The Nature of Fallen Man

[Athanasius]

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.

It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:

- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust

Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?

If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.

We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.

It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:

- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust

Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?

If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.

We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.

When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.

I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.

I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.

[RabbiKnife]

See you on the corner of Gloryland Way and River of Life Blvd, bro.

Just don't get LeftBehind^TM
 

Feel free to reach out anytime.  Enjoyed the reparte.

Shalom.

[CONSPICILLUM]

See you on the corner of Gloryland Way and River of Life Blvd, bro.

Just don't get LeftBehind^TM
 

Feel free to reach out anytime.  Enjoyed the reparte.

Shalom.

I promise not to get left behind in judgment with the dizzy Dispies. I’ll Fly Away to Just Over in the Gloryland and In the Sweet By and By.

I guess I don’t have to delete my account, so I can still drop in occasionally if I’m not perceived as a douchebag at those times. I suppose I’m grumpier in my old age. Or maybe I see the “tolerance” of the Left and don’t want to be too Ecumenistic (which probably makes me incompatible with forums).

[CONSPICILLUM]

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.

It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:

- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust

Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?

If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.

We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.

I had a few straggling responses to return. I’ll idle myself now. Have a Happy 2020-TOO. (A little clot shot joke.)

[RabbiKnife]

Oh, you'll probably (still) be a douchebag, but hey, you know?

   (Did I type that out loud?)

Like my Dad used to ask me, "Son, between you and Jesus, 7 million years from now, will it matter?"  If then answer is "no," then it don't matter now...

Peace.

[RandyPNW]

Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.

She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.

This is why I see Sin as a disease, and not strictly as good or bad. If Sin was always to be visited with death and torment, then we would all be in a lot of hurt. But the baby born in sin is treated as such by God. They are born in uncleanness, but God deals with them appropriately, as a physician cares for one with a disease.

[RandyPNW]

Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.

She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

I love the sentiment here. The only thing I *might* disagree with is the idea that sin isn't imputed to the sinner when there is no consciousness of sin. There has to be a law with humanity simply because we all have a conscience. The introduction of a more explicit "law" is not required to have a conscience.

I think Paul was speaking of the fact people were not held accountable to the Law of Moses before it was even given. But they were still held accountable for their sin.

Obviously, if their being "accountable" means simply that they have the "disease," and they are mindless children, then they are held accountable only for being born in a "condition," and not responsible for committing any but the slightest of sins, if any at all.

I say that because the passage indicates people still die well before Israel obtained the Law of Moses. And we know all people die before they reach any supposed "age of accountability." They die from a "disease," and not from personal responsibility.

They still needed to be rescued by the atonement of Christ. Whether they are separated from paradise or not after death, due to their sin, is a matter of your view on predestination, I suppose.

If a child is the fruit of parents, or ancestors, who have settled on a spirit of rebellion, then the child likely would be an apple that falls close to the tree. The child would be born with the inclination to follow suit.

But having done no wrong, the child may enter into a place, upon death, outside of paradise, with perhaps zero "stripes." It's purely speculative to me, and had to give my two cents. I'm open on the issue of Predestination, although I call myself a "Calvinist." And I do have a reason for this.

[RandyPNW]

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.

It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:

- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust

Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?

If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.

We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.

When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.

I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.

I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.

Brother, for what it's worth, I appreciate and have been reading your comments. The *only* problem I have is that you make little effort to be kind with those who may not be as smart as you. If you drive away all those who are inquiring or need to learn, simply because they're not as smart as you, what have you accomplished? James would speak to that when he said don't put the poor man at your feet.

But if you truly do belong at a higher echelon, then by all means go there. It may be where you're dying to be. I know that although I've presided over children's Bible Studies, I much prefer grownups.

And if I don't think we're going anywhere, I do get bored. So yes, don't go out angry--just follow your best inclinations.

Just realize that IQ is not equal to spirituality. I presume you already know this, but I want you to know I do wish to have some educated comments. Other forums don't always have this.

I strongly disagree with your sense that all who do not follow your favored orthodox formulations are not orthodox. If those who came up with the orthodox formulas were treated the same way, none of them would've ever been able to come up with an acceptable formula.

And quite frankly, those who did work hard on coming up with a consistent language were often controversial, as I understand it. So visiting the language in a fresh way, without trying to overturn the orthodox formula, is to be invited, in my view--not ridiculed and bashed as "unorthodox."

