Are there even biblical arminians posting On The baptist Board?

[psalms109:31]

A born again Christian is one who is converted to faith in Christ.

Nicodemus knew it was a birth, born again when he ask do we have to go back in the mothers womb.

I believe it is both born again and born from above. We have to become a new creation and the new creation is from being born again by His enduring word that came from above through Jesus Christ.

I am not talking about cleaning the outside while in the inside we only care about our self, and no change within us.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

There are several on the bb that repeat this error over and over.

This verse does not teach what you are saying. Paul was not spiritually alive without the Holy Spirit....then died when he was older and heard the law.

this is a foolish idea to post much less to consider as even remotely what Paul was speaking of.

Please refrain from posting this unbiblical idea.According to this false idea all men who never hear God's law....do not sin

This idea should not even be a thought in a believers mind.

No problem actually....will do, if you can explain WHY. And by that, I do not mean...ignore the verse, and merely post an amalgam of proof-texts which Calvinists assume state otherwise...but engage that passage itself, and explain WHY it does not mean what it obviously seems to mean...Unfortunately...what it obviously SEEMS to mean...is that, Paul was indeed "Once ALIVE"...but, yet, after "SIN revived....he DIED". There are only so many available options for explaining this away. This verse, used in context, could NOT be simpler or clearer. Mind you, I am actually open to alternative explanation here, but repetition of confessional assumption, or ignoring the passage and bombarding with a "fire for effect" of a multiplicity of "proof-texts"....which we are told to assume teach that this verse.....contained in the BIBLE...is not in fact a verse which exists...in the BIBLE. you cannot say that a verse in the Bible is "unbiblical". You can only explain how it does not, in fact, imply what it OBVIOUSLY seems to imply.

Please explain to me, WHY I should not post what appears to be the clear and simple meaning of a verse which was as much inspired as any verse in Scripture you don't actually loathe.

 

[Winman]

No problem actually....will do, if you can explain WHY. And by that, I do not mean...ignore the verse, and merely post an amalgam of proof-texts which Calvinists assume state otherwise...but engage that passage itself, and explain WHY it does not mean what it obviously seems to mean...Unfortunately...what it obviously SEEMS to mean...is that, Paul was indeed "Once ALIVE"...but, yet, after "SIN revived....he DIED". There are only so many available options for explaining this away. This verse, used in context, could NOT be simpler or clearer. Mind you, I am actually open to alternative explanation here, but repetition of confessional assumption, or ignoring the passage and bombarding with a "fire for effect" of a multiplicity of "proof-texts"....which we are told to assume teach that this verse.....contained in the BIBLE...is not in fact a verse which exists...in the BIBLE. you cannot say that a verse in the Bible is "unbiblical". You can only explain how it does not, in fact, imply what it OBVIOUSLY seems to imply.

Please explain to me, WHY I should not post what appears to be the clear and simple meaning of a verse which was as much inspired as any verse in Scripture you don't actually loathe.

Yes, this is the Calvinist argument, that Romans 7:9 does not mean what it actually says, that Paul was ALIVE once without the law. Paul never says he or anyone is born dead as Calvinists falsely teach.

Yep, their only argument is that scripture does not mean what it OBVIOUSLY says. They cannot explain why Jesus said the prodigal son was ALIVE AGAIN, because they teach a man was never alive.

They must even resort to changing the definition of words. The word "regenerate" means to be made alive AGAIN, yet they redefine it to be made alive for the first time. If men are born dead in sin, and are only alive when they believe, then they would be "generated" not "RE-generated". Words have meaning. To be regenerated means a person is made alive AGAIN.

They will simply say their scholars have never held these interpretations as though that makes them correct. They cannot actually address scripture, because scripture REFUTES Calvinism.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Born again(or from above) was in contrast to physical birth.

Birth 1 - physical
birth 2 - spiritual.

This is a distinction which is patently obvious to all Arminians...They understand the differnce between "Spiritual Death" and "Physical Death"....What you are doing is suggesting that "SPIRITUAL Life" and "SPIRITUAL Death" are different, but not "PHYSICAL Death" and "Spiritual Death"....Think about it JBH.....You are trying to "have your cake and eat it too." You cannot separate Physical life and Spiritual life and also simultaneously equivocate between Physical death and Spiritual death. Think again, about what you are saying please.

 

[Winman]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Great post Winman....I guess it does not bother you at all....that the word means....born from above:thumbsup:

So you post the error yet again.......got to love it!!!!!!

I do not deny that Jesus said we must be born again, born of the Spirit, I absolutely agree with that.

What I disagree with is that men are born dead in sin. Paul said he was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died.

