Are all already condemned by God, or ONLY after rejecting Christ?

[salzer mtn]

Question begging. Have you stopped abusing your children yet, and did that come as a result of therapy or just a change of heart?

Your doctrine does not hold the copyright on either sovereign or grace.

My children, i sent to college and are all grown married and have good paying high tech jobs. You have wrongly judged me as being a child abuser which you have no grounds to do. I don't know if you know it or not sir, but i can have you taken up for this accusation as slander and defamation of character. You have over stepped yourself.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not quite. I've considered that view, even held to it at one point. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it so, nor those who reject your view rejecting truth. I would think at your age you should have learned that distinction at some point. That text says what it says, period. You are reading your (or your favorite preachers) interpretation into it.

Lets apply your logic by substituting sinned with skated. "All have skated and fallen on the ice" . You mean to tell me you would filter that through the lens of the first person whoever skated, and not take such a simple statement at face value to mean what it says?

Webdog,
I listed many sources that all taught the same thing..Even Wesley....my logic has nothing to do with the teaching of the text.....

ALL SINNED...at one point in time......all without exception.

later on...all sin by experience, yes.....but that does not change the text written in the aorist tense.....look it up yourself:thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

My children, i sent to college and are all grown married and have good paying high tech jobs. You have wrongly judged me as being a child abuser which you have no grounds to do. I don't know if you know it or not sir, but i can have you taken up for this accusation as slander and defamation of character. You have over stepped yourself.

Boy, did that go right over your head. It wasn't an allegation but an example of your debate fallacy. Google question begging before you file your lawsuit.

 

[webdog]

Webdog,
I listed many sources that all taught the same thing..Even Wesley....my logic has nothing to do with the teaching of the text.....

ALL SINNED...at one point in time......all without exception.

later on...all sin by experience, yes.....but that does not change the text written in the aorist tense.....look it up yourself:thumbsup:

All the aorist tense does is point to an action having been completed at a prior point in time, like my skating analogy. The people understanding and reading Paul's words are the context.

 

[Winman]

All the aorist tense does is point to an action having been completed at a prior point in time, like my skating analogy. The people understanding and reading Paul's words are the context.

If Romans 3:23 is saying all men sinned in Adam, then why has NO Bible translator ever translated the scriptures to say that? Look at all these versions.

KJV
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
© Info

NKJV
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
© Info

NLT
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard.
© Info

NIV
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
© Info

ESV
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
© Info

RVR
por cuanto todos pecaron, y están destituidos de la gloria de Dios,
© Info

NASB
for all *have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
© Info

RSV
since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
© Info

ASV
for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;
© Info

YLT
for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God --
© Info

DBY
for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
© Info

WEB
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
© Info

HNV
for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;

Not one of these versions mentions Adam. Wouldn't it be reasonable if this verse is really teaching that all persons sinned in Adam at one point in time that a translator would say that? How can you explain that all these translators left out this very important detail?

None of the many hundreds of scholars who translated these many versions of scripture say that all men sinned in Adam at one point in time.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sheer illogical stupidity here...let's take this line by line:

Out of curiosity, do you people that deny the doctrines of Gods sovereign grace

No one here denies that, and no one will. If you ACTUALLY BELIEVE...that anyone denies that...than you are a simpleton. A simpleton, clear as day.

IMO if a person believed it took man's free will for God to save him, it would also take man's free will for God to keep him.

Then it's a good thing your opininion reflects reality not one whit....because your logic here simply doesn't follow.....It's a non-sequitor of the most elementary sort. Your argument is demonstrably wrong, provably fallacious, and all educated men know that your "opinion" on this is simply logically un-founded.

That isn't My "opinion" sir...it's a fact...you don't know how to argue...Your "opinion" on this is provably invalid as a conclusion. It REALLY is. But, you don't know it, and you never will, because you aren't the teachable sort.

It's either of Gods soveriegn grace from start to finish or works from start to finish.

