Infant Baptism and John the Baptist

[SovereignMercy]

And what does God say about liars and those who bear false witness? You should be careful, accuser.

Judge not, LEST you be judged by your own judgement.

Just speaking the truth. You wilfully reject the clear truth of God. Of course, God will save you if it's His will just like He saved me, Paul and everyone else He has chosen to have mercy on.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Judge not, LEST you be judged by your own judgement.

Preaching to yourself there, huh?

Just speaking the truth. You wilfully reject the clear truth of God. Of course, God will save you if it's His will just like He saved me, Paul and everyone else He has chosen to have mercy on.

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you -- and it will if you persist in false accusations.

 

[The Biblicist]

Judge not, LEST you be judged by your own judgement.

Just speaking the truth. You wilfully reject the clear truth of God. Of course, God will save you if it's His will just like He saved me, Paul and everyone else He has chosen to have mercy on.

My friend Michael is simply wearing blinders and ear plugs that are truth resistant. God will have to remove them from him because his sinful nature will not. oops, that is right, he don't beleive anyone is born with a sin nature!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

My friend Michael is simply wearing blinders and ear plugs that are truth resistant. God will have to remove them from him because his sinful nature will not. oops, that is right, he don't beleive anyone is born with a sin nature!

And you got that from where?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Got to go for a while. Back later, God willing.

 

[The Biblicist]

And you got that from where?

Your many, many posts that deny original sin!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Your many, many posts that deny original sin!

I deny it like the Latin West believes it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your many, many posts that deny original sin!

I don't think this is quite true. What Michael Wren seems to disagree with is the Augustinian view of original sin. My study of Eastern Orthodoxy to which Michael seems to lean leads me to believe he believes in what is better known as ancestrial sin. As the saying goes "the devil is in the details". So the details are as follows. The East believes that individual sin or amartema of Adam and Eve are assigned to them soley. They hold full responsibility for their actions. Whereas by ancestrial sin (original sin) they believe is amartia or specifically defined as missing the mark which reflects the condition of humanity. Therefore what is inhereted from Adam and Eve is not the guilt of Adam's and Eve's sin but the consiquence of death. Ie man is born with the nature of death within his being. Man has this diseased condition. Whereas Augustine's model of original sin includes the guilt of Adam's sin is passed on as well. Where as in the Eastern view each man is only responsible for his own sin thus Adam's actions applies only to him save that he lead humanity into the corruption of death. Anyway thats how I view the Orthodox position and Michaels position of originial sin

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't think this is quite true. What Michael Wren seems to disagree with is the Augustinian view of original sin. My study of Eastern Orthodoxy to which Michael seems to lean leads me to believe he believes in what is better known as ancestrial sin. As the saying goes "the devil is in the details". So the details are as follows. The East believes that individual sin or amartema of Adam and Eve are assigned to them soley. They hold full responsibility for their actions. Whereas by ancestrial sin (original sin) they believe is amartia or specifically defined as missing the mark which reflects the condition of humanity. Therefore what is inhereted from Adam and Eve is not the guilt of Adam's and Eve's sin but the consiquence of death. Ie man is born with the nature of death within his being. Man has this diseased condition. Whereas Augustine's model of original sin includes the guilt of Adam's sin is passed on as well. Where as in the Eastern view each man is only responsible for his own sin thus Adam's actions applies only to him save that he lead humanity into the corruption of death. Anyway thats how I view the Orthodox position and Michaels position of originial sin

You are essentially correct.

And the Augustinian model is held my much of evangelicalism.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are essentially correct.

And the Augustinian model is held my much of evangelicalism.

what did paul mean that in Adam ALL were made sinners, but those in christ were made alive again?

NOT physical birth, had to be spiritual!

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't think this is quite true. What Michael Wren seems to disagree with is the Augustinian view of original sin. My study of Eastern Orthodoxy to which Michael seems to lean leads me to believe he believes in what is better known as ancestrial sin. As the saying goes "the devil is in the details". So the details are as follows. The East believes that individual sin or amartema of Adam and Eve are assigned to them soley. They hold full responsibility for their actions. Whereas by ancestrial sin (original sin) they believe is amartia or specifically defined as missing the mark which reflects the condition of humanity. Therefore what is inhereted from Adam and Eve is not the guilt of Adam's and Eve's sin but the consiquence of death. Ie man is born with the nature of death within his being. Man has this diseased condition. Whereas Augustine's model of original sin includes the guilt of Adam's sin is passed on as well. Where as in the Eastern view each man is only responsible for his own sin thus Adam's actions applies only to him save that he lead humanity into the corruption of death. Anyway thats how I view the Orthodox position and Michaels position of originial sin

I don't disagree with your historical assessment. I just disagree it is the "Biblical" view and thus it is not "orthodox" in that sense of the word. It is not only wrong but necessarily leads to other false doctrines that effect the whole soteriology of a person or institution and necessarily repudiates the whole Biblical doctrine of salvation from stern to bow.

Biblical Salvation is in response to the Biblically correct problem that requires salvation in the first place. If the problem is changed, perverted and misinterpreted then by necessity it also perverts, changes the nature of the salvation as the salvation is suited for the problem or it is no salvation at all.