Paul had to be alive to die. Non-living things cannot die. This is simple basic logic, yet it eludes you and goes right over your head. When the prodigal son repented and returned to his father, twice Jesus said he was ALIVE AGAIN. Now that is as simple and clear as it gets. Obviously the boy was once alive, just as Paul says in Romans 7:9. The boy went out in sin and spiritually died. When he repented and returned to his father, Jesus said he was alive again. It is you that refuses to see what scripture plainly and obviously says and shows. It is you that refuses to listen to scripture.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

There it is, plain as day, Jesus said the prodigal son was alive again. Your disagreement is not with me, it is with Jesus Christ himself. If you desire to listen to Augustine and Calvin, that is your privilege, but I prefer to listen to Jesus. It is not like I am pulling some wild idea out of the air, you can read and see for yourself what Jesus said.

3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God;'

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, `How is a man able to be born, being old? is he able into the womb of his mother a second time to enter, and to be born?'

5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;

6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;

Again, I do not deny that Jesus said we must be born again of the Spirit, but what I disagree with is that scripture teaches we are born dead in sin. The scriptures do not teach this at all, they teach that men are born spiritually alive, and that men die spiritually when they sin AFTER birth.

You are the one who has no scripture to support your view, I have already shown scripture that clearly supports my view. My view is BIBLICAL.

 

[Skandelon]

Here is another verse that came to mind Winman...

Jam 1:15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Willis,

I cannot agree to your idea ,as I believe it is unbiblical in several ways

In your idea...men are born spiritually alive.

Yes....it would mean that

That would mean they are born indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

No...it wouldn't actually. It would only mean they were not assumed guilty prior to any infraction of the law. Old Testament believers were not indwelt either....The Holy Spirit "came" upon them...it did not "indwell" them. and yet they are "elect"....They are Saints. They are Spiritually "alive"...They were not only not born "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit....They NEVER became "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit....It never occurred. Not once. No Old Testament believer was ever "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in Scripture which teaches thus...The Holy Spirit "came upon" them, but they were never "indwelt" by him. Just read the Bible, and stop making Theological assumtions.

That would mean they lose salvation when they commit and act of sin.

Not exactly...in that they were not "saved" at all...They had NOTHING to be "saved" from. They were guilty of zero infractions of the law, and therefore they simply were not (to date) ever condemned...

that would mean they were not sealed with the Spirit like Eph 1 says.

They had no need of being "sealed" as they were never at any point, guilty. You cannot argue against Willis' assumption of innocence by assumming their guilt and then attempting to point out inconsistencies.....Consult your Calvinist apologia again for a logically correct rejoinder. It is not covered by your objections here.

that would mean romans 3 :23 does not say this as i posted to Winman:

Correct!!!:

Romans 3:23 never said ANYTHING like what you are trying to say....it only says:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

No one...to whom this is written, and who can concievably understand what Paul is saying would conclude, or assume (as you are) that somehow they are guilty of "sinning" when they have not, in fact, "sinned". This verse is a verse designed to condemn us all. And it rightly does....but it does so, by explaining that we all "HAVE" in fact "SINNED"... In what way, pray tell, has an infant in fact transgressed or broken the law or "sinned". His audience (to whom he was actually speaking) did indeed sin...So Paul is absolutely correct. But you are trying to make us assume "Original Guilt" and then use a verse which is descriptive of only what has in fact occured....to support the notion that infants have somehow actually "done" something they are not even capable of doing. That is insane.

8

The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity,

Please explain how an infant "HAS" sinned....that is all I ask. I don't mean....explain that Adam sinned, and therefore again assume the imputation of guilt...I mean explain how the infant itself was, in fact, party to that infraction.

Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”).

Absolutely true...an inarguably true statement. No one, can reasonably or Biblically argue that it is not in fact the case that it took ONE MAN, and one man only for sin to "enter the world"...this verse sums it up clearly and completely. Furthermore...you would also be correct that "All of creation groans..." because by HIM and him alone..sin "entered". By him came the curse....by him came "death" (its physical)....but....by Jesus Christ came LIFE!!!! (also physical)!! If you read that in context.

Every human being is a sinner by imputation,

No, that is what Calvinist Theology has taught you to assume...but there is no verse which ACTUALLY says this: This has been smuggled in under the radar by disarming you with the obvious truth of the following two parts:

nature

YUPP!!!!!! and it is also not denied.

and personal activity.