You just misspelled "sovereign" Calvie...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

My children, i sent to college and are all grown married and have good paying high tech jobs. You have wrongly judged me as being a child abuser which you have no grounds to do. I don't know if you know it or not sir, but i can have you taken up for this accusation as slander and defamation of character. You have over stepped yourself.

:laugh::laugh: You actually thought Web-dog was actually ACCUSING you!!! :laugh:

How illiterate...it was an example genius...an example...sublety is obviously LOST on you :laugh:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Out of curiosity, do you people that deny the doctrines of Gods sovereign grace believe also in losing your salvation ? IMO if a person believed it took man's free will for God to save him, it would also take man's free will for God to keep him. It's either of Gods soveriegn grace from start to finish or works from start to finish.

Despite your mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, and false conclusions, I will attempt to answer your question: I believe as the first English Baptists did, that it is possible for one to forfeit his/her salvation.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Boy, did that go right over your head. It wasn't an allegation but an example of your debate fallacy. Google question begging before you file your lawsuit.

I wonder how one would file such a lawsuit, being that it would consist of one anonymous internet user suing another. Would an anonymous lawyer be retained? :laugh:

 

[DHK]

The bible teaches that we are condemned already. " Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Prior to believing we are condemned. That is why we must be saved. A person not in trouble has no need to be saved.

This answers the OP quite succinctly.
To add to it:

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The wrath of God already remains on the one who is not saved, whether or not they have met with the choice of rejecting him.

 

[Aaron]

Got it. Your is the science fiction view then. Its hardly carnal to believe how the Bible describes faith as coming by hearing, and that by the Word pf God. If anything the mysterious science fiction umbilical cord faith must be the carnal view.

No, you don't "got it," and you'll never get it until you stop thinking of faith as a function of the brain, or any part of the body.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No, you don't "got it," and you'll never get it until you stop thinking of faith as a function of the brain, or any part of the body.

And you won't get it until you stop thinking of sin as a "substance" which is capable of genetic distribution...because that's ostensibly what you believe. Category mistakes all around.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If Romans 3:23 is saying all men sinned in Adam, then why has NO Bible translator ever translated the scriptures to say that? Look at all these versions.
Not one of these versions mentions Adam. Wouldn't it be reasonable if this verse is really teaching that all persons sinned in Adam at one point in time that a translator would say that? How can you explain that all these translators left out this very important detail?
None of the many hundreds of scholars who translated these many versions of scripture say that all men sinned in Adam at one point in time.

They won't because it simply isn't THERE...There is NO way to assume a genetic passing of Adam's guilt in that passage unless you already pre-suppose it to be true. Because the Scriptures don't (strictly-speaking)....what's the word???...SAY any such thing...Yes, everyone sinned and at a definable point in time, and subsequently they became "sinners"....tell us something we DON'T know:sleep:

 

[Luke2427]

This could not be more rightly stated....Winman does LITTLE but counter arguments STRAIGHT from Scripture (as he understands it)....Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right. But he simply exegetes Scripture as he knows it, and debates based on the Scripture ALONE...He's the most "Sola Scriptura" person in this debate.

He's their whipping-boy only because that is PRECISELY what he does. He is assaulted by CONSTANT abuse due to his tenacity in responding ONLY via his understanding of Scripture, and it infuriates his opposition. This is one of the reasons that although I disagree with him on some points....I find HIM convincing and others, not near as much. So, they get enraged when Win makes some arguments from Scripture. Good for them. I've never seen them really counter MOST of his arguments from Scripture....I've seen them make "Appeals to authority", "Ad Hominems", and "Ad Bacculums"...but they rarely go straight to Scripture to refute him. It's quite sad.

Your hermeneutics are too good to believe that.

Winman thinks he should be heard for his much scripture quoting- as if that means ANYTHING.

One passage rightly divided and presented in its proper context soundly exegeted is worth infinitely more than ten thousand proof text quotes.

I have RARELY seen Winman use a passage properly.

