Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The Spin of Sin: The Sinister-Spinster-Sinner

As many of you know, I have been back and forth lately with Dan Trabue over a number of issues th century and to excommunicate those who refuse to receive said dogma with all humility. The purpose of this post is to show the reader how Dan claims one thing and thing tries to say that he is not claiming the very thing he is claiming. It is the same slight-of-hand nonsense we observed in men like Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, and Brian McLaren.
related to the biblical expression of Christianity. Dan is one of those emergent guys, and he seems to think he can replace nearly every basic doctrine of historic Christian orthodoxy while retaining his identity as Christian. This is due in no small part to his uncritical acceptance of postmodern philosophy coupled with the Church’s true failure to rightly emphasize Christian dogma in the late 20

Dan’s first claim is that ANE writers did not write with the same aim of modern historians. What Dan means is that ANE writers were more concerned with doing something other than just transmitting historical facts as they occurred when they wrote. First of all, like any good slight of hand movement, there is some truth in the statement. However, the statement is much more controversial Dan admits. Second, the statement is far too general. Third, the statement assumes that the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures follow the ANE model in recording historical narrative, which also assumes that the motivation and forces behind the Hebrew Scriptures were the same as every other ANE text. That these assumptions are patently false seems obvious to anyone but those with the most extreme prejudice. Dan’s view destroys the universal fall humanity and, along with it, the doctrine of original sin. If there was no literal Adam to fall, there could be no literal, universal fall. If Adam was not the federal head of man, there was no federal head of man. If that is true, men can obtain righteousness and be saved apart from Christ by simply not sinning. Yet, Dan spins, claiming to believe that we are all sinners even though he has removed the very foundation for his own claims.

Luke Included Adam and Seth in his genealogy
I pointed out that Luke, in his genealogy of Christ, include Adam and Seth among the many other generations from Christ back to Adam. My reason for doing so was so that Dan might realize that Luke, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, accepted the view that Adam and Seth were historical people living at a point in time. Dan rejected Luke’s account although he provided no alternative explanation and then claimed that we do not know what God’s opinion of what Luke wrote might be. Now, if Dan believes Luke was wrong, he must also believe that God believes that Luke was wrong. Yet, he says we just don’t know God’s opinion of Luke’s account. I suppose Dan could argue that Luke mixes myth and legend into geological records while providing a certification of the historicity of Christ and his Messianic office. But such a move would seem to be, not just logically incoherent and absurd, it would be philosophically outrageous. Yet, Dan denies holding the view that Luke’s writings are unreliable. He wants to attest that Luke is reliable while claiming on this point that Luke was wrong, or in other words, unreliable. This is the two-faced spin that emergent thinkers love to play games with. They hold a view while claiming NOT to hold a view. How long did we know that Rob Bell rejected the Scriptures and endorsed homosexual sex before he finally came out and admitted it?

Dan has repeatedly said the Bible is not the Word of God and that the Scriptures are not binding, nor ipso facto, claiming that this was just Paul’s opinion. At the same time, Dan has attempted to employ a certain authority over me by informing me that I cannot slander him because slander is forbidden. I have to ask, by whom? Whose authority forbids me to slander? Oh, the same text that forbids slander is the text that Dan wants to argue in another place has no authority and is not binding. And then Dan wants people to believe that he really doesn’t believe the things I am accusing him of. Once again, we see the sinister spin of the sinister sinner at work. It really is outrageous and would be comical if it were not so wicked and rebellious.
authoritative on our lives. Having grown tired of generalities, I took Dan to Paul as he was pronouncing a curse on anyone who dared disagree with him on the gospel. Paul wrote with all authority on the matter. There can be no doubt that Paul, in the very least, was under the impression he had a right to claim that his version of the gospel was the standard and that no one had any right to proclaim even a slightly different one. Dan rejects Paul’s authority

In addition to Dan’s denial of a literal Adam which must mean a denial of a literal fall and the necessity for a literal redemption in Christ, Dan has denied the reliability of Luke along with the authority of Paul specifically and all of Scripture in general. At the same time, Dan wants us to believe that he is a Christian. Now, as one might guess, Dan also embraces homosexuality. Dan claims that marriage and sex are open to all that want it and that God is perfectly fine with such arrangements. I am sure Dan has read the supposed apologetic for gay Christianity and is familiar with those weak and ridiculous arguments. The point here is that gay sex is described by Scripture not only as a sin, but as a perversion of the natural design of the human body. And the larger point is that commandment breaking can never be a part of the Christian community regardless of how many OSAS hard-core dispensational guys preach that it can be. The view that Christ can be your Savior even though He is not your Lord crawled up out of the sewers of hell even if it did so through well-intentioned men. Dan’s endorsement of same-sex relationships precludes him from the community of faith even if he says that it does not.


