Right, this is the guy who quotes Isa 48:8 in his signature and says it proves Original Sin. Go read that chapter for yourself and see if it is talking about all men being born sinners.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
1 Corinthians 2:14 - How does God explain truth?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Right, this is the guy who quotes Isa 48:8 in his signature and says it proves Original Sin. Go read that chapter for yourself and see if it is talking about all men being born sinners.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Biblicist
To be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord.
Ahh yes - I keep forgetting about that missing text.
I am always amazed at how quickly the "WAS to BE PRESENT" and even "IS To be PRESENT" outside of the actual Bible - quickly flips over to "AND To be PRESENT" when the actual Bible is used.
I guess it is just the quirky human nature thing that flips it into "IS TO BE" and "WAS to BE" when quoting nothing -- then quickly flips it back to 'AND TO BE present" when the actual Bible is used.
Oh no wait! all the Bible translations "get it wrong" -- I keep forgetting that one.:saint:
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Winman is drawing the line at the cross to argue that pretty much all the saints of the OT were being saintly on their own - no new birth, no indwelling Holy Spirit - just true determination - and thus the Heb 11 hall of faith - purely possible by the will of a determined not-born-again person.
(The "reason" for that is that Winman and pretty much all the Arminians here - oppose the Calvinist idea that the lost are not able to choose eternal life without first be brain-locked and reprogrammed into doing whatever it is that God wants.)
And of course there are a number of posts opposing Winman's view.
However as I have pointed out - a large number of Arminians will argue that the sinful nature and depravity extend all the way back to the fall of man. But the universal drawing of ALL, And convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment, and the universal "emnity" between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent - provide all the "supernatural" element needed to allow all the lost to exercise free will and choose salvation. I think that Winman will also accept that some of these classic Arminian global forces "Drawing ALL" and "Convicting the WORLD" and placing "emnity - war - between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent" -- exist.
The point being - that even if you win your case with Winman and get him to admit to the sinful nature needing the supernatural work of God to enable choice - the Arminians are already pointing to the UNIVERSAL supernatural work of God in making that provision.
Just as we argue for the unlimited universal atoning Sacrifice "For the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" in 1John 2:2 - so also we argue for the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit "convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".
Which means that even in the best case - and you win the "we all have sinful natures since the fall that need the supernatural work of God to enabled free will" -- battle with Winman - you are only stuck at the same place you were before with the Arminian argument that admits to the unlimited universal work of God in "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".
in Christ,
Bob
(The "reason" for that is that Winman and pretty much all the Arminians here - oppose the Calvinist idea that the lost are not able to choose eternal life without first be brain-locked and reprogrammed into doing whatever it is that God wants.)
And of course there are a number of posts opposing Winman's view.
However as I have pointed out - a large number of Arminians will argue that the sinful nature and depravity extend all the way back to the fall of man. But the universal drawing of ALL, And convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment, and the universal "emnity" between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent - provide all the "supernatural" element needed to allow all the lost to exercise free will and choose salvation. I think that Winman will also accept that some of these classic Arminian global forces "Drawing ALL" and "Convicting the WORLD" and placing "emnity - war - between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent" -- exist.
The point being - that even if you win your case with Winman and get him to admit to the sinful nature needing the supernatural work of God to enable choice - the Arminians are already pointing to the UNIVERSAL supernatural work of God in making that provision.
Just as we argue for the unlimited universal atoning Sacrifice "For the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" in 1John 2:2 - so also we argue for the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit "convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".
Which means that even in the best case - and you win the "we all have sinful natures since the fall that need the supernatural work of God to enabled free will" -- battle with Winman - you are only stuck at the same place you were before with the Arminian argument that admits to the unlimited universal work of God in "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
I am using the past tense to refer to what Paul said 2000 years ago not as a commentary on the grammar of the verse. I gave you the actual grammar and it is two Aorist infinitives which demand simeltaneous action leaving no space of time between departure from the body and arrival in heaven - instantaneous.
Furthermore, it proves there is actually something living in the body which departs at death and no longer abides in that body.
Your whole response is a distraction rather than directly dealing with the content of my post.
It does prove it as metaphors must be grounded in literalism or the metaphor has no basis to be understood.
Second, Israel is being personified as an individual and thus what is descriptive of individuals is applied to Israel.
I am not saying OT saints operated in a vacuum. There was certainly the presence of the Holy Spirit in God's word and in certain prophets and teachers who led the people. Men were absolutely under the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit.
But the average believer in the OT did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, this was a future promise to believers that was not fulfilled until Jesus rose from the dead and was glorified. Peter himself exclaimed this promise had been fulfilled on the day of Pentacost;
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Before Pentacost, only a few select servants of God received the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit was not permanently indwelling and could be taken away, as happened with king Saul because he was not obedient to God.