 

[Winman]

One passage rightly divided and presented in its proper context soundly exegeted is worth infinitely more than ten thousand proof text quotes.

Oh, you mean like folks taking obvious hyperbole and figurative scripture such as Psalms 58:3 and creating doctrine from it?

I notice you have a little one, did he or she start telling lies the day he (she) was born? Was he poisonous like a snake? Did he have great teeth like a lion? Did he melt like a snail if he got salt on him?

Your whole doctrine is formed on poor hermeneutics and you have the nerve to criticize me? What a laugh.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HI friend!!! Good to see you again

Your hermeneutics are too good to believe that.

Maybe they aren't...I have no formal Theological training in such things. I have not been trained in "hermeneutics" as such. I wish I had, and I hope to one day, but I often find him convincing....I actually do. I know that bothers you, because I'm not going to pretend that I am not a smart guy....I am (and it isn't pride to recognize that).

Maybe I find him convincing largely because much of the opposition which actually debates him posts such comparably bad arguments...

I actually DO find Winman convincing. It is certainly possible that part of the reason is that Many if not MOST of those who rejoinder him have such weak arguments...I can only compare the two. You must admit that I could probably make a better case for Calvinism than most of the loudest adherents of the doctrine on this board usually do.

But, I honestly don't really know that my Hermeneutics are too good to believe that. I am willing to learn.

Winman thinks he should be heard for his much scripture quoting- as if that means ANYTHING.

It isn't the sheer "volume" of his Scripture quoting he appeals to. I honestly think you mis-judge him. He perceives a holistic doctrinal Sciptural point as much as you do. It DOES make sense to him. If he is wrong...than, frankly, you should see as well as I do, that his detractors have not yet made a particularly powerful case yet. (Not on this thread anyway).

Honestly, it wasn't 4 months ago...that I said in Sunday School to the class I was teaching this classic:
"You aren't a sinner because you sin, you sin, because you are a sinner"... (end-quote)
I was raised to believe that, and always have, but I don't see that in Scripture. And those who adhere to it, at least thus far on this thread....have not been particularly convincing. I am sure you would see this if you read the thread...you wouldn't merely "thumb's-up" :thumbsup: every moronic statement which supports your position (which is why I actually would listen to you, and take you seriously).

One passage rightly divided and presented in its proper context soundly exegeted is worth infinitely more than ten thousand proof text quotes.

Absolutely it is...perhaps you need to jump in some. I'm convincable really; i believed in what I am calling "Original-Guilt" only some few months ago, and had all my life...I just don't see it in Scripture anymore. But, your compadres are OBVIOUSLY not helping you out here. Not on this thread.

I have RARELY seen Winman use a passage properly.

Maybe...but he is an honest man who truly takes the Scriptures at heart to the best of his knowledge...I will not deny him that. Some of us may be clouded by "much learning"...I might easily be...perhaps most of us are. I doubt you would deny that some certain nameless Calvinists are, at minimum, educated beyond their intelligence no?
But I will not lambast his simple faith in the Scriptures understood to the best of his knowledge. I will give him that, and, yes, I respect it.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Coming in late here...

We are all sinners. Everyone. We are all tainted by sin. We are sinners by nature, and sinners experientally.

Our only hope is place our faith in Christ.


(Or, of course, for those who, through no fault of their own never hear the gosple, recieving the God sent light they DID hear and recieve.)


Praise the Lord

 

[webdog]

No, you don't "got it," and you'll never get it until you stop thinking of faith as a function of the brain, or any part of the body.

So please tell which vacuum non-body part processes evidence and hope? Which science fiction methods are you now going to bring up? This should be good...

 

[Aaron]

And you won't get it until you stop thinking of sin as a "substance" which is capable of genetic distribution...because that's ostensibly what you believe. Category mistakes all around.

Buzzzzzzz! Wrong again.

 

[Aaron]

So please tell which vacuum non-body part processes evidence and hope? Which science fiction methods are you now going to bring up? This should be good...

Which part of the body is the spirit?