Omniscience means fatalism.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You were 'suggesting' people and things to pray about. As I explained to you, prayer is a 'personal' communication with God. Perhaps, you didn't articulate properly and I didn't get your jest? Why not try again?

If and when I am jesting about something it will be made plain.

You have barnacled yourself to something here that escapes me.

The opening context of this discussion was the matter of lex orandi lex credendi, accompanied by a challenge that if one actually takes the time to examine one's prayers, it is likely to reveal that what one openly declares does not comport with the what one actually prays.

Your attempt to move the argument to prayer a se, is missing the point of the discussion at hand and attempts to import denunciations where no advocating contrarily you actually proffered. In effect, you are talking to yourself all the while assuming someone disagrees with you. Who does? Indeed, prayer is personal, hence lex orandi lex credendi. Why? Because how we pray actually describes what we believe, no matter what we may be posting or saying in public.

It therefore behooves all of us in our walk of faith to examine ourselves such that our prayers and our beliefs are in alignment. To do otherwise implies either we are praying wrongly and/or believing wrongly. No one should want to be in that position (James 1:8).

Again, prayer is personal. That in no way means that prayer is just whatever our notions of liberty may mean applies. Scripture, including Our Lord, specifically teaches us the proper methods of prayer: adoration (Hallowed be Your name), supplication (forgive us...lead us...deliver us), confession (Forgive us our debts), and thanksgiving (Give us this day our daily bread).

If you think there is no need for suggestions or specific teachings about the matter of prayer, you are off in the weeds doctrinally.

Go in peace now, brother.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I did look inside those spoiler tags... if you don't mind me asking, do you pray for your enemies? Or perhaps my question is more of "How would you pray for your enemies?"

We should pray imprecatory prayers against the sin that reigns in the lives of others, such that God will put their sinful nature to death and bring sinners to repentance and faith.

We should also pray them against the sin that still indwells us as believers, that we would mortify our sinful nature.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

Is it nature or nurture?
Is mankind naturally sinful from conception or does sinfulness come as a person grows and acquires the knowledge of good and evil?

I understand man to be naturally sinful from conception, with Adam and Eve being the necessary proof that God has used for demonstration for this exact case in point. The newborn infant may be lovingly nurtured but it is innately selfish and does not know how to love or care for others. We learn love, we must choose whether we will love, it does not automatically flow from our being.

A perspective on the knowledge of good and evil: Adam and Eve only knew the good when they were in Eden. When they chose that they would rather be gods and decide for themselves, only then were they subjected to knowledge of both good and evil.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If and when I am jesting about something it will be made plain.

You have barnacled yourself to something here that escapes me.

The opening context of this discussion was the matter of lex orandi lex credendi, accompanied by a challenge that if one actually takes the time to examine one's prayers, it is likely to reveal that what one openly declares does not comport with the what one actually prays.

Your attempt to move the argument to prayer a se, is missing the point of the discussion at hand and attempts to import denunciations where no advocating contrarily you actually proffered. In effect, you are talking to yourself all the while assuming someone disagrees with you. Who does? Indeed, prayer is personal, hence lex orandi lex credendi. Why? Because how we pray actually describes what we believe, no matter what we may be posting or saying in public.

It therefore behooves all of us in our walk of faith to examine ourselves such that our prayers and our beliefs are in alignment. To do otherwise implies either we are praying wrongly and/or believing wrongly. No one should want to be in that position (James 1:8).

Again, prayer is personal. That in no way means that prayer is just whatever our notions of liberty may mean applies. Scripture, including Our Lord, specifically teaches us the proper methods of prayer: adoration (Hallowed be Your name), supplication (forgive us...lead us...deliver us), confession (Forgive us our debts), and thanksgiving (Give us this day our daily bread).

If you think there is no need for suggestions or specific teachings about the matter of prayer, you are off in the weeds doctrinally.
fancy
Go in peace now, brother.

AMR

When I pray to God the Father, I do not wish to 'Psychoanalyse' myself as to the whys and wherefores, and choice of fancy words, and sentences. And, by the way, I don't speak Latin.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I understand man to be naturally sinful from conception, with Adam and Eve being the necessary proof that God has used for demonstration for this exact case in point. The newborn infant may be lovingly nurtured but it is innately selfish and does not know how to love or care for others. We learn love, we must choose whether we will love, it does not automatically flow from our being.

