ECT Pela... Who? Don't know him! and how Augustine Original Sin has been addressed.

[SabathMoon]

Babies are so selfish with their milk bottles and stuff. They must be totally depraved and cynical.

 

[Lon]

Wow... this is low.

You are being deceptive.. It says this ...

"All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God's anger, just like everyone else"

The Law has to be transgressed to incur wrath. I never say any are sinless but I say that all but Jesus succumb to sin.

I declare that God condemns none before they sin. The Garden account says the same.


You want me off ToL? Keep pressing. That flame out is coming. This is the Spirit of obfuscation and deception that I was seeing when you said Christ didn't die for the lost. You said He didn't die for those that reject Him and you had difficulty saying it directly with a yes.

I'm sincere here.

You have no consideration for what I am trying to discuss here. I even asked Bright Raven about this today... because you are legitimately avoiding my dialogue and communication while attempting to Elude that I am to be labeled as a heritic...

You didn't outright say it... but it's in the recent dialogue.

Put "'born" sinless nature' on it then.

 

[Lon]

Babies are so selfish with their milk bottles and stuff. They must be totally depraved and cynical.

Babies are born with Aids. They are 'so health deprived.' To think total depravity means mass murderer, is applying absurdity. If you 'want' to, go ahead. I'm into thinking and using my faculties rather than emoting and jumping to idiotic conclusions. You? :think:

 

[Lon]

Bottom Line... You defend AOS and see it in the light that ALL are condemned before inception... but you limit access to Jesus by doctrine to the solution!

Character of God 0...

# Lon 1

This doesn't even make sense. You, along with me, believe truly "NONE come to the Father but through Me."
Tell me about your view that makes sense. Did those before Christ have the 'cure' to be born sinless? What benefit did kids after Christ's work receive? Why didn't God just wipe all children out? If they are automatically saved, why not just do that? Why, when He tried it with Noah, didn't it work?

 

[SabathMoon]

Babies are born with Aids. They are 'so health deprived.' To think total depravity means mass murderer, is applying absurdity. If you 'want' to, go ahead. I'm into thinking and using my faculties rather than emoting and jumping to idiotic conclusions. You? :think:

I was sarcastic

 

[Lon]

Your doctrine is based on carnal death having reign over spiritual fate. To be succinct... it empowers Satan. I don't care if the Universal brick and mortar agree... Satan's Spiritual Impact has been overthrown by Calvary for all... but not all want that... and they'll get what they want.

And yet you admit your avoiding my questions.. on down in your own words... while I'm still waiting for you to answer a scriptural coupling of related verses. You dodge them over and over and over and you simply refuse to answer with a sincere heart. We can pretend we're Daqq and argue over the Greek. Shall we strain Gnats and avoid discussion that takes all scriptural narrative into account? Microscoping verses isn't a test of scholarly skills... but a discussion of sincere "perception" and thus implication.

Yes, I did. Why? Rabbit trails. Ask ONE question and use ONE scripture to ask it. All the rest? As obfuscating as the rest. I stayed on Ephesians 2:3 Simply asked: Is it true? "By nature" are we ALL 'children of wrath?' Yes or no?

Answer, then your turn.

No! I was pointing out that the Pharisees thought the same as you and didn't perceive their doctrinal inferences to the Character of God.

That was Jesus throwing the point in my favor.

In your own mind and how you think, otherwise no. Ask anybody else, in thread or a friend. Ask him/her if they even know what 'point' you are talking about.

Lon... instead of answering questions directly and seeing what an A hole many make God out to be... you jump to the comfort of Creeds... catechisms and canons of dort!

Nope. Just the Catechism and I'm not Catholic. Why? To try and get you to realize something. You can just forgo it. It didn't stick anyway.

This has always been my pet peeve! Doctrines of men that set out to Demonize any who consider the impact Of man made doctrine on the Character of Jesus! The establishment is ultra fragmented.