In the end, due to Dan’s beliefs and their implications for Christian doctrine and their impact on the Christian community, we have to challenge his claim that he possesses genuine faith. Many people came along in the first century church making the same claims. But upon closer inspection, they were found out to be false teachers, false prophets, and false converts. The same is not any less true today. The difference is that today’s church hardly ever inspects a person’s claim to know Christ. They simply take it at face value and conduct no due diligence whatsoever. We have to be more prudent about how we conduct ourselves in the Christian community. We don’t start out doubting a person’s faith. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that new arrivals must be known. We spend time with them. We have conversations with them. We observe their life. What do they believe and how do they conduct themselves? When we begin to hear things that trouble us, we must push into those issues and understand more about their claims and beliefs. When we bump into guys like Dan, we engage in conversation and eventually end up where we have ended up. We ask the person to repent of their unbelieving views, submit to Scripture with all humility, and call on their elders to teach them a more pure form of the Christian system. When they are persistent in their refusal to accept and believe Christian dogma, we are equally persistent in refusing their testimony and view them as a wolf instead of a sheep. Those facts are published for the rest of the community so that everyone is aware and protected from those who would bring damnable heresies into the body of Christ. When men like Dan collect other cavils of like-mind and run down the street to start their own group, we treat them with contempt and shame, refusing to extend the slightest degree of respect and honor to them because they reflect a shameful and despicable version of Christianity that does far more harm than it does good to the Christian way.


Don't take the pictures too seriously. They are mere my way of interjecting a little sarcasm, you know, a literary device not to be taken overly literal. 

51 comments:

  1. Dan’s first claim is that ANE writers did not write with the same aim of modern historians.

    Again, if you CAN NOT accurately say what my claims are, do not use my name. And you have demonstrated that you are wholly unable to accurately recount my actual positions. So, respectfully, cease and desist spreading false claims. Remove my name from your false claims.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ed...

    employ a certain authority over me by informing me that I cannot slander him because slander is forbidden. I have to ask, by whom? Whose authority forbids me to slander?

    Basic human decency, man. Have you none? Stop spreading false claims and attempting to smear others with your false claims on the basis that it is morally wrong to do so. On the basis that you will be bearing false witness and YOU, yourself, believe that false witness and slander are morally wrong.

    So, do it to show that you have some self-integrity, if not for basic human decency. The point is, stop your deliberate and on-going sinning, man. Repent.

    Have you no shame?

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ummm. Actually it's Paul who forbids slander. Try Romans 1

      Delete
    2. The same Paul Dan rejects everywhere else on matters of authority, homosexuality, etc. But Dan wants to accept on slander, which isn't what I have done. If I have slandered Dan, then Paul slandered Peter in Galatians. You miss the point.

      Delete
    3. Paul rebuked Peter, he did not slander him. Interesting that you bring up Galatians, Ed. In this whole sorry interchange between you and Dan I ask whose gospel is the true one? Which of you could _seriously_ be asked: "Can't I continue in sin so that grace abounds?"
      As a fairly typical fundamentalist, Ed, your categories appear to be far too black and white. Serious approaches to heresy required far more subtlety than that (e.g. Arius and Athanasius)

      Delete
    4. Do you even know what slander is? To represent someone's views accurately and to refuse to let them lie by spinning their beliefs like a politician is not slander. Dan's views are clear for all to see. Do you not recognize that to call gay sex holy is to slander Christ, it is to slander God? Do you not understand that to deny the authority of the divine commandment is to slander God Himself? Jesus called the religious of His day vipers, Paul called false teaches ravenous wolves, deceitful workers. Dan's views are heretical and I would not at all be surprised if the two of you were buddies attending the same false religious club.

      The Christian community has engaged in exchanges like this one beginning with Christ, to His Apostles, to the Fathers, and has an unbroken track record down to our day. It is only viewed negatively by those who have no love for the truth or appreciation for divine truth.

      If you are accusing me of sin, that is a very serious matter. You will need to provide clear texts of Scripture to bring your charge. It is not a small matter to falsely accuse someone of sinning. And since we are there with you, I will insist you prove your case. I am always amazed by people like you that come into conversations with this false piety, pretending the take the high road when we both know you are making the very same claims everyone else makes and you seem blind to it.

      Did Peter slander Paul? Paul said things about Peter that were clearly damaging to his reputation. That is slander by Dan's definition and actually according to the lexical evidence as well. But like anything else, the prohibition to slander has a context that you both seem to ignore.

      Delete
    5. Ed I don't really know whether to actually respond to this since it bears little resemblance to what I wrote. You seem to jump to conclusions based on little knowledge.
      I didn't mention gay sex.
      Dan and I do not belong to the same church.
      Nowhere did I accuse you of sin.
      I did ask you about the gospel, and how Athanasius responded to Arianism.

      Delete
    6. You landed on the side of the conversation that if it is not in defense of Dan's heresy, it is far too sympathetic with it. I also noticed you did not repudiate homosexuality in your reply. I was unaware that Athanasius and our current situation are similar. Please don't confuse the early struggles of the Church with what has been received and taught now for centuries as a result of their struggles. Dan spent 30 years in what sounds like a somewhat solid church and is intimately familiar with orthodox Christianity and has exchanged that for a community that celebrates everything from denying God's word to commandment breaking to sexual perversion. You seem to think this is a matter for debate when I think it is a matter for discipline and shunning.

