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

[glorydaz]

Hebrews 4:15 He is able to empathize with our infirmities as God. Catholics embrace Mary as sinless because of this yet, inconsistently, eschew semi-pelagianism. The doctrine of a sinless Mary, however, is semi-pelagian. They know Semipelagianism is heterodox at the best, heresy at the worst and so they endeavor to eschew it. You are close to the Catholic position. Oddly, the United Methodist Church is too and they have become Semipelagian as well.
From the link: Semi-Pelagianism ....denied important points of the faith. Its basic claims were:

Gets into monergism/synergism discussion as well, but Catholics necessarily have to agree with Calvinism to remain orthodox and biblical.


They agree with Calvinism and grace salvation, inconsistently because they are caught in works-salvation issues.

While penance and confession are designed to prevail upon grace, those are tokens toward grace rather than reliance, such is the strained dichotomy of walking worthy and a less than secured salvation of hope rather than standing.

To me, strong elements of semipelagian theology yet sticks from those years of wrestling and re-wrestling with Pelagianism. Catholic doctrines leave the RC vulnerable to this day, to semipelagian sentiment. More importantly, the Open Theology movement with Boyd and Sanders courting Mormons in dialogue, the Open View too, has a natural theological weakness for falling back into Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian heresy and sinless birth is 1 and 2 (full Pelagian) and 3 (thus semi-pelagian and is against the life,death, and work of the Lord Jesus Christ (which is why both Semi-pelagianism and Pelagianism are heresies).



-Lon

Did you even read him? 7492 words equals 16 pages, 32 double-spaced

No, I didn't read him. I read you....what you wrote above and my post was in response to that.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

...

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Or Open Theist it up? :think: Why even bring either up? :idunno:

Though I do like Dort and Westminster, so what? .

Idols of theological formulation that cause you to see scriptural mirages that aren't there.

I've read some of Boyd Sanders and Pinnock (don't really like much of it, but have read it anyway). I like Enyart's The Plot. It doesn't mean anything, EE. Just chalk it up for well read and lets enjoy scripture and the things of God. I believe my question, specifically, for me, ends this discussion. You? Probably not. Almost all of us believe we are born in sin, not sinless.

This was almost cordial... but... ahem... born into sin and born a "sinner" with sin on the Tally are two separate subjects. And... "Most"... Really? Mob rules? Do you have the study and statistics and are they global or just conducted by people with a desire to farm such results? If the lemmings go over the cliff, @Lon... are you following?

A few don't. Earth shattering? Not to me. I want you to know why I'm not and what specific considerations keep me from that door. We've both agreed we aren't going to change each other. If we can see each other's points, that would be meaningful to me. If not? Then let's just not go there or what have you.

I breath a tiny bit of fire and now we're shutting down. I can say "fair"... but seriously? Don't you see that this dialogue pushes one another to search out the Why of our understanding beyond what the Lemmings say?

I actually believe the tree of Life was of no consequence until 'after' sin. Eating it, from my perspective, would have just been life to 'more life.'

Awesome... scripture to back that... please.

In Him -Lon

I know I'm difficult... I appreciate your back and forth.

- In Him. - EE. Aka... fellow sibling of thunder

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

...

?

 

[glorydaz]

This was almost cordial... but... ahem... born into sin and born a "sinner" with sin on the Tally are two separate subjects. And... "Most"... Really? Mob rules? Do you have the study and statistics and are they global or just conducted by people with a desire to farm such results? If the lemmings go over the cliff, @Lon... are you following?

Most people would say we are born innocent....without sin. The son is not guilty of his father's sin. Jesus spoke of the innocent children making up the kingdom of God, and we see there are innocents mentioned throughout the scripture. It's sad when people accuse our Righteous God of counting the innocent as being guilty of Adam's sin. It takes some mighty scripture twisting to do so.

Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.​

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Most people would say we are born innocent....without sin. The son is not guilty of his father's sin. Jesus spoke of the innocent children making up the kingdom of God, and we see there are innocents mentioned throughout the scripture. It's sad when people accuse our Righteous God of counting the innocent as being guilty of Adam's sin. It takes some mighty scripture twisting to do so.

Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.​

That falls in line with justice. The idea that innocence could be declared guilty before guilt is so out of line with justice that I'm always shocked some people hand God the bag of declaring all guilty... before their initial guilt.

We all fall short and into the category of guilty by our own devices and response to being in a sinful world. This old world and the devils trappings grab all of us that don't happen to be "The Almighty With Us". I'm always supprised when that is complicated to some.

Anyhow... gratitude.

 

[Danoh]

That falls in line with justice. The idea that innocence could be declared guilty before guilt is so out of line with justice that I'm always shocked some people hand God the bag of declaring all guilty... before their initial guilt.

We all fall short and into the category of guilty by our own devices and response to being in a sinful world. This old world and the devils trappings grab all of us that don't happen to be "The Almighty With Us". I'm always supprised when that is complicated to some.

Anyhow... gratitude.

Do passages like the following show God is a respector even of an eight day old child?

Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Rom. 8:5
Acts 17:11,12

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Do passages like the following show God is a respector even of an eight day old child?

Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Rom. 8:5
Acts 17:11,12

Drop a line to Richard Dawkins. He'll appreciate your take on that verse. Christ's words, context and full biblical narrative bring more to "Light" then you are acknowledging. And Danoh... even if you have something (# 1-800-Long-Shot)... it still appears the "baby" has an 8 day period of blameleness before it's "expiration date."

Now for the curve ball... Which came first... Circumcision or Faith?

And... Context of Genesis 17...

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham,for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”

... # Tisk Tisk... is that cherry picker on loan... or is it "paid in full"?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Not really going to spend too much time on it. You were talking about obfuscations. I asked one question. Angry that I asked a question?

You can't be. Can't possibly be. You said prior: "Finally! I've been waiting for this one! I shall answer the morrow.

:thumb: " What changed between yesterday and today? Not me! I believe it the crux of the matter. Obfuscation? Nope. You answered saying
"yes" even the unborn need a Savior. Why the rant??? I have NO problem asking you questions that make you think.... Question: "WHY do the unborn need a Savior?" Answer: "Because they have no access to the tree of life?" Okay, then , in what way did Adam and Eve "surely" die if they needed the tree of life? (don't flame out, nothing here to flame about, not a thing, we are discussing Christ and His doctrines, they are life, if joy isn't part of it, let's stop right here?) -Lon

You know my debate style. I even prefaced with ornery. I'll dial it down a bit and respond on a tamer note... as long as dialogue is nimble and responsive and not drudged down with inapplicable arguments that are as alien as a Muslim at a barbecued Pork ribs convention.

As for my well known demeanor...

You know I'm "theatrical".

I extend a sincere apology to you if I offended.

You remain my brother of thunder. I'm just the loud mouthed brother. My points remain made... but my showmanship was indeed for effect and amplification of my recognition of a tactic you've previously used that I responded to in a similar... but dialed down manner.

Tit for tat... but no injected dialogue that sidesteps actual dialogue.

 

[Danoh]

Drop a line to Richard Dawkins. He'll appreciate your take on that verse. Christ's words, context and full biblical narrative bring more to "Light" then you are acknowledging. And Danoh... even if you have something (# 1-800-Long-Shot)... it still appears the "baby" has an 8 day period of blameleness before it's "expiration date."

Now for the curve ball... Which came first... Circumcision or Faith?

And... Context of Genesis 17...

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham,for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”

... # Tisk Tisk... is that cherry picker on loan... or is it "paid in full"?

lol

You can be funny; I'll give ya that.

Rom. 5:8

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Why is it that in the OT, the LORD has Israel wipe out men, women, and children, etc.

And there are other issues any Dispy should at least also consider.

Like the fact that not even children within Israel's Covenant are always given a pass, as in when God let's loose His wrath and or allows Israel's enemies to.

Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Why?

See the prayer of an "innocent and (that is to say) righteous" man (in God's eyes) named Daniel, in Daniel 9, who was nevertheless under Israel's severe punishment with them.

The following actually included hundreds of thousands of men, women and children...

Luke 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

I'll quote and respond on the Pel. Who thread.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings

And...

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners

In other words... the flesh was destroyed... but not the soul. Eternal life is kind of more important than this ephemeral kingdom of "dust"... wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps preservation of innocence?

