Stop misrepresenting my view!

First, it is not your battle, so butt out.

Second, I asked in the form of a question, and did not make a statement. That would indicate that I was waiting a response from the poster to clarify the statement.

 

I won't speak for anyone but myself, but I believe man is born in a state of separation in regards to the flesh not spirit. We are by nature (sin nature) at enmity with God, but we become sinners (aptly defined as one who sins) when we do just that...sin, in the same manner Adam, Eve and every other human sans Christ has. I take James 1:15, Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 7:9, Ephesians 2:1 among many other as being literal unlike most Augustinians who take a handful of non literal Psalms or other vague passages dealing with death as being created dead sinners literally.

 

First, this is a public forum, so if you do not like others commenting on your error, don't let the good Lord hit ya where He split ya.

Second, your "form of a question" is implied as being a statement. This is what's referred to as a non sequitur. YOU just came out in recent days stating this very line of questioning happens too much around here...and you do just that. Hypocrite.

 

So, let's clarify... Would you say that newborn infants are in a state of innocence until the point at which they actually commit some known sin?

 

Fine, contribute in your own special way. You do often and it is noted by all...

And, I actually DID ask my question AS A QUESTION. I was looking for an answer. I asked you a question above and hope that you will give an answer. If I did not wish to ask a question, I am fully capable of writing a statement as I just have.

 

I've clarified this ad nauseum, no they are not "innocent" (as Abimilech was not truly innocent in taking Abraham's wife as his own), they are as we are when we stand before the Lord today...not guilty. Unlike the calvinist understanding of the atonement where Christ died ONLY for the elect, I see it much broader to include the defeat over sin, death and the curse universally. True innocence dies in the fall and will be restored when we shed this flesh.

 

True questions are posed when there is a desire to learn. Your question does not directly stem from anything that was said, hence your alleged "question" is nothing more than the desire to stir up mud. Sorry, not buying the sincerity in your "question".

 

I fail to see a difference...

Not innocent, so there is some sin nature implicit and imputed in even newborn infants, yet "not guilty." Could you explain further how that works and where it says so in Scripture?

 

Oh, I have a GREAT desire to learn, but what I desire to learn may not be precisely what the other individual attempts to teach.

 

Then that's on you. Sin is a conscious violation of God's law.

Did already with my paraphrase of Ephesians 2:3 and the host of other Scriptures I posted that states implicitly when we die spiritually.

 

I am working to draw you out in clarification on some points. When it is expedient and you think you can slide in a slight againt Calvinists, you do. When called on that slight you quickly remind us of your great love for Calvinists and for Calvin.

So, which is it? Be consistent and truthful here and stop your Calvinist hunting if you actually have that great love that you now profess.

 

I am still confused as to your actual stance. How is one not innocent but also not guilty at the same time?

 

How can you be confused on such a trivial stance that is primary to our faith? Are you in any way innocent? Did Christ's blood cover you making you judicially not guilty in front of the Father? You fail to see the difference

 

I see lots of differences. I am asking you to clarify your own.

Are you saying that Christ's blood was "universal" to make infants "not guilty" even before they can make their own profession of faith?

 

If we were in a court of law my attorney would object "asked and answered". Christ's blood defeated sin, death and the curse. They are not guilty of violating God's law (James 1:15 deals with WHEN and HOW one dies spiritually in such a clear manner I don't understand how anyone can hold to Augutine's error).

 

I am asking you very plainly to state very plainly if Christ's blood is shed for all infants so that if they die before they sin "intentionally" that they go to heaven becasue of the blood of Christ shed for them.

I will ask a followup question, "Are you saying that Augustine is "heretical and heterodox" and that we dare not follow his teaching, or are you just saying that he made a few errors in doctrine here and there? I'm asking because SO MANY people in the church (generic) down through the ages have found Augustines teaching to be well within the bounds of Scripture.

 

Yes, I believe all infants are covered.

No, he is not a heretic and I never hinted at that...like the majority of modern day believers, I believe he is wrong on the oxymoron known as being created "dead".

 

Thank you.