Featured Babababa Bad to the Bone, Naturally or Not?

You once again ignore a key verse so the truth eludes you....

You do not account for this change....this is not just that Moses needed something to fill up the chapter...it is very significant.

That james still speaks of the original created order is because In Christ it is being restored.

Winman...It is good you knew to go to james for the image bearer verse. I know you are trying to be scriptural. it would help if you dropped your agenda, and looked at the verses .....In a fresh way.....or at least where you could explain the cal view accurately and not a caricature.....read Dagg on it....I will get you more resources if you are serious.


Bavinck

 

Ezekiel 28
New International Version (NIV)
A Prophecy Against the King of Tyre

28 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man , say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘In the pride of your heart
you say, “I am a god;
I sit on the throne of a god
in the heart of the seas.”
But you are a mere mortal and not a god,
though you think you are as wise as a god.
3 Are you wiser than Daniel[a]?
Is no secret hidden from you?
4 By your wisdom and understanding
you have gained wealth for yourself
and amassed gold and silver
in your treasuries.
5 By your great skill in trading
you have increased your wealth,
and because of your wealth
your heart has grown proud.
6 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘Because you think you are wise,
as wise as a god,
7 I am going to bring foreigners against you,
the most ruthless of nations;
they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom
and pierce your shining splendor.
8 They will bring you down to the pit,
and you will die a violent death
in the heart of the seas.
9 Will you then say, “I am a god,”
in the presence of those who kill you?
You will be but a mortal, not a god,
in the hands of those who slay you.
10 You will die the death of the uncircumcised
at the hands of foreigners.
I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”

11 The word of the Lord came to me: 12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘You were the seal of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
topaz, onyx and jasper,
lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings[c] were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

This is not just talking about Lucifer, but also King Tyre.

Adam not knowing good and evil to mean he is born innocent God created us with a free agency if not we couldn't go against His will. Adam sinned and proved he had a free agency and is held accountable for his action. We can blame God like Adam it is that women you created, or can repent turn to God through Jesus Christ and live.Jesus is the tree of life that came down from heaven and anyone that eats from it's fruit will live for eternity. We don't see it we must take it by faith.

 

Thank you for being respectful.

I am very aware of Gen 5:3;

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

I will grant that if it can be proved that the nature of man was altered when Adam sinned, then this verse could possibly prove that Seth inherited this depraved nature.

The problem is, there is not one word in the account of the fall that man's nature was altered. Yes, man's eyes were opened so that he now knows good and evil, but this cannot be evil as God himself knows good and evil. It is also likely that Gen 5:3 is saying that Seth also inherited the knowledge of good and evil, but again, this knowledge is not evil, as God himself declared he has this same knowledge.

It is just as probable that this verse actually proves Seth inherited the likeness of God from his father Adam, as Gen 9:6 and Jam 3:9 say, which includes the knowledge of good and evil. In fact, it is more probable this view is correct, because scripture literally says man is made in the image or similitude of God well after the fall.

You have assumed a depravity of nature which is never stated in scripture, that is the weakness of your argument.

I believe I can easily refute your view with Ecc 7:29;

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

I know you and others are sick of me presenting this verse, but it is not going away. It clearly says God has made men upright, and it is not speaking of Adam only, as the word "they" is plural and points directly back to the word "man" showing this verse is speaking of all men, and not Adam only.

I could also repeat Eze 18:20 that says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son. This verse clearly refutes Original Sin, and also seems just to any man, where OS seems unjust to all men. No person believes he should be punished for someone else's sin.

You on the other hand do not have a single verse that says men are born depraved, dead in sin. You can't show it and you know it. If you could show it, you would have long ago and the debate would be over.

No, you simply read into Gen 5:3 your presupposition. Yes, Seth was born in the image of his father Adam, but this verse says not one word about Seth being born with a depraved nature. Scripture well after this shows man is still made in the image of God.

 

Are you saying they were without sin?

 

I will ask you.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Now, I ask you Amy, what does Paul say here about Esau and Jacob? They were very much alive in their mother's womb when Paul said this of them, did Paul say they had committed any sin?