Lens with mercy or malice... your "choice".

 

[Lon]

Hosea 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings

But does a newborn need sacrifice, burnt offering? Who were the two doves for? Mary or Jesus? We've had this conversation. Is this all simply going to be a rehash but 'with force and forceful' this time? :think:

And...

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners

So He didn't come for infants??? There was a reason I asked if all need Jesus without exception. It is important. For me? :nono: I'm fairly cemented, and not because any 'canon' did it. Verses like the ones we are considering, actually. There is NO NEED to even mention a Calvinism or a Dort or a "The Plot." Scriptures and them alone. If I can stand on them AND not get caught in a meaningless posturing debate over theological camps. If we can't talk ONLY scriptures, I'm gonna bow out. I really don't want and 'us/them' conversation.

Idols of theological formulation that cause you to see scriptural mirages that aren't there.

See, to me? Pointless. It is the mirage. There is no need, ever, in a thread like this to bring it up BECAUSE this particular conversation is not a respecter of such. It crosses boundaries. There are Open Theists that disagree with you, MAD that disagree with you, Catholics that disagree. I will grant you that I know of no Calvinist that 'can' agree with you, but such hardly matters. All this talk of Calvin, Dort, or lemmings is rabbit trail after rabbit trail. It is, indeed, part of global thinking, but on a topic like this, 32 double spaced pages of all this, "the unholy trinity" is too far away from simply two points: Man born with a disease called sin "by nature" or Man is born without that. None of this other chat will or can help. Every muscle, I think, must be pointed that direction. Let's try this: I give a scripture and try to establish a point, you respond on that scripture and bring up one or two and I'll try and respond meaningfully to those.

This was almost cordial... but... ahem... born into sin and born a "sinner" with sin on the Tally are two separate subjects. And... "Most"... Really? Mob rules? Do you have the study and statistics and are they global or just conducted by people with a desire to farm such results? If the lemmings go over the cliff, @Lon... are you following?

It depends if those fringe kids are out there smoking. Yeah, I was a 'lemming' and stayed in school.

I breath a tiny bit of fire and now we're shutting down. I can say "fair"... but seriously? Don't you see that this dialogue pushes one another to search out the Why of our understanding beyond what the Lemmings say?

I'm 'fairly' made up in my mind. At this point, I don't see a need at all for being born sinless, but rather, it goes against what I've understood about myself at a very young age. I was 5. Perhaps precocious, but I KNEW I was sinning and did it anyway. I KNEW it was wrong. When seven rolled around, I heard the gospel and what Jesus had done for me. Mom told me a couple of things I did younger too, I was four and shoved my 1 1/2 year old sister under the house to get a bird. It wasn't terribly mean spirited, but it was sin. Nobody can tell me otherwise, I knew what I was doing AND what I was supposed to be doing. Did I do good sometimes too? Sure. That wasn't the dilemma. As far as I am concerned, I was about born sinning. I didn't learn it from anybody. I needed a Savior. You agreed I needed one too. So, from even my earliest memories (even at 2 1/2 and 3), I remember a lot AND more importantly, whether I was a sinner or not. Probably both you and GD will say "no way!" but I know what I know. On top of that, scripture to me, seems to confirm my need fairly clearly. I do believe Paul was spot on saying "by nature" we were 'children' of wrath. GD says a child isn't an infant, but 'by nature' doesn't leave much room for speculation the other way. Ephesians 2:3 is my only scripture this post. The rest? Fluff and stuff (commentary on 'my' Ephesians 2:3 thoughts and experience).


By omission, they were NEVER told to eat of it to 'stay alive' or never grow old. Simply: you may eat of any tree (including the tree of life) but one.
It 'seems' there would have been a 'Hey, make sure to eat from this one once in awhile, though, else you'll also die!" It would have been important to mention it. To me, the ToL (Tree of Life) by presence, whether commanded or not MUST have ensured their eternal life. How could it not have? :idunno: Their immortality is the only thing that makes sense to me, when you look at it.

I know I'm difficult... I appreciate your back and forth.


- In Him. - EE. Aka... fellow sibling of thunder

As I told Sanford, you and I will continue to have challenging conversations. Our eternal brotherhood is secured in Him.

