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

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

[MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] ... 2 Corinthians 11:13 But I am afraid that, even as the serpent beguiled Eve by his cunning, your minds may be corrupted and led away from the simplicity of [your sincere and] pure devotion to Christ.

Again... Adam and Eve were born into an unnatural world with the serpents rebellions. Nature of the world... Nature of Evil.

Did or did not God permit Satan to choose evil?

Did or did not God permit Adam and Eve to Choose?

Does God permit us to Choose?

I'm asking you... again and again to charge an infant and a fetus with the law.

You are dodging all over the place! Does God condemn someone before they commit the offense in heart, mind or body?

Does 2nd Corinthians 5:19 bother you... if I'm right and it applies here? That's "kosmon"... in 2 Cor. 5:19 and goes far beyond local as it roots from "Kosmos" which is "Universe"!

Before the foundation becomes globally effectual and shows that all are chosen upon birth.

Why was Judas "Lost", though He was chosen?

Your right engine just failed and your points are now showing as being "ripped from context"!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Yes, after so many words.


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


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 made.

I didn't write that.

No... you didn't and you aren't asking the Maker but are attempting to hunker down on ONE verse.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

And look... I didn't write that.

And again... what condemns us?

Galatians 3:Galatians 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. 3:20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one. 3:21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 3:22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 3:23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 3:24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian.

So Lon...

Again... Where there is no Law there is no sin... so what LAW does an INFANT break that is its own sin? A fetus?

You're DODGING this and throwing your sucker in the dirt!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace

And now... bolster that with this...

1 Corinthians 15:“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Death"... "Sin"... "The Law"...

The counter argued perspective is "Augmenting" clear context with extra biblical doctrine!

Hebrews 2:14 e therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

He didn't defeat Adams Sin... or Sin Nature... He beat the Devil!

Death Incarnate. Sins Master... The abuser of God's perfection... "The Law" is God's alone and shows our distinction from GOD.

We aren't like God and will never be! We could never save ourselves from the spiritual ruin of the Devil! Only Jesus Did and could!

To relegate this to Law... obedience... and Nature is to deny that even the first human beings couldn't resist the deceiver!

Wake UP!!!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Okay... @Lon

At the very least... please take the following verses at face value and tell me how you work them into your understanding.

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 ... Romans 6:23

 

[Lon]

@Lon ... 2 Corinthians 11:13 But I am afraid that, even as the serpent beguiled Eve by his cunning, your minds may be corrupted and led away from the simplicity of [your sincere and] pure devotion to Christ.

Me and every other Christian on the planet? You have to realize only you, a few others, and Mormons believe what you believe. Many or most, men and women of scripture. You can't scapegoat Augustine or Calvin or anybody. They all believe it from the Bible.

Again... Adam and Eve were born into an unnatural world with the serpents rebellions. Nature of the world... Nature of Evil.

Did or did not God permit Satan to choose evil?

Did or did not God permit Adam and Eve to Choose?

Does God permit us to Choose?

I'm asking you... again and again to charge an infant and a fetus with the law.

You are dodging all over the place! Does God condemn someone before they commit the offense in heart, mind or body?

:nono: One verse the whole way: Ephesians 2:3

Does 2nd Corinthians 5:19 bother you... if I'm right and it applies here? That's "kosmon"... in 2 Cor. 5:19 and goes far beyond local as it roots from "Kosmos" which is "Universe"!

Before the foundation becomes globally effectual and shows that all are chosen upon birth.

Why was Judas "Lost", though He was chosen?

Your right engine just failed and your points are now showing as being "ripped from context"!

:nono: "By nature" means 'their' nature, 'children' of 'wrath.' It is a fairly short sentence. You can't complicate it. "Nature around them" doesn't work. "Their (your, my, our) nature."

 

[Lon]

No... you didn't and you aren't asking the Maker but are attempting to hunker down on ONE verse.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

And look... I didn't write that.

And again... what condemns us?

Galatians 3:Galatians 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. 3:20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one. 3:21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 3:22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 3:23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 3:24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian.