Yeah, not me. The ONLY thing I demand, is that they stand upon scriptures. I may not agree with them all, and I certainly don't agree with all of even Calvin, definitely not the Catholic Catechism. You are writing a canon here btw. 32 pages worth. I simply think you like your own. Me? Nobody is going to listen to the canon of Lon. I HAVE to use scripture. Ephesians 2:3

God is Good.

God is Love.

God is Faithful.

God is Just!

These are my points and you are binding Catholic and Calvinist doctrine... which is nearly synonymous with a different Higher archy! This is preposterous!

Every Catholic and Calvinist will say God is good, Love, faithful, and just. Obfuscation? :nono: Rather false dichotomy. There is nothing to address rather than correcting you: False dichotomy.

And... exactly! I don't respect Creeds of men! The Bible only and the reception of Jesus! You are jumping to Catholicism! I believe Catholics are more honest and correct than Calvinists... but do you think I believe Peter was the first Pope? :idunno:

Having nearly the same conversation with Glory. Sorry, there are not many that believe in sinless birth.

A branch of sanity in the midst of insanity! Good! :thumb:

Been there all along. I'm not jumping to conclusions.

Lon... this is my feelings on Calvinism and I buried them. I regret it now... because the Nazi Regime... Tyranny of Geneva will s rearrange its head now.

I don't really care about Calvinism in this thread. True, I believe in Total Depravity, but this particular issue is not at all a Calvinist/other discussion. IT IS a 'born-innocent vs. the rest of us' discussion. Don't conflate or I'll dive out. I have NO desire to do anything but talk about how sin affects us when we are born.

and Lon... We aren't God and are subject to privation. That nature is adopted upon the corruption of innocence and repeats itself over and over from the first big account of it in the garden. We are all born with "choice" and Only God CHOOSES correctly! That's that!

We are subject to privation. John 15:5 Isaiah 53:6 Not only 'gone' their own way, are already astray: "there is None that doeth good! No not one!"

And yet... you spoke of not directly answering me and do so more fully in your next quote... which is side stepping.

Agreed, but lest you falsely accuse ONLY on that which I deem to be faulty thinking and logic or rabbit-trailing. I'm trying to keep us both on topic. I realize your thread OP is concerned with Augustine. As such, you might want to come back to my thread. I don't really want to entertain that direction and so it may not have been best to create a new thread while abandoning mine, and inviting me here. I really don't want to talk about these other things. I'm ONLY interested in what scripture says about how we are born.

You make excuses... but what you call builds it a bridge is me sharing my spiritual heart with you and giving you the core questions that drive my direction. You are so interested in defending the brick and mortar Creeds that you are too afraid to see what's really going on here.

Well, my thread has a bit of that to it, simply because it is history (not Catholic by concern but for the history of it). You may want someone else who will talk about the creeds and traditions more. I simply mention them to show I'm not alone in my scriptural belief. -Lon



Lon... You are avoiding address of what Ephesians means in full context...

Let's go there... but you are now talking out of all sides of your mouth... including the Catechism! You are standing on the Greek of the verse while you reject what the Greek for Kosmos is! Oh Puh-Lease! You're cherry picking for Calvin!

In the end... we agree on much... but then there was s spiritual courage... in this... I mean to can all man made doctrine and read and pray... search and study. We disagree on the value of this. It wasn't the educated in doctrines of men that knew He was He upon initial receipt... It was those who wanted to value His Goodness and search it out.

You desire to eradicate this because it fundamentally addresses that sin is upon each of our heads upon our sinning and then the search for God is already within all... because His DBR was globally effectual.

This is the heart of the matter and I predict it will shape your obfuscation further.[/QUOTE]

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Yes, I did. Why? Rabbit trails. Ask ONE question and use ONE scripture to ask it. All the rest? As obfuscating as the rest. I stayed on Ephesians 2:3 Simply asked: Is it true? "By nature" are we ALL 'children of wrath?' Yes or no?

Answer, then your turn.





In your own mind and how you think, otherwise no. Ask anybody else, in thread or a friend. Ask him/her if they even know what 'point' you are talking about.


Nope. Just the Catechism and I'm not Catholic. Why? To try and get you to realize something. You can just forgo it. It didn't stick anyway.


