glorydaz
Well-known member
Sincere doesn't equal right.
ECT The Most Misunderstood Passage in the Bible--Romans 5:12-18
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Sincere doesn't equal right.
glorydaz
Well-known member
First, Jerry didn't say what you're claiming. Second, show me the curse from God that said all Adam's offspring would carry Adam's sin....that their very nature would be changed. You can't. And the very fact that Danoh agrees should give you pause.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Ah, what you "think" Jesus meant. I believe what He actually said. Children do not have an evil heart. They are very honest and straight forward...no pretence whatsoever.
Really, and how many childen have you seen who have had no adult interference? Do you see those remote tribes where the children are passing their own food around and hugging those who get hurt? I have.
Ha. They get along better when adults don't butt in at all. Check out the little Mexican kids or Indian kids. I've seen more love and compassion coming from children than I do most adults.
It's always when a person chooses evil over good that sin then gets dominion over a person. At that point, we must train them up in the way they should go.
dodge
New member
Yes Jerry did say that !
Jerry's post:#866
Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
That is not what Paul is saying. Instead, the reason all men die is BECAUSE all men sin":
I suggest before you call me a liar you at least do a little research and check it out.
Since Jerry never answered my question I will ask you what sin can a "one" day old baby commit to deserve death ? Do you believe a "one" day old baby can sin ?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Jerry was talking about spiritual death. He already explained about why all men die physically.
And before you get your knickers in a knot, I didn't call you a liar. :nono:
Jerry has been saying all along that babies don't sin. They must reach the age of being able to choose evil over good. Adam's sin is not inherited by anyone...thus babies are not guilty of Adam's sin, either.
Now, would you care to have an actual discussion about this matter of inherited sin?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I am glad to see that you finally realize that the "death" in "bold" in the following verse is speaking about "spiritual death":
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).
You do realize that before someone can die spiritually they must first be alive spiritually, don't you? So when do you think a person becomes spiritually alive before he sins?
Let us look at this passage again:
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again (anōthen)" (Jn.3:6-7).
Here the Greek word translated "again" is anōthen and it is an adverb. This adverb modifies how a person is born. In this instance the word means "over again, indicating repetition...Jn.iii.3" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
Therefore, when the Lord Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again he was referring to a repetition of one of the births which he had mentioned in verse six. And since it is impossible for anyone to beborn again in the flesh then He telling Nicodemus that he must be born again spiritually. That means that Nicodemus had already been born of the Spirit and that obviously happened when He was conceived.
We can see the same truth in regard to the way Paul described his salvation. He wrote:
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).
Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.
Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."
It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that he must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.
That is exactly what the Lord Jesus is referring to here:
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (Jn.3:3,5-7).
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
All people are destined to die physically because they are all denied the very thing which is needed to live for ever--the tree of life (Gen.22-24). Some people die sooner than others.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
People do not die because they are denied access to the Tree of Life.
People are denied access to the Tree of Life because they are dead in trespasses and sins.
Lon
Well-known member
Or not a clod, either. I apologize for the way I went about this without realizing a few things. Sometimes I am that bull in the china shop and so I need to ask forgiveness all over this thread. There are tender topics and I've been insensitive, not on purpose, but I think all-guy at this point.
Thank you Gd, for speaking with me about this in PM's. You have been loving and gracious despite my big feet. I realize I'm often supposed to lead, but not when I'm stepping on toes. I wasn't helpful this dance, and for that, I'm sorry and as I said, extricating myself from thread, but I wanted to apologize publically, not for dancing of course, but for dancing as a guy like I was at an all-male Danish wooden shoe fest. Apologies for my insensitivities. I am a guy, no excuses, but a touch of your feminine graces has rightly put me in my place. (no reply necessary, but I would appreciate a gentle slap on the head with a
dodge
New member
That might have been what he was thinking but it was NOT what he said.
Jerry's post:#866
Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
That is not what Paul is saying. Instead, the reason all men die is BECAUSE all men sin": is actually what he said.
lol, it appears YOU are the one with their knickers in a knot tonight.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
I still believe ALL are born with a sin nature.
Not much to discuss that is exactly what scripture teaches.
Jerry is a great guy! He's just full of it. But I like him cause he get grace for me haha
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
dodge
New member
Jerry you can shake and bake it anyway you want to but scripture teaches that death is a result of sin, and since a one day old baby cannot sin it is their sin nature that causes their death. It is an inherited thing from Adam.
In scripture it states that Adam was born in the likeness of God, but when you read Adam's lineage it says Cain was born in the likeness of Adam after his image who already had the death seed in him ,which he passed on to his children as a result of disobeying God.
Gen 5:1
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
See the difference God made Cain after Adam's likeness and IMAGE ?
Adam's children were created in Adam's likeness "and image". Adam was fallen and Cain was created In Adam's likeness and image which was fallen.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Jerry is full of Pelagian sausage . . .