So Lon...

Again... Where there is no Law there is no sin... so what LAW does an INFANT break that is its own sin? A fetus?

You're DODGING this and throwing your sucker in the dirt!

A baby, born with cancer, isn't free of (innocent) of Cancer. A baby conceived in sin, is infected and needs a Savior. Even you've agreed with that. Logically, scripturally, this is why only a few of you and Mormons believe this. Mormons don't need a Savior, btw. They believe Salvation is following the example of Jesus because they are born innocent. They'll agree that He forgives, but do not understand. Innocent born fits perfectly with their warped and twisted Joseph Smith and 'golden plates' and Egyptian burial script.

Guilty by association? Not my point. I'm trying to tell you, you are not throwing this gauntlet at my feet, but every Christian's feet save for the few of you. I'm pretty sure even Bob Enyart disagrees with you.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

glorydayz.....

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.

I'm not gonna call glorydayz a liar but I'll wager she don't remember her first sin. :jazz:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

My first memory is day one.

Nasty tastin' breast milk and bein' suffocated by a giant teat.

Was told only that when I was little I was allergic to cows milk had to drink goats milk, as formula wasn't around back then.

When I was in my 40's I told my mom about remembering it and ask her if not breast feeding was why I had to take my shoes off at the door and my brothers could track a trail in the house.

Maybe she shoulda put some honey on that thing? :idunno:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

First sin?

I remember when I was three ,hiding under the bed with my little brother sayin' the word fats cause that's what mamma said her breasts was.

Mamma saw us under there and ask what we was doin'?

I lied and said nothin'.

Was glad she bought it, don't remember feelin' guilty for pullin' that off.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

A baby, born with cancer, isn't free of (innocent) of Cancer. A baby conceived in sin, is infected and needs a Savior.

John 9:1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Um... no. You are discussing a world that is impacted by sin. That's a really poor attempt.

Fancy footwork, though.

I never disputed that carnal death is a result of "Death's Reign"...

I have even emphasized it. This is a spiritual discussion and the question you're side stepping is what sin does God or you charge to a fetus or new born, week old infant... per the law?

Even you've agreed with that.

Hebrews 2:14 ... Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—

Can you defeat Satan? Are you good to go there? Can you overthrow death's reign?

Logically, scripturally, this is why only a few of you and Mormons believe this. Mormons don't need a Savior,

Here we go again... duck... dodge and breaking your own debate requests.

btw. They believe Salvation is following the example of Jesus because they are born innocent. They'll agree that He forgives, but do not understand. Innocent born fits perfectly with their warped and twisted Joseph Smith and 'golden plates' and Egyptian burial script.

Yeah... and ALL of ARIAN Christendom... with the margin of few believe in Replacement Theology or (Supersessionism)... Your Point? :idunno:

Guilty by association? Not my point. I'm trying to tell you, you are not throwing this gauntlet at my feet, but every Christian's feet save for the few of you. I'm pretty sure even Bob Enyart disagrees with you.

I disagree. Most of Christindom isn't pollable in a church. Much of it isn't found in brick and mortar. And I've said... time and time again... I'm not a person that respects doctrines or theology of men. Not even my own... so why drop Bob's name again?

Would you like to continue to imply that God Willed Sin... Saddled us with it and even causes cancer in children, thanks to their "Sin Nature" at Fetal conception? :idunno:

Your going to have to throw in the towel or continue dodging the direct and un-obfuscated questions I keep asking and you avoid.

The boldest is the biggest and your evidence only further shows why I loath Classical Headahip doctrine and Classical Original Sin Doctrine.

You are sidestepping on a scale that's bigger than resident ToL prophet Michael C. has predicted!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Me and every other Christian on the planet? You have to realize only you, a few others, and Mormons believe what you believe. Many or most, men and women of scripture. You can't scapegoat Augustine or Calvin or anybody. They all believe it from the Bible.


:nono: One verse the whole way: Ephesians 2:3


:nono: "By nature" means 'their' nature, 'children' of 'wrath.' It is a fairly short sentence. You can't complicate it. "Nature around them" doesn't work. "Their (your, my, our) nature."

