"all have sinned"

[glfredrick]

I praise God through Jesus that God has decided to include believers in His Son and cut out those who do not bring praise and glory to His Son and believe Him. Trust in Jesus and you will not be disappointed, trust in a man made idea who murdered , beheaded, burned, hung the children of God that didn't believe they way they did, who to me is a depraved mind.

You just crossed the line and made we humans the grafters. Alas, t'is not true.

 

[glfredrick]

Well articulated, my fell pelagian friend :laugh:

I will admit it is inconsistent for your view, but in a good way. You do realize it does damage to the "T", the "U" and the "L", right? You are coming around

In this case, we agree. While I feel for the sentiment Tom expresses, he has made an error in the way he factors this issue. I also note that you are now backpedaling from your earlier long post confessions about the nature of sin you made toward me.

For the record, utter depravity (what we are actually arguing) means just that. We are sinners -- period. Born, actualizing sin, etc., notwithstanding, we are sinners according to God.

 

[webdog]

To say, however, that Christ had a sin nature is to say that He is not the Son of God and perfect in every way. Note that He did not have a human father, or do we need to argue that as well?

False dichotomy. To not have one would make Him 99.9% human. The fact He was able to even die physically shows His nature was affected by sin, else He would have been like Adam and unable to die pre-fall.

 

[glfredrick]

False dichotomy. To not have one would make Him 99.9% human. The fact He was able to even die physically shows His nature was affected by sin, else He would have been like Adam and unable to die pre-fall.

Was Christ born of a man?

Also, where is the answer to my earlier question? Why are you avoiding such an easy question like that?

Let's examine the word "dichotomy" that you are fond of using -- especially when someone disagrees with you.

A dichotomy is a set of two mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive alternatives. Dichotomies are typically expressed with the words "either" and "or", like this: "Either the test is wrong or the program is wrong."

Are you not doing just this?

A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. Note that the example given above is not mutually exclusive, since the test and the program could both be wrong. It's not jointly exhaustive either, since they could both be correct, but it could be a hardware error, a compiler error and so on.

And, you accuse me of this, but I am not presenting a false dichotomy. I am presenting ONE biblical doctrine that says that ALL HAVE SINNED. There is no "either" or a third position involved.

I am also saying that Christ did not have a sin nature. I am not bringing a dichotomy, false or otherwise to the debate. You are introducing one by attempting to refute my point.

On this issue, the Bible is clear. He was without sin -- period.

Sadly enough, you have also introduced another heretical position started by the Christadelphians. This same group dismisses Christ's deity and the Trinity. I am fairly sure that you would do neither, but in arguing the track you are arguing, you are treading in that direction, perhaps without even knowing it.

To have a sin nature means that Jesus would have to have had a fallen, defiled, and unholy nature. I fail to see how an unholy person can offer a holy sacrifice sufficient to please an infinitely holy God. Christ was completely holy, though a man.

Now, let's examine why it is that you think that in order for Christ to be fully human that you believe He needed to also have a sin nature. You are looking at Christ's humanity in context of fallen man. But, the Scriptures tell us that Christ is the "second Adam." Adam was not born with a sin nature as I expressed above. He was a free man -- the only (well, Eve also) one, and also the only man who could truly make the choice to sin or not. The rest of us are fallen creatures born into a fallen and cursed world. Christ was not born a fallen creature. He was born both fully human like Adam (not in Adam's image, Adam was in Christ's image!) and fully God, and as such, holy and perfect, without sin, just as the Scriptures express so very clearly.

When will you stop allowing your human logic to dictate your doctrines over and above the very specific revelation of God, above which we cannot argue with success?

 

[psalms109:31]

You just crossed the line and made we humans the grafters. Alas, t'is not true.

Don't agree, God decided to graft believers in and cut out those who do not believe. It is Him that is the grafter and His decision, not mine.

I didn't say He is grafting in those who believe in His Son. It isn't my will to do that but Him. Who am to question God and the way He decided to do things?

 

[webdog]

Right now, as it stands in this and other interactions we have had, it is not me that has failed to understand the basis for what it is that you are arguing, it is you. So, your suggestion that I am not well-prepared to discuss both sides of the issues we're discussing is not at all a fair assumption, nor is it, again, helping your case.

Your entire point is moot based on you saying

You have manufactured a special class of people that you call "innocent."

I never said anything about anyone being "innocent". Either you are doing the very thing you are claiming not to do or you are not being honest.

I am not "just" branding you with a label out of spite. My response was not to "make you feel bad," "label you as a heretic," etc., but rather to point out the fact that what you are arguing so forcefully is Pelagian doctrine.

...and I took the time to break down pelagian doctrine point by point to prove I am not pelagain...yet you want to look the other way or claim I am not defining aspects correctly, which ironically is YOUR way.