Saying this does not mean I wish you to leave! Your choice. I think all forums that are moderated will proscribe rude behavior. I was on a semi-Christian, semi-Jewish unmoderated forum for 10 years--I can handle the heat. But this is a specifically *Christian* forum that is moderated.

[RabbiKnife]

Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.

She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

I love the sentiment here. The only thing I *might* disagree with is the idea that sin isn't imputed to the sinner when there is no consciousness of sin. There has to be a law with humanity simply because we all have a conscience. The introduction of a more explicit "law" is not required to have a conscience.

I think Paul was speaking of the fact people were not held accountable to the Law of Moses before it was even given. But they were still held accountable for their sin.

Obviously, if their being "accountable" means simply that they have the "disease," and they are mindless children, then they are held accountable only for being born in a "condition," and not responsible for committing any but the slightest of sins, if any at all.

I say that because the passage indicates people still die well before Israel obtained the Law of Moses. And we know all people die before they reach any supposed "age of accountability." They die from a "disease," and not from personal responsibility.

They still needed to be rescued by the atonement of Christ. Whether they are separated from paradise or not after death, due to their sin, is a matter of your view on predestination, I suppose.

If a child is the fruit of parents, or ancestors, who have settled on a spirit of rebellion, then the child likely would be an apple that falls close to the tree. The child would be born with the inclination to follow suit.

But having done no wrong, the child may enter into a place, upon death, outside of paradise, with perhaps zero "stripes." It's purely speculative to me, and had to give my two cents. I'm open on the issue of Predestination, although I call myself a "Calvinist." And I do have a reason for this.

So when does a child experience or express or interface with "conscience"

[Athanasius]

When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.

I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.

I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.

No, well, treating theological discourse as if it were maths, and your interlocutors as if they're part of the theologically illiterate masses isn't the best strategy (even if it were true). The academy is great but there's something to be said for knowing how to relate to others. Regardless, your frustration was palpable.

We just aren't impressed by big words that ruin the prose.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

Do you think Vigilius Haufniensis had a comfortable conspicullum from which he watched over the inhabitants of Copenhagen? I wonder.

It seems to me that IMINXTC is saying the following:

- Children are not guilty of sin until they have sinned
- Sin is not hereditary, unlike the fallen world (maybe our good friend Vigiulius would like to talk about qualitative leaps?)
- A God who holds babies to account for the sin they have not committed is unjust

Clearly, IMINXTC is not Augustinian in his view of original sin. Neither am I. But, is IMINXTC corrupting Christian doctrine so that he can 'virtue signal'? Really?. It almost doesn't deserve a response. He clearly is not (on either count), and the suggestion is uncalled for. It's not conducive to conversation. It is hardly academic. Do you get the sense that I'm implying something along the lines of jackassery?

If you want to stick around you're going to have to be nice, and deal with the fact that not everyone here devoutly studies Patristics. They haven't dedicated their lives to expressing what poor Maximus didn't quite get to saying before he decided that talking was like, so passé. There is going to be plenty of disagreement, and we're happy to entertain those who wish to discuss. Those who wish to teach, and then get all Mark Driscoll about it, aren't welcome.

We're happy to have you if you're happy to have us, but you'll have to be nice and cut the attitude. Any more comments like the above and you'll be invited to enlighten the needy elsewhere. In fact, I have a JW forum or two I could direct you towards if you really want to battle corruption.

When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.

I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.

I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.

Brother, for what it's worth, I appreciate and have been reading your comments. The *only* problem I have is that you make little effort to be kind with those who may not be as smart as you. If you drive away all those who are inquiring or need to learn, simply because they're not as smart as you, what have you accomplished? James would speak to that when he said don't put the poor man at your feet.

But if you truly do belong at a higher echelon, then by all means go there. It may be where you're dying to be. I know that although I've presided over children's Bible Studies, I much prefer grownups.

And if I don't think we're going anywhere, I do get bored. So yes, don't go out angry--just follow your best inclinations.

Just realize that IQ is not equal to spirituality. I presume you already know this, but I want you to know I do wish to have some educated comments. Other forums don't always have this.

I strongly disagree with your sense that all who do not follow your favored orthodox formulations are not orthodox. If those who came up with the orthodox formulas were treated the same way, none of them would've ever been able to come up with an acceptable formula.

