Born in Sins part2

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There there are many unanswered questions yet to be answered and many questions yet to be asked on this topic. I believe the last post was by Jerry to DHK on the last thread. Possibly Jerry could re-post his last response the DHK to open this thread. :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).

HP: A very telling passage indeed. Here are some questions for the list. Why has death passed upon all men? Does it say because of Adam? Does it say because all have been born in sin? Does it say that Adam's sin was passed to all men? What was passed upon all men? Was it sin, or was it death?

 

[Rippon]

HP: A very telling passage indeed. Here are some questions for the list. Why has death passed upon all men?

Because of Adam's sin.

Does it say because of Adam?

Sin entered the world through one man. That one man was Adam.

Does it say because all have been born in sin?

In verse 19 of Romans 5 it says that because of the disobedience of that one man the many became sinners. It doesn't say they were made sinners at the so-called "age of accountability" or anything like it.But we know from the Psalms that from conception we are sinful.

Does it say that Adam's sin was passed to all men?

Verse 12 of this famous chapter says:"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,and death through sin,and in this way death came to all people,because all sinned." In verse 18 :"Consequently,just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,..."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: In verse 19 of Romans 5 it says that because of the disobedience of that one man the many became sinners. It doesn't say they were made sinners at the so-called "age of accountability" or anything like it.But we know from the Psalms that from conception we are sinful.

HP: You have trouble reading the plain truth of Romans 19: 5 as well. Where is any notion of OS found in that verse, or any notion of sin being universal. Go ahead and tell us that 'many' means 'everyone universally, including but not limited to those wicked infants. Oh yes Psalms 51:5. How does that verse say that from conception all men are sinful? David spoke of his mother conceiving him in sin, but how can that be extrapolated to be some proof text for all of humanity being born in original sin? When one speaks of themselves and their mothers sin in the first person, can we simply assume they are making a universal doctrinal statement that is at direct antipodes with their beliefs as Jews?

 

[Winman]

HP: You have trouble reading the plain truth of Romans 19: 5 as well. Where is any notion of OS found in that verse, or any notion of sin being universal. Go ahead and tell us that 'many' means 'everyone universally, including but not limited to those wicked infants. Oh yes Psalms 51:5. How does that verse say that from conception all men are sinful? David spoke of his mother conceiving him in sin, but how can that be extrapolated to be some proof text for all of humanity being born in original sin? When one speaks of themselves and their mothers sin in the first person, can we simply assume they are making a universal doctrinal statement that is at direct antipodes with their beliefs as Jews?

Yes, this is the same David who wrote;

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Is David praising God for making him a wicked sinner? Absurd.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, this is the same David who wrote;

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Is David praising God for making him a wicked sinner? Absurd.

It certainly is. Why do you say such absurd things Winman?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

HP: A very telling passage indeed. Here are some questions for the list. Why has death passed upon all men? Does it say because of Adam? Does it say because all have been born in sin? Does it say that Adam's sin was passed to all men? What was passed upon all men? Was it sin, or was it death?

So in other words you disagree with original sin by denying solidarity between the sin of Adam & the human race & you view divine grace more as external help then as a work of God on the human soul & you emphasize human free will.

Have I got that correct?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, this is the same David who wrote;

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Is David praising God for making him a wicked sinner? Absurd.

How does this description deal with the moral nature at birth? Unless the pharse "yet being unperfect" refers to the moral nature at birth?

 

[Winman]

How does this description deal with the moral nature at birth? Unless the pharse "yet being unperfect" refers to the moral nature at birth?

According to Strong's, the word for unperfect is golem, and means embryo or fetus.

And what has this to do with depravity? Only that those who believe in OS think it is inherited from your father like the color of your eyes or hair and other physical features. Some believe Jesus had to be born of a virgin to be free from the stain of sin. How does that work? Would Mary have been stained with sin if she had not been a virgin? Does sin rub off on you during sexual relations?

OS is ridiculous, it is no more than superstition.

 

[The Biblicist]

According to Strong's, the word for unperfect is golem, and means embryo or fetus.

And what has this to do with depravity? Only that those who believe in OS think it is inherited from your father like the color of your eyes or hair and other physical features. Some believe Jesus had to be born of a virgin to be free from the stain of sin. How does that work? Would Mary have been stained with sin if she had not been a virgin? Does sin rub off on you during sexual relations?

OS is ridiculous, it is no more than superstition.

Please point out anything in this statement that refers directly to the moral nature of the child in the womb?

Scientifically, the formation of the child in the womb is a mirculous and marvelous wonder that shows the wisdom and power of God as does many other natural wonders (Rom. 1:19-20). However, I see no refernce to the moral nature of the child in this text so the text is indifferent concerning the question of moral nature. However, the very opposite is the case in Psalm 51 and Psalm 58 as there is clear and undeniable immorality ascribed to the infant in and from the womb.

 

[Winman]

Please point out anything in this statement that refers directly to the moral nature of the child in the womb?

Scientifically, the formation of the child in the womb is a mirculous and marvelous wonder that shows the wisdom and power of God as does many other natural wonders (Rom. 1:19-20). However, I see no refernce to the moral nature of the child in this text so the text is indifferent concerning the question of moral nature. However, the very opposite is the case in Psalm 51 and Psalm 58 as there is clear and undeniable immorality ascribed to the infant in and from the womb.

You should do some study on OS, Augustine believed it was passed through concupiscence or sexual desire. Off couse, this theory failed, because then all virgin women would be sinless. Others believe you inherit your soul from your father, but this has huge problems also. Do some study, there are 3 major theories of OS and many other minor theories. None agree with each other (or the scriptures) and each proves the others wrong.

Psa 51 does not prove OS, it does not make sense for David to own and confess his personal responsibility for his sin with Bathsheba, and then suddenly blame his mother in vs. 5. He would be excusing his sin.

Psa 58:3 is a ridiculous proof text for OS, newborns cannot speak or even comprehend what a lie is. They are not poisonous like snakes, they do not have great teeth like a lion, and they do not melt like snails. If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take these other verses as literal as well.

That's the whole point, OS is not in scripture, folks have to cherry pick verses out of context or obvious hyperbole to try to prove it.

But scripture like Ecc 7:29 is directly addressing our moral state at birth, and says God has made us "upright".

 

[Darrell C]

HP: You have trouble reading the plain truth of Romans 19: 5 as well. Where is any notion of OS found in that verse, or any notion of sin being universal. Go ahead and tell us that 'many' means 'everyone universally, including but not limited to those wicked infants. Oh yes Psalms 51:5. How does that verse say that from conception all men are sinful? David spoke of his mother conceiving him in sin, but how can that be extrapolated to be some proof text for all of humanity being born in original sin? When one speaks of themselves and their mothers sin in the first person, can we simply assume they are making a universal doctrinal statement that is at direct antipodes with their beliefs as Jews?

Hello HP, long time no see. Hope all is well with you and yours, and I will just briefly comment on this statement, if you do not mind.

You have trouble reading the plain truth of Romans 19: 5 as well.

Romans 5:19

King James Version (KJV)

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


Paul presents the concept that by Adam's disobedience "many" were made sinners, and it seems suggested that "not all" were made sinners, if I get the implication right.


We have but to back up one verse to see that it is "all" inclusive:


18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


To deny that Paul allows for exceptions or exclusions from this simple bible truth cannot be sustained with any argument that might be presented. That one might wish to deny what is called "original sin" does not negate that scripture is clear that all have sinned, to the exclusion of only one, and that is Christ.

Where is any notion of OS found in that verse, or any notion of sin being universal.

