glorydaz
Well-known member
:mock: Danoh
ECT Are we born sinless? Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
:mock: Danoh
Nope. Just you projecting your myopia into my words :chuckle:
Now that's more like it. Glad you were able to laugh on my account, Gal. 2:20.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, it is the law which is written in the heart:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" (Ro.2:14-15).
It is a man's conscience that gives him the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong and that knowledge is written in the heart of man. That is why Paul wrote that the Gentiles are a law unto themselves.
And this verse is certainly not talking about the law of Moses:
"for until law sin was in the world; but sin is not put to account when there is no law" (Ro.5:13).
Of course sin was put into man's account before the law of Moses came into existence. Here we can see that the Lord spoke of the "sin" committed by those of Sodom and Gomorrah and that happened before "the law" came into existence:
"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous" (Gen.18:20).
The fate of these ungodly men who lived in those cities bears witness to the fact that their sins were indeed imputed into their account:
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
Even John Calvin understood that sin was indeed imputed to men before "the law" came into existence, writing that "before the law iniquities were by God imputed to men is evident from the punishment of Cain, from the deluge by which the whole world was destroyed, from the fate of Sodom, and from the plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and Abimelech on account of Abraham, and also from the plagues brought on the Egyptians" (Calvin, Commentary on Romans 5:13).
If you are going to understand what Paul was saying at Romans 5:12-13 then you must come to the understanding that when Paul used the word "law" at verse 13 he was referring to the law written on men's heart of which the conscience bears witness.
dodge
New member
The way you ignore and change scripture to make it say what YOU want it to say is pretty annoying also.
:loser::
Look at it this way; her best is to call you a troll just because you don't bow to her error in one thing or another.
In contrast, her fellow Hybrid, calls me (in the Thank you post section) a "divisive pig" just because I call them on this Acts 9 /ACTS 28 Hybrid of theirs that they have been passing off as "Mid-Acts" or MAD :chuckle:
Here, read some of this when you have some time. You might not agree with some of it, but it shows their errors.
Don't go turnin Mid-Acts, now
https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/acts-9-28-hybrid-theology/
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Yes, and he also said that broken bones rejoice! Do you take that literally?
At least I addressed your verse but you just ignored this one:
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).
Of course you also ignored what the Lord Jesus said about little children here:
"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'" (Mt.19:13-14).
According to your ideas the little children are dead spiritually even though the Lord Jesus said that the kingdom belongs to them!
dodge
New member
Scripture does NOT contradict scripture. Here a little there a little ,line upon line, and precept upon precept. Like it or not scripture teaches that in Adam all die as a result of sin which is the nature of mankind.
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, in Adam all die because they are made of the dust of the ground, earthly.
Will you ever read the actual text, or will you continue to speak lies?
Yep :thumb:
It is why babies die - the wages of ("tes" or "the" - the wages of The) sin is death, and by one man's trangression, all were made sinners; handed down via the conception resulting from a man and a woman's physical union.
We obviously do not agree on some things, bro; but we do on this.
There's hope for you yet
That's a ribbing, by the way; don't let the ever, one-sided legalist Hybrids tell you it is not a ribbing :chuckle:
You'll find that the wages of sin is death and not the wages of dust. Man dies and returns to dust, because of sin.
That is the point. Your conclusion is wrong. Paul uses the term "therefore" because he is giving a lesson. Adam disobeyed God leading to death. You claim you don't see death. Well, why do we need his life then?
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
At the other side is the Lord Jesus Christ, giving life. The opposite of what happens in Adam.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).
This is speaking about men dying spiritually as a result of their own sin. That means that they are alive spiritually before they die.
Therefore this verse has nothing to do with babies.
How many more verses are you going to pervert in a failed effort to defend the ridiculous idea of Original Sin?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Was he created spiritually dead or spiritually alive?
What death did he suffer on the day when he ate of the forbidden tree (Gen.2:17)?
dodge
New member
I did and you are still missing the "whole"context of Genesis 3 and what follows as far as sacrifice and the condition of the WHOLE human race.
FYI, I do not have to ignore the context to stay in an error as do many.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Are you actually defending the idea that bones actually rejoice? It surprises me none!
I forgot to ask... are you referring to 2 Co. 5:19 in your verbiage of the impact of Christ's DBR and dispensation of grace through Paul?
Is this where we seem to be lining up in speech, though we are nit picking one another at other points?