Are people Condemned Due To Unbelief, Or That "In Adam" and are sinners?

Would you PLEASE be intellectually honest and cordial. NNE has said, implied, inferred, hinted at, suggested..... "God winked at sin". Please stop being intentionally disengenous.

 

You as well as others interpret a section of Romans 1 to be salvific, which, uh, guess what? It's not. Why? It's proving the world lost, not that they should be saved by that knowledge. Talk about taking passages way out of context. But this is how you arrive at your errors.

Fact is, in your theory man is safe. It's utter fallacy and totally erroneoous to preach this.

:wavey:

 

No need for your caustic spirit qaf. OK? You're incorrect even though you caps lock NNE.

Uh, "God overlooked sin" did you happen to see that when you hastily replied to me with fervor while remaining uninformed?

As a preacher, I know what is implied here. That's exactly what he means.

How that crow taste?

Oh, by the way, God doesn't overlook sin. This is a misnomer and an interpretational error.

 

Ignore ignorance

 

Skan says:

"The real issue is WHY do some remain in that condition of being "condemned?" UNBELIEF (see John 3:18 again)."

How can that be the real issue? In a sin state, nobody believes & all are damned. The real issue is why are some selected for salvation while others aren't. And we can debate that till the cows come home.....Because thats how God planned it (and he did not consult with us).

Personally I dont get flustered about what I can't control. Now if you want to change the whole construct of Orthodox Christianity then have at it.

 

It is just so difficult. My 25 year career is about just that.

 

Huh.... I must be missing something....you didnt say you ignore ignorance did you?

 

Actually I said they aren't condemned (meaning going to hell -- or "finally condemned") BECAUSE of Adam's fall. They perish BECAUSE they refused to believe God's revelation, period. How many verses do I need to produce that say that very thing verbatim before you would believe it? I've got a few more, but I really thought 5 would be sufficient.

 

Ok, that's it. We're done. Let me know when you want to have an adult conversation.

 

First, you are committing the fallacy of question begging by presuming true a subject up for debate.

Second, you argument presumes God's powerful life giving gospel isn't sufficient to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent....to make an appeal for God's enemies to be reconciled to him. It makes little since to presume that God must essentially reconcile them (make them a new creature/regenerate them) in order for them to accept God's appeal to be reconciled. That is something you read into the text.

No it not. Calvinists typically claim its for God's own secret purposes that he selects one over another. The bible says he calls (invites) everyone, but chooses those who are dressed in the wedding garments (representative of being clothed in Christ through faith) to enter the wedding feast. "Many are called, but few are chosen."

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

It's interesting how he had such a problem to a DIRECT quote from Paul. I didn't say "God passed over the sins previously committed," Paul did. And I wonder if he thinks God sending his Son to atone even for that sin previously committed was just a "wink?" Shameless.

 

What I "hope" the issue is, that he just simply gets so passionate about something, that his enthusiasm to respnd simply gets the better of him preventing himself from anlaysis and proper consideration of someone's posting (position).

 

Your theology professor would revoke your degree if he saw that you posted this clearly worded bit of horse hooey...

Shame on you. You continually claim to know better, then resort to the gutter and strawman arguments to further your cause.

 

Both. We have the potential for condemnation because of Adam's sin. We can be redeemed and avoid final condemnation by believing in the Son of God.

No Adamic sin, no condemnation, no need for Christ to be sent to save us from condemnation by believeing on Him.

The OP question is not valid; it's not either/or, it's for/then. For Adam sinned, then we are condemned by unbelief.

 

Kudos, that is a solid argument, and quite logical. Thanks INTHELIGHT.

 

Then please point out the error of my statement.