Biblical Logical Fallacies?

[thecreationtutor]

I don't know what Universalism is, but I don't believe that we are under "Original Sin" beyond the fact that we find ourselves still outside of Eden. There was a separation that happened between man and God at that time and I figure we don't totally overcome that until we die or Jesus comes. But we are clearly not condemned to Hell because our earthly fathers sinned. And a baby cannot sin as he/she is incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil. Baptizing babies is a pointless practice and quite frankly is impossible because believing, repenting, and confessing are not possible at that stage in life. I watched a five year old girl at her mother's funeral and she was totally oblivious to what had happened. I don't think she was old enough to understand salvation. For each person it is different. But babies, never.

Hmm something caught my eye -

Do people think that when we say the sin nature inherited by Adam, we equate it to the sins of the father?

No - we inherit the sin nature - bent towards sin, slave to sin etc

Is a child innocent of his father's sin - yes

Can a child be brought up with the example of sin, and thus reproduce that kind of sin, yes

Is God just to do whatever He wills with His creation - yes

 

[Timeline]

Hmm something caught my eye -

Do people think that when we say the sin nature inherited by Adam, we equate it to the sins of the father?

No - we inherit the sin nature - bent towards sin, slave to sin etc

Is a child innocent of his father's sin - yes

Can a child be brought up with the example of sin, and thus reproduce that kind of sin, yes

Is God just to do whatever He wills with His creation - yes

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church (maybe others) teach Original Sin - Being that we are born guilty of the sin of Adam and that is why they baptize infants. I do not agree with this at all. A baby is born without guilt of sin and will not go to hell because of the sins of the father. I believe that God is just. I do not believe that we should or can baptize infants. I know that the bible does not cover "the age of accountability", but I believe that when you realize that Jesus is your Savior and that you need Him to be saved, you should be baptized. I do not believe in Original Sin as I understand the Catholic Church to teach it. You can not force a baby to be baptized anymore than you can force an adult to be baptized. Wet, yes; Baptized, no.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

origional sin states in adam all die.

it says all men are born separated from God because of the one sin (adams)

thats all..

 

[SeaBass]

I don't know what Universalism is, but I don't believe that we are under "Original Sin" beyond the fact that we find ourselves still outside of Eden. There was a separation that happened between man and God at that time and I figure we don't totally overcome that until we die or Jesus comes. But we are clearly not condemned to Hell because our earthly fathers sinned. And a baby cannot sin as he/she is incapable of knowing the difference between good and evil. Baptizing babies is a pointless practice and quite frankly is impossible because believing, repenting, and confessing are not possible at that stage in life. I watched a five year old girl at her mother's funeral and she was totally oblivious to what had happened. I don't think she was old enough to understand salvation. For each person it is different. But babies, never.

John said sin is transgression of the law, so sin is not just an idea/thought that is passed from one person to another. What law have the newly conceived transgressed? Lying? Murder? Stealing? Adultery? Rom 9:11 no one prior to being born have done any good or evil, so the newly conceived have not transgressed any law - therefore are not sinners.

 

[SeaBass]

Is God just to do whatever He wills with His creation - yes

Can God lie to His creation?

 

[SeaBass]

... "the age of accountability"....

Rom 7;8,9 "For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Sin is dead if there is no law, then Paul says he was without the law once meaning when he was a infant he was without law - sin was dead to him. But as Paul matured intellectually learning right from wrong (Isa 7:15,16) [age of accountability] then sin sprang up in him. Sin was not in him at birth but sprang up later in his life.

 

[dcontroversal]

but us deductive types struggle with exegesis.

Deductive reasoning is biblical when in context and to address the op at the same time...to me, when people pick an idea or line of thought and then go find scriptures to (hang) on the idea or line of thought CAN BE misleading and dangerous in the aspect of using the word to say something that God did not intend it to say.

I AM NOT SAYING..I REPEAT...I AM NOT SAYING that we cannot do this and it be biblical as it is possible to pick and choose subjects found within the context of any given set of verses and find many scriptures throughout the bible that jives and or proves the idea and or line of thought...

 

[thecreationtutor]

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church (maybe others) teach Original Sin - Being that we are born guilty of the sin of Adam and that is why they baptize infants. I do not agree with this at all. A baby is born without guilt of sin and will not go to hell because of the sins of the father. I believe that God is just. I do not believe that we should or can baptize infants. I know that the bible does not cover "the age of accountability", but I believe that when you realize that Jesus is your Savior and that you need Him to be saved, you should be baptized. I do not believe in Original Sin as I understand the Catholic Church to teach it. You can not force a baby to be baptized anymore than you can force an adult to be baptized. Wet, yes; Baptized, no.

