The reason for my question is there seems to be a change from what the scripture states as to what God told Adam about the same tree. I couldn't find where God specifically told Adam that touching it would kill him. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place. Depending on the answer, I may have a secondary observation/conjecture and associated question.

There are some that seem to say that he doesn't and then some seems to say that he does (p.19) so I wonder what is going on here. I understand that there are different kinds of ways to explain how guilt is imputed (realist vs federal, etc) but regardless, did John Wesley believe in imputation of guilt? If the answer is yes, I have no further question. But *if the answer is **no***, then what do Wesleyans mean when they say baptism 'cleansed the guilt of original sin'? Links and references are appreciated!

> Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and > justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . > .divine life" CCC375 Now, I've heard a priest say that through Christ's death on the cross all of humanity will go back to the original state. I imagine this as if mankind's goal was to return back to Adam's original state of holiness. And when looking at history, we can see that societies are becoming softer and more authentic despite all the evil happening around us. Thanks to new technologies, humans are more open and transparent, which changes our mentality. My question is: Will this happen on Earth, or is it meant for after the Second Coming and Resurrection? What Catholic teaching is the priest referring to?

> By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners > > Rom 5:19 Why does it not say "all" but "many"? Because the previous verse says: > By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation > > Rom. 5:18 Does this mean that not all were made sinners though upon all came to condemnation? I am interested in an overview of the major views in Christianity.

As a recent answer observes, the Westminster Confession of Faith explains: >Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. > >II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. > >III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.* What Biblical basis does the Westminster Confession imply or state supports the statement, "the guilt of this sin was imputed"? If the Confession itself makes no such support, are there authoritative commentaries on the Confession (and only on the Confession) that provide such basis, and, if so, what is claimed? Please don't answer the more general question, "What is the Biblical basis for the belief that the guilt of Adam and Eve was imputed to all mankind?" That is not what is being asked here. (Thank you.) * VI.1-3

God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden because Eve ate the fruit that God told her not to. And this let evil into the world. If God loves everyone, so much so that he let his son die for us, then why has every subsequent human and animal had to live and deal with the result of evil? **How does the Bible explain this, given that it says God is just?**

This is a question that every convert to Eastern Orthodoxy always asked. The question can be stated differently: [Does the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin include Original Guilt?](http://taylormarshall.com/2011/07/does-original-sin-guilty-babies.html) Fr. John Romanides famously distinguish Ancestral Sin from St. Augustine's Original Sin, claiming the later was erroneously introducing Manichaean view of Original Guilt into Latin theology. [Fr. Vladimir Moss](http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/399/romanides-original-sin/) wrote extensively to show why the doctrine of Original Sin is Apostolic in origin and dogmatically sound in Orthodoxy. To further clarify [why original sin and ancestral sin are not substantially different?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4814/how-do-the-catholic-and-orthodox-views-of-original-sin-differ/37431#37431) It's important to address what is the difference between Original Sin and later theological development from Protestant on Original Guilt?

I was reading the answers to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7412/how-is-original-sin-transmitted , when it occurred to me: isn't this contrary to scripture? Specifically: Ezekiel 18:20 > The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. How does this tie together with the idea of "inheriting" blame from The Fall?

While reading about original sin , I often read that the Catholic and Orthodox churches disagree on the doctrine of original sin. But as far as I can tell, they both reject the idea that mankind inherited sin from Adam and believe that mankind only inherited the fallen nature. The only differences I see are in terminology. What am I missing? How are their views on original sin different?

All early reformers believed in the imputation of 'actual guilt' as far as I know. I am fairly certain, however, that Arminians of the 16th century did not believe in the 'imputation of guilt' as there are books that show Calvinist leaders arguing against them on this issue at this time. For example, John Owen argued against their views in 'Display of Arminianism ' and quotes, in many places, their denial of the 'imputation of guilt.' **Does anybody have historic quotes from Arminius that shows if he also did NOT believe in the 'imputation of guilt'?** I ask the question because my answer in this post assumed Arminius did not believe in the 'imputation of guilt' but that Wesley did. Now I am not 100% certain as I find clear direct quotes from Arminius hard to find.