ECT Classical Vs. Biblical Original Sin - Interlude & DIRECT ASSAULT (Part 3) :execute:

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Do you accept the Bible books as arranged by "early church fathers"? I will explain it, I just need to know a few things from you first. Or do you think the books are out of order, and not necessarily divine inspiration.

Do you accept that ALL means ALL as Paul said and you confirmed was referring to the Jewish and Gentile emissaries?

Also... just to thrust this home... God says He's going to judge the nations for "dividing" His Land and oppressing His people.

Why look to the Widow after her oppression, when she is even named correctly now? Oic... Jesus can forgive your sins, but you can condemn the current, living Jews and Israel for theirs. Sounds like the work of "Augustine" to me... or plain old lack of "Love".

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Such is not Christology. Do you even know what Christology, is?



:chuckle:



Yep, Nick is right . . you bounce all over the map and never land.



Nope. I am not confused about Genesis at all.

What confuses me the most, is why Lon and AMR ever allowed themselves to be identified with you, a heretic.

John 5:39 ... and the rest becomes crystal clear.

Are you going to actually say something of value towards the OP besides things that show that we are deeper in scripture than your commentaries and creeds go?

Since all people that are not Calvinist's are Hairy Ticks to you... I simply giggle when I picture your angry face as you type away.

- EE

 

[Nick M]

Do you accept that ALL means ALL as Paul said and you confirmed was referring to the Jewish and Gentile emissaries?

You don't get to answer a question with a question. I can just not engage you with dialogue if that is what you want.

 

[Nang]

we are deeper in scripture than your commentaries and creeds go?

It is obvious you are "deeper" into something, but it is not Holy Scripture or Christian commentaries . . .

 

[Nick M]

What confuses me the most, is why Lon and AMR ever allowed themselves to be identified with you, a heretic.

Because they have more manners than you.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

You don't get to answer a question with a question. I can just not engage you with dialogue if that is what you want.

No... I care what you have to say... I just hope you say it without telling other people what books of the Bible to utilize and without avoiding direct response to what is written to you. If you don't come direct to my posts and employ empty tactic to support your perspective, I'll probably be "Evil" towards you.

But... you knew this.

I actually have and always will value what you say... but know when a bear is debating a bear.

Fair enough?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Because they have more manners than you.

And that's why no matter how much we ever butt heads I'll always secretly think you are 10 shades of Awesome!

:cheers:

I have to log off for a bit... but... please keep challenging everyone with counter perspective!

We all think your pretty okay and you add depth to debate.

I'm dropping a mention because I added this... [MENTION=6141]Nick M[/MENTION]

 

[glorydaz]

EE's Christology is not exactly accurate . . .

Nang's upset because her doctrine is being shown for what it is.....one big scam. :chuckle:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I have to log off for a while, but to each of you that bring support or challenge to this OP with sincere heart and use of ALL scripture rooted in Jesus... okay... that ALL thing was "Evil" of me to add ... cough... Nick M...

I say all Love, Grace and Blessings... "In Him".

Even to you [MENTION=7292]Nang[/MENTION]

Happy coming ressurection celebration to each of you!

- [MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]

 

[Nang]

Because they have more manners than you.

Ha!

When have you ever placed good manners over and above your staunch beliefs?

In that regard, you have proven to be more honest than Lon and AMR.

 

[Nick M]

Ha!

When have you ever placed good manners over and above your staunch beliefs?

In that regard, you have proven to be more honest than Lon and AMR.

It is rude to lie to people about their eternal fate. It is hateful to tell people lies that will lead to the second death. They have manners because they attempt debate and dialogue, unlike you and your

Gag . . .

Duh . . .

Bah . . .

 

[Nang]

It is rude to lie to people about their eternal fate. It is hateful to tell people lies that will lead to the second death. They have manners because they attempt debate and dialogue, unlike you and your

Even if they have better "manners" than myself, they supposedly believe and confess the same Reformed Truth as myself, so I see no reason for either of them to identify with a DEVILISH heretic.

Which EE proves to be . . .

 

[Shasta]

My goodness. Clearly, the Lord didn't expect us to start pooping our pants. He created us, and He understands that human beings need some time to grow up. If you want to compare them to adults then you should actually think about what Christ was saying. You will often see the same things in brand new Christians. They are still living in awe of everything. They aren't out to impress anyone...they are humble saying exactly what they mean...they are learners and listeners. They have perfect faith believing everything is possible.


You seem to be digging pretty deep to bring up things Jesus did not mean. The verse from Luke 7, for instance, isn't saying children are in "conflict" when they play games, He's saying these grown men sounded like kids playing a games though they were serious. Children playing games is not bad. :nono:

I was not "digging deep" at all. I just presented a list of scriptures and gave a simple one-sentence summary for each. You were claiming children are born with spiritual life and without any tendency to sin. If that is so then they should be moved and controlled by the Spirit. That is what being full of the Spirit is all about. It is why God did not have to give the first humans a comprehensive list of laws because they intuitively would have understood and followed them. Therefore only the one rule needed to be stated.

