Can A person Keep the law and live? Have salvation thru the law itself?

[psalms109:31]

Take the texts of satan,devil and apply them to the enemy of the church in that day and time and you have it being the High Priest and those under him(adversaries)

Like I said you don't have to agree with Spruol but it accurate to me. It is what I would believe by reading those passages but he beat me to it and I couldn't do him any justice he said better than I can

 

[HisWitness]

Your premise seems to be:
Where there is symbolic language, there is no truth.
That is a sad approach to the Bible.

you are a master at adding words that people dont say

symbolic language is used to illustrate truth- Tell God he is using a sad approach not me

 

[DHK]

you are a master at adding words that people dont say

symbolic language is used to illustrate truth- Tell God he is using a sad approach not me

No, you explain to God why: When God is imparting truth to His children, you are rejecting it!
You have some explaining to do.

 

[Winman]

You cannot justify your interpretation of this verse using the entire context. It is speaking of capital punishment. It is saying that if the father is a murderer the son shall not die for the violent crimes of his father, or vice versa. The soul (person) shall die for his own crimes. Please don't continue to take the verse out of its context. Look it up.

It is not speaking of capital punishment, it is speaking of dying "in sin".

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

It is plainly shown three times in this one verse alone that God is speaking of a man dying "in sin". First he says, "in his trespass", then he says "in his sin", and then "in them" shall he die.

God is speaking of dying "in sin", that is, condemned as a sinner. It is the exact language Jesus used in John 8:24;

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

You can deny all you want, Ezekiel 18 is speaking of a person dying in their sins.

Not all of the sins shown in Ezekiel 18 carried the death penalty'

neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

It there a death penalty for coming near a menstruous woman? NO.

but hath restored to the debtor his pledge,

Was there a death penalty for failing to pay a debt? NO.

He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase,

Was there a death penalty for charging interest? NO.

Was there a death penalty for not clothing the naked? NO.

Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Is God saying that if a serial killer turns from his sin he shall live? Absurd!

Some folks will go to any extreme to avoid truth. God is speaking of eternal death in these passages.

 

[Winman]

You said:

What are you trying to say here?
Adam was perfect before the temptation, though he had the ability to give into temptation. Thus the ability to give into temptation is not the sin nature.
Jesus had that ability.

The sin nature is being born with the stain of sin already inherent in our nature. We sin for two reasons:
1. Because we have a nature that is sinful--we can't help but sin.
2. Because we enjoy it. We sin because we want to sin, and we will be held accountable for it.

In your definition you make Jesus a sinner simply because he had the ability to be tempted. So you explain this verse:

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Total error. Jesus had the flesh of David, and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Jesus was made of the "seed of David according to the flesh". Jesus had the same flesh as David. If we inherit a sin nature, then Jesus would have inherited a sin nature through the seed of David.

This shows once and for all your error that you claim Jesus avoided a sin nature by being born of a virgin. Romans 1:3 clearly shows Jesus inherited the seed of David through his mother Mary. Even science knows we inherit from our maternal grandparents.

So, that bogus argument of yours is proven FALSE.

Not only did Jesus have the flesh of David, he had the nature of the seed of Abraham who was born after the fall and was a sinner.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (the Jews). He was made like unto his brethren in ALL THINGS.

When you deny that Jesus was made exactly like us you deny that Jesus came in the flesh. This is warned against in 1 John 4:2-3

1 Jhn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Jesus wasn't oblivious to temptation, the scriptures say he was "touched" with the "feeling" of our infirmities. Jesus felt temptation just like you and I, but he never obeyed these temptations and sinned.

You teach false doctrine.

 

[DHK]

It is not speaking of capital punishment, it is speaking of dying "in sin".

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

It is plainly shown three times in this one verse alone that God is speaking of a man dying "in sin". First he says, "in his trespass", then he says "in his sin", and then "in them" shall he die.

God is speaking of dying "in sin", that is, condemned as a sinner. It is the exact language Jesus used in John 8:24;

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

You can deny all you want, Ezekiel 18 is speaking of a person dying in their sins.

