Featured What are your thoughts on Jesus quoting "Ye are gods" ?

On the contrary, I'm quite ready to address your doctrine.

And have you changed your position concerning the original language so soon, Tom?

You do so when it is convenient?

So get it out there Tom, when exactly are these "souls created?"

And I'll likely come back to these when I'm back at my computer. This tablet is just not conducive to the rambling I like to get into a response.


God bless.

 

Okay, so you don't know, so just state what you lean to. Your suggestions here are not typical views.

The Bible does say, I just want to know what you believe. I will address your view of Scripture later. I can see you are not of yourself going to address my poßt where you say the exact opposite.


God bless.

 

ki8huuuuuuu

I believe the man Adam of Gen. 1:27 was a little lower than the angels. I believe he was created flesh and blood with the living soul, the being of his flesh in his blood, the breath/spirit of life.

But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 35 and 36

And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead -- the first-fruits of those sleeping he became, and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence, 1 Cor 15"20:23 YLT
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Romans 6:9 And that He did raise him up out of the dead, no more to return to corruption, he hath said thus -- I will give to you the faithful kindnesses of David; Acts 13:34 YLT

The redeemed man at his resurrection/change will be equal unto the angels.

I am not sure about the fallen angels.

A better question may be is lost man equal unto the fallen angels?

 

You say...

After saying...

Hence asking where you find "finished" in the text.

The point is this: your denial of the importance of the original language/s conflicts with the fact that (1) the "basic English structure is a result of the Translation process, (2) you then claim recognition of the original "meaning" (and at least some contempt for "man's opinions"), and (3) you insert your opinion of what you think a text states and means while ignoring what is actually in the text.

In other words, Tom, you would not even understand the relationship between the English translation and the original if there was no translation.

In regards to your view of when "souls" are created (which you deny having):

The following statements...

You believe God and at least some men had a previous relationship. Not a general relationship to Man on God's part, but you arguing for a literal relationship between God and man.

And you say we "have to address that previous relationship," so your mind is made up on the issue.

So you believe these "souls" had to exist before they were born, or you would have to embrace a belief that men are born into relationship, and seeing that you at no time even hint at that, but continue this subtle inquiry, we might guess that you believe these "souls" pre-existed birth.

I think you already have the answer you would supply, and again I ask...why not just get it out on the table, Tom?

If we can't openly discuss what we believe, even if it is speculation, perhaps we should rethink what it is we believe, and put a little more effort in either validating or invalidating those beliefs.

Now tell me the truth: do you see "the Children" as pre-existing "souls" who took on the form of man?

Here we see that you believe you were a child of God who was "put in flesh."

And you say you don't know when souls are created? If they existed before they were put into flesh...what were they before, Tom?

So go ahead and state what you think that relationship was. Would we not have to have pre-existing "souls" for this to be true?

So when do you think this relationship took place?

You give a little insight to your beliefs here, from which we can see that you believe they are "eternal," which is more likely you mean "immortal," because we know no created being is eternal. If you did use eternal in the sense we apply this to God then you would be stating men are gods.

And what is the name of this thread, Tom?

So stop beating around the bush, if you don't mind. Just speak your views plainly, whether it be speculation of embraced belief.

Your statement also carries with it a denial of men being born separated from God, and that separation as a result of the Fall.

First, the Old Testament usage of the term translated "soul" has to be determined within the context of every passage as to what is in view. I will suggest to you that nearly every use has in view the same meaning we see when man is created: his body is formed, then he receives spirit, or, life. At that point Adam became "a living soul."

So it's not hard to see that the Bible makes it clear that "souls" are created in the womb after Adam and Eve are created.

As far as the spirit of man entering man, this...



Psalm 139:13-16

King James Version (KJV)

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.


Seems to me David did not have a view of pre-existing his mother's womb.

So, now that we have an understanding that the original languages do matter in understanding the Word of God, I would again ask you to speak plainly about your beliefs.

Can you, after making the comments above...deny you believe that men existed before birth? And will you share where it is that you think these men were before birth?


God bless.

 

eternal spiritual beings?

 

So you seek to cancel out Scripture with another passage?

Again, Tom, why don't you just state what you believe plainly, instead of running under a guise of Baptist.

Men are not eternal, only God is.

That is a very good question, Tom.