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
We are not sinners because we sin.
We sin because we are sinners.
We sin because we are sinners.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I replied to him as if I were you, because I thought I was you at the time. He said it wasn't 'my' mail but I told him in PM he could take it as coming from you or me or another Calvinist then, because I thought it was how a Calvinist would respond. I 'think' you are asking me for an apology for not standing up for you, but when I thought it was to all of us, I did. Not that I was mean about it, nor that I took offense. I was hurt by those words to me as well. You can ask EE, but I PMed him that gentleness is better than his open post to you so you are not seeing what is going on behind the scenes. I apologize for thinking you a hyper-Calvinist as well, but I was never saying such to be rude. It was rather a mistake but I haven't said so in thread. I generally am thinking of hyperCalvinists in general and I think, perhaps, you are taking offense at me where absolutely none is intended. I told Eagles Wings that you often dive into threads for the long haul, and that I tend to want to say what I believe needs to be said, then extricate myself lest I'm trying to be but a planter/waterer. God has to give the increase in there somewhere and so I wait patiently for that to happen.
On top of that, I'm dealing with the loss of someone I've been praying for, during his short eight years on the planet. I am also grieving yet, for putting my beloved cocker spaniel down as well as battling severe allergies from the poplar trees next door, all five of them, so if I'm apologizing for not being the knight and protector, I apologize for that as well, m'lady. You are correct and I will try to hold my lance higher. I wasn't complaining, but it was certainly dipping and I am indeed neglect in my duties. I pray your pardon and forgiveness. -Lon
Lon,
I have pondered your response today and wondered why I was not comforted by your apology and I think I have figured out my unhappiness over this exchange.
This has been a discussion of a very serious spiritual matter: Original Sin versus Free Will Pelagianism.
It has been astounding the contributors to the heretical view that denies the ramifications of the fall of Adam upon the human race.
I have participated voicing my Reformed beliefs that totally oppose the idea that any sinner is virtuous enough to initiate God's grace unto his own benefit and salvation. Divine grace that alone can remedy the guilt of Adam's that all of us have inherited through natural generation is the only remedy for corrupted mankind.
Many others disagree with my orthodox view and it was so expected on my part. I am totally used to being opposed theologically. But my nature is to persist voicing what I see as Godly Truth despite any and all kinds of opposition, for that is my commission as a redeemed Christian.
And even though I am female, I feel equipped to give a fairly scriptural witness and apologetic, due to my advanced years and exposure to fine teachings from Godly men.
So I was not asking for chivalry in my request for apologies from EE and you, discussing me in less than charitable terms. I am also quite used to being personally demeaned on TOL.
What has hurt my heart and feelings, is having my testimony of the Covenent grace of Jesus Christ trashed, dismissed, and disrespected by full-blown heretics, while my Christian brothers, who know full well that I am posting according to the truths of Scripture and the Reformed confessions and creeds, fail to give me support and back up.
IOW's I do not need a shining knight to help me along the way . . I ask for brave Christian men to stand with me in this spiritual battle being waged against the church of Jesus Christ.
No Christian, female or not, should be left standing alone when enemies of our faith, such as EE and the Pelagians on this site make quick to attack. For an attack against Nang, which proved to not be a against you, is still an attack against the good Lord Jesus Christ.
That is what needs to be apologized for.
Lon
Well-known member
Thank you. That too, is why I'm apologizing as well. You need me for this, other needed me to not be so confrontational and crass. I 'think' I've had an 'ah ha' moment and possible the problem isn't "Pelagianism, but rather a proper definition of what they mean by 'innocence.' If I am reading them correctly (another thread) it isn't really 'innocence' they mean, but rather culpability or something similar. Because of that, I think terms walked into Pelagianism, without anybody actually intending to go there. In short, I think my quick and dirty 'summarizing' of 'Innocence'
as 'Pelagian' is partly the problem of the whole thread. It depends on what they mean and I didn't hear GD's protests. I 'think' this thread would serve, to discuss culpability vs. innocence etc. As I the clod, it seems wiser to let more a-tuned heads prevail than mine. I jumped the proverbial gun. -Lon
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh my, Nang is having a big pity party, and I don't think she's inviting any of us horrible heretics. :chuckle:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
My opinion is that your starting this thread is wonderful and from the Lord's providence. It has shed a light upon darkness and unbelief existent on TOL that was not known.
And I found no fault with your contributions to the thread at all. In fact, if anything, I would think you could be more heavy-handed against some of the heretical views that are passed off as right and good.
I might have missed discussion about "innocence," but in my opinion, there has been no innocence known to man since Adam's original sin.
Fetuses in the womb and infants deserve our special consideration, since they are so helpless, but don't you think that if we are moved to feel extra compassion for their plight, that the good Lord in heaven does too? Plus at least a thousand times more?
He loves the little children and will do right by them . . How much more we should pray for the young!