Search results

Paul calls Christ the "Second Adam" in 1 Corinthians. The type Well that's not nice, ky, I thought we were friends. But I understand the heat is on. I'm sorry, my friend, but you and your Covenant Theology have completely missed the point. The figure/type that Paul is speaking of is that...

Paul is telling us that Adam brought death by sin to even those who had no sin imputed to them and you see Adam as the type of Christ? Oh boy, what's wrong with that? That's Covenant Theology for you!

Let me further explain this, I think it's very important to understand especially where Calvinism is concerned. When God called out Adam and Eve on their sin, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the Serpent. There was no repentance! This is not to say that they later repented, but Covenant...

Mr. Gill is representing Covenant Theology here, Covenant of Works/ Covenant of Grace. The way that works for Adam is that under the Covenant of Works, Adam was to obey God for eternal life. Considering there was no sin in the world, there was no need for a Savior. Then when Adam sinned, God...

None taken! We all feel strongly of our convictions. You're just fine, Brother.

Jon, I know quite a bit about testing concepts to Scripture. That just happens to be my thing, and I've been doing it for a long time now. So we don't see eye to eye, and there's not anything good that come from us picking this thing to death. So my final word is that I agree to disagree!

It's not written word for word, Jon, it's the concept and flow of Scripture like most everything else. God could have but didn't spell everything out for us, if we want the truth it takes rolling up the sleeves and putting a little blood and sweat in with some effort.

Everyone considers their belief to be "Biblical" even though we all know everyone can't be correct on that belief, there's only one truth in Scripture that actually is Biblica. But this is what goes with the territory on the boards, take it or leave it, it is what it is.

Being "of the Spirit" was a totally different concept before sin came into the world, meaning when Adam was innocent before the fall. But let's just agree to disagree and move on trusting in the Lord to show us the way. That's my general rule of thumb.

I'm of the mind that we hold on to the principles of original sin because it's Biblical. We're just not going to agree on this, but hey, it's not the end of the world. We are both justified by faith in Christ by the Grace of God. And that's all that really counts in the end.

That was not a personal statement meant for only you, Jon. The statement on the innocence and fall was a general statement meant to establish my following statements. I'm sorry that you took it that way! In time we will learn each other. There is no word that says Trinity or Rapture in the...

You can't ignore that they fell, no one can deny that, foolish to attempt that line of thinking. They fell from pure innocence, not knowing anything about sin or wrong doing. They fell into sin by disobeying God. Now being fallen from innocence to guilty of disobeying God, their nature changed...

OK, Jon, i see where you're going. Let's consider this. We know that the sin nature was not possible for Eve in the Garden. Sin was unknown at this point. But yet we read in Gen 3:6 that Eve saw the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes (the lust of the flesh), and that the tree was...

That's true! Paul told us the woman was at fault by eating the fruit first and giving to Adam, but the man was held responsible. Rom. 5:12 "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:"

That is a solid truth! Man directly disobeyed the only warning God him.

Remember me in your prayers, canadyjd.

I know, I'm a Satan worshiping heathen. I suppose all you can do is pray for me.

You're not going to find the phrase "sin nature" in the Bible, but neither will you find "the Trinity" or "the Rapture." They are all derived concepts of doctrines found in the Scripture. We must study the Scripture for ourselves to determine if these concepts are found in the Scripture or...

Well now you know I'm not. At least I hope you know.

If you insist that I'm a Catholic, then to you I'm a Catholic. No skin off my Paul plainly said that he had not reached sinless perfection, but he pressed forward to the mark of the prize in the high calling of God in Jesus Christ. If Paul couldn't reach that level, how do you think any of...