Simple... Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan as all but Jesus did. That's it. All but Jesus succumbed to PRIDE... the TRUE ORIGINAL SIN. None But Jesus Accomplished a sinless Life from Birth to Death... and the Infinite side of things too... but... I would hope people don't think any but Jesus is the Eternal, Who has no beginning... Anyhow... None but Jesus overthrew the Devil, by being condemned a sinner, while being devoid of ANY Sin. None but Jesus!

How do you manage to miss what I'm saying? :idunno:

It's called "The FALL of man" ... as in Pride forth Before... as in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

How do you OVER COMPLICATE THIS?

 

[Derf]

Simple... Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan as all but Jesus did. That's it. All but Jesus succumbed to PRIDE... the TRUE ORIGINAL SIN. None But Jesus Accomplished a sinless Life from Birth to Death... and the Infinite side of things too... but... I would hope people don't think any but Jesus is the Eternal, Who has no beginning... Anyhow... None but Jesus overthrew the Devil, by being condemned a sinner, while being devoid of ANY Sin. None but Jesus!

Again... Where there is no Law there is no sin... so what LAW does an INFANT break that is its own sin? A fetus?

I'm confused, EE. In the first quote above, you are saying that "None But Jesus Accomplished a sinless Life from Birth to Death", and in the second, you are asking what laws an infant or even a fetus can break that count as sin. Are you then saying that the infant IS or IS NOT guilty of his own sin, if he dies as an infant/fetus (which MANY do)?

If he IS, then you must agree with LON that even at an early age, and I suppose even before birth, that all children are sinners.

If he IS NOT, then you must be saying that everyone is punished for the sin of Adam, which disagrees with what you wrote here:

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

So in the one case, you agree with Lon. In the other case, you disagree with yourself, since the baby has no sin, yet he dies. In either case, you don't seem to have much of an argument. At least, I can't tell what your point is.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I'm confused, EE. In the first quote above, you are saying that "None But Jesus Accomplished a sinless Life from Birth to Death", and in the second, you are asking what laws an infant or even a fetus can break that count as sin. Are you then saying that the infant IS or IS NOT guilty of his own sin, if he dies as an infant/fetus (which MANY do)?

If he IS, then you must agree with LON that even at an early age, and I suppose even before birth, that all children are sinners.

If he IS NOT, then you must be saying that everyone is punished for the sin of Adam, which disagrees with what you wrote here:


So in the one case, you agree with Lon. In the other case, you disagree with yourself, since the baby has no sin, yet he dies. In either case, you don't seem to have much of an argument. At least, I can't tell what your point is.

Lon is making it appear to be about "Carnal Death". I'm specifically discussing this...

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

The Devil still has this kingdom of dust as scripture says...

I'm referring to this...

John 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this

Lon is connecting physical death with spiritual life. He is confused because he navigates both sides of the fence to justify Augustine Origonal Sin.

If you read everything I've written... which has grown to epic volumes now... The consistency of my statement is there. Lon is all over the place to avoid explaining how infants are damned upon conception... in eternal reference.

This is the heart of the matter and I can see how the emboldened text threw you off. The bold is my frustration that Lon removes the devils use of the law from the 1 Cor. 15:55 of the matter and ignores what Hebrews 2:14 clearly says.

Lon jumps from carnal to spiritual ... and back... while implying they are identical... hence he went to Carnal Cancer ... when I'm addressing how an Infant is spiritually damned to hell upon conception... by His implications.... I'm asking him to seriously consider the impact of what he is thrusting on our "Just Judge".

Lon hasn't addressed any of my direct questions with a straight answer that is direct... He's altering discussion to avoid the simple Spiritual implications of God judging an infant to eternal damnation upon "what sin".

Does that assist?

[MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] ... I mentioned the daylights out of you... but this is my perception... thus far. Note... I admit error and don't profess "inerrancy ".

I ask what month it is ... and you give me the Time. I ask what year it is and you tell me the weather!