After Pentacost all believers received the indwelling Holy Spirit who will abide "for ever" as Jesus promised, and shall be "in you", that is, indwelling.
But note that only believers received the Spirit, the non believing Jews did not receive the Spirit on this day, at least not until they believed the gospel.
God did not regenerate the unbelievers so that they could understand the Galilaean language as Calvinism would teach. NO, God enabled Peter, the apostles and the other disciples to supernaturally speak in the native languages of the many Jews present.
These unbelieving Jews from many nations were able to hear and understand the word of God in their native language. This enabled them to believe the gospel if they so chose to do so. They did not have to be regenerated to hear or understand the gospel, they could understand the gospel JUST AS THEY WERE. That is very important, because it answers the question of whether a person must necessarily be regenerated to believe the gospel. And the answer is NO.
This completely refutes the false teaching of Calvinism, that men must be regenerated to believe the gospel. It is plain as day.
God does not require men to come up to his level to believe the gospel, God comes down to men and meets them on their level, and preaches the gospel to men in simple words that any man can understand.
This is perfectly and simply shown on the day of Pentacost and is OBVIOUS to any honest reader.
Still, it does not deny the supernatural, it was a supernatural work of God to give the ability to speak tongues, and the gospel is a powerful message that can convict and convince the hardest heart.
Last edited by a moderator:
This verse does not help you, because even if you could prove they received the Holy Spirit this day, they had believed on Jesus for 3 years before this, proving a man without the Holy Spirit can believe.
Boy, that one EXCEPTION has to hurt, as it throws your whole argument in doubt. And there is not one word in the text saying this was to remove objections to water baptism by the Jews. You can't just make stuff up and add it to scripture at your whim.
Now if you could only show scripture to support this theory...
A person is spiritually dead because of trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
The moment a person's sins are forgiven, they are no longer spiritually dead. This is why Jesus said Abraham was "living" because righteousness had been imputed to him when he believed God. He was no longer dead in trespasses and sins. But he did not ascend to heaven when he died, and he did not receive the indwelling Holy Spirit until after Jesus rose from the dead.
Paul says no such thing, that is your invention. The scriptures tell us that Cornelius was "devout" as was also said of the over 3000 men and women gathered at Pentacost to worship God.
We know Cornelius was not saved. You are trying to argue that he had the indwelling Spirit before he called for Peter. Why then did he need to hear the gospel and be saved?
See, no matter how you twist and wrest, you aren't going to be able to prove Calvinism from this scripture, it just won't work. And that is your only goal, to try to prove Calvinism. You should give it up and become a real "Biblicist" who believes what the Bible says. You are not going to ever get there the way you are going now.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
2Cor 5:8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.
Many misquote this as if Paul had stated a definition “TO be absent from the body IS TO BE PRESENT with the Lord”, instead of “rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord”. Why do they do that? The “excuse” they use is…
· * two Aorist infinitives
The reason that no actual translation does the mistranslation that a few might wish – can be illustrated this way.
Two scenarios for a soldier in a foxhole half way around the world on a rainy cold night.
· Scenario 1: One soldier says to the other “I wish to be out of the foxhole and to be in my nice dry homein Georgia”. His fellow soldier says “me too”.
· Scenario 2: One soldier says to the other “To BE out of this foxhole IS To BE in my nice dry home in Georgia”. His fellow soldier says “did we dig this foxhole in front of your house?”
In the first scenario there is no explicit denying of the 30 hour ordeal needed to get home (what Paul describes as the middle “unclothed” state in 2Cor 5), but that 30 hour trip is not what is desired.
But the 2nd scenario is stated as a definition – and changes the location of the foxhole and the house – which is why people do it even though it is a faulty translation to do so.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
Brother, you really need to study this out more, please. If babies are born/created sinless and died, never having sinned, then there would be babies in heaven who never had any need whatsoever of the redeeming blood of the Lamb. Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost. He came to call sinners to repentance. He came to save His people from their sins. If babies died never meeting any of this criteria, then they had no need of the blood.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I disagree for reasons already stated. I believe you are reading things INTO passages that simply are not there. Pointing to passages that speak of our need for a new heart, to have the veil removed, to be cleansed, to be forgiven etc etc don't prove our inability to turn to God for those things...you simply think it does and so I don't see that there is much more that can be said about that. I'm sure you feel I'm reading things into the text as well, so we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.
Whose fault is that? The author of that gospel or the hearer? I say its the hearer for CHOOSING to trade the clearly revealed truth in for lies. You say its a lacking on part of the author and his work through the gospel, because it just wasn't sufficient enough to enable a response...it was powerless. The only REAL power in your system is not the gospel, but the prior work of regeneration.