Yeah, not me. The ONLY thing I demand, is that they stand upon scriptures. I may not agree with them all, and I certainly don't agree with all of even Calvin, definitely not the Catholic Catechism. You are writing a canon here btw. 32 pages worth. I simply think you like your own. Me? Nobody is going to listen to the canon of Lon. I HAVE to use scripture. Ephesians 2:3

Every Catholic and Calvinist will say God is good, Love, faithful, and just. Obfuscation? :nono: Rather false dichotomy. There is nothing to address rather than correcting you: False dichotomy.



Having nearly the same conversation with Glory. Sorry, there are not many that believe in sinless birth.


Been there all along. I'm not jumping to conclusions.


I don't really care about Calvinism in this thread. True, I believe in Total Depravity, but this particular issue is not at all a Calvinist/other discussion. IT IS a 'born-innocent vs. the rest of us' discussion. Don't conflate or I'll dive out. I have NO desire to do anything but talk about how sin affects us when we are born.

We are subject to privation. John 15:5 Isaiah 53:6 Not only 'gone' their own way, are already astray: "there is None that doeth good! No not one!"



Agreed, but lest you falsely accuse ONLY on that which I deem to be faulty thinking and logic or rabbit-trailing. I'm trying to keep us both on topic. I realize your thread OP is concerned with Augustine. As such, you might want to come back to my thread. I don't really want to entertain that direction and so it may not have been best to create a new thread while abandoning mine, and inviting me here. I really don't want to talk about these other things. I'm ONLY interested in what scripture says about how we are born.


Well, my thread has a bit of that to it, simply because it is history (not Catholic by concern but for the history of it). You may want someone else who will talk about the creeds and traditions more. I simply mention them to show I'm not alone in my scriptural belief. -Lon



Lon... You are avoiding address of what Ephesians means in full context...

Let's go there... but you are now talking out of all sides of your mouth... including the Catechism! You are standing on the Greek of the verse while you reject what the Greek for Kosmos is! Oh Puh-Lease! You're cherry picking for Calvin!

In the end... we agree on much... but then there was s spiritual courage... in this... I mean to can all man made doctrine and read and pray... search and study. We disagree on the value of this. It wasn't the educated in doctrines of men that knew He was He upon initial receipt... It was those who wanted to value His Goodness and search it out.

You desire to eradicate this because it fundamentally addresses that sin is upon each of our heads upon our sinning and then the search for God is already within all... because His DBR was globally effectual.

This is the heart of the matter and I predict it will shape your obfuscation further.

[/QUOTE]

Lon... you're "emoting" and denying that all of holy writ must be taken into account. You aren't fooling me here. This is about "Calvinism" and has been from the start.

You twisted everything Jerry said and now you're doing it here.

You claim a bunch of high ground... but ... 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 ... Hebrews 2:14 ... John 12:31 and John 14:30 ... Romans 4:15 ... Romans 7:9, Galatians 3:19-25 ... Ezekiel 18:20 ... and Romans 6:23 all come together to give a more complete ... 1 Corinthians 13 view.

I'm lunging in... You're inflexible in addressing my actual dialogue because you are ashamed at the implications of your answer.

All fall short. How do they fall if they were never given a chance to "walk"? You aren't going to address a single scripture or argument that I cite... except to defend your Canons. You talk a good game... but you are... indeed diverting from my points to draw attention from them and confuse the dialogue.

Thankfully... It has beeen said so since you did the same to [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION] on this topic and that is the Excalibur here.

Perhaps I will have to dig up that dialogue and make my point more clearly.

You want to shake the earth and avoid the point... Carnal Death isn't bound to "Spiritual Death". You are on record here as binding them... just as I said to [MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] . As a person looking in... he assumed I was contradicting myself... but your tactic is merely contradictory and your focus is as well.

You are taking an approach that seeks to avoid the questions and belittle my scriptural integrity.

You've tried it with "Numbers of People that agree with you"... Greek... Subject Change... Misrepresentation of my actual point... and avoidance of the connection between Augustine and your stance.

You're on record as venerating Canons that aren't canon and to be sussinct... you're "yes" isn't yes and your "no" isn't no... on this topic.

