Would Adam have died?

[SovereignGrace]

Man was created naturally fully mortal, in mortal bodies without anything that could be called an immortal soul.

This does not however mean that it was ever intended for him to die.

Only God has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), but others may partake in life indefinitely so long as they are sustained by the gift of His grace. Adam may have lost this, but those who are in Christ shall enjoy it in the last days once they are resurrected and translated into incorruptible bodies like that of the risen Christ.

The wages of sin is not eternal torture, but non-existence. Separation from God requires separation from existence itself, as God is present everywhere.

David plainly stated that God is present in Sheol (Psalms 139:8), which is sometimes translated as hell but more plainly means the grave, or the abode of all the dead. Solomon was clear that the dead in Sheol are not conscious of anything (Ecclesiastes 9:10).

Jesus never spoke of "hell" as modern man conventionally thinks of it. He spoke of Hades. This literally means "the unseen," and could refer to anything hidden under the surface of the earth. (It was not only the mythological place of the dead, but also the physical place of the grave, of gold mines, etc.) It was the standard Greek translation for the Hebrew Sheol. He also spoke of Gehenna, which is simply "the valley of the sons of Hinnom," the location of Jerusalem's garbage dump. This was not a place of torment, but of the destruction of worthless trash. This rubbish included corpses of animals and of humans who were considered so wicked that they did not deserve an honorable grave.



Pelagius was actually found to be completely Orthodox every time that he was given the opportunity to explain his own beliefs. He was only ever declared heretical when tried in absentia by those who chose to go by third party descriptions of his views rather than hear his actual teachings. His opinions were probably misrepresented by his enemies. Modern scholars increasingly lean towards the opinion that Pelagius was highly orthodox, even if some of his students might not have been. Augustine was a greater innovator of doctrines, and also had a much poorer understanding of the language in which the holy Scriptures were written. I find that John Calvin's theology often resembles a reductio ad absurdum of Augustine's errors.



A Heresy is merely a school of thought though. It comes from a root meaning "choice," particularly the choice of what school of thought a man decided was most correct after examining the evidence. It was not originally derogatory. The bible itself uses the Greek word in a value neutral sense to describe the Sadducee, Pharisees, and even the early Christian church itself. There is nothing wrong with being a heretic and being right. I'd rather each of us chose for ourselves after examining the evidence rather than blindly following whatever tradition we happened to be taught.

Some of what you say is true, and some of it's false. And you equivocate so much, it amounts to nothing.


The Scriptures plainly teach that death entered in because of sin.

Read Romans 5:12 :

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

It couldn't possibly be any more plain.

Death only exists because of sin.

And more to the point, that's why Jesus Christ had to die--because he was "numbered with the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12)

He had to die for the sins of his people.

 

[sprinkles]

Well if there was only two people and they both sinned I guess that would count as "all".

What I don't get is all of everything that happened afterwards.

 

[Barnabas]

Well, I don't have time to write a decent response right now, but I may preach my next sermon on this. I'll keep you posted.

Best of luck I'm filling in for a pastor from my home church this Sunday, he asked me to preach about the prophets, not a Elisha or Elijah or Amos. Not a particular passage from the book of kings, Just prophets. I'm not exactly sure what he wants.

 

[Barnabas]

Some of what you say is true, and some of it's false. And you equivocate so much, it amounts to nothing.


The Scriptures plainly teach that death entered in because of sin.

Read Romans 5:12 :



It couldn't possibly be any more plain.

Death only exists because of sin.

And more to the point, that's why Jesus Christ had to die--because he was "numbered with the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12)

He had to die for the sins of the world.

fixed that, John doesn't say his people he says the world, in fact that word is Cosmos in the Greek, which means everything Jesus came to save everything.

