Is our understanding of The Trinity & Godhead, correct?

What we have witnessed in not only one telling another he is not a Christian due to their beliefs concerning original sin, but is a heretic as well. If those are not clear violations of the rules of this forum the Pope is not a Catholic and the rules of this forum are being administered in a hypocritical fashion.

I desire to think better of at least some brave moderator(s), to set even a fellow moderator straight in relationship to the rules of this forum when necessary.


I kindly appeal to Clint and/or other moderators. :thumbs:

 

Then defend this. Those who hold to original sin teach that our Maker makes us "wholly" inclined to all evil and opposite to all good:
　
"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
　
And then when man does exactly what he was designed by God to do he is punished severely:
　
"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

The teaching of Original Sin portrays God to be a cruel taskmaker who makes a man "wholly" inclined to all evil and then punishes him for doing exactly what he was designed by God to do!

If I were you I would get down on my knees and ask God for His forgiveness for teaching something so heretical!

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I had no intention of editing or even admonishing you for this post, but just to point out to HP that others do the same, and don't make a big fuss about it.

 

Just so I know what is allowed and what is not can I understand that the following example is acceptable on this forum?:

Is that sort of thing acceptable from now on?

 

Jerry,

In doctrine and heresy, original sin is much more broad than the definition your provided. While I agree that original sin should be linked to total depravity, I am not going to defend that my nuanced definition is what defines doctrine and heresy. This is why I cited Wesley's sermon on Original Sin. He rejected the Calvinistic definition of original sin, but he still maintained he held to original sin. Traditionally, he falls within the acceptable limits of believing in original sin thus not a heretic.

Thus, again, you said that there are many people who disagree with original sin but who are not heretics. I simply asked for an example.

The historic and traditional argument against those who reject original sin deal directly with Romans 5 and the fallacy of rejecting substitution on the end dealing with sin while embracing substitutionary atonement of Christ.

I can go into it more, however, we have not even agreed upon a definition. I think Wesley is sufficient to not be a heretic, thus I must argue that your base definition is inadequate as I cannot argue that disagreement with your definition is heretical, but I maintain that disagreement with Original Sin is heretical.

 

It sounds like the words of someone who has quit posting because he is fed up in going around and around in circular arguments, listening to the same old repeated lines from people who will not actually listen or engage in the evidence that is being presented to them.

To the atheist: If I present you evidence beyond any shadow of a doubt that Christ arose from the dead, proving his deity, will you accept my evidence?

The atheist responds. NO.
--Are you like the atheist in this case? No matter what evidence is set before you, you are going to ignore it, not read it, not listen to it, but just repeat the same old mantras, and chase off others who are tired of age old cliches and circular reasoning? I hope not.

 

So I take it that what he said is acceptable on this forum?

What I will not believe is the "edited" words of Paul. I believe the unedited version of what Paul wrote, not the version where words are added to what Paul said.

 

HP: The life on this list of Brother Bob comes to mind.........

Who are you trying to fool DHK? Do you think we have not been around long enough to see the hypocritical manner you have conducted yourself in when it comes to the fair administration of the rules of this forum?

I still appeal to other moderators that might just have a better sense of fairness in them than what I have witnessed from you.

Ruiz clearly denoted me as being outside of the faith, and my beliefs as heresy openly on this board. Do you remember, or is your memory selective, concerning your own remarks about what happens when is even falsely accused of calling into question the faith of another? Play the man DHK. That was precisely the charge brought against Brother Bob openly on the list before he was cut off.

 

He said: "I don't have time for this."
What do you object to?

 

I asked you defend what I wrote about the fact that the teaching of Original Sin portrays god out to be a tyrant who who severely punishes men for doing exactly what He designed them to do.

But you said NOTHING at all about anything which I wrote. You just ran away from it. Here it is again and perhaps this time you will actually respond:

Those who hold to original sin teach that our Maker makes us "wholly" inclined to all evil and opposite to all good:
　
"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
　
And then when man does exactly what he was designed by God to do he is punished severely:
　
"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

The teaching of Original Sin portrays God to be a cruel taskmaker who makes a man "wholly" inclined to all evil and then punishes him for doing exactly what he was designed by God to do!

 

He said that he did not have time for this but he continued to discuss the very same thing which he said that he did not have time for this.

So if I do not agree with something you say or anyone else says I can call it a "lie"?

Is that kind of behavior acceptable on this forum?

 

This is not about me. You drudging up some past post and poster that I barely remember is hardly even ethical, and has nothing to do with any of this.
This is about this thread, this subject, your post (its content), and Ruiz's response. I happen to agree with what Ruiz said. It was concise, well stated and to the point. My advice to you is get some thicker skin and don't be offended whenever someone says something you don't like. Remember, I am not the author of the words you are complaining about.

What Ruiz said is true. He mentioned three doctrinal positions: the trinity, original sin, eternal security. Deal with it. Be a man. Debate with the Word of God as your basis. Demonstrate through Scripture that these are orthodox doctrines. Demonstrate through history that these have not been part of mainstream Christianity. Is his claim true? You are the one that is outside the realm of mainstream Christianity by holding on to the beliefs you do, instead of orthodox doctrine. If he is not right then show him he is wrong instead of complaining as a little child to the moderators.

 

What did he call a lie? And why?

 

Here are his words:

Of course much of our discussion was about whether a person dies spiritually as a result of his own sin or as a result of Adam's sin.
Here is one of the verses which quoted to support my idea that a person dies as a result of his own sin:

"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).

According to his view the verse is not teaching that men die as a result of their own sin. Despite the fact that Paul said exactly that I am accused of speaking lies. He says that the correct interpretation of Paul's words can only be understood if we ADD a couple of words to what Paul said, and here in "bold" are the words which he adds:

"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 IN ADAM" (Ro.5:12).

So the question is, Can I call an interpretation of the Scriptures offered by others a "lie" if I do not agree with that interpretation?

Is that acceptable on this forum?

 

HP: I have been showing Ruiz where he is wrong and if the moderators do their job I will continue to do so.

So expecting moderators or posters to abide by the rules they set forth is being like a little child when I bring such hypocrisy to the attention of the moderators? Call me a child if you so desire. I cannot help but believe all moderators on this forum do not agree with your demonstrated hypocrisy. We shall see.

Your memory appears to be conveniently selective DHK. All things we be made right in the end. One is foolish to think that fairness in this world will be honored or administered by some. If other moderators do not right the wrongs, I simply appeal to time.

 

For the record, I do not think I directly dealt with eternal security. But thanks for standing up with me on this issue.

 

What is not acceptable on this forum is a deliberate attempt to derail the topicIs our understanding of The Trinity & Godhead, correct?

which is about the trinity and Godhead, to a topic about original sin. That is what you have appeared to do. Please keep your posts relevant to the stated OP.

 

Why would a moderator need to be called in on a debate based on Scripture?

80% of the complaints that I received today were from you. Thus in my assessment you are acting like a child, complaining about every little thing that bothers you. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

And you may so appeal. My conscience is clear.

 

Sorry DHK, but was NOT Jerry that derailed anything. It was Ruiz with his personal attacks, that by the way, are forbidden by the rules of this forum.