Now, if they died in their mother's womb as many babies do, would they be guilty of committing sin? Would they have any need to repent?

Please answer these questions.

 

All humans need the blood of Christ to have eternal life and that includes babies. Paul's point is that it is God who decides who receives grace and who does not and it does not depend on what a person has done or not done.

Now I ask you again, do you believe the 99 and the elder son were without sin?

 

Yes, whoever the 99 persons were, they were without sin, because Jesus himself said they were "just" and "which need no repentance".

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance,

And Jesus himself said the elder brother had not transgressed his father's commandments at any time. The father did not rebuke or correct the elder son, but called him "Son" and said "thou art ever with me". The father confirmed what the elder son said was true.

In the first parable, 99 of the sheep never went astray and were not lost.

In the second parable, 9 of the silver pieces were never lost.

In the third parable, the elder son never left home or transgressed his father's commandments AT ANY TIME.

I did not say this, these are the words of Jesus.

We simply need to understand who these persons are. In my opinion, the only persons these could possibly be are little babies and children who died before they could ever sin. I know of no other persons that could possibly qualify to be these persons.

Jesus did not say vain words. When he spoke of the 99 persons who need no repentance, the 9 silver pieces that were never lost, and the elder son who never sinned against his father, we are supposed to listen and learn who these persons are.

If that happens to turn your theological views upside down, so be it. Wouldn't you rather know the truth? Or would you rather hold to a man-made system that contradicts the word of God?

 

Maybe a good question to be answered is...
Are we born spiritually alive or spiritually dead?

When we say that non-Christians are "spiritually dead," this is not intended to mean that they are dragging around a dead "spirit corpse" everywhere they go. The Bible never says that a spirit can die, whether it's a demonic spirit, an angelic spirit, a human spirit, or God's Spirit. Instead, being spiritually dead means being separated from the life that is in Christ. For example, notice how Jesus defined eternal life:

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
In the above passage, Jesus defined eternal life in terms of a relationship with God. Only the righteous will have "life" eternally, because we will be in a relationship with God eternally.

 

What do we do with Paul's statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?

Jesus did not say that. The elder brother said it, just like the Pharisees that claimed they were sinless. They hated that Jesus ate and socialized with sinners. Jesus even said about them:
Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

The parable of the prodigal is clearly about the Pharisees thinking their righteousness would get them entrance to heaven, but it would shut against repentant sinners.

And yes the elder son sinned.
Luke 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.

The elder son was angry at his father for letting his brother come home to forgiveness and a party. He was definitely in sin.

 

Paul was speaking to adults who knew the law, not little babies.

Give me a break, Jesus is the person who told this story, he is the one who said that the elder son never transgressed against his father. And the father did not correct the elder son, but called him "Son". Now, I am sure you know the father in this story represents God, so if God called him "Son" (which he did), this cannot be speaking of a lost sinner. The father also said "thou art ever with me" something a sinner could never say, as our sins separate us from God

No, it's not, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees. The Pharisees despised the "sinners" Jesus kept company with and ate with. Jesus is showing that these horrible "sinners" at first belonged to God, and that God cares for and values them very much and makes great effort to recover them.

Jesus himself said the elder son never transgressed his father's commandments at any time. The father did not rebuke the son or correct him.

The 99 who need no repentance, the 9 coins never lost, and the elder son who never sinned could never be the Pharisees. Jesus openly called the Pharisees hypocrites and sinners, he never gave them the impression they were righteous.

 

So the elder son was a baby who didn't know the law? The 99 were babies? You are not making sense.

How can the elder son be sinless? Only Christ is sinless, but you are saying that the elder son was also without sin or need of repentance, as were the 99. So throughout history there surely must be millions of other people who have also lived sinless lives since these figured out how to do it.
I can't believe I'm reading this.

 

I just showed you. Paul himself said Esau and Jacob had committed no sin while they were in their mother's womb. If they had died in this state they would be without sin and need no repentance.

The elder son complained that he had served his father for "many years". He was eldest in that he was there first.