 

[glorydaz]

That falls in line with justice. The idea that innocence could be declared guilty before guilt is so out of line with justice that I'm always shocked some people hand God the bag of declaring all guilty... before their initial guilt.

We all fall short and into the category of guilty by our own devices and response to being in a sinful world. This old world and the devils trappings grab all of us that don't happen to be "The Almighty With Us". I'm always supprised when that is complicated to some.

Anyhow... gratitude.

It's simply a matter of man's accountability to God. A personal accounting for what we do....not what others do, but what we have done. Indeed, we all reach a certain age when we knowingly do what we know to be wrong. God know when that moment is, and we do, too.

 

[glorydaz]

But does a newborn need sacrifice, burnt offering? Who were the two doves for? Mary or Jesus? We've had this conversation. Is this all simply going to be a rehash but 'with force and forceful' this time? :think:

The two doves were for Mary's purification from childbirth...the extra dove because they were poor.

I'm 'fairly' made up in my mind. At this point, I don't see a need at all for being born sinless, but rather, it goes against what I've understood about myself at a very young age. I was 5. Perhaps precocious, but I KNEW I was sinning and did it anyway. I KNEW it was wrong. When seven rolled around, I heard the gospel and what Jesus had done for me. Mom told me a couple of things I did younger too, I was four and shoved my 1 1/2 year old sister under the house to get a bird. It wasn't terribly mean spirited, but it was sin. Nobody can tell me otherwise, I knew what I was doing AND what I was supposed to be doing. Did I do good sometimes too? Sure. That wasn't the dilemma. As far as I am concerned, I was about born sinning. I didn't learn it from anybody. I needed a Savior. You agreed I needed one too. So, from even my earliest memories (even at 2 1/2 and 3), I remember a lot AND more importantly, whether I was a sinner or not. Probably both you and GD will say "no way!" but I know what I know. On top of that, scripture to me, seems to confirm my need fairly clearly. I do believe Paul was spot on saying "by nature" we were 'children' of wrath. GD says a child isn't an infant, but 'by nature' doesn't leave much room for speculation the other way. Ephesians 2:3 is my only scripture this post. The rest? Fluff and stuff (commentary on 'my' Ephesians 2:3 thoughts and experience).

Any child psychologist would tell you those are the false memories of an emotionally abused child. As a parent (and a child, myself), I can strongly dispute what you say about your childhood. If your parents told you it was wrong to feed the cat, you would think you were sinning by sneaking him some food. That is not evidence of a "sin nature". None of what you posted speaks of a sin nature. Children are simply not developed enough to understand the difference between good and evil.

You can take a child and tell him it's evil to deny his daddy sex, for example, and he may believe it the rest of his life. He may see himself dirty from the time he could walk. It seems every time I hear your story about your childhood, your age gets younger and your memories more graphic. I'm not in the least calling you a liar, but I do not believe your memories are legitimate.

At this point, you can not bring up your personal testimony of "evil" at such a young age to prove any Biblical point, and have it hold water. People do not tell lies from their birth. Bible verses should not be used like a self-fulfilling prophecy of sin and corruption. It isn't right, and it really doesn't prove what you hope it does.

It's all written in the Word of God. Our job is to be honest as we consider each verse.

 

[Lon]

The two doves were for Mary's purification from childbirth...the extra dove because they were poor.



Any child psychologist would tell you those are the false memories of an emotionally abused child. As a parent (and a child, myself), I can strongly dispute what you say about your childhood. If your parents told you it was wrong to feed the cat, you would think you were sinning by sneaking him some food. That is not evidence of a "sin nature". None of what you posted speaks of a sin nature. Children are simply not developed enough to understand the difference between good and evil.

You can take a child and tell him it's evil to deny his daddy sex, for example, and he may believe it the rest of his life. He may see himself dirty from the time he could walk. It seems every time I hear your story about your childhood, your age gets younger and your memories more graphic. I'm not in the least calling you a liar, but I do not believe your memories are legitimate.

At this point, you can not bring up your personal testimony of "evil" at such a young age to prove any Biblical point, and have it hold water. People do not tell lies from their birth. Bible verses should not be used like a self-fulfilling prophecy of sin and corruption. It isn't right, and it really doesn't prove what you hope it does.