Sincerely... perspective of mine and maybe I'm wrong... but direct communication has been saddled with purposeful avoidance of what's being addressed!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I'm confused, EE. In the first quote above, you are saying that "None But Jesus Accomplished a sinless Life from Birth to Death", and in the second, you are asking what laws an infant or even a fetus can break that count as sin. Are you then saying that the infant IS or IS NOT guilty of his own sin, if he dies as an infant/fetus (which MANY do)?

If he IS, then you must agree with LON that even at an early age, and I suppose even before birth, that all children are sinners.

If he IS NOT, then you must be saying that everyone is punished for the sin of Adam, which disagrees with what you wrote here:


So in the one case, you agree with Lon. In the other case, you disagree with yourself, since the baby has no sin, yet he dies. In either case, you don't seem to have much of an argument. At least, I can't tell what your point is.

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...

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]

John 9:1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Because you are a global thinker, your theology tends to skip around in ideas all over the place. While I appreciate it, I've had to work hard against it, my whole life. On this, his 'malady' was not caused by 'his' sin. A sin condition? Yes! Absolutely! Romans 8:22-24

Um... no. You are discussing a world that is impacted by sin. That's a really poor attempt.

Fancy footwork, though.

[/QUOTE]
I'm not really interested in attempts to label obfuscation or fancy footwork. I'll say, yet again, Ephesians 2:3 I've never known a one-step to be fancy. I do like Astaire however. If anyone can make one-step look fancy, he can.

I never disputed that carnal death is a result of "Death's Reign"...

I have even emphasized it. This is a spiritual discussion and the question you're side stepping is what sin does God or you charge to a fetus or new born, week old infant... per the law?



Hebrews 2:14 ... Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—

Can you defeat Satan? Are you good to go there? Can you overthrow death's reign?

Here we go again... duck... dodge and breaking your own debate requests.

Um, no. This is about thinking "I" alone am the only one who believes scripture talks about us being born and infected with sin. You brought it up by the accusation of it, imho. It was, afterall, a response to your comment. Without your comment, this would have never come up.

Yeah... and ALL of ARIAN Christendom... with the margin of few believe in Replacement Theology or (Supersessionism)... Your Point? :idunno:

I really want you to understand how much of the system you are bucking. Your posts aren't just against me alone. It is, I believe, an important and necessary observation. As I told Glory, it is bucking everyone who reads their bibles, even your own open theists.

I disagree. Most of Christindom isn't pollable in a church. Much of it isn't found in brick and mortar. And I've said... time and time again... I'm not a person that respects doctrines or theology of men. Not even my own... so why drop Bob's name again?

From the Catechism: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called (1994, 1250)

Would you like to continue to imply that God Willed Sin... Saddled us with it and even causes cancer in children, thanks to their "Sin Nature" at Fetal conception? :idunno:

Just because you think that, doesn't mean it is my position. Was He omnipresent in the Garden during the Fall? Yes, (some Open Theists say no). Involved in man's Fall? :nono: So, while you are going that direction initially, I think we need to avoid strawmen.

Your going to have to throw in the towel or continue dodging the direct and un-obfuscated questions I keep asking and you avoid.

I answered like I am doing here, point for point, except that behemoth. I don't have a spear big enough so will keep addressing it with small arrows until the beast falls.

The boldest is the biggest and your evidence only further shows why I loath Classical Headahip doctrine and Classical Original Sin Doctrine.

Well, your OP does say Augustine, but I'm not interested in even the mention. I believe Ephesians 2:3 says 'by nature, children of wrath."

You are sidestepping on a scale that's bigger than resident ToL prophet Michael C. has predicted!

No, I may have to read you a bit more for clarity, but I'm not side-stepping. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Simple... Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan as all but Jesus did. That's it. All but Jesus succumbed to PRIDE... the TRUE ORIGINAL SIN. None But Jesus Accomplished a sinless Life from Birth to Death... and the Infinite side of things too... but... I would hope people don't think any but Jesus is the Eternal, Who has no beginning... Anyhow... None but Jesus overthrew the Devil, by being condemned a sinner, while being devoid of ANY Sin. None but Jesus!