YUPP!!!! and it is also not denied

What does not exist.....is the "imputation" part.....You actually used a verse (if you think about it) which re-inforces the "personal activity" part "all...HAVE sinned" <---that is what we call an "action verb"....but it says nothing about "imputation"....Your Calvinist apologia has probably repeated this in your head for so many years, I think, that you don't differentiate...I truly respect your humble search and desire for truth. I also deeply respect your hunger for deeper knowledge. I also respect your intellectual humility. But, unfortunately...I think you have so deeply engrossed yourself in those pursuits that you have become easy prey for those who you (in your humility actually) have convinced you that they are THE "teachers" that God has gifted to his Church (and there cannot be any others)...and you tend to find it to be arrogant and presumptuous to question the fundamentals of their assumptions. and they have now programmed you, in a way to EISEGETE...what is NOT strictly in a passage......They...like you yourself, have come to these conclusions with the most noble and honest of intents. But they are simply incorrect....Thus, by extension, so are you.
I hope you do not see this as anything but an attempt at well-meant and ernest edification. I have no "GIFT" per se for edification...well....neither do you actually, but, I mean this post in all sincerity. There were many a gifted an honest well-meant and intelligent Theologians who have taught these Calvinistic assumptions for years....and much of it is simply ingrained in our psyche..... So powerfully so, actually, that one does indeed feel arrogant and somehow "out-of-line" to question ANY of them. But, the Scriptures do say what they say...and here's the thing....they also don't say anything MORE......than what they say either. and "Original Guilt"...is not a Scriptural idea...it's a deeply ingrained Theological one. I don't see it. I don't think there are any Scriptures which do...........And I think you will post no Scriptures...which actually state what you are taught they State...No Scripture will claim that infants are "sinners" in the same sense that you claim they are.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hos,

What does not exist.....is the "imputation" part.....You actually used a verse (if you think about it) which re-inforces the "personal activity" part "all...HAVE sinned" <---that is what we call an "action verb"....but it says nothing about "imputation".

lets begin here:

Quote:
8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event,

Point to an event.....a past completed event....that Happened.....at one specific point in time... ...the fall..ALL Sinned In Adam......All sinned, all persons ever conceived sinned at that time in Adam. That is the biblical teaching.It will never change,as the gospel is based on the two representative Adam's....and their relation to God's law.

“For” shows why the gospel must be preached world‑wide: the need is universal. Men differ as to the nature and extent of their sinfulness, but they do not differ in the fact of their sinfulness, for “all have sinned.” The whole race is gathered up in this one statement of universal sinfulness. “Have sinned” is aorist tense, denoting a once for all sin in past time, for all sinned in Adam, the federal head of the race, (Rom. 5:12)

Vincent's Word Studies

Have sinned (ἥμαρτον)

Aorist tense: sinned, looking back to a thing definitely past - the historic occurrence of sin.



i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity,

but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…”

This is the scriptural teaching....it comes first! You cannot deny this and have correct theology. Any understanding must start here.


Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity
__________________

 

[Yeshua1]

That does not solve your problem, if Psa 51:5 teaches that a sin nature is inherited from our parents, then it teaches that it is inherited from our mother, not our father. This verse does not mention David's father, but his mother only.



And you have been shown numerous times that Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, not Adam, that he was made like his brethren the Jews in all things, and was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.



Nonsense, they clearly say that the son shall not BEAR the sin or iniquity of his father, yet that is what you falsely teach. You teach the exact opposite of what scriptures say.

If we are born sinners because of Adam's sin, then all men indeed BEAR the iniquity of their fathers.

You ignore scripture that clearly refutes Original Sin and hold to the false Gnostic and Manichean beliefs of Augustine.

jesus was born into the LIKENESS, NOt SAMENESS of human flesh, as God had prepared for him a physical body that was as Adam, not tainted/corrupted form the fall of Adam, as being Virgin born, he was Fully God and Fully man, without a sin nature in Him, again, as First adam was created as being!

Jesus geneology traced back to Adam and back to God, seed of Abraham meant would be born a s aJew, NOT referring to being exactly SAME as other people!

Do you see all humans born in same state as jesus, without a sin nature, who can overcome by their own virtue and avoid the Fall than?

 

[Winman]

jesus was born into the LIKENESS, NOt SAMENESS of human flesh, as God had prepared for him a physical body that was as Adam, not tainted/corrupted form the fall of Adam, as being Virgin born, he was Fully God and Fully man, without a sin nature in Him, again, as First adam was created as being!

Jesus geneology traced back to Adam and back to God, seed of Abraham meant would be born a s aJew, NOT referring to being exactly SAME as other people!

Do you see all humans born in same state as jesus, without a sin nature, who can overcome by their own virtue and avoid the Fall than?

False, scripture says Jesus took on the NATURE of the seed of Abraham. Jesus had the nature of post-fall man. I have shown you Reformed commentators who have agreed with this in the past. You are quite aware of this but cling to error anyway.

Now, if men are not born sinners, then there is no problem, Jesus would not be born a sinner. It is only because of your false doctrine that you and others must resort to fantastic inventions such as the Immaculate Conception. One false doctrine leads to another.