I'm calling bull and will be back after a little break for prayer and ponder. After your stepping from "Calvinism" to mild Hyper Calvinism... and joining people that ignore their implications on the character of God... in your statements of recent... I find myself scratching my head and wondering if an extra biblical voice has got a hold of you... more than ever before.

Perhaps I simply assumed that you weren't a person that attempted to crush people that rattled the foundation of your theological house of cards that draws from extra biblical lens.

I'm not seeing that on this topic.

I have to let go... before I can gain traction and discuss this without seeing Nang in your words.

It's official... "I don't think Calvinism is any more OKAY than arsenic"

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

This doesn't even make sense. You, along with me, believe truly "NONE come to the Father but through Me."
Tell me about your view that makes sense. Did those before Christ have the 'cure' to be born sinless? What benefit did kids after Christ's work receive? Why didn't God just wipe all children out? If they are automatically saved, why not just do that? Why, when He tried it with Noah, didn't it work?

Allow me to say it for you... since you attempted to say it for me... though you were wrong... and thus you can correct me...

God condemned all mankind to a desire to commit evil ... because of the fall. You believe Adam made the Spiritual choice of all humanity and you extend the reign of Satan to our Spiritual fate by connecting Disease and Carnal Death to "Spiritual Doctrine".

You believe God has judged Babies before they were born and yes... you believe that it is okay to condemn infants and fetuses as deserving of Hell... before they actually commit their first offense.

I have never said anything else... besides God doesn't judge innocence... but judges the transgressor... which as Ephesians states... all mankind... "But Jesus... AKA ... God with us" proves... time and time again... fails and transgresses. Your on the spiritually condemned before actual actions train.

Hill to die on? This might be the one. You are a Calvinist who gridlocks mankind into absence of "free Will" and you throw the gasoline of universal... pre-judgment onto the fire."

Your aren't talking to me. You're talking to others through me. I can sense it. Your dialogue is not genuine and thus... I'll see you in a few... when I am more clear on how to address this.

You say you're not dodging or obfuscating... and yet you admit to avoiding dialogue while generating tangent dialogue to cry foul.l and say but you aren't addressing this or that. It's you that has been rabbit trailing this from the inception.

Did I miss this? :nono:

Is this a salvation issue? No! But it is a witness issue and you have no idea what the actual implications of your Hyper Origonal sin stance does when coupled with your " All doesn't mean all" stane... to the witness.

Congratulations Lon. I officially recognize you as a capitol C... alvinist. I'll take the bastard child stance any day over being chained to Creeds, Formal Education and Bricks and Mortar.

Could I be wrong? Sure. Would you admit that on this topic? I don't think so. This is the first time I've genuinely seen your affiliation become predominate to your sincerity.

I'll be back around and try to figure out where to start... but your consistent inconsistency in insincere communication that is grand standing for your pet doctrines isn't well received by me.

I'm the guy that can easily level back to John 5:39 and start over... you?

:nono:

I'm sure this tone and demeanor aren't helping our witness either and thus... I apologize for being emotional about the Justice and Goodness of our Lord, God and Savior. How dare I be passionate for Jesus and His message of Mercy... vs. sacrifice.

Honestly... I think a lot of the reasons people perceive God as "Molech" in demeanor are staunch defenses of doctrines like AOS.

It is the issue and Sinnlessness isn't in my vocabulary. Adam failed... and he is your image of a man "without" a sin nature".

I am more convinced more than ever that your view is at the heart of a bunch of destructive ideas about God by people that have been misled and have too much honesty to miss what's actually being said about our Creator.

- EE

 

[Lon]

Perhaps I simply assumed that you weren't a person that attempted to crush people that rattled the foundation of your theological house of cards that draws from extra biblical lens.

:doh: or yours! I think YOUR 'born-sinless' doctrine is a house of cards!
YOU really need to look at your three fingers here, brother. Imho, we are NEVER going to change one another over this and both you and I agreed. There is no 'crushing' that. You are as stubborn or more so, than I am. It is why you are James and I am John (or vise versa).

