Children are innocent, not guilty of any sin

I speak 3 languages PY. So I don't think I'll be studying languages anymore.
And, like I said, I don't care where the word comes from...it's here...we use it.
Even Wikepedia knows what it means....

Concupiscence is an ardent longing, typically one that is sensual.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> In Christianity, concupiscence is the tendency of humans to sin.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-Malloy2005-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-Coleman2007-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>

There are nine occurrences of concupiscence in the Douay-Rheims Bible<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a> and three occurrences in the King James Bible.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-5"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a>

Sensuality

[edit]
Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century described two divisions of "sensuality". The concupiscible describes pursuit, avoidance, and instincts. The irascible describes competition, aggression, defense, and instincts.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence




Who said it was? Lust is within the doctrine.
The doctrine has to do with Original Sin.
But I've already stated that I don't care for Augustine and will not discuss him here.

I read everything. I don't agree on all.
But this is way off the topic I'm here to address.

It is all relative. Details build conclusions.....Precept upon precept. Line upon line....

If you don't know where something came from, then you can't understand what it means now...... God spoke to Job about this......

There are terms that have "false doctrines" "baked in"..... These are man made distinctions. They don't come from God.

Did you know the term "Synoptic Gospels" were coined by a theologian? NOW.... everyone uses that term like it has always existed. They believe what that theologian believed. The same is true of "Romanization" vs "Latinization". They don't mean the same things. Yet, someone decided they did...... and now people just blindly repeat the references as if they mean what others have defined for a purpose. To drive a narrative.

Yes. We are all tainted in this regard. You're ignorant of this. The proof is in how you're responding. I'm not tainted in that regard.
 
It is all relative. Details build conclusions.....Precept upon precept. Line upon line....

If you don't know where something came from, then you can't understand what it means now...... God spoke to Job about this......

There are terms that have "false doctrines" "baked in"..... These are man made distinctions. They don't come from God.

Did you know the term "Synoptic Gospels" were coined by a theologian? NOW.... everyone uses that term like it has always existed. They believe what that theologian believed. The same is true of "Romanization" vs "Latinization". They don't mean the same things. Yet, someone decided they did...... and now people just blindly repeat the references as if they mean what others have defined for a purpose. To drive a narrative.

Yes. We are all tainted in this regard. You're ignorant of this. The proof is in how you're responding. I'm not tainted in that regard.
It's good that you're not tainted.
Keep loving Jesus.
 
define culpability from God's law????
Those who go against GOD's nature and calling for them are culpable of sin and liable to the natural and legal consequences for choosing to reject HIS calling. Then the law is given to open their eyes to their sin and their need for a saviour:
Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. The law does NOT create sin nor does keeping the law absolve one of sinfulness.

1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc, ie. sinners. The law follows from sin, it does not create it nor heal it.
 
Last edited:
Those who go against GOD's nature and calling for them are culpable of sin and liable to the natural and legal consequences for choosing to reject HIS calling. Then the law is given to open their eyes to their sin and their need for a saviour:

1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc, ie. sinners. The law follows from sin, it does not create it nor heal it.

I don't see culpability defined anywhere in what you've posted. You are the one calling for "Justice" for sinners. Not me, I don't make those demands because I've done the same things...

Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Do you really think "I'm sorry" fixes what you've broken yourself? Adam was incapable of fixing the problems he brought about. He mourned such for the rest of his life. So did Abraham.

Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. The law does NOT create sin nor does keeping the law absolve one of sinfulness.

The law does create sin in those "free" to make their own choices. I'll tell you how.....

When you tell someone they can't covet, it gives them information that they are capable of coveting.... The law itself imparts knowledge of how to sin. They must ask "what is coveting". Knowledge brings responsibility for self and for others.

Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

You're look at this from wrong perspective. Our lives are all about freedom of choice and the powerlessness that we have to fix our own issues. God easily forgives, it is men that do not. We often only think of ourselves. That is good and that is bad. However, it is necessary for free life to learn of God. Satan has taught mankind how to sin using God's own words against Him.

