Born In Sin

[JonC]

You avoided and ran around the question.
You state that, from conception, children are not in Christ.
Thus, they are by nature apart from Christ and in need of God's gracious redemption so that they are found in Christ.
You make salvation to be by works when you claim that infants have not sinned and are therefore righteous. This is the equivalent of a corrupted computer program that you think isn't corrupt until the computer is turned on, even though the code was corrupt from the beginning of the creation of that computer.

Jon, God must graciously choose to redeem infants from conception onward as they are corrupted from conception onward. They don't become corrupt only after they show evidence of their corruption as you are implying

I am not avoiding the question. You ate taking my comment out of my view and placing it into yours in order to challenge it. Arguments do not work that way.

What was happening on the Cross? God was reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God. Men need to be reconciled.

Aborted children experience the wages of sin. The question goes to the Judgment.

What sins do you believe damn aborted children?

 

[AustinC]

I am not avoiding the question. You ate taking my comment out of my view and placing it into yours in order to challenge it. Arguments do not work that way.

What was happening on the Cross? God was reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God. Men need to be reconciled.

Aborted children experience the wages of sin. The question goes to the Judgment.

What sins do you believe damn aborted children?

Jon, I just answered you regarding why we are all damned. It's not because we have willfully broken God's law. It's because we are conceived in corruption.
I provided the analogy of a computer has a corrupt mother board before it ever is turned on and used. It's still corrupt and needs redeeming, regardless of if it ever gets turned on. This is the case with infants. Even though they may never be born into this world, they are still corrupt by nature of the curse. They are in need of God's gracious redemption.

But, you seem to throw that out and demand perfect until a corrupt decision is actually made.

You say infants are not in Christ at conception, yet you want them to be perfect until they actively choose to sin. You seem all over the map and incapable of actually stating your position as you recognize it's contradiction and problems. I have seen you do this with substitutional atonement as well. You ultimately get twisted up into a pretzel and then tell us we aren't following your thoughts. This is another one of those examples where you are twisted up.

 

[Brightfame52]

jonc

What is left is for men to be reconciled to God.

Christs Death does that also, lest you believe He did half the Job.

What does Rom 5:10 say ?

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Col 1:21-22

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

 

[tyndale1946]

I am not avoiding the question. You ate taking my comment out of my view and placing it into yours in order to challenge it. Arguments do not work that way.

What was happening on the Cross? God was reconciling man to Himself. Man is reconciled to God. Men need to be reconciled.

Aborted children experience the wages of sin. The question goes to the Judgment.

What sins do you believe damn aborted children?

Same as us all... Born in the likeness and image of Adam!... Original sin... Brother Glen

Genesis 3:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Jesus Christ was the only one born in the image of God... God manifest in the flesh

 

[JonC]

Jon, I just answered you regarding why we are all damned. It's not because we have willfully broken God's law. It's because we are conceived in corruption.
I provided the analogy of a computer has a corrupt mother board before it ever is turned on and used. It's still corrupt and needs redeeming, regardless of if it ever gets turned on. This is the case with infants. Even though they may never be born into this world, they are still corrupt by nature of the curse. They are in need of God's gracious redemption.

But, you seem to throw that out and demand perfect until a corrupt decision is actually made.

You say infants are not in Christ at conception, yet you want them to be perfect until they actively choose to sin. You seem all over the map and incapable of actually stating your position as you recognize it's contradiction and problems. I have seen you do this with substitutional atonement as well. You ultimately get twisted up into a pretzel and then tell us we aren't following your thoughts. This is another one of those examples where you are twisted up.

We all experience the wages of sin, I agree. But then there is the Judgment.

It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment. You seem unable to differentiate between the wages of sin and the judgment.

 

[JonC]

Same as us all... Born in the likeness and image of Adam!... Original sin... Brother Glen

Genesis 3:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Jesus Christ was the only one born in the image of God... God manifest in the flesh

I agree. Natural man is in the likeness of Adam. Jesus came in the likeness of Adam but also in the likeness of the Father. In Him humanity and divinity are reconciled (He is God-Man).

 

[AustinC]

We all experience the wages of sin, I agree. But then there is the Judgment.

It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment. You seem unable to differentiate between the wages of sin and the judgment.

You are ignoring that we are judged guilty by our corruption, not by our first open rebellion. The wages of Adams sin is our corruption which must be paid for by Christ. To be saved, God must, by grace alone, redeem us. This includes infants still in the womb.
Jon, you contradict yourself and you can't even see the contradiction.

 

[JonC]

You are ignoring that we are judged guilty by our corruption, not by our first open rebellion. The wages of Adams sin is our corruption which must be paid for by Christ. To be saved, God must, by grace alone, redeem us. This includes infants still in the womb.
Jon, you contradict yourself and you can't even see the contradiction.