And quite frankly, those who did work hard on coming up with a consistent language were often controversial, as I understand it. So visiting the language in a fresh way, without trying to overturn the orthodox formula, is to be invited, in my view--not ridiculed and bashed as "unorthodox."

Saying this does not mean I wish you to leave! Your choice. I think all forums that are moderated will proscribe rude behavior. I was on a semi-Christian, semi-Jewish unmoderated forum for 10 years--I can handle the heat. But this is a specifically *Christian* forum that is moderated.

Well… I don’t think you’re honestly seeking or inquiring. The appearance to me is that you’re just externalizing all your own meanderings of thought and expression. That’s simply not how theology is “done” and it leads quickly and unerringly to prelest (a term it would be edifying for anyone to know if you’d care to look it up).

As for my presence here, I simply prefer a more orthodox setting and venue. I didn’t know BF would be this varied in doctrinal diversity.

I’m recognizing my limitations. I don’t have a good sense of when my biting sarcasm combines with my high-context writing to become personal and offensive or inappropriate. I’m in a personal circle where I don’t have to worry about it and I’m understood and respected by those around me. On a forum, everyone’s just an conglomeration of everyone else’s perceptions. I don’t ever mean things as personally as they’re expressed. But that’s the nature of written communication and it’s exaggerated by many factors coming and going.

I don’t see anything for me to be here for. Everyone already has their own views and that’s how this forum (and many others) function. I prefer a teaching setting because that’s what I do. Entertaining all personal interpretations is just not my gig. I thought I might find a return to forum activity a good thing. It’s simply not for me; or at least not now.

In the end, I’m not very compatible with a Christian outlook that is devoid of understanding the English language’s limitations and having a basic comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns and why that’s so crucial.

Sorry this was so windy, but having unblocked you to read your farewell post I though it decent to respond. Enjoy the PNW. I’m headed for Florida later this year. No more winters for me.

[CONSPICILLUM]

When sarcasm is mixed with differences in doctrine, it most often comes out too harshly in a written format. I don’t always handle that balance well.

I think I agree with you. This is not really the place for me. I have plenty to labor over in my own responsibilities elsewhere. I just thought I’d jump back into a bit of forum interaction for a season to see how it would go. I don’t think it’s going to go much of anywhere for me or with others.

I’ll have to say I’m a little surprised this came so soon and over this particular expression, but it is what it is. You guys enjoy your time here. I need to be some place more orthodox.

No, well, treating theological discourse as if it were maths, and your interlocutors as if they're part of the theologically illiterate masses isn't the best strategy (even if it were true). The academy is great but there's something to be said for knowing how to relate to others. Regardless, your frustration was palpable.

We just aren't impressed by big words that ruin the prose.

Yeah, I’m probably not going to be able to get out of teaching mode and deal with such diversity of doctrines. I’ve figured that out. Sorry for that.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Well, my close friend, Martha just delivered a baby girl who will no doubt live to sin, but until the time she is able to formulate that decision she is without sin and does not carry a stigma of guilt under the forbidding gaze of a dark and angry God who has already destined her to condemnation.

She is a creature of hope and if destined for death in infancy, that hope will continue, to the chagrin of a dark orthodoxy.

Like all other humans since the Edenic event, that infant was conceived in spiritual death and sin (the state of being and condition, not any action accomplished). But since scripture says there’s no sin imputed where there is no law (and the child can’t yet stand culpable according to the law), then the child has no guilt for sin until a later time.

No need to corrupt Christian doctrine so you can virtue signal and try to save all the babies and little kids. They are in a state of spiirtual death and sin but the sin isn’t yet imputed to them. That’s because God is a God of grace and mercy and great wisdom and provision.

The unborn dead, infants, and young children are not in danger of hellfire. Law has to impute sin, and that doesn’t happen in the womb, at birth, or in the earliest stages of life.

There. Now you can become an orthodox Christian and lay aside all your fears and false doctrine based upon ignorance.

I love the sentiment here. The only thing I *might* disagree with is the idea that sin isn't imputed to the sinner when there is no consciousness of sin. There has to be a law with humanity simply because we all have a conscience. The introduction of a more explicit "law" is not required to have a conscience.

I think Paul was speaking of the fact people were not held accountable to the Law of Moses before it was even given. But they were still held accountable for their sin.

Obviously, if their being "accountable" means simply that they have the "disease," and they are mindless children, then they are held accountable only for being born in a "condition," and not responsible for committing any but the slightest of sins, if any at all.

