Born in Sins part2

So you say, but you continually condemn your own argument because you cannot say "The Law made it possible for man to obtain eternal life."

And...you cannot negate the truths spoken of that tell us why man could not obtain eternal life...because of himself...not the law.

Paul explains exactly why:


Romans 7

King James Version (KJV)

5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.


As expressed just before this, man was, like a woman to her husband, in bondage to the law. As also pointed out before, Paul states explicitly that he was a sinner, and except the showed him his sin...he would have been ignorant of his offense.

Here, it is clear that the declaration of the Law was condemnation...only.

You repeatedly say that "theoretically" the law could give eternal life. Sure it could, if man were able to perform and fulfill the law, but due to the fact that he is born into the world in a body that will not allow that, the best the law could do for him was to show him his sin and his need for redemption.


6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.


The First Covenant, if it were not for the fact of man's condition, would have certainly brought eternal life. The Lord could say, "Do this and you will live," just as I can say, "Make lots of money and you will be rich." But the many scriptures that state that man is not capable of keeping the law, because of the state he is born in, which is an unredeemed body which has only the potential for being unjust because he is unjust...cannot be denied.

Overlooked, swept under the rug, reconciled to fit a particular doctrine, sure. But the many verse that have been posted to show this condition of man...will stand forever. And their meaning will not change, no matter how much it disagrees with our own doctrine.

He did not. Where in Romans 7:10 is the word eternal?

The First Covenant (and by now I realize you do not understand what I am talking about, and a look at this in scripture would help, I believe) dealt with the temporal life of Israel. Clear it is that when man failed to keep the laws, they were put to a physical death. Would you deny that?

More importantly, you overlook the fact that no matter the importance of the Levitical Economy in the matter of forgiveness for sins...not the priests, nor the High Priest are ever ascribed the power to forgive sins on an eternal basis.

If you would go on to perfection, as the writer of Hebrews exhorts his brethren, you would see this is clearly taught.

"The blood of bulls and goats...could not take away sins."

So do not give an eternal application to something that was clearly temporal, temporary, and...inneffective to deal with man's sin.

Again, you cannot say it plainly: Just go ahead and say plainly what you hint at to "prove" this doctrine: that the Law could give eternal life to man.

Tell me how God has incorrectly found the greatest righteousnesses of man to be as filthy rags?

How can the simple, basic bible teaching concerning man's condition be misunderstood like this? The answer is clear: It is a works-based, Judaistic faith which is embraced. The serious nature of demeaning the work of Chirist and the absolute universal need for all men cannot be stressed enough.

If you keep intact all that Paul teaches concerning the law, which, by the way, is a reference to not just the Ten Commandments, but everything which this Covenant entailed, then you would see why the law has come to an end.

Why are we "dead to the Law?" Because we have been imputed with a righteousness which was impossible to attain through the law due to the flesh.

And that flesh was the very flesh man was born in.

Hence, man is born in sin, condemned and unable to accomplish righeousness that will, according to God, exceed the status of filthy rags.

And here, again, God's covenantal relationship with Israel is overlooked.

You really need to understand the New Testament, meaning...the New Covenant, in order to full understand the Old.

And this speaks of the promises of God toward Israel. Gentiles have been grafted in, but lest it be thought that God has abandoned His covenantal promises the point is made that He has not, and that there are still those of Israel that remain faithful. They have not been cast out and replaced or abandoned.

God will fulfill His promises to Israel, and one day they will also partake of the promises of the New Covenant.

Keep in mind that as illustrated in the verses prior to this, God has reserved a remnant, and, do not miss this...


Romans 11

King James Version (KJV)

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

...not a remnant according to works.

If you go on you will find your answer.

And here is a clear statement that should also give insight to the failure of Israel:


Romans 10

1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.


That is why they could not be saved. What is God's answer?


4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.


5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above



See the contrast between the two righteousnesses? That of the law, and that which is found in faith in Christ.


God bless.

 

First, I have to say I am amazed at this response. I am not sure this is supposed to be serious.

Okay, v. 17 is speaking of the spirit? Consider the following, and perhaps the context might present itself:



1 Corinthians 6

15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

Clearly talking about the physical body of the believer. Shall I take my body and join it with the physical body of an harlot?


16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.


Please see here and pick out the verse that this quote is taken from and show me which one is speaking about the spirit of man.


17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.


This is speaking of spiritual union.



18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Clearly shows that going in to an harlot is speaking of the physical body, and the union is contrasted with the spiritual union of the believer with God.


The entirety of the chapter can be summed up here:


1 Corinthians 6

1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?