      Delete
    7. You can't "discipline" Ed, if you are not prepared to give a solid and rational defense of your positions. As it is now, you appear to want to "discipline" me for agreeing with you that

      1. Humans have a sinful nature;
      2. Babies do not actively sin.

      WE AGREE, and yet you spread a false claim (which is itself a sin, remember) that I do not believe in humanity's sinful nature. It seems to come down to how you define "sinner" but you are not willing to offer your definition.

      I think the problem, Ed (if I might engage in a little amateur psychoanalysis), is that you suffer from a lack of a good education and you feel embarrassed about it. To compensate for your lack of a good education, you've taken some online courses at a non-accredited school where you've learned a few Greek and Hebrew words, but NOT how to rationally defend your position.

      Your lack of education shows in your inability to communicate rationally and respectfully. And rather than admit that you don't have a good argument, you engage in ad hom attacks and strawman fallacies rather than just engage in respectful, back and forth conversation.

      If you truly have a hunch that you are right on some of these things, Ed, that I and others are mistaken, then learn to communicate your ideas in a more adult, rational manner. Abandon the emotional dodges and childish attacks and discuss ideas, man to man, like a man of integrity and reason.

      For instance, you claim (without even knowing me at all) that I am not saved (or have lost my salvation, whatever it is you're claiming), but I am saved by orthodox Christian standards. Here's what I've done, you tell me where I've gone wrong:

      1. I have recognized my sinful nature and need for salvation;
      2. I recognize the reality of God the creator and Jesus, the son of God, who came to earth as a man (yet still God) to live, preach, demonstrate the Way of Grace, to die and to raise from the dead;
      3. I have repented of my sins, recognizing my own need for God's grace;
      4. I have accepted God's gift of salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus, the risen son of God;
      5. I have asked Jesus to be Lord of my life and daily seek to walk in the steps of Jesus, my Lord and Savior by God's grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God;
      6. I recognize the Bible as being as Scripture for Christians and I love the Bible and its teachings and seek to understand God's Ways aright through the Bible, through God's Holy Spirit, through God's revelation of God's Self in this world;

      Now, IF you are truly concerned about me and that I am mistaken in some way and NOT actually a Christian, you would want to tell me, "Dan, here is where you made your mistake..." and specifically help me out, telling me what I must do to be saved.

      Where is the Love?

      Where is the reason?

      Where is the Grace?

      Where is the defense of your position and the adult ability to communicate, answer questions and respectfully and gently (as the Bible teaches) make your case?

      You should let your lack of love for me (when I freely confess my love for you as a brother in Christ) and your inability to deal with questions in a rational, adult, respectful manner be a sign for you, Ed, that maybe you need to think these things through a bit more before you start making claims you can't support.

      In Christ,

      Dan

      Delete
    8. Ed
      It is you who brought up heresy in the early church. Arianism is a prime example of that. My question to you to consider was how did Athanasius go about addressing the issues? It wasn't by simply quoting the Bible. So you really haven't made your case about heresy in the early church and you have not linked that case to the situation today in any plausible way.
      My other question was about the gospel and asks which gospel is more like the New Testament? This arose through a refernce to Martin Lloyd-Jones that I came across. I can't quote it, but it was along the lines of: if our gospel would not leave us open to the charge of antinomianism then the gospel we preach is not the true one. I think this is similar to the question Paul poses in Rom 6:1 (which I "quoted"). Now, of whose gospel, yours or Dan's (and I actually suspect, Dan's church?), might someone ask that question?
      Peace

      Delete
    9. And just to deflect what your immediate response might (will?) be, I am saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here about homosexuality.

      Delete
    10. I cannot comment about MLJ since you did not provide a reference to the source. I can say this about antinominism: it is anti-gospel. The New Covenant, which is the gospel arrangement, has as one of its principles the activity of God writing His Law on our hearts. To rip law from gospel is to reject a basic principle of the New Covenant and as a result, reject the one covenant that every other biblical covenant typifies. Without the New Covenant, there is no Christian faith.

      I doubt you understood MLJ correctly. But I cannot be sure.

      16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? Ro 6:16.

      People like you love to take one text here and another there and attempt to weave together your theology. Romans 6 is a flat out contradiction to the view that sin can exist as an important part of a believer's life. IT CANNOT! Those who practice sin are slaves to sin, NOT righteousness. Therefore, they are NOT true believers. Just as John said when he called them liars in his letter. There is no such thing as a lawless Christian.

      Delete
  3. Ed...

    they reflect a shameful and despicable version of Christianity that does far more harm than it does good to the Christian way.


