We learned of a weakness at the Council?


theplains
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, theplains said:

On page 15 of Gospel Principles it says, "At this council we also learned that because of our weakness all of us
would sin
."

Is fallen human nature the weakness which enables a child to commit his or her first sin?

Thanks,
Jim

Not exactly - you have missed the point.  Children under the age of accountability are not accountable.  In LDS theology the weakness is called "The Natural Man".  That is that unless we discipline our physical desires and overcome physical tendencies (submitting the physical to spiritual discipline) - sin not only is the "natural" result but unavoidable.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, theplains said:

On page 15 of Gospel Principles it says, "At this council we also learned that because of our weakness all of us
would sin
."

Is fallen human nature the weakness which enables a child to commit his or her first sin?

Thanks,
Jim

Interesting question. What do you think was the source of your first sin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2018 at 4:09 PM, mordorbund said:

Interesting question. What do you think was the source of your first sin?

I believe the source of all our sin is our fallen human nature, which we inherited.  This spiritual separation from God
occurred for Adam and Eve when they disobeyed Him in the Garden of Eden.  All their children were born in this state
where their relationship with God was dramatically different from what Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden before
they chose to follow Satan instead of God. 

Even a new born child has this inherited fallen nature.   This become much more evident as the child grows into what 
some have referred to as the "terrible twos" (ie. selfish, angry, etc 'brat-type' behaviour).  

So what do you think the weakness is that Gospel Principles talks about at this Council?

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2018 at 12:12 PM, Traveler said:

In LDS theology the weakness is called "The Natural Man".  That is that unless we discipline our physical desires and overcome physical tendencies (submitting the physical to spiritual discipline) - sin not only is the "natural" result but unavoidable.

When do you believe Adam first became a "The Natural Man" and would you identify his first sin?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe the source of all our sin is our fallen human nature, which we inherited.  This spiritual separation from God
occurred for Adam and Eve when they disobeyed Him in the Garden of Eden.  All their children were born in this state
where their relationship with God was dramatically different from what Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden before
they chose to follow Satan instead of God. 

Even a new born child has this inherited fallen nature.   This become much more evident as the child grows into what 
some have referred to as the "terrible twos" (ie. selfish, angry, etc 'brat-type' behaviour).  

So what do you think the weakness is that Gospel Principles talks about at this Council?

Jim

I think the weakness is two-fold: one is the fallen environment we live in, and the second is that we have not yet learned the perfect discipline manifested by Jesus (in mortality) and the godhead (premortally). The world we live in incentivizes selfishness, anger, "brat-type" behavior. And I'm not talking about 2-year olds. Really intelligent and enlightened people have recognized that this is a world of scarcity and that self-interest is in our best interest (surprisingly, not just individually, but often-times collectively). Zoologists inform us that this is what we see in nature. Yet, in contrast, God tells us that Earth has "enough, and to spare" and we ought to play a more cooperative game. It's like there's two sets of rules being played simultaneously, with the natural world telling us to eat or be eaten, and the God-world (which is every bit as temporal as the other) telling us to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.

It's like living in a chaotic garden with two principle trees, but our consumption choice is not mere hypothetical. We see the effects of both trees all around us. In this environment, we are like the early children of Adam and Eve.

Quote

12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters.

13 And Satan came among them, saying: I am also a son of God; and he commanded them, saying: Believe it not; and they believed it not, and they loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.

14 And the Lord God called upon men by the Holy Ghost everywhere and commanded them that they should repent;

Upon reflection, I guess the two-fold weakness collapses into 1. My first sin (and subsequent ones) occur when I love Satan more than God, and that is most often manifest when I believe the natural competitive world rules yield better results than the God-world rules. And for that I thank God for repentance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe the source of all our sin is our fallen human nature, which we inherited.  This spiritual separation from God
occurred for Adam and Eve when they disobeyed Him in the Garden of Eden.  All their children were born in this state
where their relationship with God was dramatically different from what Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden before
they chose to follow Satan instead of God. 

Even a new born child has this inherited fallen nature.   This become much more evident as the child grows into what 
some have referred to as the "terrible twos" (ie. selfish, angry, etc 'brat-type' behaviour).  