How do you manage to miss what I'm saying? :idunno:

It's called "The FALL of man" ... as in Pride forth Before... as in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

How do you OVER COMPLICATE THIS?

Not my doing, imho. You are trying to build a bridge 'to' your doctrine. To me? This ain't it. Nor some of your other bridges in thread. It isn't a dodge. It is an unwillingness to entertain points that don't lead to your conclusion, logically. I simply haven't crossed a few of your bridges. 1) They are global and it is like putting out fires, only to have to run to the other side of the forest and put out another. 2) They don't logically lead to where I think they need to lead. For instance, none of them has met or touched Ephesians 2:3. You can either address it or post a scripture opposed to it, but as I told Glory, her scripture didn't mean born sinless, it simply meant had not acted on it. At least she and I were discussing scripture specifically and not really travelling far from those important verses.

 

[Lon]

I'm confused, EE. In the first quote above, you are saying that "None But Jesus Accomplished a sinless Life from Birth to Death", and in the second, you are asking what laws an infant or even a fetus can break that count as sin. Are you then saying that the infant IS or IS NOT guilty of his own sin, if he dies as an infant/fetus (which MANY do)?

If he IS, then you must agree with LON that even at an early age, and I suppose even before birth, that all children are sinners.

If he IS NOT, then you must be saying that everyone is punished for the sin of Adam, which disagrees with what you wrote here:


So in the one case, you agree with Lon. In the other case, you disagree with yourself, since the baby has no sin, yet he dies. In either case, you don't seem to have much of an argument. At least, I can't tell what your point is.

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

E.E.'s view: A sinless nature.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Because you are a global thinker, your theology tends to skip around in ideas all over the place. While I appreciate it, I've had to work hard against it, my whole life. On this, his 'malady' was not caused by 'his' sin. A sin condition? Yes! Absolutely! Romans 8:22-24

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.

Um... no. You are discussing a world that is impacted by sin. That's a really poor attempt.

Fancy footwork, though.

I'm not really interested in attempts to label obfuscation or fancy footwork. I'll say, yet again, Ephesians 2:3 I've never known a one-step to be fancy. I do like Astaire however. If anyone can make one-step look fancy, he can.

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.

Um, no. This is about thinking "I" alone am the only one who believes scripture talks about us being born and infected with sin. You brought it up by the accusation of it, imho. It was, afterall, a response to your comment. Without your comment, this would have never come up.

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.

I really want you to understand how much of the system you are bucking. Your posts aren't just against me alone. It is, I believe, an important and necessary observation. As I told Glory, it is bucking everyone who reads their bibles, even your own open theists.

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!

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.

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!

From the Catechism: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called (1994, 1250)

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:

Just because you think that, doesn't mean it is my position. Was He omnipresent in the Garden during the Fall? Yes, (some Open Theists say no). Involved in man's Fall? :nono:

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

I answered like I am doing here, point for point, except that behemoth. I don't have a spear big enough so will keep addressing it with small arrows until the beast falls.

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.

Well, your OP does say Augustine, but I'm not interested in even the mention. I believe Ephesians 2:3 says 'by nature, children of wrath."

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!

No, I may have to read you a bit more for clarity, but I'm not side-stepping. -Lon

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

Not my doing, imho. You are trying to build a bridge 'to' your doctrine. To me? This ain't it. Nor some of your other bridges in thread. It isn't a dodge. It is an unwillingness to entertain points that don't lead to your conclusion, logically. I simply haven't crossed a few of your bridges. 1) They are global and it is like putting out fires, only to have to run to the other side of the forest and put out another.

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.

2) They don't logically lead to where I think they need to lead. For instance, none of them has met or touched Ephesians 2:3. You can either address it or post a scripture opposed to it, but as I told Glory, her scripture didn't mean born sinless, it simply meant had not acted on it. At least she and I were discussing scripture specifically and not really travelling far from those important verses.

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.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

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

E.E.'s view: A sinless nature.

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.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

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