Also Romans 5:12 is the passage that me and my roommate had been debating, he was originally on your side of the fence. but your missing the context of the rest of the passage which extends to Romans 5:14

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

It's very important to note the wording Paul uses, Death Reigned from Adam until Moses. The when the Mosaic law was given death no longer reigned according to Paul, it's important to realize people didn't stop dying. So if the Mosaic law put and end to death for those who followed it then why did they keep dying, well it's quite obvious that Paul meant spiritual death our separation from God, not our physical bodies, it's the same reason Adam and Eve didn't die in the garden when they ate the fruit, because God wasn't talking about the decomposition of their bodies, he was talking about them being separated from life itself, from him.

Think about the way God designed your body, death and reproduction are a natural part of it. Things die so you can live, organism which your eat, living cells which make up your body die and reproduce, bacteria which help your body function. All of it dies, and then new ones are born and God built you that way.

It scares/offends you because it interferes with your concepts of original sin, which to be fair seems to be central to many peoples understanding of who God is and if what is say is true then it must be terrifying for them who believe in original sin and predestination, because if they don't know God then he must not have picked by him which means they're hell bound. It's sad because it couldn't be farther from the truth, God loves you, God loves me, God loves Event Horizon and Indigo Sensor and every member of this forum past and present

That's one of the most blasphemous things I've ever seen. I'm totally amazed.

Are you saying that we atone for ourselves, and Christ's atonement is meaningless?

That certainly seems to be the suggestion you're making.


Furthermore, I'm not judging anyone. I'm saying Christ is the judge, and he will condemn the world for it's sin.

There is only ONE way to be saved from God's wrath--to be vitally joined to Christ by faith.

The responses I'm giving are fair and unbiased. People are just reading evil motives into them.

And the people I've responded to are not just confused, they're lost. They don't have the slightest idea who Christ is, or what he's done. In other words, they are not Christians.

It will not help them one bit to pretend they are saved. They must be corrected and humbled by Scripture.

Again, if they read evil motives into what I'm saying, there's really not much I can do.

That would be quite blasphemous if that was what i was saying, luckily I'm not. So let's clear the air, Jesus' sacrifice saves us from sin just like in the old testament the bull or the pigeons(for those who could not afford a bull or did not have one) sacrifice saved the Hebrews on many occasions one bull would be sacrificed for many people, by one person(the Priest) for their sins, Jesus is the same, one sacrifice for the atonement of the all the sins of the world by another individual(God). With the sacrifice of the bull repentance was needed, it's like a man who's been given a gift but refuses to open it or when a builder repairs a bridge but the city refuses to use it. The bridge is all but impossible for the people to acquire on their own, but even after it's built for them it's up to them to cross it. It's the same way with Christ, he built us a bridge which will never crumble, fade or sway yet it's still our responsibility to cross it.


Edit1: Your words aren't evil SG, just unkind and uncaring, you give people at least some truth(that heaven comes through Christ) but it's hard and unbearable to hear, there's an old quote by Warren Wiersbe "Truth without love is brutality, love without truth is hypocrisy."


Edit2: I'm quite proud of that bridge allegory, that's beautiful. Which probably means I need to start working my way across the bridge myself.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Best of luck I'm filling in for a pastor from my home church this Sunday, he asked me to preach about the prophets, not a Elisha or Elijah or Amos. Not a particular passage from the book of kings, Just prophets. I'm not exactly sure what he wants.

The Prophets are great.

I'm preaching from Ezekiel 34, Lord willing, on June 1. Tentatively entitled: "Christ Our Great Shepherd"

 

[Barnabas]

The Prophets are great.

I'm preaching from Ezekiel 34, Lord willing, on June 1. Tentatively entitled: "Christ Our Great Shepherd"

Yeah, I narrowed it down to Elijah, were going to talk about his showdown with the prophets of Ba'al. Those were some of if not the darkest moments of Israel's history, just go's to show how, no matter how far you wander regardless of how bad you falter, God always come looking for you, always comes to save you.

I've been wanting to dig into Ezekiel for quite a while, the valley of dry bones is beautiful.

 

[SovereignGrace]

fixed that, John doesn't say his people he says the world, in fact that word is Cosmos in the Greek, which means everything Jesus came to save everything.