Your doctrine denies that Adam incurred penalty when he sinned in the Garden. He was not an Angel put into a man's body.

Secondly, Hell is a determined place for Satan and his demons, so we see that the sin they committed has a predetermined execution of punishment.

If you say so.

Funny how my doctrine has a Biblical Basis, whereas you are scared to even say plainly what you believe.

Biblical Doctrine does not breed undercover agents, we are meant to boldly proclaim the Word of God.

Name any basic you would like to speak about, and let's put your money where your mouth is.

I must be following it fairly well, though perhaps you will not admit it.

Well make up your mind, I have it or I don't.

Don't consider it pride, my friend, consider it confidence, and the confidence is not in myself but the Word of God.

Hey thanks!

Nicest thing someone has said about me in a while.

So let me see if I am following this correctly: you use subtlety and skirt around issues that imply your beliefs, and you are...what?

I support my views, which are never withheld but spoken publicly and clearly, and I am charged with humanism?

Could you quote something that reeks of humanism in anything I have said? I would like to see what I have said that is humanistic.

Now, will you just plainly say that you believe men pre-existed their conception here on earth?


God bless.

 

I agree, so explain why you post this...

...after I post this...

I have to assume this is in response to what I said, and your proof-text fits in with a view of pre-existence, which you still have not confirmed or denied.

It seems as though you are making an acknowledgement of God's Omniscience into a relationship carried on between God and men before they were born.

As I said, very Mormonish.

You are correct God does not create men to send them to Hell, because God does not send men to Hell...they decide to go there themselves. They do this by rejecting the Provision that allows men to escape everlasting torment.

And again, you refer to humanism, lol. Again...quote anything I have said that reeks of humanism, and now you can also quote me exalting men.

Are we playing role reversal here, Tom?

You are the one that has man existing prior to creation and birth, right?

And it sounds as though your beef is with a Calvinistic approach, and all I can say is that would be a good System for you to study, it would help you with some of the issues you are having.

This is all very superficial in light of you saying...

And could you point out what problems I am having?

In your mind, perhaps, but not in the Word of God.

We have everlasting fire, punishment, and habitations which are clearly not in this Age.

The question another member posed to you was...what do you mean by eternal spirits?

But I have given up on a direct response, so, have fun with the rest of this thread.


God bless.

 

Please do not say "we." My doctrine is the result of my study, and when I teach I support my views from Scripture.

You, on the other hand, have clearly decided to teach your doctrine apart from a Biblical Basis. You have to create false arguments in order for your doctrine to sound reasonable. In this post alone I can list several false arguments: my view is humanistic; Calvinism is humanistic; God created men to put some in Hell and save others.

In regards to man being a stranger to God, another false argument. First, God created man, and that has a specific point in time where the Word of God states it took place. Secondly, we see that the relationship that began between God and man was corrupted through sin. Just a Bible Basic. Third, we see that God has initiated relationship with men throughout Scripture. Fourth, we see that the Work of Christ reconciled God and man, which means that even those known to God, that is, Old Testament Saints...

...still had to be reconciled.

You have a problem with Calvinism, that is clear, but, your denial of God having a relationship to only some men rather than all men is denied by Paul:


Ephesians 2:11-13

King James Version (KJV)

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.


What this means, Tom, is that God had a relationship with Israel that is quite distinct from His relationship to the world in General. There is no connotation of eternal salvation in this relationship, thus we are forced to examine how men were saved in that Era and those prior to it.

And it is a matter of faith. Now how does one gain faith in those Economies? Did they sit around and get lucky in their imaginings? No, we are told in Romans 1-2 how men knew the will of God. It was not something innate, inherent, or pre-existing, it was God Himself Who revealed His will to men.

And we see that it is at the Cross Reconciliation was made. While men are not strangers to God, God is a stranger to natural men.

Your Mormonish view that men pre-existed Creation is not something you can support from Scripture, thus you are forced to create numerous false arguments. It is not a Baptist belief. It is the belief of cults. Not Bible Students.


Continued...

 

Calvinism is not humanism. Calvinists do not exalt themselves because of their view of Election. And they can do a better job aligning their beliefs with what Scripture teaches than you can.

The "blanks" you have filled are "blanks" straight from your imagination.

Again, you create false arguments and then seek to fill in the blanks with your mormonish doctrine.