 

[Iconoclast]

No problem actually....will do, if you can explain WHY. And by that, I do not mean...ignore the verse, and merely post an amalgam of proof-texts which Calvinists assume state otherwise...but engage that passage itself, and explain WHY it does not mean what it obviously seems to mean...Unfortunately...what it obviously SEEMS to mean...is that, Paul was indeed "Once ALIVE"...but, yet, after "SIN revived....he DIED". There are only so many available options for explaining this away. This verse, used in context, could NOT be simpler or clearer. Mind you, I am actually open to alternative explanation here, but repetition of confessional assumption, or ignoring the passage and bombarding with a "fire for effect" of a multiplicity of "proof-texts"....which we are told to assume teach that this verse.....contained in the BIBLE...is not in fact a verse which exists...in the BIBLE. you cannot say that a verse in the Bible is "unbiblical". You can only explain how it does not, in fact, imply what it OBVIOUSLY seems to imply.
Please explain to me, WHY I should not post what appears to be the clear and simple meaning of a verse which was as much inspired as any verse in Scripture you don't actually loathe.

We can take a look at it. I do not lothe any scripture. If I loathe anything it is the constant wresting of scripture that you guys like to do.


In Romans 6...and Romans 7 Paul is addressing our relationship to God's law. that is the topic being addressed. He is not speaking of regeneration, or explaining a new idea about us being born sinless until we die from God's law. This suggestion is so foolish i cannot believe you want it explained. That idea is miles away from the topic, unscriptural, and in direct contradiction to all doctrinal portions of the bible.

3. The Comparison Between Adam and Christ (5:18–19)
4. The Consideration of the Law (5:20)
5. The Conclusion or Reign of Grace (5:20–21)
(a) An Explanation of this Glorious Grace (5:20)
(b) An Exposition of this Glorious Grace (5:21)
C. SANCTIFICATION (6:1–8:16)
Considered under the general heading of holiness of life:
1. The Principle of Holiness (6:1–11)
2. The Practice of Holiness (6:12–7:6)
3. The Preventive of Holiness (7:7–8:4)
4. The Power of Holiness (8:1–16)
Or, considered as to the various warnings in this section:
1. A Warning against Antinomianism (6:1–23)
a The Question concerning living in sin answered (6:1–14)
1. TheQuestion (6:1)
2. TheDeclaration (6:2)
3. The Explanation (6:3–10)
4. TheApplication (6:11)
5. The Exhortation (6:12–13)
6. TheConclusion (6:14)
b The Question concerning committing acts of sin answered (6:15–23)
1. TheQuestion (6:15)
2. TheGeneralization (6:16)
3. The Application (6:17–18)
4. The Exhortation (6:19)
5. The Explanation (6:20–23)
2. A Warning against Legalism (7:1–8:4).
a. Our relation to the Law (7:1–6)
1.The Generalization (7:1)
2. The Illustration (7:2–3)
3. The Application (7:4–6)
b. A vindication of the Law (7:7–13)
1.Sin is not Identical with the Law (7:7)
2.Sin and the Nature of the Law (7:8)
3. Sin and the Penalty of the Law (7:9–11)
4. Sin is Revealed by the Law (7:12–13)
c. Sanctification and the Law (7:14–8:4)
1. The Inward Struggle: A Portrait of Conflict (7:14–20)
2. The Inward Struggle: Its Principles of Contradiction (7:21–25)
5

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

For I-- There seems to be no doubt that the apostle here refers to his own past experience. Yet in this he speaks the sentiment of all who are unconverted, and who are depending on their own righteousness.

Was alive - This is opposed to what he immediately adds respecting another state, in which he was when he died. It must mean, therefore, that he had a certain kind of peace; he deemed himself secure; he was free from the convictions of conscience and the agitations of alarm. The state to which he refers here must be doubtless that to which he himself alludes elsewhere, when he deemed himself to be righteous, depending on his own works, and esteeming himself to be blameless, Philippians 3:4-6; Acts 23:1; Acts 26:4-5. It means that he was then free from those agitations and alarms which he afterward experienced when he was brought under conviction for sin. At that time, though he had the Law, and was attempting to obey it, yet he was unacquainted with its spiritual and holy nature. He aimed at external conformity. Its claims on the heart were unfelt. This is the condition of every self-confident sinner, and of everyone who is unawakened.

Without the law - Not that Paul was ever really without the Law, that is, without the Law of Moses; but he means before the Law was applied to his heart in its spiritual meaning, and with power.

But when the commandment came - When it was applied to the heart and conscience. This is the only intelligible sense of the expression; for it cannot refer to the time when the Law was given. When this was, the apostle does not say. But the expression denotes whenever it was so applied; when it was urged with power and efficacy on his conscience, to control, restrain, and threaten him, it produced this effect. We are unacquainted with the early operations of his mind, and with his struggles against conscience and duty. We know enough of him before conversion, however, to be assured that he was proud, impetuous, and unwilling to be restrained; see Acts 8; 9. In the state of his self-confident righteousness and impetuosity of feeling, we may easily suppose that the holy Law of God, which is designed to restrain the passions, to humble the heart, and to rebuke pride, would produce only irritation, and impatience of restraint, and revolt.