Also Romans 5:12 is the passage that me and my roommate had been debating, he was originally on your side of the fence. but your missing the context of the rest of the passage which extends to Romans 5:14



It's very important to note the wording Paul uses, Death Reigned from Adam until Moses. The when the Mosaic law was given death no longer reigned according to Paul, it's important to realize people didn't stop dying. So if the Mosaic law put and end to death for those who followed it then why did they keep dying, well it's quite obvious that Paul meant spiritual death our separation from God, not our physical bodies, it's the same reason Adam and Eve didn't die in the garden when they ate the fruit, because God wasn't talking about the decomposition of their bodies, he was talking about them being separated from life itself, from him.

Think about the way God designed your body, death and reproduction are a natural part of it. Things die so you can live, organism which your eat, living cells which make up your body die and reproduce, bacteria which help your body function. All of it dies, and then new ones are born and God built you that way.

It scares/offends you because it interferes with your concepts of original sin, which to be fair seems to be central to many peoples understanding of who God is and if what is say is true then it must be terrifying for them who believe in original sin and predestination, because if they don't know God then he must not have picked by him which means they're hell bound. It's sad because it couldn't be farther from the truth, God loves you, God loves me, God loves Event Horizon and Indigo Sensor and every member of this forum past and present




That would be quite blasphemous if that was what i was saying, luckily I'm not. So let's clear the air, Jesus' sacrifice saves us from sin just like in the old testament the bull or the pigeons(for those who could not afford a bull or did not have one) sacrifice saved the Hebrews on many occasions one bull would be sacrificed for many people, by one person(the Priest) for their sins, Jesus is the same, one sacrifice for the atonement of the all the sins of the world by another individual(God). With the sacrifice of the bull repentance was needed, it's like a man who's been given a gift but refuses to open it or when a builder repairs a bridge but the city refuses to use it. The bridge is all but impossible for the people to acquire on their own, but even after it's built for them it's up to them to cross it. It's the same way with Christ, he built us a bridge which will never crumble, fade or sway yet it's still our responsibility to cross it.


Edit1: Your words aren't evil SG, just unkind and uncaring, you give people at least some truth(that heaven comes through Christ) but it's hard and unbearable to hear, there's an old quote by Warren Wiersbe "Truth without love is brutality, love without truth is hypocrisy."


Edit2: I'm quite proud of that bridge allegory, that's beautiful. Which probably means I need to start working my way across the bridge myself.

Oh, man.

I'm sorry, but your understanding of Scripture is very poor. There's just no kinder way to say it.

Just like with your previous post, I don't have time to address all the things in the Scriptures you've misunderstood.

But I don't think you need to learn more. It seems like you need to start with the basics.

In fact, I really believe you ought to question whether you're saved at all. That's my honest concern.

And the fact that you're preaching to people REALLY concerns me.

I hope you can sense my sincerity, but if you don't, it's not really my problem.

I wish you the best, but ultimately, it's all in God's hands.

 

[LucyJr]

Don't sweat it...an all knowing, all loving god isn't going to be a dick or he/she wouldn't be all loving and all knowing

and just...all JUST. all loving, all knowing and all JUST.

 

[j654dgj7]

Just remember that there's different ways of interpreting things. Blanket statements like "you're blasphemous" and "you're wrong" are very arrogant, seeing as how you don't know the people that wrote it, and that it was written a long time ago. I mean, the first Christians were Jews that still made animal sacrifices to God! If there's only one "correct" way of reading the thing, you would think that the group around the people that wrote it would be on point!

My point is that there's a thousand different ways to define the words used in the Bible. God made the Earth in 7 days. Who said that those days had to be Earth Days after the Egyptian calculations? What is grace? Damnation? Sin? Etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying that I don't have a definition, what I'm saying is that there are many definitions in the Christian community as to what those words mean. Most of them have common translations, but come on! Take up a lesson from Jesus and open your minds a bit to different ways of thinking and living according to the Bible and the word of Jesus!