The grown men Jesus was speaking to were not having fun playing games. There was a conflict between them just like there was conflict between the two metaphorical groups of children who disagreed about what games they wanted to play.

I began my post by noting what Jesus said. Then I went on to other scriptures to show the other side of the matter. When Paul said what he did about children was he trying to somehow change or undermine the point Jesus made? I do not think so.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You were claiming children are born with spiritual life and without any tendency to sin. If that is so then they should be moved and controlled by the Spirit. That is what being full of the Spirit is all about.

So what about people who are born again or born of the Spirit?

According to your view they should not sin. But they do, don't they?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I was not "digging deep" at all. I just presented a list of scriptures and gave a simple one-sentence summary for each. You were claiming children are born with spiritual life and without any tendency to sin. If that is so then they should be moved and controlled by the Spirit. That is what being full of the Spirit is all about. It is why God did not have to give the first humans a comprehensive list of laws because they intuitively would have understood and followed them. Therefore only the one rule needed to be stated.

The grown men Jesus was speaking to were not having fun playing games. There was a conflict between them just like there was conflict between the two metaphorical groups of children who disagreed about what games they wanted to play.

I began my post by noting what Jesus said. Then I went on to other scriptures to show the other side of the matter. When Paul said what he did about children was he trying to somehow change or undermine the point Jesus made? I do not think so.

Shasta,

If spiritually alive were as you say, perfection of the moral kind, like Jesus displayed in "temptation" would be the result.

Look at what I highlighted in pink.

We had one rule Shasta... just one rule... uno... one... and we managed to screw it up! Just one little rule.. Now... I think the motive of the heart in the Garden is deeply overlooked.... but... that will be the next part of the OP series.

Read my 1st OP in this series by following the OP link backs. I think you think human, spiritual, moral perfection should ultimately be Christ like...

This is not the biblical case, nor will it ever be. We will never be "like God".

Only God is bulletproof to privation and deprivation.

- EE

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Even if they have better "manners" than myself, they supposedly believe and confess the same Reformed Truth as myself, so I see no reason for either of them to identify with a DEVILISH heretic.

Which EE proves to be . . .

Oh Nang.... you old flatterer.. you.... "pinching cheek,"

 

[Tambora]

So you think God created Adam to disobey Him ?

Obviously GOD created Adam with a nature that had the capacity to disobey Him.
That capacity has not changed.

 

[dodge]

Obviously GOD created Adam with a nature that had the capacity to disobey Him.
That capacity has not changed.

Twist much ? Chubby Checker has nothing on those that twist God's word to make it say what they want it to say.

God said "do not" for a reason. Adam did and there were immediate and long term consequences.

Adam disobeying God was NOT a natural thing for Adam it was "UN-natural" disobedience to His creator, and marginalizing that disobedience makes folks blind to the severity of the immediate and long term consequences of that disobedience on Adam, Eve, and "ALL" of Adam's progeny.

 

[Tambora]

Twist much ? Chubby Checker has nothing on those that twist God's word to make it say what they want it to say.

God said "do not" for a reason. Adam did and there were immediate and long term consequences.

Adam disobeying God was NOT a natural thing for Adam it was "UN-natural" disobedience to His creator, and marginalizing that disobedience makes folks blind to the severity of the immediate and long term consequences of that disobedience on Adam, Eve, and "ALL" of Adam's progeny.

You are so dense.

The nature of Adam, as GOD created him, not only had the capacity to disobey GOD, but did disobey GOD.
The very same nature that GOD created him as, is the very same nature that disobeyed (unless you incorrectly think that GOD changed Adam's nature before he disobeyed).
The nature of man can still disobey GOD, so nothing has changed in that regard.

 

[dodge]

You are so dense.

The nature of Adam, as GOD created him, not only had the capacity to disobey GOD, but did disobey GOD.
The very same nature that GOD created him as, is the very same nature that disobeyed (unless you incorrectly think that GOD changed Adam's nature before he disobeyed).
The nature of man can still disobey GOD, so nothing has changed in that regard.

Nothing has changed except:


Adam did NOT have to disobey God, and everyone born after Adam "WILL" except Jesus ,and why is that ? It is because everyone is born with a sin nature just like Adam acquired by disobedience when he disobeyed God.

While Adam made a choice to disobey God everyone since Adam is going to die physically and Adam was created by God to live forever.

Women now instead of having a baby pain free will bear children in pain.

Man kinds access to the "tree of life" is blocked by God as a result of Adam's disobedience, and can only be regained by faith in Jesus.

The earth has been cursed so that man has to work for what he eats as opposed to being fed by God.

Women have been placed under the authority of men.

In Adam (not Eve ) "all die" has meaning which YOU ignore to follow cunningly devised fables !

Mankind was not created to "sin" or "die" that has been passed down because of Adam's disobedience.

Nothing is the same as before Adam disobeyed God !