I'm not seeing that on this topic.

Of course not, there is no meeting of minds on this particular - well, a couple of other particulars as well: there is absolutely no way for instance, barring the direct confrontation of the Lord Jesus Christ, I am ever going to be an Open Theist. It goes flat out against everything I know of scriptures.

I have to let go... before I can gain traction and discuss this without seeing Nang in your words.

There is very little Calvinism to this conversation. I've believed this since I was four. I KNEW I was a sinner and needed Jesus. I greatly rejoiced when I was seven. How are you going to see anything bad in that? Because it rocks your world? I needed Jesus. More? I trust Him for every single child. Matthew 19:14 doesn't speak 'innocence' to me, it speaks GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is BECAUSE of Him that such belongs to them.

It's official... "I don't think Calvinism is any more OKAY than arsenic"

:nono: You made me a promise, I'm keeping you to it. PM me if you need a reminder.

-Lon

 

[Lon]

It is the issue and Sinnlessness isn't in my vocabulary. Adam failed... and he is your image of a man "without" a sin nature".

I am more convinced more than ever that your view is at the heart of a bunch of destructive ideas about God by people that have been misled and have too much honesty to miss what's actually being said about our Creator.

- EE

I just posted a link to Dallas Theological Seminary over on my thread to Glory. Why? Because I'm NOT a dispensationalist. They believe in original sin. Everybody does! She said "no." Well, great, a bunch of ladies in the fellowship hall don't think we are born sinners. You don't think we are born sinners. To blame this on 'my' Calvinism is unjust. It is scapegoating. Will all dispensationalists be next? Lutherans after that? When will it stop? Aren't we 'Calvinists' just the 'convenient' and easy target? How callous does one have to be to shoot a Calvinist? How two-faced before they should have shot themselves in the foot first for casting the first stone? Okay. I love ya. If in righteous anger, I'm to stand in the stoning field, I'll stand here. Silent? :nono: I care to much about you to let you think you are without guilt for doing so. I don't want to 'stone' infants. I want them to come to Jesus. Such 'belongs to them' imho BECAUSE they are helpless and NEED Him, imho. He didn't consult with me on how to save them and I'm frankly, glad. I know, beyond doubt, for at least me, I NEEDed Him for the kingdom of heaven to belong to me. MOST believers, btw, become believers while they are children. Why do you imagine?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I just posted a link to Dallas Theological Seminary over on my thread to Glory. Why? Because I'm NOT a dispensationalist. They believe in original sin. Everybody does! She said "no." Well, great, a bunch of ladies in the fellowship hall don't think we are born sinners. You don't think we are born sinners. To blame this on 'my' Calvinism is unjust. It is scapegoating. Will all dispensationalists be next? Lutherans after that? When will it stop? Aren't we 'Calvinists' just the 'convenient' and easy target? How callous does one have to be to shoot a Calvinist? How two-faced before they should have shot themselves in the foot first for casting the first stone? Okay. I love ya. If in righteous anger, I'm to stand in the stoning field, I'll stand here. Silent? :nono: I care to much about you to let you think you are without guilt for doing so. I don't want to 'stone' infants. I want them to come to Jesus. Such 'belongs to them' imho BECAUSE they are helpless and NEED Him, imho. He didn't consult with me on how to save them and I'm frankly, glad. I know, beyond doubt, for at least me, I NEEDed Him for the kingdom of heaven to belong to me. MOST believers, btw, become believers while they are children. Why do you imagine?

It's time for Evil.Eye.<(I)> to humble himself. Human perspective? Conviction?

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[a] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I Love you Lon... like a brother... and I'm throwing in my towel. Not to give up... but to acknowledge that John 5:39 is worth more to me than any of this.

My "words" are ephemeral and Human. I don't emulate God's grace... when I'm at the throat of a brother in belief in "Who He Is"....

I'm leaving this thread open... but I'm ceasing my "opinion"... because the same Spirit that speaks to me... speaks to all who claim His sacrifice... Burial and Ressurection.

Good night Lon.