... And nope, it won't help to quote the Bible to prove that your quotes of the Bible are correct.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think there are three types of immortality which can be described here:

1. Of nature
2. Of grace
3. Of glory

1. Of nature, man having a corruptible body and incorruptible soul, one could argue that without the effect of original sin, the incorruptible soul may be able to preserve the corruptible body. However, this argument would presuppose the existence of natural corporeal incorruptibility, which no one holds.

3. Of glory, the saints after the resurrection enjoy a redounding effect of the beatific vision in their souls, which overflows to the body, making them immortal. This is held by all as part of the faith.

2. Of grace. The state of grace (sanctifying grace), in itself does not confer physical incorruptibility - this is evident in the death of even saints. However, it is clear that a other graces (gifts) can confer freedom, or even reversal of corruption, as is evidenced by the various miracles of healing and even of raising from the dead performed by Christ, or in His name. The dispute would arise as to whether in his original state of grace, Adam was also given all other graces, such as incorruptibility.
In favour of the incorruptibility is St Paul's doctrine that by one man sin entered into the world and by sin death. (Rom5:12). The interpretation of "and by sin death" as a distinction of sin and its consequence death, not simply read as an elaboration of what sin is a dogmatic one in the Catholic Church. That is to say, death as a consequence of the sin of Adam is a dogma of the Catholic Church, which implies that Adam was granted both the state of grace, and the grace of incorruptibility, distinct from the immortality of the beatific vision (which cannot be lost).

 

[SovereignGrace]

Just remember that there's different ways of interpreting things. Blanket statements like "you're blasphemous" and "you're wrong" are very arrogant, seeing as how you don't know the people that wrote it, and that it was written a long time ago. I mean, the first Christians were Jews that still made animal sacrifices to God! If there's only one "correct" way of reading the thing, you would think that the group around the people that wrote it would be on point!

My point is that there's a thousand different ways to define the words used in the Bible. God made the Earth in 7 days. Who said that those days had to be Earth Days after the Egyptian calculations? What is grace? Damnation? Sin? Etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying that I don't have a definition, what I'm saying is that there are many definitions in the Christian community as to what those words mean. Most of them have common translations, but come on! Take up a lesson from Jesus and open your minds a bit to different ways of thinking and living according to the Bible and the word of Jesus!

... And nope, it won't help to quote the Bible to prove that your quotes of the Bible are correct.

Again, you're just wrong.

There are certainly some difficult passages, but the overall message of Scripture is clear.

God will judge the whole world for their sins, and Christ is the only Savior from sin.

The sacrifice of himself appeased the wrath of Almighty God. And he did it for an elect remnant, not the entire world. He did not fail to save the rest, he never even tried.

You say I can't prove it by quoting Scripture, but I'll quote it anyway, to prove that God is not going to save everyone, but only those who believe on his Son.

Romans 9:13-29 :

As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

As He says also in Hosea:


“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”


“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:


“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.


For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”

And as Isaiah said before:


“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”

You see, Christ only died for a remnant, not the entire world.

He didn't even pray for the whole world, but only those the Father gave him in the covenant of grace.

Read his prayer in John, Chapter 17. He said, in Verse 9:

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Why would he make that distinction if he meant to save everyone?

Furthermore, he told those wicked Pharisees:

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life.

Again, he makes a distinction: Some are his sheep, and some are not. He gives life to some, and not to others.

You are without excuse if you do not believe this. God is only saving a remnant.

This was foretold throughout the Old Testament, and fulfilled in the New. And you must believe in Christ, or be damned. Period.

There is truth and there is error. And it doesn't matter how sincere one is, if her/his faith is not in Christ and Christ alone, that person is absolutely going to Hell.

The Scripture is a revelation of God. It's not something to interpret how you like.

I wouldn't try to take away the hope from someone who believes in the Christ who is revealed in the Scriptures. But anyone who believes in some other "Christ" is believing in a false Christ, and is lost.

The loving thing to do is tell him he's lost, and point him to Christ, and if he doesn't listen, it's out of your hands.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that you are lost if you think Christ died for everyone, or that God won't cast unbelieving sinners into Hell.

John 3:36 :

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

 

[Lark]

I had some really interesting conversation with my roommate and found out that I am apparently committed to the pelagian heresey(It's mostly a refutation of Calvinism and infant baptism). But one of the main points is that Adam was created with the intention of having a physical death and that his sin lead to spiritual death, the separation from God. After some reading and like two hours of discussion we came to the conclusion the Adam would have died physically whether or not he had sinned.

I'm interested to know the rest of the communities opinion on this.

Hmm, I think those sorts of musings are interesting, from a pretty abstract point of view but I wind up thinking what difference does it make?

Is the question of whether Adam was immortal and forfeit his immortality completely by his actions or whether he was mortal but experienced spiritual death by his actions going to change what? Lead to what? Important why?

 

[Skarekrow]

Oh, man.

I'm sorry, but your understanding of Scripture is very poor. There's just no kinder way to say it.

Just like with your previous post, I don't have time to address all the things in the Scriptures you've misunderstood.

But I don't think you need to learn more. It seems like you need to start with the basics.

In fact, I really believe you ought to question whether you're saved at all. That's my honest concern.

And the fact that you're preaching to people REALLY concerns me.

I hope you can sense my sincerity, but if you don't, it's not really my problem.

I wish you the best, but ultimately, it's all in God's hands.

Wow man!

You’re absolutely going to win everyone over by being so charming!
Best of luck spreading the “good news” when you treat everyone as so far below you...prideful!

 

[sprinkles]

Hmm, I think those sorts of musings are interesting, from a pretty abstract point of view but I wind up thinking what difference does it make?

Is the question of whether Adam was immortal and forfeit his immortality completely by his actions or whether he was mortal but experienced spiritual death by his actions going to change what? Lead to what? Important why?

If we're going to take it seriously and literal then there's other questions too.

What if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned and had their children while still in Eden, but Cain ended up being the one who first sinned? Would that have retroactively damned Adam and Eve too? If so, why?

If condemnation could be retroactive and all humans were capable of sinning to the point that it was basically inevitable since it would only take one, wouldn't that mean that no matter how you slice it, Adam would have died both kinds of death eventually, whether it was from his actions or one of his descendants?

 

[Lark]

If we're going to take it seriously and literal then there's other questions too.

What if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned and had their children while still in Eden, but Cain ended up being the one who first sinned? Would that have retroactively damned Adam and Eve too? If so, why?

If condemnation could be retroactive and all humans were capable of sinning to the point that it was basically inevitable since it would only take one, wouldn't that mean that no matter how you slice it, Adam would have died both kinds of death eventually, whether it was from his actions or one of his descendants?

I've got to sleep right now so the answer I give is going to be all too brief and incomplete.

There's evidence from some of the passages, and this does not require a literalist interpretation of the text either, that there were other people or other humans around at the time but that Adam and Eve were the choosen two of God, I cant remember quite what passages evidence this but I remember reading about it in a work of biblical exegesis.

It also makes sense given that the Hebrews believed that they were a choosen people amongst all of the earths peoples, also referred to as nations and tribes, that ethno-nationalist religosity lingers until today and even showed up as having made an impression upon Jesus himself, it was the witness and belief of a human being which seemed to dissuade Jesus of this view and its, on the one hand, endorsed as evidence that he was true man, aswell as true God, but also, on the other hand, seen as a challenge to the fact that he was true god because if he were why would he be prejudiced in favour of a single tribe and nation, unless God was, which opens the road for some pretty left field Jungian views about an evolving and developing deity operating in tandem with humankind.

I dont believe there's any retroactive damning and I believe that this episode in mankind and God's relationship is fraught with metaphor and allegory to be honest but its clear that there was a point which made for the present state of affairs and they tried their best to record that and bridge the gap from then to now.