Ask you a simple question......

Evil men take pleasure in "ruling" others. I know what it is to try and get evil men to agree in something good.....

Question, what pleasure should I take in ruling "evil" men to point they comply with my demands because I'm stronger than they are? Would that make "good men" out of "evil men"?

Someone has said... "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"......

Unless we willing become part of this process that God has designed, there is no value to be found seeds that bring no harvest.
 
All babies sinned before being sown into this world by conception. ONLY sinners are sent here to live either as either bad examples or to be brought to redemption and to be trained in righteousness. IF not, then we must believe in GOD who kills and tortures the innocent...which I refuse to do or to hide from by doublethink.
Are you a Mormon?

Mormons believe in preexistence.
 
No, that's just a similarity in PCE Theology.

Basically it adds "you all sinned before you lived" to rectify what seems to be the injustices of a fallen world and Original Sin.

Origen a very early theologian actually believed this along with Universalism and a lot of other really wacky stuff.

I never see early church "fathers" advocates wanting to claim Origin...
 
Funny. I didn't claim what you claimed. You said you didn't know and then proceeded to define it for "most people". You're double minded.
Allow me to restate my thinking.

I am unable to discern when any particular person is specifically cognizant of right and wrong wherein they can be legally held accountable for their actions.

However, I am fairly certain, based on experience and observation, that humans are generally cognizant of right and wrong within the first three to four years of their lives, if not possibly earlier. (I just heard a story today about a two year old that became a member of Mensa, so I’m pretty sure they could explain to general concept of right and wrong.)

Thus, I cannot know a specific scenario, but can make a generalization based on experience and observation.


Doug
 
Last edited:
Allow me to restate my thinking.

I am unable to discern when any particular person is specifically cognizant of right and wrong wherein they can be legally held accountable for their actions.

However, I am fairly certain, based on experience and observation, that humans are generally cognizant of right and wrong within the first three to four years of their lives, if not possibly earlier. (I just heard a story today about a two year old that became a member of Mensa, so I’m pretty sure they could explain to general concept of right and wrong.)

Thus, I cannot know a specific scenario, but can make a generalization based on experience and observation.


Doug
So where do you think I am? Where was Paul when he claimed innocence because of unbelief?

Paul sincerely believed the religion of his father's and excelled greatly among them. Yet, when faced with overwhelming evidence he believed. Paul even witnesses how the religion of his father's ruined the church of God. He witnessed the wholesale corruption that seeking to rule others brings to light. He told the truth when he said he could wish himself judged for his own country men.

Men often are quick to judge others instead of considering themselves. I don't want anything other for you than very best God has to give. There should be no jealousy among us. No competition for who is the best among sinners....

There are many reasons why we sin. Some of them involve things beyond our control. Every man shall bear his own burden.
 
In the end, you are inaccurate in pinning PSA to my thinking. I would not call that my go to theory.

It's core Gospel, you definitely should be.

There is no ransom, victory over death, good example, or government, without Christ paying the penalty of sin.

It doesn't happen, and I recommend many of my threads under PSA defending this very serious issue.

It was not the original Arminians nor even the original Wesleyans that believed in the Governmental.

Please pick up the book, "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities," to better understand PSA in Arminianism.
 
Look Ted....
Origin did NOT teach that we lived somehow in a prior life.
Yes he did.

What I'm saying is this:
I CANNOT debate with you a belief system that DID NOT EXIST in the early church.
If you want to start a thread on this....go ahead. I'm familiar with the Early Church Fathers and I know this concept did NOT EXIST in the early church.
In fact it became quite popular in the second / third / fourth century after which it became under pressure ending in -

In 543, Emperor Justinian I condemned him as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 may have anathematized Origen, or it may have only condemned certain heretical teachings which claimed to be derived from Origen. The Church rejected his teachings on the preexistence of souls.
 