So what do you think the weakness is that Gospel Principles talks about at this Council?

Jim

The problem I have with my own nature being inherently fallen (and this is adopting the Greek and Trinitarian notions of nature - that it is the definition of the object) because of another person is that it makes God unjust. Adam was created of the dust of the ground and had the perfect nature of Man. He sinned and now I was instead born with the imperfect nature of man. First, this means that my fallen nature is not really Man's nature (as nature doesn't change from one man to the next, although the forms or shadows do). Second, if my form or nature is different than Adam's original form or nature, what have I done to deserve different treatment? God could have proclaimed that partaking of the forbidden fruit would yield sterility and a new generation of men (or man) would be formed of the dust of the ground. If my first sin (and not just my first, if this is truly my nature) is Adam's fault, only an unjust being (God or otherwise) would hold me accountable for it.

I suppose my position could be paraphrased from Joseph Smith's teaching: I believe I will be punished for my own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe the source of all our sin is our fallen human nature, which we inherited.  This spiritual separation from God
occurred for Adam and Eve when they disobeyed Him in the Garden of Eden.  All their children were born in this state
where their relationship with God was dramatically different from what Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden before
they chose to follow Satan instead of God. 

Even a new born child has this inherited fallen nature.   This become much more evident as the child grows into what 
some have referred to as the "terrible twos" (ie. selfish, angry, etc 'brat-type' behaviour).  

So what do you think the weakness is that Gospel Principles talks about at this Council?

Before entering this mortal realm we had weaknesses of varying sorts and degrees. These weaknesses were not well exposed because of the glorious situation in which we found ourselves. In short, other people were good to us, we didn't deal with hunger or pain, death or disease. But make no mistake, we had weaknesses, we still needed to grow. Joseph Smith once said that, "He [God] has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself..." (TPJS 354). We were and are those weaker intelligences. We are going through a portion of that instruction now. So Adam and Eve did not give us a sinful nature, they simply placed us in an environment where our weaknesses were exposed. Because of this fact our second article of faith states, "We believe that man will be punished for his own sin and not for Adam's transgression".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, theplains said:

When do you believe Adam first became a "The Natural Man" and would you identify his first sin?

Thanks,
Jim

If one takes poetic Hebrew scripture under the guise and attempt to create an accurate historical record they will create a narrative wrought with errors and contradictions.  Isaiah explains that to understand any divine narrative (such as Genesis) one learns line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  This notion of learning by progression is taught in other places in scripture.  For example: beginning as a child to understand as a child – but then to become an adult (man) and learn as a man and understand as a man.  Also the concept of milk before meat.  Again we see a narrative of building upon a rock as opposed to sand – the operative word being “building” that suggest a continuing process.  Finely, I suggest that this notion also can be found to continue with the understanding of a divine “path” or “way”.

LDS theology follows this method as we believe and follow a path or way to seek understanding from things past such as scripture (LDS believe things of G-d that have been revealed) and then to be on a path to seek understanding from thigs of the present such as living Apostles, Prophets and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and according to the covenant of the gift of the Holy Ghost (LDS believe things revealed to us in our own day, time and generation – things that are revealed).  Then to understand that there are yet things to be revealed (LSD believe that G-d will continue to reveal to all that seek many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of G-d and our salvation in eternity.

This notion of progressive learning is in sharp contrast to the world (or natural man) and the counterfeit religious notions of the world and men that want and think in terms of asking a question – getting an answer and being done with the inquiry.  In short I believe I cannot give you an answer to your questions in the spirit and purpose that I think you are asking – to attempt to do so would force incompleteness and would tend towards ending a honest quest for truth.  But I will explain some principles that I believe apply and open up a landscape of possible exploration and understanding.

I will begin by saying that anciently the name of a person had great significant and importance.  Often the names of important individuals with divine destinies had preconceived names because of the meaning and significance of divine destiny of the person given the name.  The name Adam – that was given by G-d to the first man also means all mankind or if you will - everybody.  Thus in LDS theology we are instructed to think of Adam in the Creation and Eden epochs as though we as individuals are the Adam in the narrative.  So then the symbolism in the narrative is as much about you and me making decisions as it was about Adam and Eve making a decision in the particular and specific narrative revealed to us in the Eden epoch.   So, for me, to try to begin to answer your first question - we become a “natural man” at birth or when our spirits are united with a mortal physical body.