Its better than some of the more odd scientific theories or some of the maddest pseudo-scientific ones. Have you seen any of those mad youtube videos with the little box headed stick men which reference the earth's battle with the extraterrestrial greys, talk about a golden pyramid inside one of the pyramids and interdimensional entities which possess humans? They are totally mad man, I've seen some of them and they really and truly tell a tale in terms of building a seemingly logical and persuasive narrative around some frankly nutbar musings. I'm sure they sell lots of books.

 

[Lark]

Wow man!

You’re absolutely going to win everyone over by being so charming!
Best of luck spreading the “good news” when you treat everyone as so far below you...prideful!

Well he's pretty coherent and consistent and presents a solid case with clarity so I'd say its not a case of total failure. In some ways I prefer that sort of presentation to the mish mash of I sort of believe this, and a bit of this, and this too, and that but then I maybe dont believe this, kind of thing which fills in for thought through discussion online.

Its possible to disagree with him, conclude that this kind of argument presents more obstacles to discussion and invites dispute instead but I couldnt really fault the delivery much.

It is strange to invite opinions in the way the OP does only in order to be so confrontational about it when they are proffered. Although maybe they feel they are besieged and beset, it happens and people slip up or slip into particular modes when it does happen. There's nothing wrong with that either. However a lot of people have problems admitting that and get defensive and angry instead.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]
I thought you (or somebody at least) might say this. So I already had the next question in the queue:

If Cain for example wouldn't have damned Adam, then why did Adam damn Cain? If it doesn't go backwards then why does it go forwards?

Genetics?

 

[Lark]

@Lark
I thought you (or somebody at least) might say this. So I already had the next question in the queue:

If Cain for example wouldn't have damned Adam, then why did Adam damn Cain? If it doesn't go backwards then why does it go forwards?

Genetics?

That I would have to sleep? Crafty bugger! Getting me sleep deprived!

No, not really genetics.

Inheritance.

 

[sprinkles]

Well he's pretty coherent and consistent and presents a solid case with clarity so I'd say its not a case of total failure. In some ways I prefer that sort of presentation to the mish mash of I sort of believe this, and a bit of this, and this too, and that but then I maybe dont believe this, kind of thing which fills in for thought through discussion online.

Its possible to disagree with him, conclude that this kind of argument presents more obstacles to discussion and invites dispute instead but I couldnt really fault the delivery much.

It is strange to invite opinions in the way the OP does only in order to be so confrontational about it when they are proffered. Although maybe they feel they are besieged and beset, it happens and people slip up or slip into particular modes when it does happen. There's nothing wrong with that either. However a lot of people have problems admitting that and get defensive and angry instead.

I'd tend to agree. He is pretty thorough about it.

My issue is that I don't feel that he actually believes it and that is what bothers me. Or maybe he does believe it somehow but is trying way too hard to be 'in the club'.

I don't think there's anything that bothers me more than somebody being so self aware.

 

[Skarekrow]

Well he's pretty coherent and consistent and presents a solid case with clarity so I'd say its not a case of total failure. In some ways I prefer that sort of presentation to the mish mash of I sort of believe this, and a bit of this, and this too, and that but then I maybe dont believe this, kind of thing which fills in for thought through discussion online.

Its possible to disagree with him, conclude that this kind of argument presents more obstacles to discussion and invites dispute instead but I couldnt really fault the delivery much.

It is strange to invite opinions in the way the OP does only in order to be so confrontational about it when they are proffered. Although maybe they feel they are besieged and beset, it happens and people slip up or slip into particular modes when it does happen. There's nothing wrong with that either. However a lot of people have problems admitting that and get defensive and angry instead.

I agree with you.
But he assumes that he is forgiven...yet, look at his attitude...he is clearly incredibly full of pride...not just here, but on other threads where he has stated insomuch.
A person who behaves in such a way while professing to follow the teachings and examples of Jesus has clearly missed the point.