Sin revived - Lived again. This means that it was before dormant Romans 7:8, but was now quickened into new life. The word is usually applied to a renewal of life, Romans 14:19; Luke 15:24, Luke 15:32, but here it means substantially the same as the expression in Romans 7:8, "Sin ...wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." The power of sin, which was before dormant, became quickened and active.

I died - That is, I was by it involved in additional guilt and misery. It stands opposed to "I was alive," and must mean the opposite of that; and evidently denotes that the effect of the commandment was to bring him under what he calls death, (compare Romans 5:12, Romans 5:14-15 that is, sin reigned, and raged, and produced its withering and condemning effects; it led to aggravated guilt and misery. It may also include this idea, that before, he was self-confident and secure, but that by the commandment he was stricken down and humbled, his self-confidence was blasted, and his hopes were prostrated in the dust. Perhaps no words would better express the humble, subdued, melancholy, and helpless state of a converted sinner than the expressive phrase "I died." The essential idea here is, that the Law did not answer the purpose which the Jew would claim for it, to sanctify the soul and to give comfort, but that all its influence on the heart was to produce aggravated, unpardoned guilt and woe.

Scofield Reference Notes

[2] when the commandment

The passage (vs 7-25) is autobiographical. Paul's religious experience was in three strongly marked phases:

(1) He was a godly Jew under the law. That the passage does not refer to that period is clear from his own explicit statements elsewhere. At that time he held himself to be "blameless" as concerned the law Phil 3:6. He had "lived in all good conscience" Acts 23:1.

(2) With his conversion came new light upon the law itself. He now perceived it to be "spiritual" (Rom 7:14). He now saw that, Song far from having kept it, he was condemned by it. He had supposed himself to be "alive," but now the commandment really "came" (Rom 7:9) and he "died." Just when the apostle passed through the experience of Rom 7:7-25 we are not told. Perhaps during the days of physical blindness at Damascus Acts 9:9, perhaps in Arabia Gal 1:17.

amieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

9. For I was alive without the law once-"In the days of my ignorance, when, in this sense, a stranger to the law, I deemed myself a righteous man, and, as such, entitled to life at the hand of God."

but when the commandment came-forbidding all irregular desire; for the apostle sees in this the spirit of the whole law.

sin revived-"came to life"; in its malignity and strength it unexpectedly revealed itself, as if sprung from the dead.

and I died-"saw myself, in the eye of a law never kept and not to be kept, a dead man."

 

[Yeshua1]

False, scripture says Jesus took on the NATURE of the seed of Abraham. Jesus had the nature of post-fall man. I have shown you Reformed commentators who have agreed with this in the past. You are quite aware of this but cling to error anyway.

Now, if men are not born sinners, then there is no problem, Jesus would not be born a sinner. It is only because of your false doctrine that you and others must resort to fantastic inventions such as the Immaculate Conception. One false doctrine leads to another.

Do you deny that Jesus was Virgin born, that God was His father, and that he was born without a sin nature?

For he ALONE was born free from the effects of the fall of Adam!

Why did he have to even come?

If we are born sinless like he was, couldn't any of us overcome and die for sins in your theology?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hos,



lets begin here:

Show us that Scripture in English....not Greek............Or, else...NO, I will not "begin here"...It is the "beginning here" part that I don't accept. I am not challenging your conclusions. I am challenging your fundamental premise...."Infants are guilty". Infants "have sinned"...do it in English please...not Greek. Do you have an in-depth knowledge of Greek???? Me neither. So tell us what you know to be true in English without assuming the correctness of your particular brand of Greek-scholar.....I am sure someone can conjure up yet one more "Greek scholar" who says otherwise...In fact, I am appealing to some myself....the King James Bible Traslators, and none of them were stupid. They already told us what the "Greek" says in "English" (it was their job actually) and they got paid for it. Show us the verse accurately translated into English (since neither you nor I know how to so much as to actually order a beer and a burger in koine Greek) which has convinced you that infants have personally sinned.

 

[Iconoclast]

Show us that Scripture in English....not Greek............Or, else...NO, I will not "begin here"...It is the "beginning here" part that I don't accept. I am not challenging your conclusions. I am challenging your fundamental premise...."Infants are guilty". Infants "have sinned"...do it in English please...not Greek. Do you have an in-depth knowledge of Greek???? Me neither. So tell us what you know to be true in English without assuming the correctness of your particular brand of Greek-scholar.....I am sure someone can conjure up yet one more "Greek scholar" who says otherwise...In fact, I am appealing to some myself....the King James Bible Traslators, and none of them were stupid. They already told us what the "Greek" says in "English" (it was their job actually) and they got paid for it. Show us the verse accurately translated into English (since neither you nor I know how to so much as to actually order a beer and a burger in koine Greek) which has convinced you that infants have personally sinned.