I understand man to be naturally innocent from conception.

A perspective on the knowledge of good and evil: Adam and Eve only knew the good when they were in Eden. When they chose that they would rather be gods and decide for themselves, only then were they subjected to knowledge of both good and evil.

If this is true (and it is) then Adam and Eve sinned before the so-called fall.
Therefore, there is no rational reason to think our nature is any different after the fall: mortal and capable of sin.

Genesis 3:22 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:​

Paul states that the knowledge of evil can increase our desire to sin:

Romans 7:7 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.​

 

[MennoSota]

I understand man to be naturally sinful from conception, with Adam and Eve being the necessary proof that God has used for demonstration for this exact case in point. The newborn infant may be lovingly nurtured but it is innately selfish and does not know how to love or care for others. We learn love, we must choose whether we will love, it does not automatically flow from our being.

A perspective on the knowledge of good and evil: Adam and Eve only knew the good when they were in Eden. When they chose that they would rather be gods and decide for themselves, only then were they subjected to knowledge of both good and evil.

Psalms 51:3-7
[3]For I recognize my rebellion; it haunts me day and night.
[4]Against you, and you alone, have I sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. You will be proved right in what you say, and your judgment against me is just.
[5]For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
[6]But you desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there.
[7]Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

Indeed, we are sinners at conception.

 

[Rosenritter]

I understand man to be naturally innocent from conception.


If this is true (and it is) then Adam and Eve sinned before the so-called fall.
Therefore, there is no rational reason to think our nature is any different after the fall: mortal and capable of sin.

Genesis 3:22 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:​

Paul states that the knowledge of evil can increase our desire to sin:

Romans 7:7 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.​

1. I'm not sure why you would say that Adam sinned before the fall. "Sinned" and "sinful" were laid out as two different (related) items.
2. "Know" is one of those words that can have more than one meaning or application. Adam "knew" his wife is another example.

 

[Rosenritter]

Psalms 51:3-7
[3]For I recognize my rebellion; it haunts me day and night.
[4]Against you, and you alone, have I sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. You will be proved right in what you say, and your judgment against me is just.
[5]For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
[6]But you desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there.
[7]Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

Indeed, we are sinners at conception.

That is indeed applicable... and I am going back and editing this because I thought that wording seemed unfamiliar. Here's the familiar words.

Psalms 51:3-7 KJV
(3) For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
(4) Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
(5) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
(6) Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
(7) Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Thus may seem like a subtle distinction, but I understand the capacity to sin (under enough stress, or lure, or temptation) is sinfulness. The infant might not have sinned just yet, but it is only for lack of opportunity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Psalms 51:3-7
[3]For I recognize my rebellion; it haunts me day and night.
[4]Against you, and you alone, have I sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. You will be proved right in what you say, and your judgment against me is just.
[5]For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
[6]But you desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there.
[7]Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

Indeed, we are sinners at conception.

EDIT: Wrong verse, I will try again.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm not sure why you would say that Adam sinned before the fall.

What is the cause of the so-called fall?

 

[Rosenritter]

What is the cause of the so-called fall?

Technically I suppose the fall would have been caused by Adam's sin and/or being cast out of Eden, but a "before" or "at" distinction is more of a measure of our perspective, whether we are thinking in hours or minutes or ages. As such, if you understand that sin preceded the fall in that same context, I'm not sure why it would be a problem that "Adam sinned before the fall." I must not be understanding you correctly because I do not understand why you would call particular attention to that.

 

[MennoSota]

The translation you are using is in error.

Psalms 51:5 CJB 5 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.​

RASHI'S COMMENTARY and my sin is always before me: Since I regret [my sin] and worry about it, it is as though it is constantly before me, always.

No it's not. You just look for an escape by picking a translation that has not been vetted by scholars.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." ESV
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me." NASB
"Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me." NIV

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No it's not. You just look for an escape by picking a translation that has not been vetted by scholars.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." ESV
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me." NASB
"Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me." NIV

Indeed.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm 51:5

More often than we would like in our own vain imaginings, counting noses is appropriate.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

I will gladly accept the label of "Christian" but most other labels usually come with some assumptions and/or baggage that may provide an inaccurate impression. If the legitimate use of labels is for accuracy and communication then it may be better to dispense with them all together and recognize each other first and foremost as Christians, by the Holy Spirit and our fruits, and to proceed forward from that foundation.