Why not trust that God is Just to do what He wills, and I don't make the decisions, God does. I am going to leave it up to Him, and not make up something because my fallen morality thinks it is ill of God to do certain things

 

[thecreationtutor]

Rom 7;8,9 "For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Sin is dead if there is no law, then Paul says he was without the law once meaning when he was a infant he was without law - sin was dead to him. But as Paul matured intellectually learning right from wrong (Isa 7:15,16) [age of accountability] then sin sprang up in him. Sin was not in him at birth but sprang up later in his life.

based on this we shouldn't witness to tribes that don't know the Gospel

you may answer - well they are lost without the Lord, and they should want to know the Lord, because I do

Isn't that the relational Gospel? I like you, you like me, I like Jesus, and maybe if you like me you would like Jesus too

or make sure my kid never sins, and never knows any right or wrong - as long as he doesn't know the Law, he is fine

makes me wonder what you think the law is, especailly it's supposed to be written on our hearts

Your example in scripture is kind of laughable - and a great example of cherry picking scriptures to say what you want them too

 

[Timeline]

Why not trust that God is Just to do what He wills, and I don't make the decisions, God does. I am going to leave it up to Him, and not make up something because my fallen morality thinks it is ill of God to do certain things

I don't make the decisions either, but I don't believe that the bible teaches Original Sin and if "Infant Baptism" is the only baptism that you have then it would be good for you to actually be baptized.

 

[Timeline]

Rom 7;8,9 "For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

Sin is dead if there is no law, then Paul says he was without the law once meaning when he was a infant he was without law - sin was dead to him. But as Paul matured intellectually learning right from wrong (Isa 7:15,16) [age of accountability] then sin sprang up in him. Sin was not in him at birth but sprang up later in his life.

I believe that is what I said.

 

[Timeline]

John said sin is transgression of the law, so sin is not just an idea/thought that is passed from one person to another. What law have the newly conceived transgressed? Lying? Murder? Stealing? Adultery? Rom 9:11 no one prior to being born have done any good or evil, so the newly conceived have not transgressed any law - therefore are not sinners.

I don't know if you did not understand me or if I am not understanding you. But I do not believe in Original Sin.

 

[SeaBass]

based on this we shouldn't witness to tribes that don't know the Gospel

you may answer - well they are lost without the Lord, and they should want to know the Lord, because I do

Isn't that the relational Gospel? I like you, you like me, I like Jesus, and maybe if you like me you would like Jesus too

or make sure my kid never sins, and never knows any right or wrong - as long as he doesn't know the Law, he is fine

makes me wonder what you think the law is, especailly it's supposed to be written on our hearts

Your example in scripture is kind of laughable - and a great example of cherry picking scriptures to say what you want them too

Rom 7:8,9 is biblical proof against original sin.

No tribe is without law. They may not know Christ's law exists but they are still under it and accountable to it.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Rom 7:8,9 is biblical proof against original sin.

No tribe is without law. They may not know Christ's law exists but they are still under it and accountable to it.

How then, they might have completely different values where murder is ok. how can they be accountable then? How are they different from a child?

 

[SeaBass]

How then, they might have completely different values where murder is ok. how can they be accountable then? How are they different from a child?

Rom 1:19-21, they are as the Gentiles, Rom 2:14. Total depravity and Rom 2:14 do not mix.

 

[Elin]

If p, then q

P therefore q

If (idea x) is true, I can find scriptures to back that up

I find scriptures that back it up, therefore (idea x) is true.

This is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

if you do not prove it - you commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent

Don't we call this eisegesis - where we start at a premise, then we find scriptures to back said premise?

You haven't found "Scriptures to back it up" unless your presentation of those Scriptures are in agreement with all the Scriptures.

 

[Elin]

The Bible is a whole message, consistent

The Testaments both agree to the whole message of the Bible

As long as you realize that some things (mysteries) revealed in the NT were not revealed in the OT,
and the OT must now be understood in the light of these NT revelations (mysteries).

 

[Elin]

Paul did not contradict himself in the Roman epistle,

so someone is taking verses out of context,

You conclusion does not logically follow your premise.

 

[Elin]

Irrefutable: Adam--Sin--Death.

And babes die.

To deny this is similar to denying that the fetus in the womb is truly human...
one refuses to make the connection in face of clear proof.

 

[thecreationtutor]

As long as you realize that some things (mysteries) revealed in the NT were not revealed in the OT,
and the OT must now be understood in the light of these NT revelations (mysteries).

I would agree! but we can look back at OT in light of knowing Both testiments