That is what the text says literally....You can check anywhere.

here is youngs literal.....

23 for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God


all....all conceived persons...for all time.....there will never be a person here who did not sin in Adam....who did not die in Adam...

God did not write the bible in english, but He had it written in greek for this very reason.....the tenses of the verses are more exact.....

it is a past completed action...it happened at one exact point in time.

The point in time is the fall.Dying thou shalt surely die. It happened:thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

Do you deny that Jesus was Virgin born, that God was His father, and that he was born without a sin nature?

You are pathetic, The Biblicist explained to you just last week that I do not believe Jesus had a sin nature. You know that. You are either the most forgetful person ever to post at BB or intentionally dishonest. Which is it?

For he ALONE was born free from the effects of the fall of Adam!

Scripture says Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham, was made like unto his brethren in ALL THINGS, and was in ALL POINTS tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Jesus was subjected to exactly the same effects of the fall that all men were.

Why did he have to even come?

He came to save us from our sins. What does that have to do with the discussion?

If we are born sinless like he was, couldn't any of us overcome and die for sins in your theology?

You don't have a problem with Adam and Eve being created sinless do you? Why not?

Your argument is bogus. Adam and Eve were sinless and created in a perfect world, yet sinned the first time they were tempted. What makes you think that we who are born into an utterly corrupt world with thousands of temptations would do any better?

It is not amazing that all men sin, what is amazing is that Jesus lived as a man for 33 years in this corrupt world with thousands of temptations and NEVER sinned. THAT is what is amazing.

Fact is, the scriptures say ALL MEN have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The scriptures do not say that Adam's sin was imputed to all men as you falsely teach.

 

[Winman]

Show us that Scripture in English....not Greek............Or, else...NO, I will not "begin here"...It is the "beginning here" part that I don't accept. I am not challenging your conclusions. I am challenging your fundamental premise...."Infants are guilty". Infants "have sinned"...do it in English please...not Greek. Do you have an in-depth knowledge of Greek???? Me neither. So tell us what you know to be true in English without assuming the correctness of your particular brand of Greek-scholar.....I am sure someone can conjure up yet one more "Greek scholar" who says otherwise...In fact, I am appealing to some myself....the King James Bible Traslators, and none of them were stupid. They already told us what the "Greek" says in "English" (it was their job actually) and they got paid for it. Show us the verse accurately translated into English (since neither you nor I know how to so much as to actually order a beer and a burger in koine Greek) which has convinced you that infants have personally sinned.

Yes, this is the problem, a person who does not know Greek has no way of knowing if the interpretation offered is correct. I doubt Iconoclast knows Greek and has any idea of whether his explanation is correct.

Not only that, but you can find numerous passages of scripture where supposed Greek scholars disagree.

Fact is, in Romans 7:9 Paul clearly says he was once alive without the law. This one verse alone refutes Original Sin, for if all men were born dead in sin, then no man could ever say he was ALIVE. But that is exactly what Paul tells us.

If men are born dead in sin, then the prodigal son could not have been alive AGAIN as Jesus said. But that is exactly what Jesus said TWICE.

These guys don't have scripture on their side, scripture refutes Original Sin.

 

[convicted1]

Willis,

I cannot agree to your idea ,as I believe it is unbiblical in several ways

In your idea...men are born spiritually alive.


That would mean they are born indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
That would mean they lose salvation when they commit and act of sin.
that would mean they were not sealed with the Spirit like Eph 1 says.
that would mean romans 3 :23 does not say this as i posted to Winman:


Quote:
8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity,


but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…”




Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity.

In all of this post, you failed to answer a few of my questions in the post you were quoting from:

1) In conception, where does the soul come from? Is it part of the maturation process of embryo, zygote, fetus, infant, or does the soul come from God?

2) If said soul comes from God, and it comes in an already "dead in trespasses and sins", then God created said soul with sin mixed in, making Him the Author of said sin?

3) If one is born spiritually dead, then how can someone/anyone be made alive again, a la regenerated......which means to be made alive again?


Until you answer these questions, I can not further engage in this discussion.


IOW, I want YOUR opinion, and not the opinions of your Reformed people.

 

[convicted1]

Yes....it would mean that



No...it wouldn't actually. It would only mean they were not assumed guilty prior to any infraction of the law. Old Testament believers were not indwelt either....The Holy Spirit "came" upon them...it did not "indwell" them. and yet they are "elect"....They are Saints. They are Spiritually "alive"...They were not only not born "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit....They NEVER became "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit....It never occurred. Not once. No Old Testament believer was ever "indwelt" by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in Scripture which teaches thus...The Holy Spirit "came upon" them, but they were never "indwelt" by him. Just read the Bible, and stop making Theological assumtions.