I drop my faction battle here and pick up unity in John 5:39 and Ephesians 2:8f.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

[MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] ...

Are factions okay? Probably not... but they keep people from killing each other... so until we are with Jesus... I recon people like me will get in His way and then see it... with humble pie to eat. But is Calvinism Okay?

It depends on if a person thinks it's more important than Jesus. If they don't and put Jesus first... like you... Lon ... and AMR too... maybe EW... As for Nang... and Mr. Nang... :idunno:... but those two will be at the call and they'll be shocked at all the gutter trash that makes it through. Beloved57 and Nanja..? I'm pretty sure God will keep them away from everyone else... so they won't be wrought with confusion and fear. Shhhhh... They think they're the only ones here... kind of thing.

Anyhow... thanks for your perspective and best wounds. I grow from them and know they are out of Christian love.

Proudly your thunder brother in Him... "Jesus Christ"... to Who... ALL Knees will Bow....

- Evil.Eye.<(PW)>

 

[dodge]

Hebrews 2:14 is what it "means" and you keep trying to place yourself on the higher theological ground with parlor tricks and obfuscation, but it is actually Augustine that threatens the effectual result of Christ with his psychobabble and borrowed... duelistic view of God that brings forth a type of Taoism. There is NO darkness in God and Origonal Sin of Classic type... blends attributes of evil into God! It's in my OP preface!

The "Eschewed Doctrine" approach won't grab here.

I'll reamplify my OP preface...

The Bible reveals two simple Truths that are easy to glean. There is Good... and God is that GOOD... and there is Evil... and that isn't and never has been "God's Will". God is a permissive God of Loving facilitation... and Free Will.

Love without Free Choice and Free Reciprocation is an artificial intelligence that drifts off of the track of sincerity. The bottom line? God granted freedom to all of His Creations and permitted the resulting chaos that ensued... because Sincerity and Honesty are ingredients of reality that destroy the association of the label "Genuine"... with anything they are removed from.

If... there is No honest choice or sincere reciprocation or rejection involved in love... what ever replicates Love and claims to be Love is nothing more than an artificial act that is rooted in passionless mockery!

So...

As a friend pointed out... knowingly or unknowingly... it all boils down to what a person believes the crafty serpent means to the ancient narrative of our origin.

Does good "employ" evil to work its ill behind secret doors... or does evil usurp, interject and thrust itself upon Good in an attempt to use its goodness against it?

As for your Hebrews Quote... yeah... UNLIKE us... He is GOD. End of subject. You are attempting to say HE WASN'T TEMPTED like us in EVERY manner! Don't you think the Sin Gene that you and Auggy propose would factor in? He WAS TEMPTED in EVERY manner we are... unless Hebrews has an ERROR. He did PARTAKE of our very FLESH and Blood... unless Hebrews has an ERROR. :idunno:

The sin nature ( not a gene but a curse passed from Adam to ALL humans ) was not present in Jesus as evidenced by Jesus having no human father.

1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


Scripture says Jesus was tempted as we are yet He was without sin.

You are trying to make Jesus like all of humanity and Jesus is and was uniquely and unique in the fact that He existed before He was born, was born of a virgin with no human father, lived a sinless life while being tempted just as we are, was crucified, rose from the dead, was seen for 40 days by hundreds of people after He rose from the dead, ascended into heaven,and is returning for His church i.e. His bride.

 

[Derf]

To be specific... I've been consistently discussing the eternal fate of infants and fetal humans... as a ground zero point of discussion...

As in this quote that precedes your observation...

And I feel a little bad about jumping in, but it seems you are at an impasse with Lon--although I am encouraged by your more recent posts recognizing a contentious spirit. I'm not about to suggest that infants deserve eternal damnation before they have sinned, but at the same time, the death that was promised to Adam indeed comes upon all infants, whether they grow up or not. If that is "carnal" death rather than some other kind, and thus is not part of the question, then it seems important to define terms a little better, as well as to determine where this fate you or Lon claim or don't claim for infants can be ascertained, as it doesn't seem like the original sin fits the bill.