Not all of the sins shown in Ezekiel 18 carried the death penalty'

Not every sin has the death penalty. It is still talking about the justice system about the Jews. If you die in the act of committing adultery you will die in your sin of committing adultery. This is not hard to figure out. The Jews would die in their sin of unbelief and rejection of Jesus Christ. But that is not the direct sin mentioned in Ezekiel 18. The sins of Ezekiel 18 are sins of violence. Read the context. Why do you keep ignoring the context of this passage which is so plain? I fail to understand that.

When a righteous man turns and he commits sin. What sin? Sins of violence. Then he pays for those sins of violence according to the Law given by Moses: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; or by death, or whatever the penalty was.
The child did not pay for the father's crime.
It is a passage that is a clear and straightforward exposition of Israel's justice system. To read into it anything else but the justice system is to butcher the Word of God.

 

[DHK]

Total error. Jesus had the flesh of David, and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Jesus was made of the "seed of David according to the flesh". Jesus had the same flesh as David. If we inherit a sin nature, then Jesus would have inherited a sin nature through the seed of David.

David was an adulterer and a murderer.
Is this what you are implying about Jesus?
Otherwise I fail to see your point. The flesh is flesh. David's flesh was very sinful!!

 

[Winman]

Not every sin has the death penalty. It is still talking about the justice system about the Jews. If you die in the act of committing adultery you will die in your sin of committing adultery. This is not hard to figure out. The Jews would die in their sin of unbelief and rejection of Jesus Christ. But that is not the direct sin mentioned in Ezekiel 18. The sins of Ezekiel 18 are sins of violence. Read the context. Why do you keep ignoring the context of this passage which is so plain? I fail to understand that.

When a righteous man turns and he commits sin. What sin? Sins of violence. Then he pays for those sins of violence according to the Law given by Moses: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; or by death, or whatever the penalty was.
The child did not pay for the father's crime.
It is a passage that is a clear and straightforward exposition of Israel's justice system. To read into it anything else but the justice system is to butcher the Word of God.

It is certain you would argue with a fence post. Ezekiel 18:24 that I showed is very clear, God spoke of dying "in his trespass", "in his sin" and "in them". This is speaking of eternal death, dying a condemned sinner.

So, you believe that God commanded the Jews not to punish a child for his father's sin, and then God punished us for Adam's sin? Is that what you believe? That God is a hypocrite who breaks his own laws? Asinine.

It's all a big joke, none of you except the insane hyper-Calvinists really believe in Original Sin. Every one of you makes up some sort of excuse or reason why God does not send babies to hell. You give-it-away that in your heart you believe it completely unfair and unjust for a baby to go to hell.

You ridicule me because I say the scriptures do not teach a baby is a sinner, but you teach a man is saved without faith in Jesus. What a joke.

You do not really believe babies are sinners, else you would have no problem believing God sends babies to hell.

 

[Winman]

David was an adulterer and a murderer.
Is this what you are implying about Jesus?
Otherwise I fail to see your point. The flesh is flesh. David's flesh was very sinful!!

Jesus was MADE of the seed of David. Jesus had the same flesh as David. You can deny, but Romans 1:3 refutes you.

I do not believe David was BORN a sinner, I believe God has made men upright, but all men go out and become sinners.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The word "they" is plural and points back to the word "man" showing that God has made ALL MEN upright, not just Adam. But all men in time will go out and commit sin and become sinful. ALL scripture shows this.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

This is the scripture Paul quoted in Romans. It says man has BECOME filthy.

If you were born wealthy, would you tell people you had BECOME rich? NO.

But if you were poor and worked hard and prospered, would you tell people you had BECOME rich? YES.

Words have meaning. If we have become filthy, then we were not originally filthy. This is shown over and over again to the honest reader.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

You may be wearing filthy rags right now, but they did not start out that way. Originally they were good, clean clothes.

Notice Isaiah compares us to leaves that fade away. Does any leaf start out dead and brown? NO, all leaves start out tender, green, and alive, but over time they fade away and die.