It's all written in the Word of God. Our job is to be honest as we consider each verse.

:nono: Sorry, nope. I told lies, knew they were lies, at four. I cussed, at four. Now mom did tell me she'd wash my mouth out, but I did it anyway. Like I said, you can call me precocious, but I knew good and evil very young. I didn't and don't think you are calling me a liar and appreciate your words to distance from such as well. I predicted your incredulity. I've been through child development psychology. My degree has to do with childhood development. I realize I don't fit the bill, but I do have a VERY good memory of some things when I was 2 1/2 and 3. I have a better memory of 4 including knowing very well, what sin was and that I was doing so. At age of seven, just ready to start first grade, I received the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and knew my sins, against Him. There was no outside influence. I knew it and was extremely thankful for His forgiveness and Salvation. I remember it like it was yesterday.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

:nono: Sorry, nope. I told lies, knew they were lies, at four. I cussed, at four. Now mom did tell me she'd wash my mouth out, but I did it anyway.

Lon, you're literally using your confidence that 4 year olds are wicked from your personal perspective. I think you're suggesting by disobeying that you broke the law. Okay... I agree with GD's perspective... but let's go ahead and throw you a bone... at 4... you were In league with the destroyer... motorcycle gang disobedience and chewing soap up and spitting it out to emphasize what a little demon you were.

Like I said, you can call me precocious, but I knew good and evil very young.

Answer 1

Okay Lon... Demon bred... forged in hell, little Lon was a wicked 4 year old... fine... what Evs... :idunno: ... How about little fetus Lon? What was your sin? Swimming the wrong direction on your way to the egg? Or perhaps, kicking as a baby in your mommies belly? Maybe you enjoyed the nutrients from the umbilical cord so much you were a greedy glutton? How about birth? What was your sin there? Was your need of Love, Food and Sleep a sin as you were an infant? How does God sort bad babies from good ones?

Are you saying a 1 day old baby is evil? Are you saying that babies are demanding Demons? This seems to be a really garbage attitude if you are! Innocence is real Lon.

Adam and Eve lost it and we do too! The story is a firm guide for us! Born in grace. We sin and need to actively seek God's grace that we fell from... in disobedience. Your version reinvents the wheel. The Adam and Eve lost innocence and were created "In Christ"... version... parallels how we were born.

Before Christ's DBR... Sure... born under the law. But again... how soon do you hold a baby to the stone? :idunno:

:nono: Sorry, nope. I told lies, knew they were lies, at four. I cussed, at four. Now mom did tell me she'd wash my mouth out, but I did it anyway.

Like I said, you can call me precocious, but I knew good and evil very young.

Answer 2

How about 1 day old Lon? Are you so condemning that you hold a babies hunger and need for Love as Sin?

Check it out Lon... Born innocent in Christ in a sin filled world where we eventually choose evil. Done! That parallels the Garden account. Redemption required.

Redemption happened. Sounds like the message!

We either claim it or we... dead do not and those that never hear the message... become a law unto themselves.

What's changed?

Your version... Augustine reinvention of the wheel!

I've been through child development psychology. My degree has to do with childhood development. I realize I don't fit the bill, but I do have a VERY good memory of some things when I was 2 1/2 and 3. I have a better memory of 4 including knowing very well, what sin was and that I was doing so.

Sure Lon... you're being absurd... but fine... you were wicked. About Psychology... and? Maybe we should scrap theology and just go off of college text books? Good idea? :doh:

At age of seven, just ready to start first grade, I received the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and knew my sins, against Him. There was no outside influence. I knew it and was extremely thankful for His forgiveness and Salvation. I remember it like it was yesterday.

Lon... no part of this addresses what sin you hold against a fetus and 1 week old.

So? What's your answer?

Born in Him... we stray... He Redeemed us... we have a choice! Some never hear the message, but His blood is far more effectual than we can even begin to surmise.

Aka... The Blood of GOD!

I'm all ears Lon. What exactly do you charge to a fetus's account? A one week old?

