Children are innocent, not guilty of any sin

[praise_yeshua]

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.

Pay attention. You used a font. A font is not a script change. You made the mistake. Not me. When you use a poor example, expect me to call you on it. You could of actually used a digital representation of the actual extant archeological witness.

You didn't. You're oversimplifying the issue just like every Hebrew Onlyist that has ever existed.

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..

I didn't say anything dumb. Your response expected me to be dumb. I'm not dumb. I know more about than you ever will because you haven't spent the time to know it yourself. You blindly follow others. It will never be your own. You can't know it. You've already made up your mind. This is debate between you and I. You're dead wrong and I can prove it. I started a thread about this in the Bible section. Come over and show your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Practice googling....

Uh, I never disagreed.

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

Sure you have. It is how you apply what little knowledge you have. We have history..... We have discussed this before.

Saved Jews translated the LXX. Unsaved Jews translated the Leningrad Codex.

Nice to know you prefer unsaved evil translators that Jesus referenced.... you know... "the scribes".....

Scripture changes with transmission over time.

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

The Hebrew language has changed. That by definition is changing Scripture.

Do you think before you respond? I try to. You show you're inexperienced in the subject.

 

[TedT]

Are you a Mormon?

Mormons believe in preexistence.

Actually no one believes in preexistence as it is a tautology, nothing can exist before it exists...
but no, and I do not accept in the least the theory of the pre-conception existence of spirits that Mormons claim to be true.

 

[TedT]

I never see early church "fathers" advocates wanting to claim Origin...

Your ignorance of early church writings cannot be not the measure of history:

Did any other early church fathers besides Origen teach the pre-existence of souls?

Origen taught about the pre-existence of our souls, which, among many other of his teachings, was later condemned as heresy. Did any other early church fathers teach this doctrine?

christianity.stackexchange.com

contains a good discussion of the early writings that discuss our existence before earth and, if I read correctly, debate the good points against the bad points...

like Nemesius and Cyril of Alexandria, he supposed the soul to be created before the body, compares Origen's theory to the heathen myths and fables. (Vol. III., page 831)

Schaff also mentions on the same page that Augustine spoke at least relatively favorably of the doctrine in De libero arbitrio, though he later emphatically rejected it.

Louis Berkhof, no friend of the doctrine, says that it was limited to the Alexandrian school and that Origen was its chief representative—but not its only adherent (Systematic Theology, 2.1.2.B).

Turning now to proponents of the doctrine, whose objectivity some might call into question, we find many claims of support from the church fathers. First, Henry More (1614–1687) wrote a number of works on the subject, and tracks the history of the doctrine in the preface to his Collection of Several Philosophical Writings. Starting on page xx, he cites Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Books I and III, and a letter to Julius Cassianus), Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Synesius, Arnobius, Prudentius, and Augustine (though he cites only De libero arbitrio, and not Augustine's later works). Unfortunately, most of More's specific examples are in Latin or Greek, making it difficult for non-scholars to judge the original intent of the quoted authors. Those who want to examine the quality of his interpretations can review them in the linked work.

A second proponent, I. M. Oderberg, presents several examples in his essay, Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians (also on WebCite), but does not always clearly source them:

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (AD 100–l65), St. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–220), and Origen (AD 185–254) teaching the pre-existence of souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works, especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: "Is it not rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance with their merits and previous deeds . . . ?" And in De Principiis he says that "the soul has neither beginning nor end." St. Jerome (AD 340–420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few "as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged."

Synesius (AD 370–480), Bishop of Ptolemais, also taught the concept, and in a prayer that has survived, he says: "Father, grant that my soul may merge into the light, and be no more thrust back into the illusion of earth." Others of his Hymns, such as number III, contain lines clearly stating his views, and also pleas that he may be so purified that rebirth on earth will no longer be necessary.

 

[TedT]

In 543, Emperor Justinian I condemned him as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned.

He was condemned for his weird understanding of the incarnation of the Son as the Christ and he was politically on the wrong side.

 

[TedT]

Are you saying a child of 5 is responsible for sin?

Rather, as facing suffering and death, I'd suggest that he is under sin.

My argument is thus:
AS GOD cannot create a sinner by any means, especially not by a surrogate like
Adam, the sin of the child of 5 must have been by his own free will.

Ergo...he had a time of free will and being able to properly choose to be sinful in GOD's sight before his conception as a human sinner as per Matt 13:36-39 which no one else seems to be able to read.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Your ignorance of early church writings cannot be not the measure of history:

Oh TedT......

What has the "church" determined about Origin? You can't have all these varying beliefs associated with the "church" and intellectually make the argument they are all right at the same time. Please don't try this "sleight of hand" you're doing.

You asking me to ignore what I already know about such determinations to listen to someone else say it isn't true.

Did you write this article?

Did any other early church fathers besides Origen teach the pre-existence of souls?