Not exactly...in that they were not "saved" at all...They had NOTHING to be "saved" from. They were guilty of zero infractions of the law, and therefore they simply were not (to date) ever condemned...



They had no need of being "sealed" as they were never at any point, guilty. You cannot argue against Willis' assumption of innocence by assumming their guilt and then attempting to point out inconsistencies.....Consult your Calvinist apologia again for a logically correct rejoinder. It is not covered by your objections here.



Correct!!!:

Romans 3:23 never said ANYTHING like what you are trying to say....it only says:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

No one...to whom this is written, and who can concievably understand what Paul is saying would conclude, or assume (as you are) that somehow they are guilty of "sinning" when they have not, in fact, "sinned". This verse is a verse designed to condemn us all. And it rightly does....but it does so, by explaining that we all "HAVE" in fact "SINNED"... In what way, pray tell, has an infant in fact transgressed or broken the law or "sinned". His audience (to whom he was actually speaking) did indeed sin...So Paul is absolutely correct. But you are trying to make us assume "Original Guilt" and then use a verse which is descriptive of only what has in fact occured....to support the notion that infants have somehow actually "done" something they are not even capable of doing. That is insane.

8

Please explain how an infant "HAS" sinned....that is all I ask. I don't mean....explain that Adam sinned, and therefore again assume the imputation of guilt...I mean explain how the infant itself was, in fact, party to that infraction.



Absolutely true...an inarguably true statement. No one, can reasonably or Biblically argue that it is not in fact the case that it took ONE MAN, and one man only for sin to "enter the world"...this verse sums it up clearly and completely. Furthermore...you would also be correct that "All of creation groans..." because by HIM and him alone..sin "entered". By him came the curse....by him came "death" (its physical)....but....by Jesus Christ came LIFE!!!! (also physical)!! If you read that in context.


No, that is what Calvinist Theology has taught you to assume...but there is no verse which ACTUALLY says this: This has been smuggled in under the radar by disarming you with the obvious truth of the following two parts:

YUPP!!!!!! and it is also not denied.

YUPP!!!! and it is also not denied

What does not exist.....is the "imputation" part.....You actually used a verse (if you think about it) which re-inforces the "personal activity" part "all...HAVE sinned" <---that is what we call an "action verb"....but it says nothing about "imputation"....Your Calvinist apologia has probably repeated this in your head for so many years, I think, that you don't differentiate...I truly respect your humble search and desire for truth. I also deeply respect your hunger for deeper knowledge. I also respect your intellectual humility. But, unfortunately...I think you have so deeply engrossed yourself in those pursuits that you have become easy prey for those who you (in your humility actually) have convinced you that they are THE "teachers" that God has gifted to his Church (and there cannot be any others)...and you tend to find it to be arrogant and presumptuous to question the fundamentals of their assumptions. and they have now programmed you, in a way to EISEGETE...what is NOT strictly in a passage......They...like you yourself, have come to these conclusions with the most noble and honest of intents. But they are simply incorrect....Thus, by extension, so are you.
I hope you do not see this as anything but an attempt at well-meant and ernest edification. I have no "GIFT" per se for edification...well....neither do you actually, but, I mean this post in all sincerity. There were many a gifted an honest well-meant and intelligent Theologians who have taught these Calvinistic assumptions for years....and much of it is simply ingrained in our psyche..... So powerfully so, actually, that one does indeed feel arrogant and somehow "out-of-line" to question ANY of them. But, the Scriptures do say what they say...and here's the thing....they also don't say anything MORE......than what they say either. and "Original Guilt"...is not a Scriptural idea...it's a deeply ingrained Theological one. I don't see it. I don't think there are any Scriptures which do...........And I think you will post no Scriptures...which actually state what you are taught they State...No Scripture will claim that infants are "sinners" in the same sense that you claim they are.

In all my years on here, this is one of the BEST posts I have EVER read. It may not be the best(can't think of one that was better, btw), but it sure is "top five"........:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That is what the text says literally....You can check anywhere.

here is youngs literal.....

23 for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God

I dig "Young's Literal" too....please explain how DID SIN
is not an action verb....Yes, I myself "DID SIN" true indeed, and all persons even remotely capable of comprehending what Paul said indeed "HAVE SINNED"...I am not asking you whether you and I and other comparable persons and fellow un-worthy reprobates have in fact sinned. We have. God knows I have at least....but what verse specifically tells you that infants sinned "in Adam". I do not ask you if they are "dead" in Adam...I can quote that one, but "sinned" in Adam. Which infant "Did SIN". What do infants DO!!!!

all....all conceived persons...