I say that because the passage indicates people still die well before Israel obtained the Law of Moses. And we know all people die before they reach any supposed "age of accountability." They die from a "disease," and not from personal responsibility.

They still needed to be rescued by the atonement of Christ. Whether they are separated from paradise or not after death, due to their sin, is a matter of your view on predestination, I suppose.

If a child is the fruit of parents, or ancestors, who have settled on a spirit of rebellion, then the child likely would be an apple that falls close to the tree. The child would be born with the inclination to follow suit.

But having done no wrong, the child may enter into a place, upon death, outside of paradise, with perhaps zero "stripes." It's purely speculative to me, and had to give my two cents. I'm open on the issue of Predestination, although I call myself a "Calvinist." And I do have a reason for this.

So when does a child experience or express or interface with "conscience"

This answer would require a long lexical diatribe that you guys find distasteful and arrogant, or whatever (I’m not really sure). The one thing I’d say is that you’re looking for a child to accomplish a verb rather than understanding that everything is a noun.

Thanks for your discourse. Don’t let Caesar gig you for too much, and watch out for those Dispies.

[RandyPNW]

Well… I don’t think you’re honestly seeking or inquiring. The appearance to me is that you’re just externalizing all your own meanderings of thought and expression. That’s simply not how theology is “done” and it leads quickly and unerringly to prelest (a term it would be edifying for anyone to know if you’d care to look it up).

I'm glad you said "I don't think...," because that would be judgmental, right? To declare someone is *deliberately* avoiding the truth is a judgment, and I don't believe I'm doing that.

Of course, I would defend myself as honest and willing to grow. But I already know this to be true from an extensive history in walking with the Lord and being on forums. I've evolved a great deal, spiritually and in my views. I've certainly changed my views a lot, particularly because I couldn't understand things when I was less mature, and also because a favorite subject of mine is prophecy. I found that you'll get nowhere in prophecy if you aren't willing to be corrected over time.

As for my presence here, I simply prefer a more orthodox setting and venue. I didn’t know BF would be this varied in doctrinal diversity.

Too bad. I think you'd have a lot to contribute because of your intelligence and knowledge, as well as your ability to communicate. But it is critical to be able to endure diversity. This is largely a ministry to fellow believers or even to wannabe believers who think they're believers. You have to be willing to minister to all kinds here. It isn't even always a matter of resolving every issue--more, it's a matter of communicating love and truth to believers to help them stand in troubled times. To do that requires addressing a whole host of problems, sometimes not even knowing what lies beneath the issues being discussed.

But maybe God has called you to a more nuanced conversation. In this case, you probably will get bored. So if you leave, I wish you the best. But I wish I could convince you to stay. You certainly can contribute if you're willing to put up with tests to your sense of "orthodoxy."

I’m recognizing my limitations. I don’t have a good sense of when my biting sarcasm combines with my high-context writing to become personal and offensive or inappropriate. I’m in a personal circle where I don’t have to worry about it and I’m understood and respected by those around me. On a forum, everyone’s just an conglomeration of everyone else’s perceptions. I don’t ever mean things as personally as they’re expressed. But that’s the nature of written communication and it’s exaggerated by many factors coming and going.

I can accept that. You just need to say it. To call someone an "idiot," and then just blow it off as "my bad" doesn't really make it on forums. You have to take the time to insert an emoticon or two. You have to *tell someone* not to take the "you're an idiot" part too seriously.

I don’t see anything for me to be here for. Everyone already has their own views and that’s how this forum (and many others) function. I prefer a teaching setting because that’s what I do. Entertaining all personal interpretations is just not my gig. I thought I might find a return to forum activity a good thing. It’s simply not for me; or at least not now.

Well please come back. I don't want to be one of  the reasons you're leaving. Regardless of what you think, I learn something from everyone who knows God and His word. Even in the midst of disagreeing with you, I obtain something from one or two of your insights.

Sorry this was so windy, but having unblocked you to read your farewell post I though it decent to respond. Enjoy the PNW. I’m headed for Florida later this year. No more winters for me.

I do appreciate the kind explanation. I love the PNW but hate the liberal atmosphere. I've been looking at houses in Florida too--the Tampa area as well as the panhandle. I have friends down there. The weather is very appealing right now, since we just got over a dump of snow. Wish you well, and God bless.