Well, is not the general concept that which describes man being made in the Image of God, only then to disobey the word of God, and this being the first, teh "original" sin? Sin is not ascribed to Eve, she is said to have been deceived, and one must understand their actions to be contrary to God in order for it to be deliberate. Now the nature of natural man, now that we are born in the image and likeness of our earthly fathers, will be the inclination to do that which we not only inherit a proclivity for, but that which we see our earthly fathers do, as well as that which our earthly fathers teach us is...only natural, lol.

Nevertheless, that a lion sins when it kills, or a rock sins when it joins it's fellows in a landslide crushing to death a person, is ridiculous. However, that the entirety of Creation is in need of redemption is an evident scriptural fact.

That Adam's sin had consequences for all of creation is clear, in man, in animals, as well as in plant life.


Romans 8

18For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.


Paul, though a born again believer, tells us that redemption is not yet, physically, complete.


19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

The whole world awaits redemption. Why is that?


20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.


The whole world, like man, is in the bondage of corruption. Only the Children of God, those who have received Jesus Christ, have been delivered, though we yet await a physical aspect to the spiritual redemption, the life we have, in Jesus Christ.


22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.


Do the rocks cry out? The trees? Personally, I simply look at this as the fact that sin has affected, not just all men, but the entirety of creation itself.

We will see a reversal of this to some extent in the Millennial Kingdom, when animals will revert to their former state, and will again be vegetarians, and refrain from eating one another. But, it does imply...a universal corruption of creation, not just Adam.

23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.


And though we have received salvation, while we are a part of this creation, we still suffer from that corruption in the physical sense.

Go ahead and tell us that 'many' means 'everyone universally, including but not limited to those wicked infants.

While not a Calvinist (though I recognize that it contributes to a sound theology), and I do not believe that infants go to hell, I do recognize that all are born with a nature of man, not that of God. God is just, and a requirement of understanding and consequently being disobedient to the revealed will of God, whether that be in the internal revelation of God given to every man, or the clarified revelation of the Son of God, is necessary that man be sentenced to eternal separation. An infant cannot understand either.

David spoke of his mother conceiving him in sin, but how can that be extrapolated to be some proof text for all of humanity being born in original sin? When one speaks of themselves and their mothers sin in the first person, can we simply assume they are making a universal doctrinal statement that is at direct antipodes with their beliefs as Jews?

The only other alternative is to think that men can be righteous according to the standard of righteousness which is the righteousness of God. David was willing to admit his sin, and that sin separates man from God. David speaks in a temporal context, and that he is of the belief that this sin was present before physical birth seems to be an acknowledgment of the sin nature man has inherited from Adam.

Okay, that's it, just a few comments.

God bless.

 

[DHK]

You should do some study on OS, Augustine believed it was passed through concupiscence or sexual desire. Off couse, this theory failed, because then all virgin women would be sinless.

There have been cults throughout the years (and even to this day) that believe intercourse is sin. What other heretical groups believe does not change the truth of the Bible. The Bible is our standard not cults. You have it backwards. The Bible is our standard, not Augustine. You have it backwards.

Others believe you inherit your soul from your father, but this has huge problems also. Do some study, there are 3 major theories of OS and many other minor theories. None agree with each other (or the scriptures) and each proves the others wrong.

There are various "varieties" of Calvinists as well. That is what Finney found out. So he went to the other extreme and embraced Pelagianism (which you have seemed to have done). It is a denial of the depravity of man. You know as well as I that the things in which Calvinists disagree on are rather insignificant compared to a complete denial of the depravity of man.

Psa 51 does not prove OS, it does not make sense for David to own and confess his personal responsibility for his sin with Bathsheba, and then suddenly blame his mother in vs. 5. He would be excusing his sin.

He does not suddenly blame his mother in verse five. That is a wrong interpretation. Nowhere does he blame his mother. He is looking deep into his own heart and looking at his own sinfulness even right back to the time that he was born and before that time--from conception.