I will be MOST happy to withdraw that comment and call you what you are if and when you modify your argument to conform with orthodox Christian teaching (which, BTW has some "wiggle room" for various interpretations as long as those "wiggles" do not cross over into heretical pr blasphemous speech). I am not unreasonable and I have no ax to grind with you simply for the sake of grinding.

Unfortunately for you, I believe my arguments are orthodox, and the Roman Catholic doctrine is the one that is not. I don't believe the apostles passed on the the "church" babies needed to be regenerated with water, which goes hand in hand with this doctrine. That is not orthodox. It might be old, but old is not orthodox.

Also, you have so far, failed to answer my simple yes or no question from above.

...and for the third time you failed to answer the context in which it was given. Would you answer "when did you stop beating your wife"?

 

[webdog]

Was Christ born of a man?

A man, or mankind...or is this another one of those nebulous questions you want me to answer blindly without knowing what you mean...like...

Also, where is the answer to my earlier question? Why are you avoiding such an easy question like that?

I don't think it's a sin for a man to kick another man in the spleen during an MMA fight. I don't think it's a sin to kick someone in the spleen on accident. I don't think it's a sin to kick a man in the spleen in self defense. I DO think it's a sin to kick a man in the spleen for no reason at all out of hate or anger with the man.

I'm shocked you don't see the intent being the sin, and not the physical act. For someone who claims to be as tested as you are, it's puzzling. I suppose there was a point you were trying to make?

 

[Tom Butler]

Well articulated, my fell pelagian friend :laugh:

I will admit it is inconsistent for your view, but in a good way. You do realize it does damage to the "T", the "U" and the "L", right? You are coming around

Maybe you can point out the inconsistency, which I don't see.

My Calvinist buddies will have a field day, I'm sure. But any view which says infants do not go to heaven when they die won't fly with me.

 

[webdog]

In this case, we agree. While I feel for the sentiment Tom expresses, he has made an error in the way he factors this issue. I also note that you are now backpedaling from your earlier long post confessions about the nature of sin you made toward me.

For the record, utter depravity (what we are actually arguing) means just that. We are sinners -- period. Born, actualizing sin, etc., notwithstanding, we are sinners according to God.

Depravity means we are hopeless, not we are born as sinners. That's a hefty leap in logic. Man is born helpless physically and spiritually if left to themselves. That is depravity.

 

[webdog]

Maybe you can point out the inconsistency, which I don't see.

My Calvinist buddies will have a field day, I'm sure. But any view which says infants do not go to heaven when they die won't fly with me.

I'm sure you are aware of how TULIP is defined, right? The "T" is self explanatory. Since all reprobates were at one point infants, that kills the "L". The "U" falls with the fact if an infant is not created a sinner, only those who are found to be not guilty are in essence elected, meaning there must be a reason for this.

 

[jbh28]

Depravity means we are hopeless, not we are born as sinners. That's a hefty leap in logic. Man is born helpless physically and spiritually if left to themselves. That is depravity.

Sorry, but depravity is wickedness, sin, moral coruption, not hopeless. Of course because of our depravity, we are hopeless outside of Jesus Christ.

Since all reprobates were at one point infants, that kills the "L".

Not even close.

 

[webdog]

Sorry, but depravity is wickedness, sin, moral coruption, not hopeless. Of course because of our depravity, we are hopeless outside of Jesus Christ.

You say it's not hopelessness...then it is. Which is it?

Not even close.

You are not following along.

 

[jbh28]

You say it's not hopelessness...then it is. Which is it?

read what I wrote again. The definition of depravity doesn't mean hopeless, though being depravity makes us hopeless. You said depravity doesn't mean sin. If man is born depraved(which I believe) then he is born with a sin nature and is also born hopeless because of his depravity.

You are not following along.

I am following along. You're statement isn't logical. It causes no problem with "L"

 

[glfredrick]

Webdog, anything more that I might say will just re-hash the arguments already made. I leave you to hang in your own noose.

 

[webdog]

read what I wrote again. The definition of depravity doesn't mean hopeless, though being depravity makes us hopeless. You said depravity doesn't mean sin. If man is born depraved(which I believe) then he is born with a sin nature and is also born hopeless because of his depravity.

I didn't say that. I said sinner...not born in sin (helpless)

I am following along. You're statement isn't logical. It causes no problem with "L"

I disagree. If it is true all babies are not guilty, and knowing all reprobates are guilty, you would have the atonement applied while an infant and revoked in adulthood. Christ would have died for the infant version of the reprobate...yet ultimately not at all. Huge problems whether you see it or not.

 

[webdog]

Webdog, anything more that I might say will just re-hash the arguments already made. I leave you to hang in your own noose.

Ah...now that I answered your question you were dying to have answered you bail. Becoming a typical pattern with you.

 

[DHK]

This discussion has gone well past the 30 page limit and must be closed.
Please feel free to start another thread.