Ephesians 1:4-5

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Attempting to "prove scripture" through/by the "wisdom of this world" only proves ignorance of the scriptures. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians was written to a church whose people were fluent in Greek and they did not need the “wisdom of this world” to understand it. And it was soon translated into the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopian languages and continued to be understood. But then the church entered into the dark ages and much of what had been common knowledge regarding the Bible was lost, and during the Reformation attempts were made to get the church back on track.

However, in the 16th century there were no Greek grammars or lexicons of much value, nor any of the tens of thousands of Greek resources that we have today to study the New Testament. And everyday our knowledge and understanding of the Greek language is growing. Indeed, it is growing so rapidly that the standard Greek-English lexicon used around the world has to be updated every several years to keep it current and between these updates many new papers on the grammar and vocabulary of the New Testament are being published, and for those who want access to even more up-to-date information on the language of the New Testament, there is the B-Greek mailing list that is available free of charge to everyone around the world who has access to the internet (and the days of David Livingston are in the distant past) and a desire to be kept current on New Testament scholarship so that they can better understand the language of the New Testament.

The “wisdom of this world” that Paul wrote disparagingly about was not up-to-date knowledge of the language and structure of the New Testament; it was the vain and empty philosophies of foolish men who denied the truth found in the New Testament. There is no greater safeguard against the “wisdom of this world” than a good understanding of the Bible based upon factual information. The translators of the KJV were all very well educated men who had much of what you call the “wisdom of this world,” but if they didn’t have it, we would not have the KJV or any other accurate translation of the Bible. And Bible scholars today have access to thousands of resources for Biblical study that were not even dreamed of by the translators of the KJV, but had these resources been available to them, I believe that many of them would have made good use of them for many of these men loved the word of God and delighted in learning more about it.

 

Helen,

You reference the Ten Commandments - what is the 5th commandment? And this commandment is repeated all through Scripture - children are to obey their parents. I don't know how much clearer it can be.

No one goes to hell because of sin??? O.k., whatever you say.

Romans 7:7-11 - convenient that you don't mention v. 13 - awareness of the law does not bring death, sin does. What was that you said about no one going to hell because of sin? Oh nevermind.

Numbers 32:11 - nice try. To use this passage as a defense for AoA in salvation is way off the mark. God is not dealing with salvation from hell in this passage. He is meting out rewards to His covenant community. Salvation does not equal "wholeheartedly following the Lord" as it states. It's an issue of obedience. Joshua and Caleb weren't the only saved people of their generation. They were rewarded for their faithfulness. And apparently those under 20 were not guilty of the sins of their fathers. It is a far stretch to use this for AoA.

Are those the only verses you have for AoA? I would think a doctrine that is apparently so clear and foundational could be defended much better than this.

 

I strongly agree with Helen.

 

Is unbelief a sin? You know the answer.

John 3:18 - ...he who does not believe is condemned already... - "condemned already" indicates that the person is in a previous state of condemnation. Belief in Christ is the only way to escape that already existing condemnation.

John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him. - Notice the phrase, "remains on him" - the wrath is already there; faith in Christ removes that already existing wrath.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death...

Our sin is what condemns us. Faith in Christ removes that condemnation. Rom. 8:1

Yes, I see the Exodus as a type of our salvation. But types can only go so far. If you accept your analogy for AoA, then you need to say that Moses wasn't saved, since he was kept out of the Promised Land (for disobedience). A better analogy is that the escape from Egypt is our salvation, while the entrance into the Promised Land is our rewards.

You've yet to show clear Scriptural support for AoA.

 

It's stuff like this that tells me I need a break from BB. Anyone know of a Christian discussion board where people actually care about what the Bible says and don't pull doctrines out of their butter?

 

Me4Him,

Mommy's law is God's law, because the child is to obey his parents, as commanded by God. Therefore, disobeying "Mommy's law" will condemn one to hell, since he has broken God's law. This is Sunday School 101. </font>[/QUOTE]You missed the whole point, did the child know it was breaking God's law or Mommy's law??

Who did the child think it was disobeying, God or Mommy???

 

Helen

Calvinist have things so "backwards" I don't think you'll "ever" get them to "SEE" that we aren't judged for being sinners, but "Remaining sinners", in spite of Jesus dying to save us.

The "only way" we can go to heaven is to "believe" in Jesus,

The "Only way" we can go to hell is "NOT" to believe in Jesus,

Their "spiritual understanding" is as "narrow" as their doctrine.

 

Helen & Me4Him,

I will be back in a few days for your specific objections, but one quick question - it appears that you think that if someone never heard about Jesus, then they automatically go to heaven, since they only thing that sends one to hell is to reject Jesus, and you can't reject Him if you haven't heard of Him. So why send missionairies to people who've never heard about Jesus? Why not keep them in their innocent state so they can go to heaven?

Also, I wanted to mention this: Even though I do believe our sin is what condemns us, and we are all born sinners, that does not mean that I necessarily think all babies (or even some) who die also go to hell. If they are saved, their sin still needs to be taken care of like any other sinner - through Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross. I think there is some indication in Scripture that this is the case (that they are saved), but we do not know for sure. However, I reject the notion of AoA. Anyone who goes to heaven has had their sinned atoned for on the cross.

 

The people under the OT died without "EVER" hearing the name "JESUS, did all of them go to hell,

why not,

Where was their opportunity to "hear Jesus", since no man comes to the father but by him??

And what about people who wasn't born Jew, when will they hear??

And what about people who "do by nature" the things of the law yet don't have the law??

Your question can't be answered in a simple paragraph, there's a little more to it.

