Search results

I'm not claiming righteousness as a positive action, but as an absence of accountable sin. Therefore, babies are not unrighteous.

No, you condemn all aborted foetuses, all mentally handicapped, and all brainwashed people from other religions on the basis that they can't mentally assent to choosing Christ.

No, most will sin at some point, but to say all sin is missing the point that some foetuses will die having never sinned. Righteousness is the absence of accountable sin, otherwise you have a standard that is impossible to achieve, by means of knowledge, cognisance and will, for babies, the...

So babies are condemned if they die, despite not being capable of choosing to be Christian? Really?

All minute old foetuses. Case closed.

David wrote that, in a book of poetry, about himself during a time of grief of his own sin of murder and adultery. Why would that apply to all mankind?

Born in sin = sinful nature which isn't a sin of itself Foetuses cannot sin, and even if they could, there is some time before their first baby sin, making a blanket statement about all sinning fanciful. Babies don't need justification as they are innocent of sin.

The goal posts are moving here, are foetus unrighteousness? Do they sin from the moment they exist? No, we all know that. Having a sin nature is no more sinful than being tempted to sin.

I can accept the limited view that mankind generally is sinful, unrighteousness etc, but there is a stiff literalism to the text - no, not even one - to answer the thoughts we are covering. How do you deal with a hard line in scripture that isn't apparently 100% true. A second old foetus has...

That's quite a stretch from the Greek.

So is it fair to say Total depravity as a concept is equally hyperbolic?

Decay, sinful nature etc do not necessarily mean unrighteousness and sin, not literally.

So when It says "there is none... not even one", it includes all living humans. The mix of prosaic and literal is confusing. Does being born with a sinful nature, but not yet having sinned make you unrighteousness? I don't think so. Every human ever born has a finite gap of sinlessness, IMHO.

In rounding off what every human ever does, Paul says we all are quick to shed blood, every single one of us, even those who are terminated in a few weeks if it's so literal.

romans 3:10 quotes "None is righteousness, no not one" but that would have to include the 5 minute old foetus as well as the murder. What does this mean, or is it a bad translation? No one seeks God, no one understands. It just sounds like hyperbole.

So lawlessness is breaking conscious knowledge of sin without writing. would it have been better written down sooner, since we have cases of people either not knowing in NT that eating pork or meat changed. How would someone transition that knowledge of forbidden to allowed without writing?

I think you're missing my point, if being without the law - lawlessness - is wrong, then why was God slow to introduce it.

why is John against lawlessness if God took a few millennia to fully introduce it, coming through to the NT?

1 John 3 roundly condemns lawlessness as sin, yet we see a progressive introduction Of law via Adam, Noah and Moses . Why not do it in one go with Adam, post fall if lawlessness was so bad? Or is lawlessness a sin of breaking revealed law, in which case it's situational morality.

Its not a problem for dispensationalism because there is no explicit connection to the millenium. If someone wants to make a connection, that's their issue. The fact that I've never heard anyone make this connection, makes it a side issue for me, and a point scoring exercise for people with a...