    I'm quite sure you are saying that with a straight face and with no idea of the irony involved, that you, a repeated bearer of false witness, who repeatedly dodge questions, who repeatedly engage in repeated logical fallacies, who attack with bitterness rather than love with respect... that you are concerned about how I might reflect on the church... I, who have shown you love and respect; I, who have disagreed respectfully and offered rational and biblical reasons as to why I respectfully and lovingly disagree with you.

    I would just ask you to consider, Ed, that if an outsider came along and saw our conversations, who would they view as the loving, respectful, compassionate and reasonable one in our conversation? Do you really think an unbiased outsider would find you to have acted in a Christ-like, humble, loving manner?

    Something to consider.

    Despite our disagreements, Ed, I still love you with the love of Christ. May God grant us all wisdom and grace. Especially grace.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Queer relations are absolutely condemned everywhere in Scripture. They are against nature, bizarre, reprehensible, and ungodly on every level. That kind of sex goes against nature, God's nature. And you bless that which God clearly curses. Enough!

      You are an outsider Dan. A pretender. A wolf in sheep's clothing, a minister of Satan who appears to be loving and kind when what you are is deceptive and wicked more so that the obvious God haters. And it is worse for you Dan because you had at least some exposure to the truth and cast it aside. There is NO EXCUSE for you. You have NO defense for your actions.

      Delete
  4. So, you are NOT going to remove my name from your false claims?

    Shame on you, sir. You have demonstrated the depth of your depravity and hypocrisy.

    Lord have mercy on you.

    ~Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which claims are false Dan? What I am not going to do is let you hold to one of these claims in back-handed sort of way like you spinster types like to do. Pick the most egregious claim you think I made and lets talk through it.

      Delete
  5. Ed, you have shown a complete disregard for "talking through" things. You ignore my points, make false claims and ignore it when you are corrected about those false claims.

    I've already at least twice pointed out claims you made about what I believe that are factually false. Will my pointing them out again help you understand?

    I believe you probably have a highly emotional and cultural bias against those who disagree with you, and so emotional are you about it, so culturally tied to your opinions are you, that you are perhaps just unable to see even when a falsehood has been directly pointed out... you just don't appear to even see or acknowledge it.

    Perhaps it's hardness of heart on your part, perhaps it's cultural blindness or being so emotionally distraught that you are just not able to read correctly, I don't know. I don't believe you are deliberately lying, even though that's how it looks to outsiders, I'm sure.

    But one last time, I'll point out one last false claim. You say...

    Dan spins, claiming to believe that we are all sinners even though he has removed the very foundation for his own claims.

    1. I am not "spinning." I am humbly offering my opinion.

    2. As a matter of fact, it IS my opinion that we are all sinners. That is a fact that it is my opinion.

    3. I have not, factually, removed the very foundation for MY own claims. I do not claim, "Adam sinned and was a real person, therefore, we all literally inherited a sin nature, magically..." That is closer to YOUR position, but it is not MY position.

    4. The reason I believe that we are all sinners is that the evidence is there. I DO sin. You DO sin. We all, given a chance, have sinned. Therefore, the "foundation of my claim" is that, "Evidence factually shows that we all err, make mistakes, sin, and so I believe what is factually observable to all..." In so believing, I am just acknowledging reality - that all humans sin and that is how we know, because we can observe it in all humanity.

    Thus, it is a demonstrated false claim that I "claim" to believe we are sinners but undermine my position because I disagree with your hunches about Adam's magic sin.

    Do you understand now where your error is and why that is a false claim? If not, just say, "I'm sorry, Dan, I'm still not getting it... could you explain further..." Do THAT instead of saying, "nu-uh, you lie!" or any silly claims. It's okay to admit you don't understand. It's not okay to use your ignorance or lack of understanding to make a false claim.

    Ball's in your court, Ed. I pray your eyes will be open and you can understand reality.

    ~Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you deny that children are born sinners with a sin nature? Yes you do. At some point, you think that we become sinners. That is an outright denial that we are all sinners. That is precisely the kind of spin I am talking about Dan. Your view is NOT reflective of the Christian view. So when the Christian says we are all sinners, he means something historically VERY DIFFERENT from what you mean. But you want to make your view SOUND LIKE the historical claim, or at least not 'really' different. But it is RADICALLY different. It is heresy. It is full-blown pelagianism.

      You just don't get it.

      Delete
    2. Everyone who has a mind able to choose to sin, throughout all of history, HAS sinned, Ed. There is no evidence to the contrary. We are born with a tendency to sin, we are born imperfect, not able to BE perfect. Each one of us.

      That we don't actually SIN until we are able to, only means that we haven't reached a point where we can choose to do wrong.

      A newborn baby has not CHOSEN to sin, they have not chosen to reject God. In that sense, they are, as a point of fact in the real world, they have not sinned yet. But they have what Christians have termed a sinful nature.

      I am distinguishing between our sinful nature - which we all have - and actual sin actions, choosing to sin, which babies can't do.