Psa 58:3 is a ridiculous proof text for OS, newborns cannot speak or even comprehend what a lie is. They are not poisonous like snakes, they do not have great teeth like a lion, and they do not melt like snails. If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take these other verses as literal as well.

You use humanistic philosophy to rationalize the first verse.
On that premise you build the rest of your case on poetic language used in the following verses.
On those two points you come to the conclusion that any truth taught in the psalm is invalid. That is truly sad.

That's the whole point, OS is not in scripture, folks have to cherry pick verses out of context or obvious hyperbole to try to prove it.

Does hyperbole negate truth? There is still truth in the verse; truth that you are uncomfortable in facing.

But scripture like Ecc 7:29 is directly addressing our moral state at birth, and says God has made us "upright".

Your avoidance of the context of this passage is telling.
Why does the author say this?
Who is the author?
Why do the cults use this verse and this book more than any other book in the Bible?
What is the theme of the Book of Ecclesiastes?
Answer these questions, and you will find out why it is not wise to quote Ecc.7:29 for a proof-text for your position.

 

[The Biblicist]

You should do some study on OS, Augustine believed it was passed through concupiscence or sexual desire.

Again, where in the text does it attribute any moral status to the baby in the womb????

My position comes from my study of God's Word.

ANSWER: Nowhere! This text is merely speaking about the PHYSIOLOGICAL marvel of how the human being is formed in the womb irrespective of any moral condition.

Hence, the text is MOOT and no proof text for you or me either way.

Psa 51 does not prove OS, it does not make sense for David to own and confess his personal responsibility for his sin with Bathsheba, and then suddenly blame his mother in vs. 5. He would be excusing his sin.

Complete fabricated straw man interpretation of the text!

He is not blaming his mother for anything. You cannot blame a mother for what occurs inside the womb as she has no control over conception or the moral nature conceived in the womb. He is claiming responsibility from the womb for his own sinful nature and consequential sins.

Psa 58:3 is a ridiculous proof text for OS, newborns cannot speak or even comprehend what a lie is. They are not poisonous like snakes, they do not have great teeth like a lion, and they do not melt like snails. If you take vs. 3 as literal, then you must take these other verses as literal as well.

I have full answered all these objections in another thread. You are intentionally distorting and abusing the language. David is asserting literal truth and then supporting it with metaphors.

The words "as soon as they be born" translate one word that simply means "from the belly" and the meaning is that lying is not a learned behavior but is part and parcel with their nature from the womb. Every mother learns that infants cry and act like they are dying when they simple want attention or want anything. When they grow up a couple of years they scream and yell when nothing is wrong at all with them - just throwing a tempermental fit.


There is not one single solitary text in the Bible that explicitly and directly states IN SIMILAR LANGUAGE moral uprightness of infants in the womb or born from the womb.

Your problem is that the metaphorical language in all the scriptures that do speak of the moral condition of the infant convey sinful characteristics while none of it conveys righteous behavior or nature.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There are various "varieties" of Calvinists as well. That is what Finney found out. So he went to the other extreme and embraced Pelagianism (which you have seemed to have done). It is a denial of the depravity of man.

When we examine the following passage we can see that the Lord Jesus taught that a person can, at least theoretically, obtain eternal life by his own works:

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

There is no doubt that the Lord Jesus made it abundantly clear that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

If a man is born dead in Adam's sin, as the Calvinists teach, then no law-keeping can bring him righteousness or eternal life. If he is ever going to be justified then it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).

Therefore if a person is born dead in sin then it is not theoretically possible that anyone can gain eternal life by his own works or deeds as judged by law. However, the Lord Jesus made it plain that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

 

[The Biblicist]

When we examine the following passage we can see that the Lord Jesus taught that a person can, at least theoretically, obtain eternal life by his own works:

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

There is no doubt that the Lord Jesus made it abundantly clear that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

Is this person an infant?

Is this person not of the age of accountability?

Has this person ever committed willful sin?

Is it potentially possible that a person who is not an infant, who is not under the age of accountability and who has willfully sinned to be justified by the Law?