Origen taught about the pre-existence of our souls, which, among many other of his teachings, was later condemned as heresy. Did any other early church fathers teach this doctrine?

christianity.stackexchange.com

contains a good discussion of the early writings that discuss our existence before earth and, if I read correctly, debate the good points against the bad points...:

That is "coming to you". This assumes I believe it is an "either / or" argument. I don't do that anymore. I stopped doing this a long time ago. I went and found the evidence myself. YOU show me the evidence. Surprise me. I wish you would. I like to learn. I'm not going to let someone else make the arguments for me.

Schaff also mentions on the same page that Augustine spoke at least relatively favorably of the doctrine in De libero arbitrio, though he later emphatically rejected it.

Louis Berkhof, no friend of the doctrine, says that it was limited to the Alexandrian school and that Origen was its chief representative—but not its only adherent (Systematic Theology, 2.1.2.B)

A second proponent, I. M. Oderberg, presents several examples in his essay, Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians (also on WebCite), but does not always clearly source them:.

I hope you realize that we don't really have evidence of what Origen actually wrote. We have people who claim they know what he wrote. Have you reviewed the extant witnesses of Origen's homilies? You'll be disappointed.... I guarantee you.

 

[TibiasDad]

Are you saying a child of 5 is responsible for sin?

If the child knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses to do wrong, yes!


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

So where do you think I am?

I certainly think that you are as cognizant as a three year old child; I have no doubt of your intelligence and your abilities to yield it effectively.

Where was Paul when he claimed innocence because of unbelief?

He claimed innocence before he knew the law: “ Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.” Rom 7:9


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

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.

The concept of penal substitution is certainly an element of the atonement, as are the other concepts in the alternative theories. I don’t think you can accurately define the atonement by using a singular approach. I would tend to align myself with the Christus Victor POV, but see value in all the theories to one degree or another.

There maybe a general tendency toward PSA in Arminian thought, but I think it is more compatible with Reform thinking.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

There are many reasons why we sin. Some of them involve things beyond our control. Every man shall bear his own burden.

I’m not sure where the question of why we sin has anything to do with the question of atonement theories.


Doug

 

[ProDeo]

Your ignorance of early church writings cannot be not the measure of history:

Did any other early church fathers besides Origen teach the pre-existence of souls?

Origen taught about the pre-existence of our souls, which, among many other of his teachings, was later condemned as heresy. Did any other early church fathers teach this doctrine?

christianity.stackexchange.com

contains a good discussion of the early writings that discuss our existence before earth and, if I read correctly, debate the good points against the bad points...


Schaff also mentions on the same page that Augustine spoke at least relatively favorably of the doctrine in De libero arbitrio, though he later emphatically rejected it.

Louis Berkhof, no friend of the doctrine, says that it was limited to the Alexandrian school and that Origen was its chief representative—but not its only adherent (Systematic Theology, 2.1.2.B).



A second proponent, I. M. Oderberg, presents several examples in his essay, Reincarnation as Taught by Early Christians (also on WebCite), but does not always clearly source them:

Origens theory of preexistence souls prior to creation has nothing to do with reincarnation.

 

[GodsGrace]

If the child knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses to do wrong, yes!


Doug

Does the child have to know only right and wrong or that it's s SIN?

And what makes a child know right and wrong? The fear of punishment or the consequences of doing wrong?

 

[TedT]

Origens theory of preexistence souls prior to creation has nothing to do with reincarnation.

Neither does my interpretation of our pce.

 

[ProDeo]

Neither does my interpretation of our pce.

@TedT

Okay, that's good then, but the link you posted suggested reincarnation, hence my question.

Do you have a webpage / document of your pce doctrine?

I am asking because of what you contributed so far makes me wonder if you have understood what Origen taught, or actually made popular.

I say so because On-First-Principles is a terrible read to understand the man.

 

[TedT]

@TedT

Okay, that's good then, but the link you posted suggested reincarnation, hence my question.

Do you have a webpage / document of your pce doctrine?

I am asking because of what you contributed so far makes me wonder if you have understood what Origen taught, or actually made popular.

I say so because On-First-Principles is a terrible read to understand the man.

I do agree...but I base nothing upon Origen !!! as I only use him to interrupt the thoughts of those who claim that the theory of our pre-conception existence is a new fangled, never thought of nor considered before, doctrine except for Mormonism...and it is not.

He had an idea based upon scripture. I have full theology based upon scripture, ie, over 3 dozen scripture verses which hint at the truth of PCE, if you know the rational. On the other hand I've been challenging folk on these forums for over 15 years to find me a verse the even hints our pce is impossible let alone which actually contends it can't be true. No takers yet...

PCE is a full and complete theology which, for me, answers all the questions I had about orthodoxy which needed so much doublethink to make work, sigh.

 

[TedT]

Do you have a webpage / document of your pce doctrine?