No. God judges us. We do not judge ourselves nor are we judged by our corruption.

Scripture tells us that the wages

You are ignoring that we are judged guilty by our corruption, not by our first open rebellion. The wages of Adams sin is our corruption which must be paid for by Christ. To be saved, God must, by grace alone, redeem us. This includes infants still in the womb.
Jon, you contradict yourself and you can't even see the contradiction.

No, God judges man. We (or our corruption) are not our judge.

Scripture tells us the wages of sin is death. You ignore that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment because it destroys your philosophy (you combine physical death with "the second death" or judgment).

Infants do face the wages of sin (physical death) but the issue is judgment (the "second death"). To address this you have to answer the question about how babies commit sinful acts in the womb so as to be cast into the Lake of fire.

 

[AustinC]

No. God judges us. We do not judge ourselves nor are we judged by our corruption.

Scripture tells us that the wages

No, God judges man. We (or our corruption) are not our judge.

Scripture tells us the wages of sin is death. You ignore that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment because it destroys your philosophy (you combine physical death with "the second death" or judgment).

Infants do face the wages of sin (physical death) but the issue is judgment (the "second death"). To address this you have to answer the question about how babies commit sinful acts in the womb so as to be cast into the Lake of fire.

The bold red is where we differ. Our corruption condemns us.

 

[JonC]

The bold red is where we differ. Our corruption condemns us.

Yes, that is where we disagree. I believe that God condemns men for their sins (He is the only true Judge).

My reasoning is I believe that God Himself is actually the standard. Sins are immoral actions, but morality, true morality, is measured by God's own nature. We fall short.

As a righteous Judge, I believe God actively judges.

So I do see God as taking an active role in judgment rather than men ultimately damning themselves.

I am not sure that our disagreement here explains our disagreement elsewhere, but I appreciate the time you took to point out our difference on whether God judges is or we judge ourselves.

 

[AustinC]

Yes, that is where we disagree. I believe that God condemns men for their sins (He is the only true Judge).

My reasoning is I believe that God Himself is actually the standard. Sins are immoral actions, but morality, true morality, is measured by God's own nature. We fall short.

As a righteous Judge, I believe God actively judges.

So I do see God as taking an active role in judgment rather than men ultimately damning themselves.

I am not sure that our disagreement here explains our disagreement elsewhere, but I appreciate the time you took to point out our difference on whether God judges is or we judge ourselves.

Your post shows you do not believe people are conceived in corruption and are by nature sinners. You espouse a form of Pelagianism whereby the person is sinless until the person chooses to sin. Thus we cannot agree.

 

[JonC]

Your post shows you do not believe people are conceived in corruption and are by nature sinners. You espouse a form of Pelagianism whereby the person is sinless until the person chooses to sin. Thus we cannot agree.

No. I already stated that we are by nature sinners. How do you read that to be the exact opposite of what I posted?

The issue has nothing to do with Pelagianism, which you obviously do not understand.

Let me help you (I have at least an education in theology, so I have studied the heresy).

One of the things Pelagius taught us that men are not born sinners. He believed that men have the ability, in themselves, to choose to follow God or to do evil.

What have I posted?

1. I posted that men are sinners by nature (even the unborn child is a sinner).

2. I posted that had the aborted child lived he or she would have committed sins because the child is a sinner.

3. I have posted (unlike the first two, not in response to you) that man comes to God only by God's drawing. The good (the true good) that we choose is not us but Christ in us.

Now, let's see what you call Pelagianism in my posts:

I say even the unborn child is a sinner by nature.
You say this is Pelagianism.

I say no man comes to God without God drawing them.
You call this Pelagianism.

I say men won't will that which is good.
You call this Pelagianism.

You do not understand what Pelagianism is but instead try to use it as some type of an insult.

I do believe Pelagianism to be a serious error, however I cannot say it is more so than your belief.

 

[AustinC]

No. I already stated that we are by nature sinners. How do you read that to be the exact opposite of what I posted?

The issue has nothing to do with Pelagianism, which you obviously do not understand.

Let me help you (I have at least an education in theology, so I have studied the heresy).

One of the things Pelagius taught us that men are not born sinners. He believed that men have the ability, in themselves, to choose to follow God or to do evil.

What have I posted?

1. I posted that men are sinners by nature (even the unborn child is a sinner).

2. I posted that had the aborted child lived he or she would have committed sins because the child is a sinner.

3. I have posted (unlike the first two, not in response to you) that man comes to God only by God's drawing. The good (the true good) that we choose is not us but Christ in us.