 

[Lon]

Lon, you're literally using your confidence that 4 year olds are wicked from your personal perspective. I think you're suggesting by disobeying that you broke the law. Okay... I agree with GD's perspective... but let's go ahead and throw you a bone... at 4... you were In league with the destroyer... motorcycle gang disobedience and chewing soap up and spitting it out to emphasize what a little demon you were.

Answer 1

Okay Lon... Demon bred... forged in hell, little Lon was a wicked 4 year old... fine... what Evs... :idunno: ... How about little fetus Lon? What was your sin? Swimming the wrong direction on your way to the egg? Or perhaps, kicking as a baby in your mommies belly? Maybe you enjoyed the nutrients from the umbilical cord so much you were a greedy glutton? How about birth? What was your sin there? Was your need of Love, Food and Sleep a sin as you were an infant? How does God sort bad babies from good ones?

Are you saying a 1 day old baby is evil? Are you saying that babies are demanding Demons? This seems to be a really garbage attitude if you are! Innocence is real Lon.

Adam and Eve lost it and we do too! The story is a firm guide for us! Born in grace. We sin and need to actively seek God's grace that we fell from... in disobedience. Your version reinvents the wheel. The Adam and Eve lost innocence and were created "In Christ"... version... parallels how we were born.

Before Christ's DBR... Sure... born under the law. But again... how soon do you hold a baby to the stone? :idunno:





Answer 2

How about 1 day old Lon? Are you so condemning that you hold a babies hunger and need for Love as Sin?

Check it out Lon... Born innocent in Christ in a sin filled world where we eventually choose evil. Done! That parallels the Garden account. Redemption required.

Redemption happened. Sounds like the message!

We either claim it or we... dead do not and those that never hear the message... become a law unto themselves.

What's changed?

Your version... Augustine reinvention of the wheel!



Sure Lon... you're being absurd... but fine... you were wicked. About Psychology... and? Maybe we should scrap theology and just go off of college text books? Good idea? :doh:



Lon... no part of this addresses what sin you hold against a fetus and 1 week old.

So? What's your answer?

Born in Him... we stray... He Redeemed us... we have a choice! Some never hear the message, but His blood is far more effectual than we can even begin to surmise.

Aka... The Blood of GOD!

I'm all ears Lon. What exactly do you charge to a fetus's account? A one week old?

Don't just listen to me, or don't listen to me at all Ephesians 2:3

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Don't just listen to me, or don't listen to me at all Ephesians 2:3

:nono: You're dodging ALL fair questions towards you... and ...!in full context of scripture and this discussion... that scripture falls towards both of us.

Try again!

:nono: Sorry, nope. I told lies, knew they were lies, at four. I cussed, at four. Now mom did tell me she'd wash my mouth out, but I did it anyway.

Lon, you're literally using your confidence that 4 year olds are wicked from your personal perspective. I think you're suggesting by disobeying that you broke the law. Okay... I agree with GD's perspective... but let's go ahead and throw you a bone... at 4... you were In league with the destroyer... motorcycle gang disobedience and chewing soap up and spitting it out to emphasize what a little demon you were.

Like I said, you can call me precocious, but I knew good and evil very young.

Answer 1

Okay Lon... Demon bred... forged in hell, little Lon was a wicked 4 year old... fine... what Evs... :idunno: ... How about little fetus Lon? What was your sin? Swimming the wrong direction on your way to the egg? Or perhaps, kicking as a baby in your mommies belly? Maybe you enjoyed the nutrients from the umbilical cord so much you were a greedy glutton? How about birth? What was your sin there? Was your need of Love, Food and Sleep a sin as you were an infant? How does God sort bad babies from good ones?

Are you saying a 1 day old baby is evil? Are you saying that babies are demanding Demons? This seems to be a really garbage attitude if you are! Innocence is real Lon.

Adam and Eve lost it and we do too! The story is a firm guide for us! Born in grace. We sin and need to actively seek God's grace that we fell from... in disobedience. Your version reinvents the wheel. The Adam and Eve lost innocence and were created "In Christ"... version... parallels how we were born.

Before Christ's DBR... Sure... born under the law. But again... how soon do you hold a baby to the stone? :idunno:

:nono: Sorry, nope. I told lies, knew they were lies, at four. I cussed, at four. Now mom did tell me she'd wash my mouth out, but I did it anyway.