Now read on, and a context of temporal actions in the physical body can be seen.

You are correct...I do not receive it, because it is out of context. I have provided a link that I believe has every place in which the phrase "and the twain shall be one flesh," and it is clear that it in every place speaks of a physical man taking a physical wife.

While I do look at this union as truly being a union that is spiritual, that does not negate what the text states. It is physical


When Christ was speaking against adultery, He spoke of the physical act. And though we know there is a spiritual application to be found, in that adultery is a heart issue, we cannot insert this into what is plainly and clearly dealing with a physical context.

This is true. And this is why that child is in need of a Savior...because he is born of his parents.

Quite a separate issue from being born of God and the child of God.

I was not aware that Calvinists object to being born again...lol.

How so?

Paul is teaching that because we are in union with God we should abstain from fleshly desires and join ourselves to an harlot.

We are not to sin against our bodies, because we are joined to the Lord.

Agreed. And before, it is not.

Actually, the human spirit is in need of replacement:


Ezekiel 36:22-27

King James Version (KJV)

26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.


Time fails me to comment on this further, concerning the uses of the term spirit in the Old Testament, so, I will leave it at this.

Speaks only of believers, who do partake of the divine nature after salvation.

So we play a part, like the mother and father of a physical child...in our salvation?

Our spirits were willing, active participants in the new birth?

That is incorrect, and we can see that plainly:


John 1

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Salvation produces a child of God who is one with God, not one spirit.

God bless.

 

No, you cannot go on and continue to blindly ignore context.
The lawyer (note he was a lawyer) came tempting him. His motive was to trip him up, get him to sin--tempting him.
When Jesus answered him accordingly, so that he had no come-back, he shrank back and the narrative says: "he willing to justify himself.
He was proud. He didn't want to lose face in front of his peers. "Who is my neighbor," he said.
Jesus had just summed up all the commandments in just two great commandments. He knew he could not keep them. So he feebly says, trying to justify himself "Who is my neighbor?" He knew he could not keep all the commandments.
Context. You need to know the context.

The Lord Jesus gave the law in two commandments.
No man, saved or unsaved, is able to keep those two commandments. Please don't be so naive.

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. (Luke 10:27-28)
--Can you love the Lord your God with ALL your heart, all the time?
Can you love the Lord your God with ALL your soul, all the time?
Can you love the Lord your God with All your strength, all the time?
Can you love the Lord your God with ALL your mind, all the time?
--The answer is no, you cannot.
Can you love your neighbor as yourself, ALL the time?
No. If you did you would be a missionary going to the neediest places in the world, those that have never heard the gospel before (perhaps Islamic or Communist nations) and there sacrifice your life in giving the gospel to them. Why should you live a life in greater affluence than more than 90% of the rest of the world? You don't love your neighbor as yourself. Thus the reason for the story of the Good Samaritan.

Jesus never affirmed that a person could do it.
If I say to you, (BTW, I have looked at your profile)
"Attain a Ph.d in Physics and a Ph.d in Chemistry and then you can be admitted into this university as a professor to teach." This do, and you shall be accepted.
Remember Jesus knows all things.
I am only guessing at your background. But I do know your age. For you to accomplish those things at your age is highly unlikely. "This do and you shall be accepted." But you are not going to do them.
Neither was the lawyer capable of keeping the Ten Commandments.

I have answered that for you. Why do you keep asking?
It is his testimony. That which he formerly thought to be God's will was not. It was a law that brought death. All law brings death. The purpose of the law is to show us our sin. The wages of sin is death.

Already answered in a previous post. Why ask again and again.
Christ is the end of the law. Period.

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:14)
--The law was nailed to the cross.
We are not justified by the law. We are justified by faith in Christ.
If a person could be justified by the law, then why did Christ die?
Was his death in vain?

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)
--Break only one law in your lifetime and you are cursed.
Don't trust Christ and you are cursed.

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)

 

No, but what he said supports the idea that at least a person can theoretically do it.

If it is impossible, in theory, for a person to obtain eternal life by keeping the law then He would have never said:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

But you would have us believe that even in theory a person cannot obtain eternal life by keeping the law. And by denying that you are saying that the Lord Jesus said something which He knew was not true. According to him a person can, at least in theory, obtain eternal life by keeping the law or else He would have never said:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

What about those who were there and heard this exchange?

What if they asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"

I say that He would answer, "I said it so it is true."

Since what He said is true then it means that theoretically a person can indeed obtain eternal life by keeping the law. However, if a man is born dead in Adam's sin 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 and be justified before God by his own works or deeds as judged by law.