And no stillborn baby or little child who dies has "figured out" how to live sinless. The scriptures are clear that little children do not know between good and evil, I have already posted scripture that proves this. Ridiculous argument. A newborn baby can probably form very few thoughts about anything. That doesn't mean they will remain a newborn baby for eternity.

 

I did not bring babies into the discussion. I'm referring to your comments about the elder son being sinless. Paul said ALL have sinned, yet you disagree. I have never heard anyone say that there is an adult who never sinned.

 

And I have already explained to you that the only persons who could possibly qualify to be the 99 just persons who were never lost and need no repentance, the 9 silver pieces that were never lost, and the elder son who never left his father's home and never transgressed his father's commandments at any time must be children who died before they could sin. I can think of no other persons who could possibly qualify to be these persons.

I don't believe Jesus would go into such detail to tell us about persons who do not exist. There is no need to specifically mention 99 just persons which need no repentance if they do not exist, no need to mention 9 silver pieces which were never lost if they do not exist, and no need to mention an elder son who never sinned at any time if they do not exist. This has to represent someone. There have probably been many billions of young children and babies who have died.

And surely there are not 99 just Pharisees to every one repentant sinner in heaven. Very few Pharisees were saved at all, while many of the common people believed and were saved.

 

Ok, just to make sure I'm understanding you, you think that the older son was a child who had not sinned yet and then died as a child? So if he was a child and was the oldest, how old do you think the younger son was when he left home with his inheritance?
This is bizarre. :laugh:

 

Amy, you were a much nicer person when you weren't a Calvinist. It is not an improvement at all.

 

I'm not trying to be mean. I am asking you to answer my question in case I have misunderstood you. And this subject has nothing to do with Calvinism. Original sin is taught by all Baptist churches I have ever been associated with. What you are saying is totally foreign to me as a Baptist.
And what you are saying about the elder brother of the prodigal is something I have never heard of nor ever read in the many commentaries I own.

 

Amy, whoever dies first arrives first in heaven. So the elder son was one who died early as a baby. The prodigal lived a full life and fell into sin. He repented and returned to God. When he died, his brother had been there many years before him. It matters not whether he was younger or older in this world, in heaven he is the older brother because he arrived there years before.

You are correct that Calvinism has nothing to do with our personal debate, as even most non-Cals believe in Original Sin. I know that, I believed in OS for years because that is what I was taught. But over the years I saw MUCH scripture that refutes it, though you may disagree with my interpretations.

Those who believe in OS cannot conceive of anyone being without sin, therefore there is no such thing as 99 persons who are just and need no repentance. A person who believes this cannot grasp this concept. They cannot accept that 9 of the silver pieces were never lost, or that anyone could be without sin like the elder brother.

But a person cannot simply ignore that Jesus spoke three times about persons who were never lost. 99 sheep were never lost, and they needed no repentance. 9 silver pieces were never lost. The elder son was never lost. You cannot simply ignore these persons because you cannot understand who they are. Jesus spoke of them, so they MUST represent somebody. The only persons I can see that could possibly be these persons is a baby that never sinned. I know babies have never sinned because Romans 9:11 tells us that. If Jacob or Esau had died in their mother's womb, they would not be sinners and not need repentance. So they fit the description of these persons who never sinned and need no repentance.

But you were a much nicer and kinder person before you became a Calvinist. Something about Calvinism turns people mean.

 

Winman

from an article:
The parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7) is not a model for
pastoral theology. The pastor does not ignore his flock to chase one potential convert.
The main scope of the parable is to declare that God the Father revealed in God the Son
loves to love sinners over and against the opinions and practice of the Pharisees.

All the parts must always be seen in light of the big picture. In the parable of the prodigal
son all the secondary props should be viewed underneath the umbrella of God’s rejoicing
love over the repentant sinner. This is not to say that the secondary props are useless, but
they are there only to add to the main picture painted by the Lord.

If the main scope of the parable is not affected by the determination of the meaning of a
secondary prop, then do not sweat it out trying to uncover the hidden, secret meaning.

AmyG was nice then and now:thumbsup:

 

How could the older son have died as a baby when he was there when the prodigal came home and was even angry at him. Are we reading the same story?