But if the death promised to Adam, and propagated to all his descendants is the one that prevents eternal life (as evidenced by the restriction of access to the Tree of Life), then it does seem like infants that die the "carnal" kind of death are indeed being removed from the "eternal" life rolls. And if that is so, then if there is a difference now than before, as you seem to think, where is the evidence of such a difference?

I'm not just trying to take Lon's side in this, but I hope I can get you settled down enough to verbalize (or type) your objections in a way that is not obscured by the emotional side you so easily slip into. I sincerely want to hear your side.

Personally, I haven't been able to find an answer from scripture other than that they die. And eternal life is not very eternal if one dies. Plus, Christ's resurrection is our hope, and I can't imagine it's not the infants' hope as well, not to mention their necessity, to overcome death.

 

[Derf]

My view: Ephesians 2:3 "A sin nature."

I understand that, but your argument was just as effective for either a sin nature (made obvious by the sin of an "innocent") or a sinless nature that was guilty of personal sin from a very early age, neither of which [MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION] claims to espouse. Yet he knows that death, the wages of sin, comes to the infant. My most recent post commented on the dichotomy between "carnal" death and the other kind.

To me, it doesn't really matter. If we are somehow cursed because of our father's sin (and we obviously are) and we need the saving grace bestowed through the blood of Jesus (which we obviously do) whether we are old or young, to be resurrected from death. I'm not sure I care what it's called.

If infants indeed are all sinless, it sure eliminates the whole need for the Roman Catholics' immaculate conception doctrine, doesn't it. But at the same time, if the RCs felt the need to devise such games (assuming such a doctrine is not true), they sure had to go way out of their way to come up with it instead of what EE says is so obvious.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The sin nature ( not a gene but a curse passed from Adam to ALL humans ) was not present in Jesus as evidenced by Jesus having no human father.

1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


Scripture says Jesus was tempted as we are yet He was without sin.

You are trying to make Jesus like all of humanity and Jesus is and was uniquely and unique in the fact that He existed before He was born, was born of a virgin with no human father, lived a sinless life while being tempted just as we are, was crucified, rose from the dead, was seen for 40 days by hundreds of people after He rose from the dead, ascended into heaven,and is returning for His church i.e. His bride.

In brief... I've bowed out of this one for now... out of response to Lon's rightful note of my being out of line in demeanor.

I'll leave you with 4 questions and one run of scripture, in response to your "perception"... that is not properly representative of what I have extensively written on.

1. Is Jesus Christ Fully God?
2. Is Jesus Christ Fully man?
3. Was He tempted exactly as we are?
4. Does God play with a "rigged" deck... IOW "Cheat"?
5. What is the significance of these 5 verses... in light of this discussion... (2 Corinthians 11:3, Matthew 4:1, Hebrews 2:14, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Corinthians 15:54-56)

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

And I feel a little bad about jumping in, but it seems you are at an impasse with Lon--although I am encouraged by your more recent posts recognizing a contentious spirit. I'm not about to suggest that infants deserve eternal damnation before they have sinned, but at the same time, the death that was promised to Adam indeed comes upon all infants, whether they grow up or not. If that is "carnal" death rather than some other kind, and thus is not part of the question, then it seems important to define terms a little better, as well as to determine where this fate you or Lon claim or don't claim for infants can be ascertained, as it doesn't seem like the original sin fits the bill.

But if the death promised to Adam, and propagated to all his descendants is the one that prevents eternal life (as evidenced by the restriction of access to the Tree of Life), then it does seem like infants that die the "carnal" kind of death are indeed being removed from the "eternal" life rolls. And if that is so, then if there is a difference now than before, as you seem to think, where is the evidence of such a difference?

I'm not just trying to take Lon's side in this, but I hope I can get you settled down enough to verbalize (or type) your objections in a way that is not obscured by the emotional side you so easily slip into. I sincerely want to hear your side.

Personally, I haven't been able to find an answer from scripture other than that they die. And eternal life is not very eternal if one dies. Plus, Christ's resurrection is our hope, and I can't imagine it's not the infants' hope as well, not to mention their necessity, to overcome death.