In my system, God gets full credit for those who are saved because he produced the work which enabled their salvation. And man gets full blame for those who reject for the same reason. In your system God may get the credit for those saved, but he likewise gets the blame for those who reject. You steal glory from God, IMO, because He SHOULD be getting credit for the provision and mercy extended to those who refuse it too.
You see, I believe my view of lost mankind is much LOWER than yours because in my view of man he has the ability to willingly accept but chooses not to...He is LOVED by God but rejects that love....He is provided for but he rebels against that provision. Your view just has the lost man rejecting a God who first rejected him, and not loving a God who first hated him, a man simply doing what he was created to do. I believe lost mankind is FAR worse than what your system teaches.
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; )
You can read Willis, does scripture say that Jacob and Esau had committed any sin in their mother's womb?
Do babies die in their mother's womb Willis?
You need to quit letting others spoon-feed you what you believe and think for yourself again.
It was Jesus himself that spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance, and 99 sheep which went not astray.
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.
Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Read Matthew 18 especially Willis, Jesus is speaking of little children throughout this chapter. He tells his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. Do you believe Jesus was telling his disciples they must be converted and become sinners to enter heaven?
Does that sound right Willis?
Jesus told his disciples to be careful not to offend a little child as their angels do always behold his Father's face. Does that sound like Jesus is describing wicked little sinners Willis?
And it was Jesus who told us the elder son never sinned;
Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
It was Jesus that told us of the elder brother who never sinned against his father at any time, and Jesus did not speak idle words.
And note that the father did not correct the elder son, but called him "Son" and said "thou art EVER with me and all that I have is thine".
Does that sound like a lost sinner Willis? Does it?
And note that only the prodigal son was "dead" and "lost", but now is "alive again".
If we are all born dead in sin Willis, how can any man be "alive again"?
Answer those questions with your new found faith Willis.
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
Again Brother, you have babies dying in infancy on par with Jesus.........
So, Romans 9:11 is a lie? Is that what you believe now?
So, I guess you also believe all the good angels in heaven are equal to Jesus as well?
What do you think about the good angels Willis? Have they ever sinned?
convicted1
Guest
No sin will ever stain the streets of heaven, Brother Winman. So no, the angels in heaven never sinned, imo.....
Good answer Willis. So, does being sinless make one equal to God?
convicted1
Guest
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 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:
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
If a baby is born sinless and dies sinless, then how can they fit these criterion???
If a baby is born sinless, and the wages of sin is death, then how do they die, seeing that sin is what brings forth death?
Romans 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:
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
If a baby is born sinless and dies sinless, then how can they fit these criterion???
If a baby is born sinless, and the wages of sin is death, then how do they die, seeing that sin is what brings forth death?
convicted1
Guest
Nope......good retort.......
Two years ago you would have easily answered every one of these questions.
All men physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin. When Adam and Eve sinned, God chased them out of the garden and barred them from the tree of life. This is why all men physically die.
Romans 5:12 says DEATH passed on all men, not sin, "for that all have sinned". This is speaking of spiritual death, not physical. Look at the terms used in Romans 5, such as "justification", "condemnation" "righteousness" "sinner", etc... This chapter is not speaking of physical death.
This verse is saying spiritual death passed on all men (not babies) because all men have personally sinned. It is not saying babies sinned. How do I know that? Because Paul tells us babies have not sinned in Romans 9:11. And this is exactly how the Jews did and continue to believe, that a man or woman does not become accountable until they reach an age of accountability and understand God's laws.
The "law of sin and death" is simply that the wages of sin is spiritual death, not physical death. Animals physically die, but animals are unable to sin.
And it is notable that God compared the 120,000 little children in Nineveh to cattle and told Jonah he SHOULD spare them. Why? Because they were not guilty of sin, just as the cattle were not guilty of sin.
Jon 4:10 Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:
11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
These little children who could not discern between their right hand and their left hand were no more guilty of sin than the much cattle there.
You have to understand right from wrong to be guilty of sin Willis, that is why Adam and Eve spiritually died when they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is not rocket science.
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
So then Adam's sin is passed upon us then? How is this sin passed onto us and yet be not born sinners, Brother? That's what I am getting at. We are held accountable for our sins, and our born sinners because of Adam's. Adam's sin caused us to be born with a sentence of death already placed upon us through no fault of our own. Adam's sin caused us to be born with a sin nature, too. That's why babies lie when they are caught. That's why they steal things that don't belong to them, too. This is something that you don't have to instill into them. It's already there, already programmed into them. We have to teach babies, young children to do the right things. We have to instill into them what is right at a very young age. Not so with doing the wrong things. Watch a young child/toddler, and see if they won't do the wrong things without anyone showing them. We have to tell them it's wrong take something that's not theirs. We have to tell them it's wrong to tell a lie.
It's like babies being born in Ethiopa and die starved to death. Through no fault of their own, they are born into that condition. Through no fault of their own, they die because of that condition.
- Status