      IF you think babies actively, actually choose to sin, to reject God, to lie, to murder or whatever, then you are disconnected from reality.

      Do you think that babies choose to sin, or do you agree with reality and with me?

      I don't know of any Christians, conservative or otherwise, who believe that babies choose to sin, to do wrong, to reject God... with the exceptions of some odd individuals on the internet, I don't know of anyone like that.

      That I believe in a sinful NATURE in all humanity IS the orthodox view.

      IF there are those who, with NO evidence, believe that newborn babies actively sin, then they are not endorsing orthodox Christian views or, quite frankly, reality.

      Are you saying that newborns sin? What do they do, Ed? Where is your evidence?

      Delete
    3. So, here's your false claim...

      claiming to believe that we are all sinners even though he has removed the very foundation for his own claims.

      I DO believe that all of humanity has a sinful nature. That is orthodox Christian belief.

      I do think that everyone who reaches an age and certain mental ability to choose, will choose wrongly sometimes... will "sin..."

      All I am pointing out is that there is zero data to support a claim that newborns can choose to "sin."

      Here are some good points on this topic...

      http://www.topicalbiblestudies.com/original-sin.php

      You are mistaking the notion of a sinful nature or a tendency to sin with the idea that babies choose to sin, which is insane, I hope you realize.

      ~Dan

      Delete
    4. Dan, your claim that no person has ever existed who has not sinned seems incredibly incongruent with your other claims.

      First of all, I would like to know how you know that no human being has ever lived their life without sinning. (Have not babies lived and died without ever having a chance to sin?) What about children who die under age 10, or 5 or whatever age you establish? Follow me here Dan. Lets presume a child reaches the manufactured age of accountability, do they immediately sin or eventually sin without much time passing? So lets say a child turns12 and for him, this is the age of accountability. Let us further say that the child is secluded for some time and not able to engage the world as other children do. Let us suppose he continues in that condition for a few days, or months, or even years. And then lets presume he dies in that condition after some period of time. Did he sin? How? Is it possible that he may not have sinned? If he did not sin, then how could he have died? How do infants die if they are not sinners? Death only comes because of actual sin, not potential sin. Adam was living as a being who could potentially sin. It was not until sin was actualized that death occurred.

      Additionally, what is your justification for believing that all of humanity has a sinful nature? Are you basing this off orthodox Christianity which bases it off the same Scriptures that you claim are not binding and so very difficult to interpret? What do you think about someone who says that human beings are mostly good? Not sinners? Not under God's judgment? Do you dare attempt to quote the Bible, the one that you so often reject as merely mythic and figurative in nature, to them to prove your point? Or do you expect people to just take your own personal opinions as authoritative?

      Just curious Dan.

      Delete
  6. Ed...

    Do you deny that children are born sinners with a sin nature?

    So, clearly it is a false claim that I deny that children/everyone has a sinful nature. I deny that, it is not what I am saying, I am saying the opposite. THAT much is clearly false.

    As to the second claim of yours - that newborn babies actively sin against God, that they choose to reject God's ways in favor of evil ways - I'm curious, can you find even ONE serious church leader in all of history who actively supports your claim: Babies actively choose to sin against God...? Even one?

    Not that we all are "sinners," in the sense that we have a sinful nature, but that babies actively sin?

    Other than obviously figurative verses in the bible, there is no place that Jesus, God nor any biblical character claims that babies actively sin, so we can write that right off. But even one orthodox Christian throughout all of history who actively affirms that newborn babies actively sin?

    What do you think sin is, Ed? Is it not rebellion against God? Does one not have to have the ability to reason, "I want to rebel against God" in order to rebel against God?

    Or do you prefer the "immoral act" definition of sin? If so, what immoral acts are newborns doing?

    There is just no biblical or rational sense where one can argue that newborns actively choose to sin. It is, as already noted, an insane claim.

    But I am willing to entertain actual data to support your claim, if you have any. But you don't, do you?

    I think the problem is that you are mistaking obviously poetic, figurative language for a literal factual claim, in spite of reality. Perhaps it's time to admit that you've got caught up in a ridiculous claim that you can't support?

    In Christ,

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All the data is dismissed by you Dan as "figurative" language. You did it again in this comment. Second, rejection of the literal fall of Adam is a rejection of original sin. How could it be that all humans are born sinless and eventually end up sinning sooner or later.

      This is what I mean about you. You distort and redefine the Christian teaching and then try to claim your teaching is distinctly Christian. It is not. You denied that babies are born enemies of God out of one side of your mouth and now you try to say they have a sin nature. How on earth do you reconcile those? Sinners are not natural enemies of God? Where does this sin nature come from? Not Adam and Eve in your view?

      Additionally, you claim gay sex is a Christian view, that Scripture is not binding.

      I simply will not allow you to deny basic Christian teachings with the sort of subtlety you want. By twisting the doctrine of original sin into a pelagian view, you deny what you claim to affirm. It's what you emergent types enjoy doing.