Like I said, you can call me precocious, but I knew good and evil very young.

Answer 2

How about 1 day old Lon? Are you so condemning that you hold a babies hunger and need for Love as Sin?

Check it out Lon... Born innocent in Christ in a sin filled world where we eventually choose evil. Done! That parallels the Garden account. Redemption required.

Redemption happened. Sounds like the message!

We either claim it or we... dead do not and those that never hear the message... become a law unto themselves.

What's changed?

Your version... Augustine reinvention of the wheel!

I've been through child development psychology. My degree has to do with childhood development. I realize I don't fit the bill, but I do have a VERY good memory of some things when I was 2 1/2 and 3. I have a better memory of 4 including knowing very well, what sin was and that I was doing so.

Sure Lon... you're being absurd... but fine... you were wicked. About Psychology... and? Maybe we should scrap theology and just go off of college text books? Good idea? :doh:

At age of seven, just ready to start first grade, I received the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and knew my sins, against Him. There was no outside influence. I knew it and was extremely thankful for His forgiveness and Salvation. I remember it like it was yesterday.

Lon... no part of this addresses what sin you hold against a fetus and 1 week old.

So? What's your answer?

Born in Him... we stray... He Redeemed us... we have a choice! Some never hear the message, but His blood is far more effectual than we can even begin to surmise.

Aka... The Blood of GOD!

I'm all ears Lon. What exactly do you charge to a fetus's account? A one week old?

 

[Lon]

Try again

Lon, you're literally using your confidence that 4 year olds are wicked from your personal perspective....t let's go ahead and throw you a bone... at 4... you were In league with the destroyer... motorcycle gang disobedience and chewing soap up and spitting it out to emphasize what a little demon you were.

Yes, after so many words.

... How about little fetus Lon? What was your sin?

Verse at the end... I and you MUST wrestle with scriptures.

What's changed?

Your version... Augustine reinvention of the wheel!

WAAAAY before I ever read Augustine, of whom you sound reasonably familiar AND perhaps MORE familiar than me :noway: I read Ephesians 2:3 etc.

Sure Lon... you're being absurd... but fine... you were wicked.

Fighting with siblings? Cussing? Even drinking from a whisky and coke glass? I knew it was forbidden. I knew as well what it did and 'why' I wasn't supposed to do it, did it anyway. Ephesians 2:3 That was me until age 7.

About Psychology... and? Maybe we should scrap theology and just go off of college text books? Good idea? :doh:

Doesn't help you.

Lon... no part of this addresses what sin you hold against a fetus and 1 week old.

So? What's your answer?

Born in Him... we stray... He Redeemed us... we have a choice! Some never hear the message, but His blood is far more effectual than we can even begin to surmise.

Aka... The Blood of GOD!

I'm all ears Lon. What exactly do you charge to a fetus's account? A one week old?

Don't just listen to me, or don't listen to me at all Ephesians 2:3 by phusis nature - the way we are made.

I didn't write that.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Yes, after so many words.


Verse at the end... I and you MUST wrestle with scriptures.

:nono: contextually void of condemning a fetus and 1 week old! Try again and quit trying to wriggle out of this!

WAAAAY before I ever read Augustine, of whom you sound reasonably familiar AND perhaps MORE familiar than me :noway: I read Ephesians 2:3 etc.

Fighting with siblings? Cussing? Even drinking from a whisky and coke glass? I knew it was forbidden. I knew as well what it did and 'why' I wasn't supposed to do it, did it anyway. Ephesians 2:3 That was me until age 7.

Doesn't help you.

Don't just listen to me, or don't listen to me at all Ephesians 2:3 by phusis nature - the way we are now made.

I didn't write that.

Who gave us this "sin nature"?

Nature connects to how we are when we choose evil... like Adam and Eve... so... nice try inserting verbiage that isn't there.

What sin do you charge to a fetus and 1 day old?

You're dodging all over the place and leaning on extra biblical perception to prove your point with a verse that says something that agrees with both of us. The difference?

You're inserting that a fetus is condemned by GOD before birth... under the law. You are mega dodging!

"Dosen't help me?" Hardly accurate... BTW... You're the one that's tap dancing... not me.