However, my comment was intended to relay the thought earlier that it is not difficult to see what our convention did in 63 with the statement on the fall of man. They took a purposeful step away from imputed guilt and condemnation. I see no confusion as to that being their purpose with the changes with the 25 BF&M to the 63.

Death is not a natural consequence of sin like thunder is a consequence of lightning. Death is imposed on creation by the Creator. It is not a foreign, alien force that enters into creation. If one reads Genesis to Revelation death comes off like a verdict and that verdict by God, the Judge.

If God did not impose death into creation then sin would have no restraint and would go unchecked. With death, sin ends. To support this, in Revelation, God, Himself ends even death, the last enemy. God alone is in control from the beginning to the end. The real source of creations problems is not death, but sin. God has always seen the true enemy.

I think it would be help in any discussions on this to see the source of death, whether a natural consequence of sin or a part of God’s plan in dealing with sin.

Maybe not.

James wrote, “…every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin:”

This would suggest that temptations take advantage of existing lust and do not generate those lusts. So, only a thief can be tempted to steal. One must first be a thief in order to be tempted to steal – the opposite of your statement.

You wrote in a comment earlier: Instead, it was a warning from the SBC rank and file that if you come off as being divisive you will not garner votes.

Can I ask you if you WERE EVEN AT the annual meeting when that vote was taken? or in NO period?

I assure you the vote was everything BUT a “rank and file” vote.

Not sure why. Possible explanations-
1. You are preaching to the choir.
2. Recent difficulties in posting have deterred responses.
3. It is s difficult subject that few spend time investigating.
4. People are traveling or otherwise indisposed.

I think there is more in play here than you suggest. Jesus tells us that it is out of the heart that the mouth speaks. Therefore, does “capable of moral action” refer to the heart or to the outward manifestation of that which the heart is? It would seem obvious that it is not the outward expression of sin as observed by others that is meant here, is it?

So, at what point do we fix the condition of the heart as it must certainly be the heart that is “capable of moral action” regardless whether we are able to observe the person to engage in sin? John the Baptist is recorded to have been excited in the womb at the presence of Jesus. Could we not consider that a moral action in obedience to the first commandment and conclude that a baby in the womb is capable of moral action?

I think the issue involves more than you entertain.

JB,

Maybe you can help me (and others) see exactly what you mean.

Could you give one definitive example of the canons addressing a specific topic within the Traditional Statement?

Could you show how the three articles referenced above under “Semi-Pelagianism contradicted by the Traditional Statement” do NOT contract semi-pelagianism?

Donald