Let's take a recent example in the Open Theism board. Although I tried to adopt the "Open Theist" label, Lon says that as we were explaining (several of us) it didn't sound like other Open Theists he had talked to previously. As such, if labels tempt us to judge without hearing then maybe we should try to avoid them whenever possible.

I agree completely. I doubt it will happen, but it should.

 

[glorydaz]

Rather than making a tout court claim, it would be best to qualify the "Pelagius!" charge as there are distinctions.

Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?​

For more, see:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html

AMR

Perfect example. There is some truth there and some error. So to label someone as such when they do not agree with everything there would be error.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Technically I suppose the fall would have been caused by Adam's sin and/or being cast out of Eden, but a "before" or "at" distinction is more of a measure of our perspective, whether we are thinking in hours or minutes or ages. As such, if you understand that sin preceded the fall in that same context, I'm not sure why it would be a problem that "Adam sinned before the fall." I must not be understanding you correctly because I do not understand why you would call particular attention to that.

Simple.
If Adam sinned before the so-called fall, and we sin after the so-called fall, then the so-called fall didn't really change anything at all.
There really is no change in the nature of mankind that can really be called the fall, especially since the Bible doesn't speak in any length about this so-called fall.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No it's not. You just look for an escape by picking a translation that has not been vetted by scholars.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." ESV
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me." NASB
"Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me." NIV

Sorry, I made a mistake in numbering of the verses, since the Tanakh uses different numbering than the normal English translations.

Here is the Tanakh version of the verse.

Psalms 51:7 CJB 5 Behold, with iniquity I was formed, and with sin my mother conceived me.​

RASHI'S COMMENTARY Behold, with iniquity I was formed: Now how could I not sin when the main part of my creation was through coitus, the source of many iniquities? Another explanation: The main part of my creation is from a male and a female, both of whom are full of iniquity. There are many midrashim to this verse, but they do not fit the context of the psalm. conceived me: Heb. יחמתני, an expression of heat, as (Gen. 30:38): “And they came into heat (ויחמנה) when they came to drink.”

Please notice the difference.

Psalms 51:3-7
[3]For I recognize my rebellion; it haunts me day and night.
[4]Against you, and you alone, have I sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. You will be proved right in what you say, and your judgment against me is just.
[5]For I was born a sinner— yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
[6]But you desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there.
[7]Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

Indeed, we are sinners at conception.

Your translation is in error, since it translates "with iniquity I was formed" as "I was born a sinner".

Surely you can see a difference in the two translations?

 

[Rosenritter]

Simple.
If Adam sinned before the so-called fall, and we sin after the so-called fall, then the so-called fall didn't really change anything at all.
There really is no change in the nature of mankind that can really be called the fall, especially since the Bible doesn't speak in any length about this so-called fall.

Correct, I wouldn't say that "the Fall" changed human nature. It's just our reference point that we use for Adam's sin and his being cast out of Eden. We could use other words instead but they would be more wordy.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Correct, I wouldn't say that "the Fall" changed human nature. It's just our reference point that we use for Adam's sin and his being cast out of Eden. We could use other words instead but they would be more wordy.

Many people call the change in human nature by the terms "Original Sin" or "Total Depravity".

I don't see any evidence in the Bible that human nature was changed by the actions of Adam.
The only thing that changed is that people acquired the knowledge of good and evil and people were banned from eating from the tree of life to prevent people from living forever.

 

[Rosenritter]

Many people call the change in human nature by the terms "Original Sin" or "Total Depravity".

I don't see any evidence in the Bible that human nature was changed by the actions of Adam.
The only thing that changed is that people acquired the knowledge of good and evil and people were banned from eating from the tree of life to prevent people from living forever.

Human nature wasn't changed, but man was demonstrated to be sinful (capable of sin) by nature. When someone defines Original Sin in those terms I agree as they explained the term. There are the judgmental types that will yell "You deny original sin!" because you refuse to agree carte blanche with anyone's definition of the term, but should we worry about those types, really?

When our human nature is changed, we call that something else. I'd point to Paul's use of the phrase "made perfect" as it seems to include the a spiritual transformation in that physical resurrection as well.