak of the first death which is physical. Our bodies die as our spirit separates. The second death is the death of the soul.

Matthew 10:28

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 

Revelation 20:6

Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 

Our body can die as well as members of our bodies can perish, we can cut off fingers and poke out eyes. Plus the soul can die. The Greek word for die is also translated destroy.

We have to figure out in each passage which death is talked about.  The doctrine of original sin confuses the two. Adam's sin caused man to physically die even if we haven't sinned in the likeness of Adam. With this death is granted a period of time to commit our own sins and receive grace for them. Our first death may not affect the soul. Since the first death is temporary, we will be raised and judged, God does not base our 2nd death on Adam's sin. The eternal is based on our own sin and our response to the Gospel. Original sin theory ties both the first and second death to Adam's sin. 

I believe the law of sin and death predated Adam and would apply to Satan and fallen Angels. 

There are many models about death we can use in theory. 1. We can theorize man was created to die physically. Adam was going to die physically from creation. Adam's sin brought only the 2nd death. 2. We can theorize Adam's sin brought physical death for the race of man, but eternal death is from each man's personal sins. 3. We could theorize all are condemned and receive the 2nd death because of Adam's sin.

Ezekiel 18:4  - the soul that sins it shall die.

This shows that the death of the soul is through personal sins, not Adam's sin or an ancestor's sin. Consciousness of sin came through Adam as he taught, so sin and death came through that teaching of his family.

Romans 5:19

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 

The phrase "made sinners" is passive but shouldn't express the idea that God poofed us into sinners. It was through allowing the knowledge of good and evil in our life that sin was brought to us. This was passive. When conceived we have no knowledge this was done for us but it will lead us to sin guilt. It is a passive concept occurring before our consciousness, but sinful acts occur after consciousness. We are "made sinners" through the process.

The idea of becoming conscious of right and wrong and good and evil, and then passing this to his offspring fits this verse well. Adam got his knowledge through sinning, Satan said he would know right and wrong. God himself said Adam was now like the god's knowing good and evil. It doesn't discuss Adam's teaching, but it doesn't discuss Christ's teaching either. We are sure both did teach.

Original sin theory is different than being a bad example, it was conceptualized as guilt of Adam's sin being passed to all humans. There are no biblical passages teaching this. God would know man having consciousness would lead to sin, so he could place man under death physically, and eternal death spiritually.

That is what is meant in Ephesians 2:1-3. We are flesh and our senses discover all the flesh can feel, see, and taste. It is this nature whereby sin may be lived out. The flesh paired with a consciousness of right and wrong leads to guilt. The phrase "by nature" uses the word dia, it is the idea of an instrument for something to happen. The flesh isn't the sin, it is an instrument  sin occurs. The use of the word dia makes it rather clear. It isn't from flesh but through flesh. A different concept than original sin.

We are conceived flesh, but flesh is only a medium and not the sin. Original Sin doctrine confuses this distinction. The idea our physical and mental nature came through Adam is true, it is passed through our DNA which all share with Adam, but that is different than the actual sin of Adam being passed to us.

Adam was formed with the ability to sin and the ability to die. This concept is foreign to most Christian denominations. They believe man was formed perfect in God's image. Being in God's image is a phrase argued over, many teach in every possible way God and man were the same, but we don't need to reason it that far. Man was created with the ability to sin, God can't sin. What kept man alive was God's power and protection.  God sustained Adam and Eve by his power, until the sin. Once the sin occurred God removed the power that kept man alive. We were separated from what sustained life. 

Man has always dependent upon God for life, we were never self-sustaining. We wrongly get the idea Adam was self-sustaining once God breathed into his nostrils, but that isn't so. God can dictate the life of man to be eternal, 120 years, or 70 years. We can live up to God's limits but never pass them. Adam's sin caused death to pass to all men, that doesn't mean all are born dead, it means death is next door. The Greek word epi means unto but not into. Epi means we have reached the border of death, it is a law man lives under that can't be avoided without God's help. That is why men like Enoch did not die and in so doing did not violate a principle. Death is on the border, it is a law we live under as long as we are in this world and in the flesh, but a few men avoided it with God's help being taken out of the world. It is why babies can die without sinning; all humans are on the border of death. It can occur through illness, accident, hunger, or violence. Without God's or man's specific protection we can die of any. 