Now I will try to begin an answer to your second question as to what I believe is the first sin of Adam or our first sin as we follow the Eden epoch narrative given in scripture.  I believe our first sin is identical to that of Adam and Eve in Eden – which is the first sin of pride which is selfishness or the desire or propensity to follow after the needs, wants and pleasures of the flesh rather than the promptings of the holy spirit.

Thank you for your question and I hope my answer was not too long or boring for what you are seeking.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

So, for me, to try to begin to answer your first question - we become a “natural man” at birth or when our spirits are united with a mortal physical body.

I disagree here. The natural man is an enemy to God. Little children are not natural men following after the carnal lusts of the flesh. We are commanded to put off the natural man and instead be born again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree here. The natural man is an enemy to God. Little children are not natural men following after the carnal lusts of the flesh. We are commanded to put off the natural man and instead be born again.

I disagree - I raised 5 children of my own and have 17 grandchildren (besides many callings to minister to children) - and I know for a fact that little children are not always darling little angles that never ever do anything wrong but that they can be proud and selfish and they can even tell a lie (a lie being a sin and contrary to the law of G-d) - children can be hungry (a desire and need of the flesh) and desire to eat things that they shouldn't.  I posted that when a spirit enters a mortal body - by nature the mortal individual becomes proud and selfish - which was what I posted.  Children do indeed have desires of the flesh.  But the difference with little children is that they are not accountable for those weaknesses because of Christ.  There is a very big difference between being incapable of the natural tendencies and desires of the flesh and not being accountable.  Children according to the empirical evidence that I have encountered in this matter are indeed capable of natural desires of the flesh - They are just not accountable before G-d.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

I disagree - I raised 5 children of my own and have 17 grandchildren (besides many callings to minister to children) - and I know for a fact that little children are not always darling little angles that never ever do anything wrong but that they can be proud and selfish and they can even tell a lie (a lie being a sin and contrary to the law of G-d) - children can be hungry (a desire and need of the flesh) and desire to eat things that they shouldn't.  I posted that when a spirit enters a mortal body - by nature the mortal individual becomes proud and selfish - which was what I posted.  Children do indeed have desires of the flesh.  But the difference with little children is that they are not accountable for those weaknesses because of Christ.  There is a very big difference between being incapable of the natural tendencies and desires of the flesh and not being accountable.  Children according to the empirical evidence that I have encountered in this matter are indeed capable of natural desires of the flesh - They are just not accountable before G-d.

 

The Traveler

Well, you would be wrong according to scripture.

"14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
            15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
            16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." (1Corinthians 2:14-16)

 

"19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father." (Mosiah 3:19)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Travelerand @Rob Osborn, I would say that Mosiah 3:19 uses the term "child" as in "child of God," or at least as in child who has been parented in such a way so as not to be provoked into the natural man as his default attitude (Ephesians 6:4, Colossians 3:21). Struggling with the natural man themselves, parents often enable their children to display these natural man tendencies. Only Christ is "submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love" and we can only become this way through our spiritual rebirth in Him. Every child must submit to his father in one way or another, and depending on how the father behaves, that submission can be accompanied with  a margin of charity or of anger; confidence and good will or discouragement and resistance. With all this is the child's developing agency, which moves along at its own pace irrespective of the age of accountability being set at eight years old for covenant-making purposes. Up to some point, they are perfectly innocent.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

@Travelerand @Rob Osborn, I would say that Mosiah 3:19 uses the term "child" as in "child of God," or at least as in child who has been parented in such a way so as not to be provoked into the natural man as his default attitude (Ephesians 6:4, Colossians 3:21). Struggling with the natural man themselves, parents often enable their children to display these natural man tendencies. Only Christ is "submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love" and we can only become this way through our spiritual rebirth in Him. Every child must submit to his father in one way or another, and depending on how the father behaves, that submission can be accompanied with  a margin of charity or of anger; confidence and good will or discouragement and resistance. With all this is the child's developing agency, which moves along at its own pace irrespective of the age of accountability being set at eight years old for covenant-making purposes. Up to some point, they are perfectly innocent.

