Stop misrepresenting my view!

[glfredrick]

Only if you quote them out of context, fail to link or credit their quotes and then called them heretical. If you want to officially report a rule violation (like heresy) you need to push the red report button and not attempt to do it publicly.

See below in this thread. Christ's blood covers an infant whether or not they can make a decision on their own.

Augustine was wrong in his doctrine of original sin.

 

[webdog]

See below in this thread. Christ's blood covers an infant whether or not they can make a decision on their own.

Augustine was wrong in his doctrine of original sin.

And now you use my answers as the way a crooked attorney does in his line of questioning while implying I'm a heretic. Of course you do not even address the argument made or the Scripture provided...quite telling of your character.

It's getting real old to keep seeing you and iconoclast throwing the heretic label around. I thought that was a BB offense. For someone always crying about the moderating you would think you would spend some time in the mirror.

 

[quantumfaith]

And now you use my answers as the way a crooked attorney does in his line of questioning while implying I'm a heretic. Of course you do not even address the argument made or the Scripture provided...quite telling of your character.

It's getting real old to keep seeing you and iconoclast throwing the heretic label around. I thought that was a BB offense. For someone always crying about the moderating you would think you would spend some time in the mirror.

WD, I too grow weary of the ease and frequency which the H bomb is tossed. It is somewhat reminiscent of the race card so often played in politics.

 

[glfredrick]

And now you use my answers as the way a crooked attorney does in his line of questioning while implying I'm a heretic. Of course you do not even address the argument made or the Scripture provided...quite telling of your character.

It's getting real old to keep seeing you and iconoclast throwing the heretic label around. I thought that was a BB offense. For someone always crying about the moderating you would think you would spend some time in the mirror.

I've done no such thing... EVERYONE can read ALL of the posts in this thread and while I was questioning you, Skandelon was asking if anyone here actually believed what you said you believe. I just helped provide evidence in plain sight.

And, YOU OWN your beliefs. Stand up and be proud.

Oh, and also, I don't recall using the word heretic in reference to your beliefs. In fact, I asked you multiple questions to allow YOU to clarify what you do hold as true, now own it.

 

[glfredrick]

WD, I too grow weary of the ease and frequency which the H bomb is tossed. It is somewhat reminiscent of the race card so often played in politics.

Quantum, if you go back and read the entire conversation between Webdog and myself, you will find that I never once used the word "heretic" in regards to what Webdog believes. I did ask one time if he thought that Augustine was heretical in his doctrines, and when Webdog said no, that he was simply in error, I left that line lay without responding further.

Skandelon asked if I would brand someone a heretic if I could demonstrate that they held what I purported that they held, but that was him saying that, not me. And, I have NOT branded anyone a heretic in this thread.

That is not to say that some of what some people around here hold is not heretical and heterodox in nature, but I reserve that term for when I actually run into that sort of belief. I do not toss "heretic" around as a mere perjorative, and neither do I toss about "pelagian in the same manner. I use those terms VERY reservedly when some POINT OF DOCTRINE crosses the line, EXTREMELY RARELY toward an actual individual. Before I can go to that level I have to have solid proof, convincing proof, and not simple error in doctrine. So, you may find me saying that SOME DOCTRINE crosses the line into heretical thought, but you will hardly find me calling INDIVIDUALS heretics unless, as I just said, THEY ARE and it is plain for everyone to see.

In the conversation with Webdog in this thread, I simply applied the Socratic method of questioning an individual until they clarified and stated their doctrine forthright without jumping through a lot of hoops and nuance. THEY answered and I have always allowed anyone on this board to answer however they chose -- it is, after all, their belief. In fact, I am the one who is continually asking folks to PUBLISH their doctrine so we can be truthful with each other.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum, if you go back and read the entire conversation between Webdog and myself, you will find that I never once used the word "heretic" in regards to what Webdog believes. I did ask one time if he thought that Augustine was heretical in his doctrines, and when Webdog said no, that he was simply in error, I left that line lay without responding further.

Skandelon asked if I would brand someone a heretic if I could demonstrate that they held what I purported that they held, but that was him saying that, not me. And, I have NOT branded anyone a heretic in this thread.

That is not to say that some of what some people around here hold is not heretical and heterodox in nature, but I reserve that term for when I actually run into that sort of belief. I do not toss "heretic" around as a mere perjorative, and neither do I toss about "pelagian in the same manner. I use those terms VERY reservedly when some POINT OF DOCTRINE crosses the line, EXTREMELY RARELY toward an actual individual. Before I can go to that level I have to have solid proof, convincing proof, and not simple error in doctrine. So, you may find me saying that SOME DOCTRINE crosses the line into heretical thought, but you will hardly find me calling INDIVIDUALS heretics unless, as I just said, THEY ARE and it is plain for everyone to see.