Jesus had specific protection to live until it was time. He had angels helping, he had warnings advising those who cared for him. Since death passed upon all men as a law, Jesus could die as all men could. Without God's protection Jesus would have died as a child at man's hand. Jesus was born under the same law we are under and death was on his border.

Ephesians 2:3 is used by christian sects to say we are born with a sin nature so that Adam's sin is passed to us through conception, as in original sin being passed to each human. Yet it says we are dead in sins and trespasses, plural. This isn't talking about original sin singular. This is untrue. It is speaking of active sin in our life. Our human nature is passed to us and through this nature sin is lived out. We aren't actually born with the ability to sin, this isn't possible until our minds are formed growing up. It is achieved when our human nature is matured to understand our choices. Law comes into play. God's word comes into play. Human consciousness must be developed. Babies aren't born with mature consciousness, so sin is impossible.

We are by nature children of wrath. Their reasoning is that anything flesh is evil and destined for punishment. This is over applying concepts. Since it says "by nature" it cannot occur when receiving our nature, but through a process enjoined to the nature. Our choices in life as we grow to consciousness. It isn't at birth of nature but "By" nature. Thus, a process after birth, not at the time of birth.

Notice however Ephesians 2 doesn't say "sin nature". It says "by nature", meaning we are brought into sin through a nature that gives a desire, some desires are good and some bad. Our nature isn't sin, it simply gives us consciousness of choices, right or wrong.. By our human nature sin is brought before us through the thoughts and desires we have. We then choose to fulfill sinful desires or not. Since our nature allows for some degree of good, it isn't total depravity.

God said to Cain he should rule sin, which is humanly possible, Jesus did it and he was human.  Possible doesn't mean we achieve such perfection always. We win many battles, so it is possible. The law of Moses wasn't impossible to keep, that is why those who broke it were worthy of damnation. It required willful disobedience to break it.

We were created with a fleshly nature with desires of the flesh and mind. This nature in and of itself isn't sin until we fulfill our desires against God's laws and his will. I John says sin is the transgression of the law. Man's desires are placed in an environment of regulation and law, making man's mind contradict his desire.

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 

Desires of the flesh like eating, communicating, sex, and such like aren't sin. We desire to eat but can choose what to eat. Jews could choose to eat clean or unclean foods, We desire sex but choose when and with whom to have sex. We desire to communicate but choose our words. Desire isn't sin until fulfilled against God's will. It is doing them against God that is sin. Notice Adam had the same desires in the Garden as we do. He ate and had sex and communicated, it is apparent. He had desires before breaking God's law, it wasn't desire that was sin, but action while against God.

The rest of Ephesians 2:1-3 speak of man's actions. Man was created with fleshly desires that of themselves aren't sin, but some would test our desire toward God. Sin isn't just missing the mark, but getting off the path. As long as we are on the path you can't miss the mark. Man walked off the path. Adam went from seeking to please God to pleasing his wife and his desires that were off the path.

Ye walked according to the course of this world.

"fulfilled the lusts of the flesh". Sin is a walk and a fulfillment, not simply a desire. Instead of it proving Original Sin or a fallen nature that is impossible to overcome, it shows our flesh nature only influences, without forcefully overcoming us. We aren't forced to sin. Our world through its man-made design places us at odds with God's design. We are influenced by "this world".

It isn't by birth but by ingrained sin held within our world and passed from generation to generation. Mankind has an imagination and of himself can imagine sin, thus evil imaginations become ingrained and passed through speech and example and the imaginations of each human growing to consciousness.

Both lusts and sins are plural, so not one original sin.

Mark 4:12

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them. 

Gen 6 - the thoughts of their hearts were evil continually...

So we shouldn't use Eph 2 for original sin. That is a different concept. We continuously imagine bad things to do and say, it doesn't mean we fulfill them. Our human imaginations then affect others, our children, all whom we contact. Bad examples don't affect newborn babies until they become conscious of the meaning of our examples. We are born into a sinful world and will someday join it in sin.

Jesus used Satan as an example of Father/Child sins when saying, "the sins of your father ye will do"... Sin is something we do, and they weren't sinners because a father had sins but because they had sins like their father. Satan entered the heart of Judas so that he would betray Christ, but betrayal had to be done. It was fulfilled. Sin is something we participate in.