Aye. The "natural man" is the state of the spiritually fallen carnal thinking man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Aye. The "natural man" is the state of the spiritually fallen carnal thinking man.

Some children are willing to submit to their parents and some not, but we all at some point need to choose to be "willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict." This is how we were in the preexistence, at least those who qualified for the second estate. The younger the child, the less voluntary the submission due to developmental constraints. And the more natural the man, the less willing he is to submit to righteous dominion due to his spiritual condition. But we all chose to be born, so that is when we for sure had the willingness, and then we had to regain it by becoming as a child (3 Nephi 11: 37-38).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Some children are willing to submit to their parents and some not, but we all at some point need to choose to be "willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict." This is how we were in the preexistence, at least those who qualified for the second estate. The younger the child, the less voluntary the submission due to developmental constraints. And the more natural the man, the less willing he is to submit to righteous dominion due to his spiritual condition. But we all chose to be born, so that is when we for sure had the willingness, and then we had to regain it by becoming as a child (3 Nephi 11: 37-38).

Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

@Travelerand @Rob Osborn, I would say that Mosiah 3:19 uses the term "child" as in "child of God," or at least as in child who has been parented in such a way so as not to be provoked into the natural man as his default attitude (Ephesians 6:4, Colossians 3:21). Struggling with the natural man themselves, parents often enable their children to display these natural man tendencies. Only Christ is "submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love" and we can only become this way through our spiritual rebirth in Him. Every child must submit to his father in one way or another, and depending on how the father behaves, that submission can be accompanied with  a margin of charity or of anger; confidence and good will or discouragement and resistance. With all this is the child's developing agency, which moves along at its own pace irrespective of the age of accountability being set at eight years old for covenant-making purposes. Up to some point, they are perfectly innocent.

The extent of the word carnal means "of the flesh".   However, the word carnal often is narrowed to mean sexual pleasures.  We have to be careful how we use words and foster thoughts in the extension of meaning and then to encapsulate on a particular intent of a term to create an argumentative exchange.  The Book of Mormon uses three terms to describe the natural man.  The three terms are carnal, sensual and devilish.  An infant baby is expressing its carnal nature when it cries for a bottle to be fed.  Eating is a carnal activity - it is not spiritual.  Part of the purpose of a fast is to submit our carnal nature to our spiritual enlightenment.  When a small baby is coddled by it mother and calmed this is the result of the child's sensual nature to be physically held by it mother.  The final term of "devilish" is not so well defined and has more to do with intent than any particular action.  What is interesting about the two terms of carnal and sensual is that by the very nature of not having a physical body Satan and all the devils that follow him are not nor can be themselves carnal or sensual.

Often it is extremely difficult to have a conversation with @Rob Osbornbecause he fixates on a specific intent of a term or idea without any recognition that the word (term) has possible extensional meaning far beyond the extremely limited scope he is using to support his ideas and arguments.  Our fallen nature means that our physical self will suffer death.  It is this idea that is very important in understanding the LDS theological expression of the plan of salvation that I was attempting to explain to @theplainswhen @Rob Osbornhijacked our exchanged to insist that children are an exception to this LDS theological expression of the divine plan of salvation.  The LDS theology is often hijacked over terms and attempts to use certain term beyond the scope in which they were used. 