Now, let's see what you call Pelagianism in my posts:

I say even the unborn child is a sinner by nature.
You say this is Pelagianism.

I say no man comes to God without God drawing them.
You call this Pelagianism.

I say men won't will that which is good.
You call this Pelagianism.

You do not understand what Pelagianism is but instead try to use it as some type of an insult.

I do believe Pelagianism to be a serious error, however I cannot say it is more so than your belief.

I don't see the difference in your stance and basic Pelagianism, John. You still have children sinless until they consciously commit a sin and you make that the distinction for entering heaven or going to hell.

 

[JonC]

I don't see the difference in your stance and basic Pelagianism, John. You still have children sinless until they consciously commit a sin and you make that the distinction for entering heaven or going to hell.

I understand that you do not understand. That is why I posted, to explain.

I will try again, in such a way that any future accusation by you of the heresy can be nothing but dishonesty.


My view - men are sinners by nature (even the unborn child is a sinner).

Pelagianism- men, by nature, are not sinners.

My view - had the aborted child lived he or she would have committed sins because the child is a sinner.

My view - man comes to God only by God's drawing.

Pelagianism- man chooses God

My view - The good (the true good) that we choose is not us but Christ in us.

Pelagianism- man can do good by his own volition.

Before making accusations you should learn the meaning of the words you use.

In terms of unborn children committing sinful acts, I do not believe they do. You can, justly, say this is similar to the 1st Century Jewish and Christian view. But you cannot say it is Pelagianism as it is unrelated (Pelagius held we could refrain from sinning in out own nature, something I reject).

 

[AustinC]

I understand that you do not understand. That is why I posted, to explain.

I will try again, in such a way that any future accusation by you of the heresy can be nothing but dishonesty.


My view - men are sinners by nature (even the unborn child is a sinner).

Pelagianism- men, by nature, are not sinners.

My view - had the aborted child lived he or she would have committed sins because the child is a sinner.

My view - man comes to God only by God's drawing.

Pelagianism- man chooses God

My view - The good (the true good) that we choose is not us but Christ in us.

Pelagianism- man can do good by his own volition.

Before making accusations you should learn the meaning of the words you use.

In terms of unborn children committing sinful acts, I do not believe they do. You can, justly, say this is similar to the 1st Century Jewish and Christian view. But you cannot say it is Pelagianism as it is unrelated (Pelagius held we could refrain from sinning in out own nature, something I reject).

I get it, but all you do is say people are by nature sinners...but not really sinners until they actually conscientiously sin. You're making a very subtle change that doesn't really make any difference between you and Pelagius since in both your views the child is sinless until they choose to sin.

 

[JonC]

I get it, but all you do is say people are by nature sinners...but not really sinners until they actually conscientiously sin. You're making a very subtle change that doesn't really make any difference between you and Pelagius since in both your views the child is sinless until they choose to sin.

No. I am saying unborn children are sinners by nature who have not yet committed a sin, but as sinners they face the wages of sin.

It is obvious that you have no idea what Pelagianism is. I will start a thread so you can explore.

 

[AustinC]

No. I am saying unborn children are sinners by nature who have not yet committed a sin, but as sinners they face the wages of sin.

It is obvious that you have no idea what Pelagianism is. I will start a thread so you can explore.

Jon, I get it. But, you are in denial of what your position is claiming.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I get it. But, you are in denial of what your position is claiming.

No, I am not.

My position is claiming that men are by nature sinners, but also that unborn children have not committed sinful actions. Pretty cut and dry.

You are claiming that the Hebrews came up with Pelagianism, but have offered no evidence that their ideas about accountability equate to Pelagianism.

 

[AustinC]

No, I am not.

My position is claiming that men ate by nature sinners, but also that unborn children have not committed sinful actions. Pretty cut and dry.

I get it. Human nature is to sin, but children haven't sinned yet, therefore they aren't sinners who can be condemned. It's just a twist on Pelagianism. You still make the child uncorrupt until they choose to sin or reach "the age of accountability."
It is cut and dry and it is a form of Pelagianism where humans theoretically have the capacity to never sin if they fight off their urges.

You are claiming that the Hebrews came up with Pelagianism, but have offered no evidence that their ideas about accountability equate to Pelagianism.

No, I am not claiming anything about the Hebrews. I am saying your falling upon a supposed Hebrew philosophy of an "age of accountability" is a philosophy that is not biblical, but is a human invention to try explain how children who die will not go to hell.
I am saying that we have to live with the tension that our children are saved by grace or they die in their corruption without redemption. We have to leave this mystery in God's hands. The "age of accountability" is a mythical philosophy.

 

[37818]

. . . but children haven't sinned yet, . ..

How is that not Pelagianism?