 

Noah and his sons brought the knowledge of God with them to the "new earth", so who has an excuse??

 

Helen wrote,

Helen,

Have you studied every ancient culture on this planet? Out of the several hundred of them that have been studied by cultural anthropologists, can you name just 10 of them that “remember in legend and story the creation and the flood”—or is this just an extravagant exaggeration and a gross distortion of reality?

 

Boy, I am not on the board for a few days and we add 6 pages to this post??? I can't keep up. I have no idea what was said on pages 5-10, so I'll just chime in with what I read here.

IF Jesus died for and tasted death for all men, then everyone goes to heaven. You are a universalist. You say, "Oh, no, but people go to hell for rejecting Jesus." I ask, is rejecting Jesus a sin? If Jesus died for all sin for all men, then He died for that one too. Your position is unbibilical.

Exsqueeze Me?!? Baking powder?!? I'm sorry, but this is patently unbiblical. If those who have never heard don't automatically go to heaven or hell, where do they go? Are you a second-chancer, who believes that people get the option to repent and believe at the judgment? If this is true, why the great commission? Why share the gospel at all?

I almost don't know where to start with this... Do most cultures have some legends or stories that have some amount of truth in them? Of course they do. Most cultures have a flood story. Does it matter that the truth is mixed with a lot of error? Let's ask the Mormons that one.

Even more importantly, using your example, would it not have been better (especially for the Jews) for Christ to never have come? All would have had some faith in a promise that they didn't know all the facts about and no one would have been held accountable.

Yet Paul describes the Jews that had rejected the Messiah as "having a zeal for God but not according to knowledge." A "zeal for God but not according to knowledge" is the exact equivalent to being lost.

These cultures that mix truth with error in their faith in the promise (as you describe it) are guilty of a very serious sin - idolatry. God has revealed Himself and we must worship Him in spirit and in truth, not in spirit and partial truth.

And yet those Jews who sinned unintentionally and unknowingly in the OT still had to offer sacrifices, showing their guilt and need for cleansing. Those Gentiles who do not have the law, still die and are under the judgment of God, even though they don't know the law and shouldn't be held accountable. Have you never read what God told Joshua to do to those poor Canaanites who should not have been accountable for their sins because they had never heard the Law? Something is flawed in your reasoning.

Sometimes I want my children to fear consequences, and even me, just like God wants us to fear Him.

When do you suggest that Paul was without the Law? He was born a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin. He was circumcized on the 8th day according to the Law, so he was under the Law by at least 8 days old. He would have been taught the Law by his parents from the moment his mom had her last contraction. He would have studied in the local synagogue from a very early age. He sat at the feet of Gamaliel. When was he without the law?

Paul's main point in Romans 7:7-11 is that the Law does not conquer sin, it only reveals sin. He makes his point first and then further describes it.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

This is his point - the Law revealed sin. He doesn't then go on in the next few verses to describe something completely different, like "babies are not accountable because they don't understand right from wrong." That's a ridiculous way of interpreting this text. The next few verses describe what happened when this self-righteous Pharisee really understood the law - it condemned him rather than saving him.

Romans 7:8-11 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.

The law says, "Don't covet." Rather than giving Paul the ability not to covet, it almost forces him to do it because, now, his sinful nature kicks in (it revived) and He dies. The fact that it says sin was dead doesn't mean it wasn't there and he wasn't accountable for it. It means it was inactive or powerless (relatively). The same is true of faith in James 2:17 - Faith without works is dead. It doesn't mean it's not there; it means it's innactive or powerless.

The purpose of the law was to bring life. Instead, because we all disobey, the penalty is death. This is Paul's point here. It is not that all of a sudden, when I understand the law, I am held accountable for it. It is that I was accountable before, and when the law came in, it told me what I was accountable for and didn't provide a way to obey it. It just pronounced judgment for disobedience.

Wrong. If sin is paid for, and atoned for (covered), it is forgiven. That is one of the main problems with free-willers. You don't understand the meaning of atonement. There is not going to be one person in hell who will be able to say that they are there despite the fact that their sins were atoned for. If God has been paid, why would He exact more payment after someone has died?

This is a verse written to believers, not unbelievers. It talks about the continual cleansing power of the blood of Christ. It is conditional on confessions, no doubt. But there is also no doubt what John was saying - if you do not confess your sins, you are not one of His. Therefore, all believers continually confess their sins.

You are sort of right, at least as it touches this verse. But don't make a hard and fast rule of this. I can forgive someone without them ever coming and saying I'm sorry. God can do the same.

Here is my problem - THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THIS!!! The Bible never says that Christ's death potentially saved anyone. It says He came to save. It says He is the propitiation (not potential propitiation). It says He atoned (not potentially atoned). You add a word that is antithetical to all biblical teaching.

"Whole world" can't possibly mean every individual who has ever lived. Jesus did not die for Judas Iscariot. He was the son of perdition before the foundation of the world. If Jesus died for Him and God really desired that he not be lost, then God is the most sadistic being in existence.

I agree. Sometimes that is what God uses to bring the elect to Himself. And don't balk at the usage of the word elect, because that is what the Bible says.

Romans 3:10-11 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.

 

It's stuff like this that tells me I need a break from BB. Anyone know of a Christian discussion board where people actually care about what the Bible says and don't pull doctrines out of their butter? </font>[/QUOTE]I found the PuritanBoard to be very interesting. But there are always arguments between paedo and creedo baptists of which is right. Also, too many of them simply point to confessions rather than discussing Scripture.

 

Did I read something earlier that Helen describes herself as a pastor?