      Delete
    2. I never said newborn babies ACTIVELY sin against God. I said that newborn babies are natural born enemies of God. They are born in a state that is hostile to God, God-haters if you will. Lets be clear on what I said and what I believe. Now, that view is the view espoused by historic Christian orthodoxy. And it is why we ALL must be born again.

      My point is that you turn Scripture into putty by way of your arbitrary claims that this text is figurative, or that one is poetic, etc. And that is how you deny the Christian worldview and twist historical Christianity.

      If my claim is ridiculous, then historical Christianity is ridiculous. Thats where we are Dan. You float around real Christian websites like this one, Canon Fodder, Hip & Thigh disagreeing with men who are reflective of orthodox Christianity and still wanting to claim your one of us. Your not. Admit it and go face the consequences.

      Delete
  7. I never said newborn babies ACTIVELY sin against God. I said that newborn babies are natural born enemies of God. They are born in a state that is hostile to God, God-haters if you will. Lets be clear on what I said and what I believe.

    Yes, let's be clear on what we BOTH believe.

    I have clearly stated the reality that I believe we are born with a sin nature, with a tendency to sin. That is evidenced in all of humanity. THAT is orthodox Christian belief.

    I have further stated that saying that babies are "sinners" is an inappropriate use of the word, in that babies do not/can not actively sin. And since sinner is defined as "one who sins" then that is not an appropriate understanding. Now, you appear to agree with me - babies do NOT actively sin. THAT is all that I am saying.

    Are we in agreement, then, and do you now recognize your error and why what you said was mistaken?

    I would further posit that just like words like "sinner" are not an accurate explanation/description of babies - at least in the sense of the standard English definition, which is what I have been talking about - so, too, are lifting phrases like "hostile to God" to apply to newborns. A baby can NOT be hostile to God, a newborn doesn't know God, there is no innate knowledge of God there in the brain, yet, no rational ability to understand God or to actively be hostile to God, as you appear to agree.

    So, it would appear that you are misunderstanding my position and that misunderstanding is what has led you to this factually false charge, since you and I appear to agree with MY point, which is a newborn can not actively sin.

    Agreed? If so and you and I are in agreement, then perhaps it's time to admit your mistake. No problem, mistakes happen, just show me that you are able to repent and understand when you've made a mistake so my time here is not meaningless.

    ~Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say that men are born with a sin nature, but then deny that children are born hostile God-haters. That is their nature. Men are not born with a tendency to sin, but with an absolute bondage to sin. Sin it not just something they are prone to do that perhaps they may resist if they so choose. That is the perverse twist in your statement that changes the entire orthodox meaning.

      A sinner is not just defined as something someone does, it is defined as something someone is. The claim that all are sinners is an ontological claim. I would provide biblical data, but you have proven that this is useless since your arbitrary hermeneutic will only dismiss it as figurative language.

      This comment is a perfect example Dan of how you desire to use the same language we use but then empty the content of our words from the meaning and replace it with your own. This is a postmodern practice and it is dishonest. When you reject the meaning of "sinner" as ontological, as hostile to God, as with a nature that hates God, you are rejecting the doctrine of original sin that Christian orthodoxy has held since it's inception.

      Babies do not become sinners. They are sinners at birth. They do not experience spiritual death somewhere after they have been born at a point of transgression. Babies are born spiritually dead. If they were not, they could not die physically.

      All your exegetical gyrations prove is that you want to reject basic Christian dogma and still be called a Christian. You do the same thing in your view of Scripture, gay sex, eternal punishment, the historicity of the OT, etc.

      I have accurately represented your view. What I have done is made sure to point out that your words mean something very different than what we mean when we talk about original sin.

      Delete
  8. Ed...

    You say that men are born with a sin nature, but then deny that children are born hostile God-haters. That is their nature.

    I am confused. You just agreed with me that newborn babies do not actively sin. Now, you are saying that they are "hostile God haters." Which is it?

    And, no, you have not accurately represented my view. It doesn't appear that you have even accurately represented YOUR view, much less mine. But you tell me. DO babies actively sin when they are two minutes old? DO they actively choose to be hostile and hate God at two minutes old?

    If so, please present some data to support this claim, because frankly, it sounds insane. If not, then we appear to agree and you were mistaken.

    The ball's in your court.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What exactly does Jesus mean when He says we must be BORN AGAIN? If sin is merely located in the will, why not just change the will and let the nature alone. Why born again?

      Delete
  9. Ed...

    A sinner is not just defined as something someone does, it is defined as something someone is.

    Not according to the dictionary. In the English language, a sinner is "one who sins." From Merriam Webster...

    "someone who has done something wrong according to religious or moral law : someone who has sinned;

    one that sins;

    Synonyms
    immoralist, malefactor, evildoer, wrongdoer"


    You're arguing against the English language, Ed.

    Now, if you have some non-standard definition of sin, please present it. But you can't blame me for not understanding you if you are using non-standard definitions for common words.