Now I will ask you a question. suppose someone heard the conversation between the lawyer and the Lord Jesus and they asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"

What would He say in answer? Will He say, "No, I really did not mean it when I said, This do, and thou shalt live."

What would He say?

Earlier I asked you :

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).

To this you said:

So Paul was mistaken when he said that the commandment "was intended to bring life"?

There is nothing in the context that even hints that he was saying that he was wrong when he said that the commandment was intended to bring life.

Yes, Paul made it clear that it brought death to him and he was not speaking of a physical death because he was not physically dead when he wrote those words. The commandment brought "spiritual" death. That proves that he was not dead spiritually from birth because in order to die spiritually a person must first be alive spiritually.

 

Every unsaved Jew is spiritually blind. Saul thought that keeping the commands would get him to heaven. This is what he is saying. In his unsaved life he believed zealously that keeping the law that he was following would give him merit in the sight of God. But after salvation he says, "that law brought death." He found out the truth. Putting Christians in prison, persecuting them, stoning Stephen, was not the will of God. That was the law he was following. He thought he was doing God's will and following the law by doing so. But the end result was "death." Life was found in Christ, not in keeping the law.

 

That is an unsubstantiated opinion of yours. It is unproven, and contradictory to all the rest of the Bible. The Bible teaches in almost every book that:
1. it is impossible to keep the law.
2. The law does not save.
3. Jesus alone saves.
4. We are saved by grace through faith and not of works.
5. Even if you did keep all the law all the time, throughout your whole life, you still would not be saved!!
For, salvation is only through Christ alone, and his shed blood alone.

So, please explain the necessity of this conversation.

 

Yes, he realized that the law brought "spiritual" death to him. If he was not speaking of 'spiritual" life and death in the following verses what kind of life and death was he making reference to?:

"Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:8-10).

I believe that the "death" was "spiritual" death because of what he said about the law at another place where he describes the Ten Commandments as being "the ministration of death":

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life...the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2 Cor.3:6-8).

Here the contrast is between what brings "spiritual" life and what brings "spiritual" death. The new testament brings spiritual life and the law brings spiritual death.

Therefore there can be no doubt when aul speaks of dying as a result of breaking the commandmemt he is referring to spiritual death:

"Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:8-10).

That means that he was alive spiritually before he sinned because a person cannot die spiritually unless he is first alive spiritually. So it is impossible that he emerged from the womb dead spiritually as a result of Adam's sin. Therefore the idea of Original Sin is false.

Now I will ask you the same question again. Suppose someone heard the conversation between the lawyer and the Lord Jesus as recorded at Luke 10:25-28 and they came to the Lord and asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"

What would He say in answer? Will He say, "No, I really did not mean it when I said, This do, and thou shalt live."

What would He say?

 

If a person does not have the ability to keep the law then why did the Lord Jesus say:

This do, and thou shalt live".

I never said that it does. I said that a person has the ability, at least in theory, to obtain eternal life by keeping the law. Paul 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."
[/quote]3. Jesus alone saves.[/quote]
I never denied that.

Yes, once we sin and become lost that is the only way that we can be saved.

If a person kept the law perfectly throughout his life and never sinned then he would not need to be saved from his sins. Of course we know that all men sin so what I speak of is only a theoretical situation because in reality all men are in need of a Savior.

But according to the words of our Lord and Savior a person can theoretically obtain eternal life by keeping the law.

Suppose someone heard the conversation between the lawyer and the Lord Jesus as recorded at Luke 10:25-28 and they came to the Lord and asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"

What would He say in answer? Will He say, "No, I really did not mean it when I said, This do, and thou shalt live."

What would He say?

 

Jerry, Wiman and HP,

If a friend of yours came up to you and asked what he could do to obtain eternal life what would you tell him?

Would you tell him what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:16 or would you tell him what Jesus told this lawyer and Rich young Ruler?

Why didn't Christ tell the Lawyer or the Rich Young Ruler to repent and beleive in him for eternal life?

 

Not even theoretically true.
Jesus said:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me."
Salvation is only by Christ. It is not salvation from sin. It is salvation, period! There is no entrance into heaven except through Christ. A perfect person could not merit heaven, because heaven is unattainable through works.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Jesus never promised that. You have misunderstood and misinterpreted what he said.

Suppose you jumped into the middle of the conversation and you didn't know what was really being talked about, and misunderstood what was being said between the two individuals. After all you weren't really there, were you?

Excuse me, but could you please clarify that for me again?

 

I would tell him that in the first four chapters of the book of Romans Paul lays out exactly how men can obtain eternal life. First he speaks of a man obtaining it by his works or deeds:

"...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).