Derf... you are an amazing listener and stellar peacemaker... by God's will! This is clear. As you note... I'm bowing out... but your last response here nailed it! You got my gist. I'll lay it out succinctly to verify your suspicions.

1. God creates all of His Creations "Innocent" and with "Neutral Free Will".
2. Evil results from abuse of "Freewill", but is allowed by God to foster sincere Love.
3. Evil was present in the Garden
4. Adam and Eve were swayed by Evil... away from their innocence.
5. God's personal standards of Righteousness and God's Knowledge became a burden that the Devil could impute against mankind... and per 1 Corinthians 15:54-56 ... use to separate a human being from God... as well as kill the flesh.
6. If the subjection of a person to carnal death implies a "tainted nature"... then Jesus would have been with "Sin"... because He "Died"... thus the very idea is defunct and immediately disproven.
7. Carnal influence only had sway over Spiritual fate... until Jesus paid our "Ransom".
8. Men like Enoch and Elijah being "taken up... support my "theory"... as they "walked by faith" and were never grasped by Satan. They were never "Sinless"... but they clearly maintained Faith... without waiver... and thus... they maintained "innocence" in the eyes of God from birth to being "taken up".
9. All men eventually deviate from the perfection of God... "miss the mark" EXCEPT the Son of God and Man... God the Son.

Hebrews 2:14 explains that Jesus freed us from Deaths grasp in us and though carnal death continues... mankind is freed from the Spiritual impact of sin.

Over arching points...

A. Mankind has choice and starts with "innocence
B. Only Jesus lived a life in "the flesh" without committing a single sin or succumbing to the Devil.
C. All but Jesus Fail
D. Jesus was condemned by Satan as a transgressor... and because this made Satan a "False Witness and False Judge"... he lost his "self appointed" "wrongfully usurped" "spiritual reign"... and his reign of this ephemeral "dust" will come to a close... as well.
E. God does not condemn a single soul that is innocent or impute sin to a man before it is legitimately present in thought, word, deed or feeling... and thusly... All men are righteously in need of salvation as all men fail.
F. Jesus has always been the origin of Good, the solution to Evil and Loving sustainer of all... That has never changed... from before the foundation.
G. All men are righteously given a chance... All men fail... all men are equally in need of salvation and all men are provided access to it... BY GOD and HIS WILL.

And yes... your notes on RCC doctrine towards either the Roman or Reformed side... in conjunction with my "verbalization" are spot on.

All Grace... In Him,

- EE

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8957]dodge[/MENTION] ... upon recognition of your wishes... I reopened the thread. I actually didn't mean for it to close... but I was going to let it be.

 

[glorydaz]

1. Is Jesus Christ Fully God?
2. Is Jesus Christ Fully man?
3. Was He tempted exactly as we are?
4. Does God play with a "rigged" deck... IOW "Cheat"?

I'm glad you opened this back up, because this is exactly what I wanted to address. I believe one false teaching leads to another and another and we see it in this case. This insane doctrine of original sin leads to teachings of total depravity which leads to the claim Jesus had to have some special help (a different nature) in being sinless....robbing him of His great victory over sin. That in turn has given man an excuse to be trapped in this "body of sin", unable to do what Jesus did. It's a crock. And too many people have fallen for this lie. They have gone so far as to claim they really have no power over sin...since their nature is not what our Lord's was.

One lie leading to another and swallowed by those who should know better.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I'm glad you opened this back up, because this is exactly what I wanted to address. I believe one false teaching leads to another and another and we see it in this case. This insane doctrine of original sin leads to teachings of total depravity which leads to the claim Jesus had to have some special help (a different nature) in being sinless....robbing him of His great victory over sin. That in turn has given man an excuse to be trapped in this "body of sin", unable to do what Jesus did. It's a crock. And too many people have fallen for this lie. They have gone so far as to claim they really have no power over sin...since their nature is not what our Lord's was.

One lie leading to another and swallowed by those who should know better.

I will leave it open. I'm not sure why it closed. But... I'll attempt to take a more support of cross dialogue stance than full on participant. I'm glad it's reopening is positive.