I believe it is quite logical and clear that we inherit our fallen nature when we are born because from the instant we are born we are destined to die - a destiny of death is an essential element of the fall.  To say otherwise is a lie - any being that is unavoidably destined to die is a fallen being - which is the reason that everyone born need Christ - including children.  Children are not excluded from death (and therefore fallen beings) but in Christ they are made alive without need of repentance.  If they were not subject to the flesh unto death they would not need Christ.  To be honest I do not know what @Rob Osbornis trying to communicate - he may be testifying is a round-about-way that Christ is not important to children.  I really do not know - he may just be trying to be a burr in my saddle.  He is hard to read and get to the crux of what his intent actually is  - at least for me. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The extent of the word carnal means "of the flesh".   However, the word carnal often is narrowed to mean sexual pleasures.  We have to be careful how we use words and foster thoughts in the extension of meaning and then to encapsulate on a particular intent of a term to create an argumentative exchange.  The Book of Mormon uses three terms to describe the natural man.  The three terms are carnal, sensual and devilish.  An infant baby is expressing its carnal nature when it cries for a bottle to be fed.  Eating is a carnal activity - it is not spiritual.  Part of the purpose of a fast is to submit our carnal nature to our spiritual enlightenment.  When a small baby is coddled by it mother and calmed this is the result of the child's sensual nature to be physically held by it mother.  The final term of "devilish" is not so well defined and has more to do with intent than any particular action.  What is interesting about the two terms of carnal and sensual is that by the very nature of not having a physical body Satan and all the devils that follow him are not nor can be themselves carnal or sensual.

Often it is extremely difficult to have a conversation with @Rob Osbornbecause he fixates on a specific intent of a term or idea without any recognition that the word (term) has possible extensional meaning far beyond the extremely limited scope he is using to support his ideas and arguments.  Our fallen nature means that our physical self will suffer death.  It is this idea that is very important in understanding the LDS theological expression of the plan of salvation that I was attempting to explain to @theplainswhen @Rob Osbornhijacked our exchanged to insist that children are an exception to this LDS theological expression of the divine plan of salvation.  The LDS theology is often hijacked over terms and attempts to use certain term beyond the scope in which they were used. 

I believe it is quite logical and clear that we inherit our fallen nature when we are born because from the instant we are born we are destined to die - a destiny of death is an essential element of the fall.  To say otherwise is a lie - any being that is unavoidably destined to die is a fallen being - which is the reason that everyone born need Christ - including children.  Children are not excluded from death (and therefore fallen beings) but in Christ they are made alive without need of repentance.  If they were not subject to the flesh unto death they would not need Christ.  To be honest I do not know what @Rob Osbornis trying to communicate - he may be testifying is a round-about-way that Christ is not important to children.  I really do not know - he may just be trying to be a burr in my saddle.  He is hard to read and get to the crux of what his intent actually is  - at least for me. 

 

The Traveler

Moses 5 and 6 also present the concept of our being “carnal, sensual and devilish.” This happens when “Satan [comes among us], saying: I am also a son of God; and he [commands us], …and [we love] Satan more than God (5:13).” It is also stated in terms of “Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and [because they hearken to him] men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God. (6:45).” Mosiah 16:3 suggests they can only do this once they know evil from good, and with that knowledge still choose to subject themselves to the devil. This is consistent with D&C 93:38-39, “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.”

The 1828 Webster Dictionary includes these definitions of devilish: “1. Partaking of the qualities of the devil; diabolical; very evil and mischievous; malicious… 2. Having communication with the devil…” I think these are reflected in the scriptures above as well as in the Book of Mormon. #1 is relative in that no one is as developed as Christ; #2 is somewhat imposed upon us because we are in an estate in which Satan operates.

I agree that as long as infants and little children die, they possess a fallen nature in the physical sense. Because no spirit is as perfect as Christ, they also must rely upon Him to for rescue from the devil, no matter how innocent they are, and in this sense too they become fallen creatures once they enter mortality. The meaning of their being “whole from the foundation of the world” (Moses 6:54) has to do with their not carrying anyone else’s guilt, though the fallen nature was inherited through birth. There is a big difference between guilt and fallen nature (act vs. propensity to act).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

The extent of the word carnal means "of the flesh".   However, the word carnal often is narrowed to mean sexual pleasures.  We have to be careful how we use words and foster thoughts in the extension of meaning and then to encapsulate on a particular intent of a term to create an argumentative exchange.  The Book of Mormon uses three terms to describe the natural man.  The three terms are carnal, sensual and devilish.  An infant baby is expressing its carnal nature when it cries for a bottle to be fed.  Eating is a carnal activity - it is not spiritual.  Part of the purpose of a fast is to submit our carnal nature to our spiritual enlightenment.  When a small baby is coddled by it mother and calmed this is the result of the child's sensual nature to be physically held by it mother.  The final term of "devilish" is not so well defined and has more to do with intent than any particular action.  What is interesting about the two terms of carnal and sensual is that by the very nature of not having a physical body Satan and all the devils that follow him are not nor can be themselves carnal or sensual.