    Ball's in your court.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a terrible mistake to employ a webster's dictionary to define a biblical concept or term.

      Delete
  10. Perhaps it would be helpful for you if you define precisely what you mean by "sinner" when you are speaking of newborn infants, especially since you appear to be using non-standard English notions for the word.

    If, in your definition, you include something vague like "they hate God," then please provide data to support the claim.

    If, in providing data, you cite the Bible - passages that I would say are clearly figurative, not literal - you will have to provide some data to support why anyone should take your interpretation as "authoritative..." You have to have some basis beyond "Because I say so..." to make a valid claim, rationally speaking. I hope you recognize this.

    ~Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The man who uses a webster's dictionary for his bible study is the same man who assigns genres and classifies literary devices in Scripture? It is no wonder that you are confused. By the way, you ignored the thrust of my last comments. Please deal with them. They deliver what I consider to be a complete refutation of your entire line of thinking. Let the rabbits rest for now.

      Delete
  11. Ed, I use the English dictionary to communicate in English with other English speakers. If you are using a non-standard definition of a word and want to communicate in English, the burden is on you to provide your deviant definition if you wish to be understood.

    I don't know which "thrust" you are wanting me to deal with, Ed. We were dealing with your false claim. You agreed with me that newborns don't actively sin, which was my point, then you said that babies are actively hostile towards God, so I have no idea of what you're speaking about. You'll need to clarify your English terms some if you wish to be understood.

    Are you asking about your "thrust" about needing to be born again? "Born again" is figurative language used by Jesus. How does that relate to whether or not newborns actively sin?

    Are you speaking of this line?

    Babies do not become sinners. They are sinners at birth.

    ? Well, that is the line that is confusing, given that you have agreed with me that babies do not actively sin, therefore, are not "sinners" as defined in English.

    So you'll need to clarify what you mean because right now you appear to be arguing against yourself, and at the same time, STILL leaving the now establish false claim published and not repenting of that sin on your part.

    Ball's in your court.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  12. I will point out that the Bible agrees with what is rational in its teachings about how "no man will be punished for the sins of others..." A newborn who has committed no active sin will not be punished for the sins of Adam, so if that's what you're trying to imply, that is not only an immoral, unjust and irrational claim, it is an unbiblical one.

    We are each held accountable for our own sins and, as you have agreed, a newborn does not actively sin. So, in what sense is a newborn a "sinner" if it does not actively sin? Whose sin/what sin are they being supposedly punished for, in your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  13. By the way, Ed, the KJV bible dictionary defines sinner thusly...

    SIN'NER, n.

    1. One that has voluntarily violated the divine law; a moral agent who has voluntarily disobeyed any divine precept, or neglected any known duty.

    http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/sinner.html

    The Easy English Bible dictionary defines sinner...

    sinner ~ (A) ~ a person who breaks God's rules; a person who does not obey God.

    sinner ~ (A) ~ a person who does bad things against God and other people.

    sinner ~ (B) ~ a person who breaks God's commands.

    sinner ~ (B) ~ a person who does not obey the rules of God.

    And, of course as hopefully you know, the Hebrew/Greek words translated as "sinner" mean either "one who transgresses" or "one who misses the mark..."

    So, it appears your problem is not only with the English term, "sinner," which you have so far left undefined, but the Hebrew and Greek words for sinner.

    Ball remains in your court, but it is abundantly clear now, or should be, that you have misrepresented my actual position, because my actual position appears to be the same as yours.

    1. That we all have a sinful nature;
    2. That newborns do not actively sin;

    Are you prepared to man up and admit your error?

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. 5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
      And in sin my mother conceived me. Ps 51:5.

      14 “What is man, that he should be pure,
      Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Job 15:14.

      3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
      These who speak lies go astray from birth. Ps 58:3.

      3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. Eph 2:3.

      Delete
  14. Yes, that is rational, Ed. Newborns babies are "speaking lies from birth..." they are "estranged from God" in the womb. That sounds like something that should be taken literally.

    OR, maybe it's figurative! Wouldn't that be more rational?

    Are you familiar with the Jewish philosopher/theologian, Maimonides? He is considered by many to be one of the greatest Jewish thinkers of the middle ages.

    "Maimonides applied this principle to theories about creation. He held that if the eternity of the universe (what we would call the Steady State theory) could be proven by logic (science) then the biblical passages speaking about creation at a point in time could and should be interpreted figuratively in a way that is compatible with the eternity of the universe."

    If you are trying to force a literal interpretation on "lying babies" and "evil zygotes" you are arguing against reason.

    Are you going to answer my question? What is your definition of sinner, Ed?

    Again, you can't expect me to understand you if you are speaking nonsense and using non-standard definitions of words... non-BIBLICAL definitions of words. If you want to be understood, give your definitions.