Allow me to restate my thinking.

I am unable to discern when any particular person is specifically cognizant of right and wrong wherein they can be legally held accountable for their actions.

However, I am fairly certain, based on experience and observation, that humans are generally cognizant of right and wrong within the first three to four years of their lives, if not possibly earlier. (I just heard a story today about a two year old that became a member of Mensa, so I’m pretty sure they could explain to general concept of right and wrong.)

Thus, I cannot know a specific scenario, but can make a generalization based on experience and observation.


Doug
Are you saying a child of 5 is responsible for sin?
 
Yes he did.


In fact it became quite popular in the second / third / fourth century after which it became under pressure ending in -

In 543, Emperor Justinian I condemned him as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 may have anathematized Origen, or it may have only condemned certain heretical teachings which claimed to be derived from Origen. The Church rejected his teachings on the preexistence of souls.
Thanks for the post ProDeo.
I'm going to link something from Wiki.
Origin is not on my list of ECFs I go to....
but it's questionable what he even meant.

Other than that .... YES....it was a HERETICAL teaching and this would be the main point.

A concept of pre-existence was advanced by Origen, a second and third-century church father. Origen believed that each human soul was created by God at some time prior to conception. He wrote that already "one of [his] predecessors" had interpreted the Scripture to teach pre-existence, which seems to be a reference to the Jewish philosopher Philo.

Some scholars, including John Behr and Marguerite Harl, argue that this idea, condemned by the church, may have been taught by some later Origenists, but that Origen himself was orthodox in this regard and "never used the terms 'pre-existence of souls' or 'pre-existent intellects', and that Origen was talking about realities outside of time and not about any concept of temporality before our time Such orthodox understandings of Origen also show up in Maximus the Confessor and in the idea of an atemporal fall as taught by Christian theologians Sergei Bulgakov and David Bentley Hart.

Church Fathers Tertullian and Jerome held to traducianism and creationism, respectively, and pre-existence was condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence#Islam
 
Wait, let me translate what you said:

𝕭𝖑𝖔𝖈𝖐 𝖘𝖈𝖗𝖎𝖕𝖙 𝕳𝖊𝖇𝖗𝖊𝖜 𝖎𝖘𝖓'𝖙 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖑𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖚𝖆𝖌𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖊𝖘.

There, now it's in a new language.

We've argued about this before. You always run away from it.

It is more than just a "font" change......

Did you really expect me to be dumb enough to not know the difference?

It is preposterous to believe the Leningrad Codex is exactly what came from the hand of Moses and the prophets. The Hebrew of the Leningrad Codex is different than what Moses used. Profoundly different. So different that is has caused multiple streams of "Hebrew" texts to come forward from what Moses wrote. The LXX stream is profoundly superior and falsely claiming the Leningrad Codex is the proper "stream" is preposterous.

The Leningrad Codex is what modern Judaism uses to dishonor Christ. They've "changed" the Scriptures.

Mat_23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
 
It is more than just a "font" change......

You, yourself, identified the change by the script, those were YOUR words.

You're just equivocating back and forth now between script and actual changed syntax.

The script is IRRELEVANT, so just say the Hebrew language changed so much it's a new language.

Did you really expect me to be dumb enough to not know the difference?

Pointless question. I go by the words you actually say, no matter how dumb they are.

Although perhaps, if you cannot seem to grasp clear and simple points, I may need to rethink where I invest my time.

It is preposterous to believe the Leningrad Codex is exactly what came from the hand of Moses and the prophets.

Uh, I never disagreed.

But it's even more preposterous to believe the LXX is exactly what came from the hand of Moses.

The Leningrad Codex is what modern Judaism uses to dishonor Christ. They've "changed" the Scriptures.

Scripture changes with transmission over time.

The LXX is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, and by definition, that is "changing" Scripture.
 
Back
Top Bottom