If not, then, what kind of person is it potentially possible?

If so, then, how do you reconcile the fact that failure in ONE POINT has already made him a violater of EVERY POINT and thus under the condemnation of the law??

 

[DHK]

When we examine the following passage we can see that the Lord Jesus taught that a person can, at least theoretically, obtain eternal life by his own works:

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

There is no doubt that the Lord Jesus made it abundantly clear that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

Paul addressed this question:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)
--Let me explain this verse in diagram form.
The verse teaches that one must keep all the law from birth to death--all the law (all 631 of them). Thus from birth to death your life should look like this:

Birth [_______________________________] Death.

But it doesn't look like that. The verse teaches if you break but one law in your entire lifetime you are cursed. Like this:

Birth [_____________________ / ____________] Death.

That life is cursed. You have broken the law. You may in your lifetime broken it only once. But you have broken it. You "have not continued in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

In reality all of our lives look like this:

Birth [..........................................................] Death.

We sin every day. There is no continuous line. It is a continuous broken line of sin after sin after sin. We are cursed from the day that we are born. We are cursed under the law. There is not even a theoretical position where one could keep the law all his life. It is impossible. James reinforces this position:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness." This command includes lying. Has anyone escaped the sin of lying? No. If you have lied, you are just as guilty as breaking all of the commands, James says. If one breaks one command, he is just as guilty as breaking all of them.

We are found guilty under the law--all of us.

If a man is born dead in Adam's sin, as the Calvinists teach, then no law-keeping can bring him righteousness or eternal life. If he is ever going to be justified then it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).

No, he must be justified by faith, faith in the atoning blood. Only the blood of Jesus can take away sin.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Romans 5:1)
Because man cannot be justified by keeping the law Christ came:

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)
--It is Christ that paid the penalty for us.

Therefore if a person is born dead in sin then it is not theoretically possible that anyone can gain eternal life by his own works or deeds as judged by law. However, the Lord Jesus made it plain that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

Jesus never taught that, nor does the Bible.
Those who believe that a child is born without sin must believe it is theoretically possible to live sinless, but we know that it isn't. Where is that evidence. The Bible says that it is impossible.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Is this person an infant?

Is this person not of the age of accountability?

Has this person ever committed willful sin?

Is it potentially possible that a person who is not an infant, who is not under the age of accountability and who has willfully sinned to be justified by the Law?

If not, then, what kind of person is it potentially possible?

If so, then, how do you reconcile the fact that failure in ONE POINT has already made him a violater of EVERY POINT and thus under the condemnation of the law??

You are trying your best to try to prove that the Lord Jesus was wrong when He said that a person can indeed obtain eternal life by his own works. If keeping the commandments cannot bring eternal life then why did Paul write the following?:

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:10).

If the commandments were never intended to bring eternal life then why did Paul say that they did?
If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus never taught that, nor does the Bible.

Of course you ust ignore what He said because He made it plain that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law. Otherwise, how can you explain the facts which we read here:

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

He told the man that if he kept the law then he would live--"this do, and thou shalt live."

In the second chapter of the epistle to the Romans Paul reveals that a man can theoretically obtain eternal life by his "deeds" or by his "works":

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile" (Ro.2:5-9).

Those who continue in well doing will be given eternal life. Paul also says that it is the doers of the law who shall be justified:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

If it was theoretically impossible for those under the law to be justified before God by law-keeping then it certainly would make no sense for Paul to say that "the doers of the law shall be justified." If it is not theoretically possible for anyone to obtain eternal life by keeping the commandements then the Lord Jesus certainly would not have told anyone that they could inherit eternal life by keeping the law. But He did!

 

[The Biblicist]

You are trying your best to try to prove that the Lord Jesus was wrong when He said that a person can indeed obtain eternal life by his own works.

Please answer the questions I gave you. Why should I go on to your questions if you will not answer mine??????