In the conversation with Webdog in this thread, I simply applied the Socratic method of questioning an individual until they clarified and stated their doctrine forthright without jumping through a lot of hoops and nuance. THEY answered and I have always allowed anyone on this board to answer however they chose -- it is, after all, their belief. In fact, I am the one who is continually asking folks to PUBLISH their doctrine so we can be truthful with each other.

My apologies if you took my comment as a direct slam on you, it was not meant to be so, rather it was my own simple observation that the "H" word.....as I see it is trotted out far too often and too quickly.

 

[webdog]

Skandelon asked if I would brand someone a heretic if I could demonstrate that they held what I purported that they held, but that was him saying that, not me. And, I have NOT branded anyone a heretic in this thread.

It is quite apparent what your motive is. You are implying I am a heretic based on your lack or actually interacting with the answers given and instead pressing for an answer you want. It is clear by your above reply to Skandelon. That is hardly using a Socratic method, it is a sleazy, underhanded approach the most wicked, twisted attorneys use in trying to trap someone as you think you have done here. Hardly sincere.

Fact is you also think Christ's blood covers infants, but in some other dispensational way of salvation. I believe Christ's blood covers the curse affecting a human and their nature which an infant falls under, although they are not spiritually dead until they sin. You and your fellow Augustinians believe Christ's blood covers a spiritually dead human in a way other by grace THROUGH faith.

I'll let the reader decide which is closer to heresy, salvation of spiritually dead humans other than by grace through faith, or spiritually dead humans saved by grace alone through faith alone which I adhere to.

Now actually deal with the answers I have given in regards to innocence compared to lack of guilt and leave the slime ball tactics at home.

 

[DaChaser1]

It is quite apparent what your motive is. You are implying I am a heretic based on your lack or actually interacting with the answers given and instead pressing for an answer you want. It is clear by your above reply to Skandelon. That is hardly using a Socratic method, it is a sleazy, underhanded approach the most wicked, twisted attorneys use in trying to trap someone as you think you have done here. Hardly sincere.

Fact is you also think Christ's blood covers infants, but in some other dispensational way of salvation. I believe Christ's blood covers the curse affecting a human and their nature which an infant falls under, although they are not spiritually dead until they sin. You and your fellow Augustinians believe Christ's blood covers a spiritually dead human in a way other by grace THROUGH faith.

I'll let the reader decide which is closer to heresy, salvation of spiritually dead humans other than by grace through faith, or spiritually dead humans saved by grace alone through faith alone which I adhere to.

Now actually deal with the answers I have given in regards to innocence compared to lack of guilt and leave the slime ball tactics at home.

So do infants and mentally challenged get gift of faith from God, or are they lost due to inabilitiy to have prequesite faith needed to get saved?

 

[MB]

So do infants and mentally challenged get gift of faith from God, or are they lost due to inabilitiy to have prequesite faith needed to get saved?

Can they understand the Law of God? If not then there is no Law over them to condemn them. You see where there is no Law, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

If there is no transgression for what sin would you condemn them of.
MB

 

[DaChaser1]

Can they understand the Law of God? If not then there is no Law over them to condemn them. You see where there is no Law, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

If there is no transgression for what sin would you condemn them of.
MB

Since they would be found in Adam still though, as sinners, still would the obligation to God for sin!

They are NOT perfect, so someone, either themselves or another, would have to atone to holy God for their sin condition!

 

[webdog]

So do infants and mentally challenged get gift of faith from God, or are they lost due to inabilitiy to have prequesite faith needed to get saved?

Neither. You are approaching it from the wrong angle. I gave my answer repeatedly already, read the thread.

 

[glfredrick]

It is quite apparent what your motive is. You are implying I am a heretic based on your lack or actually interacting with the answers given and instead pressing for an answer you want. It is clear by your above reply to Skandelon. That is hardly using a Socratic method, it is a sleazy, underhanded approach the most wicked, twisted attorneys use in trying to trap someone as you think you have done here. Hardly sincere.

Fact is you also think Christ's blood covers infants, but in some other dispensational way of salvation. I believe Christ's blood covers the curse affecting a human and their nature which an infant falls under, although they are not spiritually dead until they sin. You and your fellow Augustinians believe Christ's blood covers a spiritually dead human in a way other by grace THROUGH faith.

I'll let the reader decide which is closer to heresy, salvation of spiritually dead humans other than by grace through faith, or spiritually dead humans saved by grace alone through faith alone which I adhere to.

Now actually deal with the answers I have given in regards to innocence compared to lack of guilt and leave the slime ball tactics at home.

I expect that you intend this for me.

My answer is no... If I wished to outright call you a heretic I would. I am not shy about using my vocabulary. I have written what I have written and stand by my words as written. I have no secret agenda and I gave you ample opportunity to CLARIFY your own beliefs, which you have. I even thanked you for doing so.

I did that simply to demonstrate that Skandelon was asking for something that indeed did happen on this board and that it happened in the thread where he asked. He is now vacant from the discussion... Wonder why?

 

[Skandelon]

I did that simply to demonstrate that Skandelon was asking for something that indeed did happen on this board and that it happened in the thread where he asked. He is now vacant from the discussion... Wonder why?

People typically do vacate a thread that has been closed for over a week.

But as I told you in that thread, I'll remind you again, "... the 'essential element' of Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is not being affirmed in the quotes you provided..."

You all seem to argue over the difference in 'sin nature' 'propensity to sin,' 'original sin' vs. 'original guilt,' and various nuanced differences in how all those terms are defined, but I have yet to see anything rise to the level of true 'Pelagianism.' I think we all agree men are born in a fallen world in need of a savior, with a propensity to sin and selfishness and pride, sure to break the laws of God and fall short of his righteousness, and in need of reconciliation. I just think some understand and define the concept of imputed guilt differently.

 

[glfredrick]

People typically do vacate a thread that has been closed for over a week.

But as I told you in that thread, I'll remind you again, "... the 'essential element' of Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is not being affirmed in the quotes you provided..."

You all seem to argue over the difference in 'sin nature' 'propensity to sin,' 'original sin' vs. 'original guilt,' and various nuanced differences in how all those terms are defined, but I have yet to see anything rise to the level of true 'Pelagianism.' I think we all agree men are born in a fallen world in need of a savior, with a propensity to sin and selfishness and pride, sure to break the laws of God and fall short of his righteousness, and in need of reconciliation. I just think some understand and define the concept of imputed guilt differently.

No, actually (and this is my responce to Webdog as well) you and others are making "sin" out to be SOMETHING. Webdog argues (and you seem to support his argument) that before one can be called a "sinner" they need to DO SOMETHING that they KNOW THEY DID ON PURPOSE. You have argued before that Calvinists make God out to be the author of sin, and worse, "a monster" as is often expressed when someone wishes to make his or her strongest argument against Calvinists and their doctrine.

What both (and others like Winman, Jerry S, Primitive Preacher, MB, et al) of you do not seem to realize, and shame on me for not bringing this up recently, is that our sin separation from God is not a "thing" but rather an "absence."

There is no such thing as "darkness." Darkness is the absence of light. Light is photons that dispell darkness when they are present.

There is no such thing as "sin" in the sense that it is used by anti-Calvinists. That "sin" is the absence of God not something tangible that can be "created." As such, our separation sin -- that state (not thing) in which we are born -- is the ABSENCE of God or God's Spirit. We must be born-again-from-above -- regenerated -- in order to regain God.

The "sins" (note the "s") that we commit are actions (verbs) that derive from an absence of God. If we were 100% with God, there would nor could be no sin, for there is no "darkness" (a metaphor for sin in Scripture) in the presence of perfect "light" (God).

So, to suggest that an infant is in some state of innocence, or "not guilty" before they commit some act absolutely and totally misses the main point of our separation from God that CANNOT BE REMEDIED BY ANY ACT OF HUMAN WILL, i.e., that we are born with an "absence of God" as a result of the curse of the fall into sin. We cannot "will" God's presence into a life where He is absent. Thus, He must come first to dispel the darkness -- something that all orthodox Christians have held from day 1 with Christ.

 

[webdog]

I expect that you intend this for me.

Quite the observation...

My answer is no... If I wished to outright call you a heretic I would. I am not shy about using my vocabulary. I have written what I have written and stand by my words as written. I have no secret agenda and I gave you ample opportunity to CLARIFY your own beliefs, which you have. I even thanked you for doing so.

More twisting. You twisted the intentions of my words to essentially call me a heretic. The reason you did not come out directly saying it is due to the repercussions you would have received.

I did that simply to demonstrate that Skandelon was asking for something that indeed did happen on this board and that it happened in the thread where he asked. He is now vacant from the discussion... Wonder why?

And like I've said repeatedly, pulling something out of context and from the intended meaning does not demonstrate anything but the ability to employ shady debate skills.

 

[Skandelon]

There is no such thing as "darkness." Darkness is the absence of light. Light is photons that dispell darkness when they are present.

There is no such thing as "sin" in the sense that it is used by anti-Calvinists. That "sin" is the absence of God not something tangible that can be "created."

Was Satan's stated intent 'to become like God' not something? Did it not have an origin? Please explain.

 

[DaChaser1]

No, actually (and this is my responce to Webdog as well) you and others are making "sin" out to be SOMETHING. Webdog argues (and you seem to support his argument) that before one can be called a "sinner" they need to DO SOMETHING that they KNOW THEY DID ON PURPOSE. You have argued before that Calvinists make God out to be the author of sin, and worse, "a monster" as is often expressed when someone wishes to make his or her strongest argument against Calvinists and their doctrine.

What both (and others like Winman, Jerry S, Primitive Preacher, MB, et al) of you do not seem to realize, and shame on me for not bringing this up recently, is that our sin separation from God is not a "thing" but rather an "absence."

There is no such thing as "darkness." Darkness is the absence of light. Light is photons that dispell darkness when they are present.

There is no such thing as "sin" in the sense that it is used by anti-Calvinists. That "sin" is the absence of God not something tangible that can be "created." As such, our separation sin -- that state (not thing) in which we are born -- is the ABSENCE of God or God's Spirit. We must be born-again-from-above -- regenerated -- in order to regain God.

The "sins" (note the "s") that we commit are actions (verbs) that derive from an absence of God. If we were 100% with God, there would nor could be no sin, for there is no "darkness" (a metaphor for sin in Scripture) in the presence of perfect "light" (God).

So, to suggest that an infant is in some state of innocence, or "not guilty" before they commit some act absolutely and totally misses the main point of our separation from God that CANNOT BE REMEDIED BY ANY ACT OF HUMAN WILL, i.e., that we are born with an "absence of God" as a result of the curse of the fall into sin. We cannot "will" God's presence into a life where He is absent. Thus, He must come first to dispel the darkness -- something that all orthodox Christians have held from day 1 with Christ.

The part that God breathed into adam to make him able to commune and fellowship with God was killed off when Adam chose to sin against God...

ALL humans since than are identified by God as being now in Adam,partakers of that rebellion, so we are by very nature estranged and unable to fellowship/commune with God, that aspct of us has been shut down, and when born again by grace of God gets turned on again!

 

[glfredrick]

Quite the observation...


More twisting. You twisted the intentions of my words to essentially call me a heretic. The reason you did not come out directly saying it is due to the repercussions you would have received.

And like I've said repeatedly, pulling something out of context and from the intended meaning does not demonstrate anything but the ability to employ shady debate skills.

Webdog... Get it through your thick skull that IF I wanted to call you a heretic because I found something you believed placed you in that camp, I would have NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER IN DOING SO. True heretical belief takes precidence over what someone on this board things, or if I get removed from the board for saying so, let it be -- and so -- we (I) use the term guardedly and purposefully when I find its application necessary, for that and blasphemy are the most aggegious crimes against God and one had best consider their use before making attempt to claim that claim.

Most often, I will make a remark along the lines of, "that comment" or "that doctrine" is heretical in nature. If I ever called an indivudal heretical, then there would have had to be some very good reason for doing so, i.e., that he or she WAS.

 

[glfredrick]

Was Satan's stated intent 'to become like God' not something? Did it not have an origin? Please explain.

It was the absence of God, but Satan's "attempt" was also an ACTION -- a verb -- that is "something." You've tried this line of reasoning before and gotten no where with it. Why trot it out again now?

Do you claim that "darkness" is "something?" Do you claim that our "separation from God" is "something?" Please do share!

 

[webdog]

Webdog... Get it through your thick skull that IF I wanted to call you a heretic because I found something you believed placed you in that camp, I would have NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER IN DOING SO. True heretical belief takes precidence over what someone on this board things, or if I get removed from the board for saying so, let it be -- and so -- we (I) use the term guardedly and purposefully when I find its application necessary, for that and blasphemy are the most aggegious crimes against God and one had best consider their use before making attempt to claim that claim.

Most often, I will make a remark along the lines of, "that comment" or "that doctrine" is heretical in nature. If I ever called an indivudal heretical, then there would have had to be some very good reason for doing so, i.e., that he or she WAS.

With your recent dishonesty string intact, at this time I will not believe anything you say until you can prove to me I should.