It is the "conceived" persons you can't establish....If you show us that verse, this discussion will end immediately.

.....there will never be a person here who did not sin in Adam....

Show me the verse which states this....

who did not die in Adam...

No one has objected to this idea...why do you insist on re-iterrating it?......No one argues that we don't "die" in Adam....but "die" and "sin" are two different words and they do not carry the same meaning. You are insisting that since we accept the now tired fact that since all "die" in Adam...that we also "sinned" in him...Even animals "die" in Adam....the whole creation, in fact, "died" and was cursed when Adam sinned. All of this is not debated. What you are now insisting we accept, however, is that every infant has in fact "sinned" and is therefore "guilty". Establish that fact with a verse which states as much please.

God did not write the bible in english, but He had it written in greek for this very reason.....the tenses of the verses are more exact.....

Use your own God-given head for a second.....If koine were so signifigantly more capable of describing in depth concepts in-describable in the English language, than you yourself would be incapable of comprehending them...and if you are appealing to the notion that you yourself are incapable of understanding the tenses perfectly....then why do you continue to debate???? I agree, actually, that Greek was a particularly "scientific" or "particular" or "precise" or "technical" language (the most so in use at that time) and God used it on purpose to divulge his meaning in a very technical sense at that time....but you are asking me to accept that the English language, as it has developed over the centuries of Philosophical and Theological debate does not ALSO enjoy that same descriptive capacity???? Please cite your Linguistic sources then....:sleep:

it is a past completed action...it happened at one exact point in time

.
Yes, it is...at the very point that anyone has sinned...they did, in fact sin....Please give us more than a tautology...

The point in time is the fall.

Negative....that is what you cannot provide any Scripture (in English anyway) to prove.....This is assumed still, and no Scripture States this.

Dying thou shalt surely die.

This passage simply does not exist in my King James Bible......I am sure it exists in the ESV or whatever you use...probably Esv...but I cannot address it.

It happened

Sure...What "happened" though...that Adam sinned (not debated) or that anyone reading Romans has sinned (also not debated)...Please provide the Scripture wherein infants are claimed to have sinned. English is preferrable.

 

[Iconoclast]

In all of this post, you failed to answer a few of my questions in the post you were quoting from:

1) In conception, where does the soul come from? Is it part of the maturation process of embryo, zygote, fetus, infant, or does the soul come from God?

2) If said soul comes from God, and it comes in an already "dead in trespasses and sins", then God created said soul with sin mixed in, making Him the Author of said sin?

3) If one is born spiritually dead, then how can someone/anyone be made alive again, a la regenerated......which means to be made alive again?


Until you answer these questions, I can not further engage in this discussion.


IOW, I want YOUR opinion, and not the opinions of your Reformed people.

Willis,

I do not think it is wise to use winman as a source for biblical definitions'

Regeneration
[ 1,,G3824, palingenesia ]
new birth" (palin, "again," genesis, "birth"), is used of "spiritual regeneration," Titus 3:5, involving the communication of a new life, the two operating powers to produce which are "the word of truth," James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23, and the Holy Spirit, John 3:5-John 3:6; the loutron, "the laver, the washing," is explained in Ephesians 5:26, "having cleansed it by the washing (loutron) of water with the word."

The new birth and "regeneration" do not represent successive stages in spiritual experience, they refer to the same event but view it in different aspects. The new birth stresses the communication of spiritual life in contrast to antecedent spiritual death; "regeneration" stresses the inception of a new state of things in contrast with the old; hence the connection of the use of the word with its application to Israel, in Matthew 19:28. Some regard the kai in Titus 3:5 as epexegetic, "even;" but, as Scripture marks two distinct yet associated operating powers, there is not sufficient ground for this interpretation. See under EVEN.

In Matthew 19:28 the word is used, in the Lord's discourse, in the wider sense, of the "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21, RV), when, as a result of the second advent of Christ, Jehovah "sets His King upon His holy hill of Zion" (Psalms 2:6), and Israel, now in apostasy, is restored to its destined status, in the recognition and under the benign sovereignty of its Messiah. Thereby will be accomplished the deliverance of the world from the power and deception of Satan and from the despotic and anti-christian rulers of the nations. This restitution will not in the coming millennial age be universally a return to the pristine condition of Edenic innocence previous to the Fall, but it will fulfill the establishment of God's covenant with Abraham concerning his descendants, a veritable rebirth of the nation, involving the peace and prosperity of the Gentiles. That the worldwide subjection to the authority of Christ will not mean the entire banishment of evil, is clear from Revelation 20:7-Revelation 20:8. Only in the new heavens and earth, "wherein dwelleth righteousness," will sin and evil be entirely absent.