I have spent quite a bit of time debating Calvinists concerning their view that God only intended to save certain people, how much time have you spent? Most of your posting is beating around the bush in fear that if you speak plainly your error will be exposed.

That isn't the pattern of those who know what they believe, and preach the Gospel of Christ. That is the pattern of false teachers, who have to creep in to the Church. Beguile those that are weak in faith and knowledge.

So here you are trying to argue Calvinistic doctrine with me, and it has nothing to do with what I have ever said, nor anything I will ever say.

Understand, Tom? You can't directly debate me. Doesn't that bother you? I know it would bother me.

False argument.

My own doctrine is that God so loved the world that He sent His Son. My doctrine is that Christ so loved the world that He sent the Comforter. My Doctrine is that the Holy Ghost so loves the world that He ministers to all men.

So what does this argument have to do with anything I have said?

That's why I told you, it seems you have a problem with Calvinism, so go find a Calvinist to share your griefs with.

You say this like this is a big secret.

But where you err is to make men pre-existent and sent to earth to be confined in the flesh of men.

Consider David's statement again:

If he were an eternal spirit...how then was he curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth? How did he not have members? Or is this Prophet simply spouting erroneous and ignorant mumbo jumbo?

You live in a fantasy world.

Do you seriously think this post, or anything you have said to date on this forum...actually presents a case for your view man is an eternal, pre-existing spirit?

You can't even address the arguments I have provided to you. And not one of the arguments I have provided is a false argument. I don't need to rely on those.

You should probably withdraw from the Baptist Only Boards. You are not teaching doctrine held by any Baptist I have ever heard of. If you can produce a Baptist group that teaches men existed before Creation, I would like to see who it is.

I would hate for people to think there are Baptists that entertain such cultic doctrine.


God bless.

 

False argument: that is not my position at all.

Anyone who has spent any time debating me on this subject is well aware that I teach that God gives all men opportunity to be saved.

And it is not by embracing the false doctrine of Free Will, simply by acknowledging that the Comforter has that specific ministry in this Age. Further, we can see that God justified both Jew and Gentile of faith and obedience, both under Law, and prior to that.

Just Basic Bible, Tom.

So when you can debate in regards to what I have said, and what I do teach, let me know. No point trying to debate someone who cannot dialogue with their antagonist, but has to debate someone else. If you are going to debate someone else's doctrine...no point me being here, right Tom?

Actually not only have I seen this problem...I have spent much time debating it. You can't imagine how absurd you charging me with it is.

You apparently do not understand humanism. Calvinists are not humanistic because of their view concerning Election. They do not repalce God with themselves. The worst you are going to charge them with is arrogance, and I don't think you can do even that.

And "the reason we are here" according to your doctrine is simply hybrid Mormon Doctrine.

Men are not eternal spirits, they did not exist prior to Creation and birth, and they are not Angels.

The Writer of Hebrews would be in error if they were:


Hebrews 2:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.


If men were Angels, this would be incorrect, because the Son of God would have taken on the nature of Angels.

Christ distinguishes between Angels and men here as well:


Matthew 25:41

King James Version (KJV)

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


Another distinction between men and Angels:


Hebrews 1:13-14

King James Version (KJV)

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?


Where do we see Angels as described as heirs of salvation?


I might suggest you check into some literature dealing with the errors of Mormonism. An address of their errors in regards to spirits will, I believe, help you understand the distinction between Angels/spirits and men.


God bless.

 

If my Doctrine is typical of Baptists...why is it that so many disagree with me? lol

First, there are numerous Baptists, and the singular point I have made is that I know of none of them that teach your doctrine.

So please...don't say we.

Someone might learn something? I can live with those consequences.

Someone might get mad at me? I can live with those consequences.

I might learn something when someone corrects me? I can live with those consequences.

It's funny you talk about my doctrine but you keep raising false arguments that don't have anything to do with my doctrine and ignore what I have said. What in this post addresses anything I have said?

Not one thing.

That is simply a Bible Basic.

Haven't we been through this already?

All Christian faiths and denominations teach this.

Only cults teach preexistence of the spirit and universal salvation.

Those are not Bible Doctrines and they have not been taught by anyone in Scripture, nor any credible Christian group.

Why do you think I keep urging you to present a Biblical Basis for your doctrine? lol


God bless.