I do not have a web page. I have lots of documents, mostly saved as emails,

My problem is that PCE has been mostly disparaged and ignored for 4000 years by the powers that be. They of course have their own interpretations of these verses that I think support our pce but they only mention their own contrary interpretations.

If PCE is correct, then these interpretations must be wrong.

This means that someone looking askance at a verse will only find a wrong interpretation back into history except for a few mentions. Iow, When we look at the bible we only see what we have been taught until we experience the controversy. This means that without already understanding the pce viewpoint, one will not notice the implications of a verse at all - hence we get, "it's not taught in the bible!"

That is why I like these discussion forums where I can present interpretations along with the verse about topics people are interested in...

 

[TibiasDad]

Does the child have to know only right and wrong or that it's s SIN?

I think that right and wrong are the underpinnings of righteousness and sin. It is difficult to place a dividing line on “when” one becomes conscious of the difference, and even more difficult to define when hat is a natural consciousness of right and wrong and that which is learned.

The relationship of right and wrong with the theological understanding of “sin” in view of God may not be introduced to the child for quite some time, but the intrinsic understanding of guilt is sufficient to establish culpability. Even atheists raise their children to understand right and wrong and the consequences thereof.

And what makes a child know right and wrong? The fear of punishment or the consequences of doing wrong?

I don’t think this an easy question to answer. Both options are clearly valid and play a role in shaping our understanding. I think experiencing the consequences is probably the foundation of becoming fearful of punishment.

Doug

 

[GodsGrace]

I think that right and wrong are the underpinnings of righteousness and sin. It is difficult to place a dividing line on “when” one becomes conscious of the difference, and even more difficult to define when hat is a natural consciousness of right and wrong and that which is learned.

I'd like to make two points here:
1. A person can be a very moral person...know right and wrong AND STILL BE LOST. Do we agree?
2. The human conscience CANNOT BE TRUSTED UNLESS it is taught in the ways of God.

Many do immoral acts and are not bothered by them.
Because their conscience has not been trained in the commandments of God.

You're speaking of placing a dividing line as to WHEN a person becomes culpable before God.
What if I told you that most 10 year olds believe they have never sinned?
This is because they DON'T UNDERSTAND sin.

Paul said that sin always existed from Adam onward.
But WITHOUT THE LAW man did not know what sin was.
Romans 5:13 NIV
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
Sin was always in the world.
But God did not impute it to man until the law...until the commandments.
Do you THINK a child is breaking the commandments of GOD
or the commandments of his parents/teachers, etc?

God does not impute sin to a person UNTIL that person understands what sin is.
Our very own justice system believes this!
How much more does God understand it....the Creator who gave the commandments.

What Jesus states should ALWAYS SUFFICE, but after many years on these forums I see that it does not.

JESUS said that to enter into heaven we must become as a child.
Do you think Jesus meant that we can enter into heaven even if we have sin on our soul??

And I'd REALLY love to see some scripture that speaks about children.

We say that only ADULTS should be baptized WHEN they understand what they're doing.
ADULTS were baptized in the NT.

So, are you saying we should be baptizing 5 year olds?
10 year olds?

That would create a conflict in scripture.

The relationship of right and wrong with the theological understanding of “sin” in view of God may not be introduced to the child for quite some time, but the intrinsic understanding of guilt is sufficient to establish culpability. Even atheists raise their children to understand right and wrong and the consequences thereof.

Where in the bible does it state that man is culpable for Adam's sin?
You're going to have to post some scripture.
Atheists: Yes...I mentioned this.
They could teach their chlidren right and wrong....but will they be saved as atheist adults?

I don’t think this an easy question to answer. Both options are clearly valid and play a role in shaping our understanding. I think experiencing the consequences is probably the foundation of becoming fearful of punishment.

Doug

Kids lie when they do wrong because of FEAR.
The fear could be the consequences...
it could be the fear of retaliation from the other kids...
the fear of punishment from the parents....
other reasons.
It is NEVER because of fear of GOD.
UNTIL they understand sin.
And THEN they become culpable for it.

God holds us responsible only for our own SINS:
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die.
Deuteronomy 24:l16
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Can a child repent? Please make sure you know what repent means.

Mark 16:l16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
can a child understand the gospel message?

Matthew 18:2-5
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them.
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

 

[TedT]

1. A person can be a very moral person...know right and wrong AND STILL BE LOST. Do we agree?

ImCo:
In the superficial worldly way of morality but not in a true moral way which is holiness.

 

[Dizerner]

I'm so sick of people using the passage on kids to promote a self-righteous theology.

Christ said:

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me (Mk. 9:42 NKJ)"

1. They were old enough to BELIEVE on Christ, they were not freaking babies.
2. They were justified BY THEIR BELIEF IN CHRIST, not their own self-righteousness.


THERE IS NO ONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE.