Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
You say this, yet you can not identify what the sin of the newborn is? Why do you not examine your beliefs in the light of this failure?
SD
The sad thing is, I'm certain you know the context in which it is used, yet you are compelled to spin.
You admit to selecting "history" to read that only strokes your own pre-conceptions. It's simply pointless for us to discuss things.
Your mind is made up and you are so enamored of your fancy ideas that you are unreachable. If you would merely cease telling slander about the Church we could go our separate ways. But as long as you preach your unsubstantiated nonsense, I have to humor you.
SD
It isn't made up. I sourced it on here several pages back. Donatus was accused because he was stirring things up by preaching against those who were doing so and telling their congregations it was ok to do. So happens he was as right on that as on rebaptism.
So, then, wouldn't any Christian perforce have to accept some degree of hellenization to remain truly a Christian? Either that, or it seems to me one would have to totally reject the Virgin Birth, and, hence, virtually all the Gospels as untrue. Thus, to speak of Christianity somehow being tainted by 'paganism' three hundred years after Christ is to miss the point that that 'taint' is evident within the first few sentences of the New Testament. Indeed, it seems we must accept that 'taint' as, in fact, God's will.
Or we can reject Jesus as the Christ.
#2, Hebrew idiom is apparent in the works.
The next time someone makes an argument from the Greek meaning of certain words, the idea that the Greek may be expressing a Hebrew idiom is valid.
SD
We have. Being born with sin is enough. Do you really think a crying screaming baby that dosen't get his way is pure? You just don't like the answer.
BigMack
LOL. You rambled for a long time, but the only thing you "sourced" was an encyclopedia entry which said that Donatus was barred for questioning whether a man's sinfulness effect his ordination. There was nothing, NOTHING in there about these alleged "roman god" things.
So again, please post the comic book from whence you got it.
Donatus was accused because he was stirring things up by preaching against those who were doing so and telling their congregations it was ok to do. So happens he was as right on that as on rebaptism.
Source? Or quit making things up.
SD
Mack, you have provided a sort of answer, but the rest of the crew has not.
I am treating them differently than you.
They want to hold absolutely that "all have sinned." Not "all have sin" or "all have a sin nature."
No.
They want to make absolute "all have sinned" so it is entirely reasonable to ask what this sin is that a newborn has committed.
SD
Wow, this is a toughie, but let me try.
All who can sin, has sinned.
How's that?
JH :-)
Yes.
A baby lacks the ability to discern right from wrong. Thus it can not be said to be exercising a free will choice to do what is "wrong." It can not sin.
SD
No real argument here. Although I would point out that, chronologically, Paul's epistles are earliest. And also that, virgin birth or no, Jesus's teachings as recorded in the gospels are worthy of study.
How's that?
Make it "have sinned" and you have a deal. ;-)
But we are not interested in re-writing Scripture, only in recognizing what Scripture is saying at any given moment.
SD
No deal, a baby can't sin, nor a retarded person or a brain dead person in a coma.
All have sinned is written to the person who can read it or hear it, and if you can do neither, your not part of the equation.
JH :-)
This is like Satan telling Paul how Christianity is supposed to work. You, straighten me out. Not in the spiritual condition you're in. You don't know the difference between fiction (philosophy) and God's word. You've deluded yourself to a state of moral self importance thinking your ways are higher than God's ways because you think in your wisdom you can understand to tell us things God can and does do that are not only not in scripture; but, anti-scriptural and blasphemous. I have yet to slander your church - nor would I. Your church has done more to damage it's own credibility than I could ever manufacture if I cared enough to want to. The lies about constantine are just a few more I've recently discovered. Imagine that happening regarding the same time period in which much of the fraudulent documents forged to support your sect started being turned out.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
SD
Uh, no, you didn't read back to the original sourcing I posted. So here it is again: 47,380.
I think Dave meant substitute "have sinned" for "has sinned" in your formulation above. Thus, "All who can sin, have sinned".
Same arguments from bound people that I remembered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.