Paul says that those who continue in well doing will be given eternal life. I will then say to my friend that Paul is only speaking of a theoretical situation because he continues to demonstrate that no one ever obtains eternal life in this way because at some point in time all men sin and do not continue in well doing. Then I will say that Paul then speaks of a way of obtaining eternal life for those who have sinned and can no longer obtain it by their works. Then I will quote the following passage:

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).

I will then move on to the fourth chapter of the same epistle and go into more detail in regard to the principle of grace by which the believer is saved.

 

Have you read Jerry's articles on his meaning of "re-generation" where he denies this refers to physical life and physical birth but refers to a previous born of the Spirit condition of infants at physical birth??????

He states that infants are "born of the Spirit" when they come into the world. If you don't know that then you haven't been reading Jerry's articles.

Hence, My first point is confirmed by Jerry's position

1. They come into the world born of the Spirit

Both of you believe that infants coming into the world are incapable of willful sin because they do not comprehend the difference in moral choices. So my second proposition is equally correct:

2. Unable to sin throughout childhood (period of incapability to discern moral decisions)


Both of you believe that only willful sin makes them sinners and since they are born of the Spirit having spiritually life already. Both of you believe that such a person is capable of potentially obtaining eternal life by choosing to obey rather than to willfully sin. So my third principle is equally true:

3. Potentially will never sin thus never need Jesus Christ

If a born of the Spirit child can potentially obtain eternal life by simply keep on choosing not to sin then that person is equal to Jesus Christ in regard to being "without sin" and thus my fourth proposition is also correct:

4. Potentially each human is a Jesus Christ

Finally, the icing on the cake that proves you believe all four points is your interpretation of Hebrew 2:17. You believe every human being born into this world is just like Christ and has the same potential to live without sin just like Christ and thus have the potential to obtain eternal life by keeping the law without sin just like Christ.

Now, either you owe me an apology or you need to show where you and Jerry have been misrepresented by any of these four propositions.

 

Then why do we read the following?:

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" (Mt.1:21).

Suppose a person heard the following conversation between a lawyer and the Lord Jesus:

"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).

Then suppose that person came over to the Lord Jesus and asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"

After all, that would be the logical inference anyone would draw from hearing that exchange between the two men.

In your opinion how would the Lord Jesus answer that question.

 

Is this your actual practice? Would not a person react by saying why would you tell me about works when that is no practical value to me because I didn't ask you how to THEORETICALLY obtain eternal life but rather how do I obtain eternal life??????????

You are ripping this text out of context. He is addressing this to the self-deceived righteous hypocrit who believes he will actually escape the judgment of God by what he perceives to be his good works (vv. 1-5) and this is precisely the kind of person that is described afterward in verses 17-28.

Paul simply sets forth the judgement of God by the principles that make it just and righteous.

Why didn't Paul and Silas follow your plan in Acts 16:30-31?

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Why did Paul preach to the very same Jews the very opposite of how you would witness:

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.


Why didn't Paul tell them instead "ye could be POTENTIALLY be justified by the law"?????????

 

I said that all people are born of the Spirit when they are conceived in the womb. And I proved that the word "regeneration" speaks of a repetition of an action. Since the regeneration is a birth of the Spirit then obviously the first birth must also be a birth of the Spirit.

I never said that a child cannot willfully sin because I know that I did just that when I was a child.

I have always said that all men will sin.

I never said such a thing and I challege you to quote me saying that!

Neither of us said such a thing. We said that the Scriptures state that the Lord Jesus was made like His brothers in EVERY WAY. You deny that despite the fact that that is exactly what is said:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

 

Come on HP where are you? Show me where I have misrepresented you guys by the four propositions above or repent!:thumbsup:

 

In fact it is. It is the best way to take "works" out of the picture entirely.

I have never had anyone say that to me.

I am not rippimg anything out of its context. Paul makes it plain that he is speaking of the "righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds."

I know that that does not fit your view but that is exactly what Paul said. And what is said there cannot be misunderstood by anyone with an open mind.

As I said, at Romans 2 Paul was speaking of a hypothetical situation. In real life he understood that all men are sinners and in need of a Savior.

Now it is your turn to answer a question. Suppose a person heard the following conversation between a lawyer and the Lord Jesus:

"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).

Then suppose that person came over to the Lord Jesus and asked Him, "So if a person keeps the law then they will obtain eternal life?"

After all, that would be the logical inference anyone would draw from hearing that exchange between the two men.

In your opinion how would the Lord Jesus answer that question.