It's all good!!

False, in fact I have argued that there is much scripture that supports no one is born a sinner, but only becomes a sinner when they actually commit a sinful act.

I have never denied Jesus's virgin birth. Show where I have ever done that.

I have suggested that God may see from two perspectives. Looking forward in time he sees things as they happen, but looking back in time from the end he knows all things that will ever happen. You simply cannot comprehend what I am saying.

There is much scripture that strongly suggests this such as 1 Peter
2:25, read it for yourself.

Some people are more interested in knowing the truth than being orthodox.

So what? Were the reformers considered orthodox? No, unlike you they challenged orthodoxy.

 

I can respect that post more then any I've seen on here. I'm tired of being told by others that I'm not educated enough or something like that. Luke2427, I think you should just continue to taunt me and down me if that floats your boat.

 

& then some people like me who fervently believe that Reformed theology is True Faith & we love it....yes I said Love :love2:

 

That is fine, but not everyone would agree with you. I have personally submitted hundreds of verses of scripture that I believe easily refute Reformed Theology, and so have many others here. It's not like we disagree without reason.

 

What is truly amusing is that you are defending yourself by saying that you do not believe ANYBODY is born a sinner!

Did you not say that Jesus had a sin nature?

I do not comprehend senseless babbling either.

Does God know a thing before it happens or not?

It will not be hard to dig up your comments on this a few weeks back. They are an easily accessible matter of public record.

At least you admit that you deny these orthodox doctrines.

That verse, like almost ALL verses you employ, is not saying what you want to force it to say.

You are not interested in truth. You are interested in undermining the DoG at the expense of truth- and so much so that you are willing to spit on orthodoxy in the process- you don't care.

Yes.

 

And I can refute every last one of your reasons, so you haven't convinced me one iota. You have to admit your on a mission & that is so transparent to everyone on here that you want nothing more than to change reformed thinkers to your beliefs. I think after all this time you can clearly see thats not going to happen....you have failed to win over even one convert. So go ahead and continue on your quest Don Quixote ....their is another giant off on the horizon. :wavey::laugh:

 

We are all saved by Christ here. There's no need to convert, on either side of reformed theology.

 

The truth I find often lies somewhere in the middle. There are certain things that are powerful in Calvinistic theology such as the Doctrines of Grace and the extent of God's soveriegnty. But I believe there is also the Mystery of a free will and the ability to choose God or sin. I also believe in the effecatious blood spilt for all humanity that if indeed humanity entirely chose God (which of course it doesn't) all humanity would theoretically be saved. And like physics where on the quantum level the laws are in opperation by randomness and on the large galactic level laws are orderly and well defined we assume there is a relationship which accounts for this such as string theory. I think the same way about Calvinist or reformed thought compared with the other view holding to a reality of free will. We don't understand how they can work together so to say one is a Calmenianist is often considered an intrinsic imposibility.

 

Im just a simple man ....so can break that down for little ole me? Thank you

 

There are aspects of reformed theology I hold to and others I do not.

 

Here is the thing....there might be two diesel mechanics with two similar but somewhat different approaches to fixing an engine. Both approaches work. That I would say is Arminian & Reformed Theologies....they both get the job done.

Then there is the guy who is completely off the wall.....maybe he is your run of the mill domestic car mechanic. The Boss hires him & he comes in thinking his practices work....but if you try them they wont get that Diesel engine to work.... Pelagianism. That methodology maybe even looks interesting on paper but it doesn't work when you try to repair the motor. Mr. P might even try to put gas in the engine (with some modifications of course) & of course with tragic results.

 

Excellent illustration! I'd say that captures the dilemma here on baptistboard very well.

Several of these guys are closer to Pelagius than they are Arminius.

Arminians, though wrong, are orthodox.

Pelagians are not.

 

Completely wrong. I just broke down for glfredreck point by point the pelagian doctrine SHOWING how what I believe is not in tune with pelagianism...yet this kind of bunk still makes the rounds.

Agnosticism is MUCH more unorthodox than pelagianism, btw.

 

I read what you broke down for gl. What that post does is basically say, "Since I do not match him to a TEE, I am not Pelagian."

It does not change the FACT that you are quite Pelagian on this issue of Original Sin.

 

That is a complete lie. The basic premise for Pelagian's understanding of original sin is the fact man is born UNAFFECTED by the fall...he is innocent. You know without a shadow of a doubt I do not believe that, and to continue in such (not just you but ANY reformer who like to throw that phrase around loosely) is nothing more than a bold faced liar. There is not ONE person on this board that believes that.

 

No, no. You misrepresent Pelagius. Pelagius believed that men are affected to the degree that you and Willis believe men are affected by the fall- that they get sick and die physically.

I will grant you that you argue that man will DEFINITELY sin at some point which may be a slight, very slight deviation from Pelagianism.

Is that not the extent of the affect of sin on the man in the view of this nameless theology you espouse?

 

What then does the "fall" cause in humanity, as a whole and individually?

If man is not "innocent" at birth, then IYO what is man's status at birth?

 

The fall caused the curse which includes death, sin, pain and suffering. Our entire being is permeated with sin, but we are not guilty of transgressing God's law simply because we were conceived.

I believe an infant's status is similar (but not identical) to Abimilech's when he took Abraham's wife. He did a sinful thing with no knowledge (conscience means "with knowledge") and God did not count it as guilt. The interesting fact is Abimilech admitted it was sin after the fact when he had knowledge of the situation...the very situation God said he was not guilty of!

 

I believe all men are born with the concupiscence towards sin. And I think webdog is saying that concupiscence is not sin itself "rather it is the tinder for sin which cannot harm those who do not consent." Am I correct in this?

 

You don't even know what pelagianism is when it comes to original sin, how dare you state I misrepresent him! From the same wikipedia article glfrederick posted that I refuted point by point...

It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid