Does 'Non-Calvinisitic' theology really exalt the view of man?

[Iconoclast]

Here we go with the misuse/misapplication/misinterpretation with no original authorial intent of "let us reason together" from Holy Scriptures via Isaiah 1:18.

webs "interpretation" is not even close to the meaning.

More proof-texting. More error.

Even though that verse is often mis-used in that way...it shows the mind set of those who are using it like that. They are usually sincere and trying to come to a theological view that they are comfortable with emotionally or philosophically.
It is better to study the scriptures as written ,to who they were written to,and prayerfully adjust our attitudes and emotions to God's word.
In the long run everything that God has declared is so,and everything happens according to His purpose ,not mine.

For example...on end times I am between post/amill.....if I am wrong and Historic premill is correct....that is going to happen whether or not I "feel" it is correct,or if I "like " my little prophecy chart.
Do you know what I am saying? It is like Peter telling Jesus ,he should not go to the cross....He was flat out rebuked!

 

[preacher4truth]

Even though that verse is often mis-used in that way...it shows the mind set of those who are using it like that. They are usually sincere and trying to come to a theological view that they are comfortable with emotionally or philosophically.
It is better to study the scriptures as written ,to who they were written to,and prayerfully adjust our attitudes and emotions to God's word.
In the long run everything that God has declared is so,and everything happens according to His purpose ,not mine.

For example...on end times I am between post/amill.....if I am wrong and Historic premill is correct....that is going to happen whether or not I "feel" it is correct,or if I "like " my little prophecy chart.
Do you know what I am saying? It is like Peter telling Jesus ,he should not go to the cross....He was flat out rebuked!

Yes. I know what you are saying. :thumbsup:

To me, this specific misapplication of the Scripture I've stated (Isaiah 1:18) shows dependence upon, and an unscriptural elevation of mans own reason. Although perhaps sincere, for whatever that is worth (nothing in essence to me) the interpretation is completely erroneous, to which you and I agree.

Nothing within the context of said passage even slightly suggests what another is trying to make it say.

More proof-texting error.

 

[JesusFan]

[

QUOTE=webdog;1730194]All Christians do not believe this and prior to Augustine most did not.

[/QUOTE]


Most Christiand do NOT hold to the biblical truths that ALL of sinned in the Fall of Adam, as God reckoned ALL of us being now "In Adam"

That we born with sin natures estranged and at 'war" with God?

majority would NOT hold to those truths you say?

 

[JesusFan]

Enough said right there. :thumbsup:

The non-cals/arms are looking through the wrong lens theologically, especially concerning the nature of God (omniscience/omnis/sovereignty) and the nature of lost man (dead, evil, wicked, at warfare with God &c): i.e. they are looking through mans lens, not Gods. They have been told this numerous times and even as of now, they still prove this to be true time and again. [/QUOTE

failure to see that we ALL are "dead" in Adam, as result of the fall, and failure to see that salvation process from start to finish is of the Lord!




]This is the major reason why there is so much fallacy in their premises and theologies.

- Peace

Think that also there is a refusel to admit and accept that God Himself has to be the ultimate source of slavation, as that due to our de[ravity. NONE of us left to ourselves would even accept jesus when offerred to us!

 

[webdog]

Even though that verse is often mis-used in that way...it shows the mind set of those who are using it like that.

How is it mis-used? Why do you guys twist things that are as plain as the nose on your face? What other meaning besides "let us reason together" can you contrive from such a simple statement?

Unbelievable...

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

Not sure what information you have come across that makes you stay on this anti...Augustine crusade /jihad...that you always seen to drag Him into it.
Who said christians believe different prior to that? Are you quoting from some "church fathers'....what is your source of this...you say it alot:type:
Alot of the teaching on sin...comes from the OT...as understood and misunderstood by the first century church.
The explanations in the epistles answer wrong views of OT law...or clarify misunderstandings that were held.
What are you using to base your view on?

You are not familiar with the Orthodox church?

 

[webdog]

Think that also there is a refusel to admit and accept that God Himself has to be the ultimate source of slavation, as that due to our de[ravity. NONE of us left to ourselves would even accept jesus when offerred to us!

Even after repeatedly being told the same thing over and over again he STILL spews such garbage.

 

[Iconoclast]

How is it mis-used? Why do you guys twist things that are as plain as the nose on your face? What other meaning besides "let us reason together" can you contrive from such a simple statement?

Unbelievable...

Webdog.....it is very believable...let's take a look;

1The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

2Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. 3The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
4Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

5Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

6From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

7Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.

8And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. 9Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

Webdog....God is speaking to the apostate nation. In verses 1-8 he is describing the overall condition of those in the nation......they are covenant breakers.
in verse 9. He describes the elect remnant that He has kept as a people for himself. The apostle Paul quotes this passage in Romans to highlight that during the gospel going forth from pentecost on this was God's design...to build one new man In Christ.
From among apostate Jerusalem...God has already chosen a remnant

10Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

11To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

12When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

13Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

14Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

15And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Here in verses 10-15...He lets them know that He rejects their
double minded seeker friendly worship services

16Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

20But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

In verses 18-20.....he is calling them to repent of sin and be faithful to the terms of the covenant {deut28} lev26.....that they had already vowed that they would do. The remnant will obey.....the apostates will go on in their rebellion. The terms are already laid out.....they are not innocent here...they are not neutral....God is not coddling them and negotiating.....the judgement is clearly spelled out./COLOR]They were being called to the terms of the covenant...similar to Isa5;

4What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

5And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:

6And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.

7For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

21How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

22Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:

23Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

24Therefore saith the LORD, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:

25And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin:

26And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

27Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.

28And the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the LORD shall be consumed.

29For they shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens that ye have chosen.

30For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water.

31And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker of it as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them.

 

[preacher4truth]

Webdog.....it is very believable...let's take a look;

It's simple: contextual analysis, authorial intent, setting, meaning, not a proof-text to mean we are called to reason with God over matters, as is being said here, which destroys the intended meaning and its true context.

Thanks Iconoclast.

 

[Iconoclast]

It's simple: contextual analysis, authorial intent, setting, meaning, not a proof-text to mean we are called to reason with God over matters, as is being said here, which destroys the intended meaning in it's true context.

Thanks Iconoclast.

Let us reason together - ונוכחה venivākechâh from יכח yâkach, not used in Kal, but in Hiphil; meaning to show, to prove. Job 13:15 : 'Surely I will prove my ways (righteous) before him;' that is, I will justify my ways before him. Also to correct, reprove, convince, Job 32:12; to rebuke, reproach, censure, Job 6:25; to punish, Job 5:17; Proverbs 3:12; to judge, decide, Isaiah 11:3; to do justice, Isaiah 11:4; or to contend, Job 13:3; Job 16:21; Job 22:4. Here it denotes the kind of contention, or argumentation, which occurs in a court of justice, where the parties reciprocally state the grounds of their cause. God had been addressing magistrates particularly, and commanding them to seek judgment, to relieve the oppressed, to do justice to the orphan and widow; all of which terms are taken from courts of law.

l's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Come now, and let us reason, together, saith the Lord,.... These words stand not in connection either with the preceding or following, but are to be read in a parenthesis, and are thrown in for the sake of the small remnant God had left among this wicked people, in order to comfort them, being distressed with sin. These, seeing their sins in their dreadful colours, and with all their aggravating circumstances, were ready to conclude that they were unpardonable; and, seeing God as an angry Judge, dared not come nigh him, but stood at a distance, fearing and expecting his vengeance to fall upon them, and therefore put away the promises, and refused to be comforted; when the Lord was pleased to encourage them to draw near to him, and come and reason with him: not at the bar of his justice; there is no reasoning with him there; none can contend with him, or answer him, one of a thousand; if he marks iniquity in strict justice, none can stand before him; there is no entering the lists with him upon the foot of justice, or at its bar: but at the bar of mercy, at the throne of grace; there the righteous may dispute with him from his declarations and promises, as well as come with boldness to him; and at the altar and sacrifice of Christ, and at the fountain of his blood: here sinners may reason with him from the virtue and efficacy of his blood and sacrifice; and from the Lord's proclamation of grace and mercy through him; and from his promises to forgive repenting and confessing sinners: and here God reasons with sensible souls from his own covenant promises and proclamations to forgive sin; from the aboundings of his grace over abounding sin; from the righteousness of Christ to justify, his blood to cleanse from sin, and his sacrifice to atone for it; and from the end of his coming into the world to save the chief of sinners: saying,

though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though

Here are two..Barnes and Gill..who say it better

 

[Iconoclast]

You are not familiar with the Orthodox church?

I do not know that much about then,except they denied the Popes authority.
It seems to me that already there was much error in both these branches.
Webdog.....what document or confession did they put forth...that offers this other idea you speak of about sin and the fall???

When I think of the true church ...I mostly look past both these groups as having gone down a fleshly path.....I hope there are and have been a remnant in them by God's mercy. i cannot think of ever hearing of the gospel going forth in these branches and i travel all over. Maybe in Europe...Greece,or Russia....maybe there is a believing remnant????maybe not.

 

[Winman]

I do not know that much about then,except they denied the Popes authority.
It seems to me that already there was much error in both these branches.
Webdog.....what document or confession did they put forth...that offers this other idea you speak of about sin and the fall???

When I think of the true church ...I mostly look past both these groups as having gone down a fleshly path.....I hope there are and have been a remnant in them by God's mercy. i cannot think of ever hearing of the gospel going forth in these branches and i travel all over. Maybe in Europe...Greece,or Russia....maybe there is a believing remnant????maybe not.

Here is what the Eastern Orthodox Church says regarding original sin from Wiki

In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the "perfect" mode of existence of man to the "flawed" mode of existence of man. This flawed nature and all that has come from it is a result of that "original sin". All humanity shares in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

This view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam.[6] According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine's interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.

In the book Ancestral Sin, John S. Romanides addresses the concept of original sin, which he understands as an inheritance of ancestral sin from previous generations. Romanides asserts that original sin (as inherited sin) is not a doctrine of the church nor cohesive with the Eastern Orthodox faith, but an invention of later church fathers such as Augustine. In the realm of ascetics it is by choice, not birth, that one takes on the sins of the world.[7] Recent essays have emerged by various contemporary Orthodox scholars which attempt to reconcile and react to both the Creationist interpretation of Genesis 1-2 and the strict Darwinist theory of human evolution.[8]

The Eastern Orthodox Church always disagreed with Augustine, arguing that his interpretation came from a flawed Latin Text.

The EOC has always believed that men sin and are lost by choice.

Now, the EOC has plenty of error, I certainly do not agree with much of their doctrine. But concerning Romans 5:12 from which Augustine almost exclusively developed his doctrine of Original Sin, the GOC having the Greek text always disagreed with Augustine's Latin text and his interpretation of it.

 

[Winman]

Here is more from EOC site

In Augustine’s mind, the answers to these questions were intimately bound up with his views on predestination. More than any other theologian preceding him, St. Augustine was convinced that God not only created souls which were destined for heaven, He also created souls destined for Hell. Underlying this doctrine of double predestination was the hard reality that some men would not be saved. While it was not a difficult thing to ascribe salvation to God’s grace, determining the cause for the planned destruction of others, including unbaptized infants, was more perplexing. Augustine posited that their damnation was to be a demonstration of God’s wrath and power. Still, the answer was uncomfortable, and undoubtedly led to the extensive development of the doctrine of original sin which one finds in his work.

It was Augustine’s inability to master Greek that helped provide the seed for his thought. In his Latin Bible, Augustine read Romans 5:12 as saying:

Sin came into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, through one man, in whom all men sinned.

In its original Greek, however, the last phrase reads “because all men sinned”. Nonetheless, Augustine concluded that the sin of Adam was therefore imputed to all of his descendants. In other words, although we were not present at the Fall, we are each held responsible for that sin. As such, each man, woman and child shared in the condemnation of Adam, and shared in his destruction. Only through the grace of God would any be saved. All others deserved the damnation which they would receive.

Yet how did it happen that each new person inherited that sin? Augustine believed that it was transmitted through “carnal begetting”, a sort of spiritual venereal disease. This method of transmission insured that each child, upon leaving the womb, was fully responsible for the sin of Adam. St. Augustine therefore posited that the virgin birth was necessary in order to ensure that Christ was different from other men, that He would not be stained by the taint of sin.

Augustine's theory of original sin is the foundation of Calvinism, but his doctrine spread to others as well.

Augustine's theory was founded on a flawed Latin text of Romans 5:12 that said IN WHOM all have sinned. Even Greek scholars who agree with OS have said this is error, and the verse should not be properly translated as such.

From Barnes Notes (a Calvinist)

For that - ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō. This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, "on account of whom." Doddridge, "unto which all have sinned." The Latin Vulgate renders it, "in whom (Adam) all have sinned." The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation in this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations.

(1) if ῳ ō be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense.

(2) if this had been its meaning, the preposition ἐν en would have been used; see the note of Erasmus on the place.

(3) it comports with the apostle's argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that people sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account or that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.

(4) as his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the Law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned" meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favors that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

All have sinned - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact - that all people experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that people sin in their own persons, sin themselves - as, indeed, how can they sin in an other way? - and that therefore they die. If people maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

 

[JesusFan]

Even after repeatedly being told the same thing over and over again he STILL spews such garbage.

Why is it seen as being"garbage?"

Don't you hold that man is NOT born into Sin, does not have inherited Sin, becomes sinner when we start sinning?

And that we are the ones that have the 'free will" to allow/permit God to be able to save us by accepting jesus voluntarily?

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman,
thanks for posting that info on the EO.I see how this error has been around since the beginning. Romans 3:23 all sinned at one point in time.

we also commit our own sins all by ourselves also.

 

[Skandelon]

This whole argument rests upon a horrendous premise- that God must judge as men judge.

Nothing about this argument even involves God's view or judgement of man. It is an argument about man's view of man and the accusation of Calvinists that OUR VIEW of man is exalting when in reality it is the Calvinistic view that exalts man.

I believe God can judge men however he wants to, so clearly that is a red herring.

But for the record, men do murder and steal and rape and commit all kinds of crimes because they are sinners. Yet still our judicial system does not let them off just because they were born sinners.

Again, that doesn't address my argument.

Do you deny that men are born sinners?

Men are born with the nature to sin, yes, but that is irrelevant to the argument regarding which soteriological view exalts the view of man.

In other words if you believe, as all Christians do, that men since Adam sin because they are sinners, then you know that the reason people murder is because they are sinners.

If that were the only reason then everyone would be a murderer.

Therefore even YOU have men's judicial systems meting out justice to people who do what they were born to do- sin.

You are attacking a common belief that we both share (the doctrine of original sin) while ignoring the doctrine that my argument actually addresses as being that which exalts the view of man. The doctrine of Total Inability is what exalts the view of man by giving them the perfect excuse for their unbelief. That is the point you are ignoring.

So by your OWN standards God is just is judging men for sinning due to the fact that they are sinners.

Yes, and we both agree He is just to judge man for the Fall and the representation of Adam, but that doesn't address the point regarding which view exalts the view of man more. It only addresses a point we hold in common.

 

[webdog]

Winman,
thanks for posting that info on the EO.I see how this error has been around since the beginning. Romans 3:23 all sinned at one point in time.

we also commit our own sins all by ourselves also.

The error entered with Augustine and continues to this day.

 

[webdog]

Why is it seen as being"garbage?"

Because what I bolded is.

Don't you hold that man is NOT born into Sin, does not have inherited Sin, becomes sinner when we start sinning?

Yes...irrelevant to what you said.

And that we are the ones that have the 'free will" to allow/permit God to be able to save us by accepting jesus voluntarily?

For the last time...WE DO NOT PERMIT GOD TO DO ANYTHING. I cannot say it much clearer than that, so stop repeating this continually.

 

[Aaron]

It is very common to hear the accusation from Calvinists that the non-Calvinistic view of man is exalting, or in some way makes mankind "better" than they really are. But may I suggest and make the case that the opposite is actually true:

Consider the "insanity defense" in our judicial system. What is it based upon? It's the concept that a man who is born insane (i.e. uncontrollable chemical make up of his brain, etc) is not really responsible for his actions and thus is not really "guilty" though he may need to be locked away for treatment and care. Compare this with someone clearly rational and sane individual who commits a pre-meditated crime.
​

Now, which of these two criminals is worse? The one born unable to do anything except commit crimes because of his inherent illness or the one born normal who chooses to commit his crimes?

According to our judicial system, and that of scripture, the worse individual is the latter, not the former, right? That is why the insane aren't deemed 'guilty' after all.

Now, compare the Calvinist view of the natural/unbelieving man and the non-Calvinist view of the same:

The Calvinist view has them born unable to willingly do anything except sin and reject any appeal to be reconciled to God, much like the insane. You may call him "responsible" but ultimately the reason he doesn't believe is because God didn't elect him and provide what was needed for him to choose otherwise.

On the other hand, the non-Calvinist view of the unbeliever is more like the rational, sane criminal who commits the pre-meditated crime. God provided all that he needed to see, hear, and understand and thus he stands without a single excuse. God loves him, didn't want him to perish, made a sincere appeal to be reconciled and he rationally considered the truth and chose to trade it in for lies. He stands condemned for no other reason except that he chose to rebel and turn his back on an all loving, benevolent, and long-suffering Father.
​

Thus, the view of the unbelieving man in the non-Calvinistic system is MUCH worse. You feel sorry for the man in the Calvinistic system because he couldn't help it. He wasn't chosen or regenerated. You pity him, but his rebellion is justified to some extent because he had absolutely no control over it. He is just like the insane man that we declare 'not-guilty' in our own judicial system.

Therefore, I submit that Calvinism is the system guilty of exalting the view of man all the while lessoning the view of God by making Him ultimately responsible for the unbelievers rejection of his appeal to be reconciled by declaring that all inherit the "totally depraved/unable" nature from birth.

Though a bad comparison to to begin with, this is just some more of the the question Paul dealt with in Romans 9. You prove Paul to be a prophet. He predicted that you would ask "Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?" And you ask that over and over and over, because you cannot accept Paul's answer.

Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

Why don't you just accept the fact that your view of justice is skewed and carnal, and that God's justice is right?

 

[Iconoclast]

The error entered with Augustine and continues to this day.

Webdog
Do you like the statement that Winman posted from the EO site??
You think they were correct...and Augustine went off course???