Often it is extremely difficult to have a conversation with @Rob Osbornbecause he fixates on a specific intent of a term or idea without any recognition that the word (term) has possible extensional meaning far beyond the extremely limited scope he is using to support his ideas and arguments.  Our fallen nature means that our physical self will suffer death.  It is this idea that is very important in understanding the LDS theological expression of the plan of salvation that I was attempting to explain to @theplainswhen @Rob Osbornhijacked our exchanged to insist that children are an exception to this LDS theological expression of the divine plan of salvation.  The LDS theology is often hijacked over terms and attempts to use certain term beyond the scope in which they were used. 

I believe it is quite logical and clear that we inherit our fallen nature when we are born because from the instant we are born we are destined to die - a destiny of death is an essential element of the fall.  To say otherwise is a lie - any being that is unavoidably destined to die is a fallen being - which is the reason that everyone born need Christ - including children.  Children are not excluded from death (and therefore fallen beings) but in Christ they are made alive without need of repentance.  If they were not subject to the flesh unto death they would not need Christ.  To be honest I do not know what @Rob Osbornis trying to communicate - he may be testifying is a round-about-way that Christ is not important to children.  I really do not know - he may just be trying to be a burr in my saddle.  He is hard to read and get to the crux of what his intent actually is  - at least for me. 

 

The Traveler

It has tp do with keeping doctrine pure and without corruption. False doctrines abound because people lack the correct understanding. I stepped in because one, or several, of those false doctrines arose. Its important that we keep doctrine pure and true. Not for your sake only but for all others following along. As used in the scriptures the term "natural man" is generally used to denote the fallen spiritual status of man who is fixated on the carnal natural nature of the flesh. The word "carnal" as used in scripture denotes the lustful devilish nature of the mind seeking fulfillment and purpose outside of that which is spiritual. A carnal appetite is the lust for physical pleasure outside of that which is sanctifying and spiritual. Sexual relations within marriage are thus not "carnal" whereas a one night stand to have sexual relations with a stranger is carnal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It has tp do with keeping doctrine pure and without corruption. False doctrines abound because people lack the correct understanding. I stepped in because one, or several, of those false doctrines arose. Its important that we keep doctrine pure and true. Not for your sake only but for all others following along.

Rob, given your unorthodox beliefs about the nature of our eternal inheritance, do you not suppose that you might not be the most credible source when lecturing about the importance of maintaining doctrinal purity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It has tp do with keeping doctrine pure and without corruption. False doctrines abound because people lack the correct understanding. I stepped in because one, or several, of those false doctrines arose. Its important that we keep doctrine pure and true. Not for your sake only but for all others following along. As used in the scriptures the term "natural man" is generally used to denote the fallen spiritual status of man who is fixated on the carnal natural nature of the flesh. The word "carnal" as used in scripture denotes the lustful devilish nature of the mind seeking fulfillment and purpose outside of that which is spiritual. A carnal appetite is the lust for physical pleasure outside of that which is sanctifying and spiritual. Sexual relations within marriage are thus not "carnal" whereas a one night stand to have sexual relations with a stranger is carnal.

I do not follow your correction of doctrine - Satan is a spirit and is incapable of any "carnal natural nature of the flesh" - likewise are all the host that follow him.  Your first post, supposing to call out a correction of doctrine did not mention devilish - only the word carnal.  Perhaps you can explain with "Pure" doctrine how it is the carnal means devilish?  Please explain how it is possible that devils are carnal?  Are you teaching (demanding that it is pure doctrine that Satan has a physical or "CARDNAL" body?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Another clarification- infants and little children are spiritually alive and are not fallen spiritually until they become accountable and sin. As such, until then they also are not carnal sensual or devilish until they become accountable and sin.

How do you explain the child phase known as "the terrible twos," when they display episodes of temper tantrums and
selfishness to name a few?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share