    As it stands, you have been demonstrated to have made a false claim, since you believe the same thing that I do:

    1. That all humans have a sinful nature.
    2. That newborns don't actively sin.

    If I am a heretic for believing this, then you are, too, and a hypocrite for criticizing me for believing the same thing you do.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Adam, Dan. All infants sin in Adam. See Romans 5:12-19. Your rejection of this basic doctrine of Christianity is heresy. We are done.

      Delete
  15. Just to see if time and God have softened your hard heart, I'll ask again that, IF you think I'm not saved, I've given you the path I've taken. Tell me Ed, what must I do to be saved?

    Or regarding your last remark, what does it mean that an infant "sins in Adam..." That is a meaningless comment, IF you are trying to take it literally. HOW can a newborn sin at all, much less, "in Adam..." What does that mean?

    I suspect that you've become so religiously institutionalized, you've forgotten how to communicate in normal English words, but hopefully you can see that I have NO idea how a newborn "sins in Adam" and will be prepared to explain yourself.

    Respectfully and in the love of Christ,

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/

      Delete
  16. What must I do to be saved, Ed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Place your faith in Christ Dan. Cast yourself at His feet and beg Him to save you. Give yourself to Christ, all your being, to include your intellect. If you do this, you will fall deeply in love with God's law, making it the light of your life. Rebirth will produce a change that will result in entire submission to the Word of God as it renews and transforms your thinking and your actions. Abandon you Dan!

      Delete
    2. I've done that, Ed.

      I have recognized my own sinful nature and the fallen and imperfect nature of my intellect.
      I have recognized my need for God's grace.
      I have repented of my sin, accepted God's gift of Grace and asked Jesus to be the Lord of my life, including my intellect.

      So, by your measure, I AM saved, so I ask again, what specifically must I do to be saved, if you don't think I'm saved, because I've done all that you have suggested.

      Dan

      Delete
  17. What do you MEAN that infants can "sin in Adam..."? I don't know what that means, it appears to be a meaningless phrase. Gobbledy gook. Can you explain what THAT phrase means to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Adam all sin, and in Adam all die. In fact, we know that we all sinned in Adam because we all die, even those who have not sinned in the same manner as Adam. As our federal head, what our father did we did. All of us. Now, surely you do not think you could have done better now do you?

      Delete
  18. I don't think you are understanding my question. You said that newborn infants "sin in Adam." What does that mean? HOW do newborns "sin in Adam..."? What do they do? How do you recognize this "sin in Adam..."?

    You now say, "what our father did, we did..." what does that mean? I have a relative from 3 generations ago who committed murder. And yet, it is a demonstrable fact that I have not committed murder.

    The bible makes clear what reality and reason tell us: That it is wrong to condemn someone for the actions of someone else. I factually did NOT commit murder, even though my ancestor did.

    What do you mean by Adam being a "federal head..."? Again, I'm not saying this for any other reason than you appear to be talking meaningless babble. If you want me to understand, you'll have to explain in simpler, more rational, more understandable terms.

    Thanks,

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lest you misunderstand, I know that many conservatives would make a claim that passages like Romans 5 that sin and death entered the world through one man, Adam... the point is, this seems on the face of it abundantly clearly figurative, not literal.

    Figuratively, using "Adam" as a metaphor, it can make some rational sense.

    But trying to make it literal, "sin and death entering" the world because of one man's actions is irrational, not supportable by reality and unjust. Again, the Bible is clear and reason supports that one person is NOT judged by the actions of some other person. So, to try to blame an infant's sin on Adam as a literal reality is irrational and immoral/unjust, not to mention unbiblical.

    So, please, try to explain this without your religious-ese language, maybe that will make it more clear.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  20. So, still I wonder, Ed, according to the Gospel of Ed, what must I do to be saved that I have not already done?

    It sounds like you're saying, "Yes, Dan, you've done all the normal things orthodox Christians say one needs to be in order to be saved - in short, trusted in God's grace and made Jesus the Lord of your life - but this ONE thing more you must do... you must also not disagree with Ed on a certain number of non-essential beliefs and opinions that Ed holds..."

    Is that the gist of it or what hoop is it that I need to jump through in order to be saved? What brilliance and understanding on my part do I need to improve, what deeds must I do, what human opinions must I affirm in order to be saved?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ed, you have made a very serious claim: That I am NOT saved, NOT a Christian. You do this in spite of the fact that I've done what you've said I need to do to be saved, and in spite of you not knowing me.

    Further, you have said it was important to evangelize people like me. I do want to be saved (and believe I am), so tell me: What must I do to be saved?

    If you are orthodox and remain with the steps you provided, then I am saved, by your own measure.

    If so, then quit contradicting yourself and spreading slander and false witness and retract the "not saved" claims, ideally with some humility and repentance.

    That would be the wisest way to go, it seems to me. Everybody makes mistakes, the only problem is in not acknowledging them. That leads to hard-heartedness and a whole litany of other problems...

    Dan

    ReplyDelete

What is Your Favorite Quote: Evangelism Opportunities

A team building event within a human resources group that sits within a large, liberal, progressive western corporation is typically no...