It is right in front of you, but you cannot see because you have been blinded by the false doctrine of Augustine and the RCC.

 

[DHK]

It is certain you would argue with a fence post. Ezekiel 18:24 that I showed is very clear, God spoke of dying "in his trespass", "in his sin" and "in them". This is speaking of eternal death, dying a condemned sinner.

No it is speaking of The Ten Commandments; the Jewish Justice System.

So, you believe that God commanded the Jews not to punish a child for his father's sin, and then God punished us for Adam's sin?

Can you find that concept in the Ten Commandments? Please provide evidence.

Is that what you believe? That God is a hypocrite who breaks his own laws? Asinine.

It was God that provided Moses The Ten Commandments. Be careful whom you are addressing when you use those ugly words. God is not mocked.

It's all a big joke, none of you except the insane hyper-Calvinists really believe in Original Sin.

Most define Original Sin as the sin nature of man that is passed on from generation to generation through the curse brought on by Adam's sin.
Now if that be true, the RCC believes it; most Baptists believe it (Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike), and most Protestant denominations believe it. That leaves you outside of orthodox Christianity not believing it. I wouldn't be so condescending it I were you. You are the one that believes in an unorthodox doctrine, not the rest of you. I am not a Calvinist.
[quote\Every one of you makes up some sort of excuse or reason why God does not send babies to hell. You give-it-away that in your heart you believe it completely unfair and unjust for a baby to go to hell. [/quote]
Was David a hyper-Calvinist too? He didn't believe his infant would go to hell. It seems that you are obsessed with this.

You ridicule me because I say the scriptures do not teach a baby is a sinner, but you teach a man is saved without faith in Jesus. What a joke.

False accusations are never jokes in my books. Show me one place where I said "a man is saved without faith in Christ," or retract your statement. Your actions here are abhorrent.

You do not really believe babies are sinners, else you would have no problem believing God sends babies to hell.

You do not believe in the trinity or else you would have no difficulty explaining it completely in its very minute details.
This is your logic. I have faith. I have faith that "the Judge of all the earth will do right," and I leave the matter in God's hands, and to his mercy and lovingkindness. You don't seem able to do that.

 

[Winman]

No it is speaking of The Ten Commandments; the Jewish Justice System.

It is no doubt that Ezekiel is speaking of the law, but Ezekiel said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father. Why can't you understand that? I think you understand it perfectly.

Can you find that concept in the Ten Commandments? Please provide evidence.

What are you talking about?

was God that provided Moses The Ten Commandments. Be careful whom you are addressing when you use those ugly words. God is not mocked.

You really think I was mocking God?

Most define Original Sin as the sin nature of man that is passed on from generation to generation through the curse brought on by Adam's sin.
Now if that be true, the RCC believes it; most Baptists believe it (Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike), and most Protestant denominations believe it. That leaves you outside of orthodox Christianity not believing it. I wouldn't be so condescending it I were you. You are the one that believes in an unorthodox doctrine, not the rest of you. I am not a Calvinist.

Because many men believe something does not make it true. What scripture says is what matters, and I am able to show scripture that supports my views.

I think you know that very well.

Every one of you makes up some sort of excuse or reason why God does not send babies to hell. You give-it-away that in your heart you believe it completely unfair and unjust for a baby to go to hell.

Was David a hyper-Calvinist too? He didn't believe his infant would go to hell. It seems that you are obsessed with this.

Nice attempt to deflect, I was not talking about David's beliefs, but yours.

False accusations are never jokes in my books. Show me one place where I said "a man is saved without faith in Christ," or retract your statement. Your actions here are abhorrent.

You have to believe that if you think a newborn baby is a sinner. A newborn baby cannot understand the gospel and trust Jesus.

You do not believe in the trinity or else you would have no difficulty explaining it completely in its very minute details.

When did the discussion turn to the Trinity? You attempt to change the subject.

This is your logic. I have faith. I have faith that "the Judge of all the earth will do right," and I leave the matter in God's hands, and to his mercy and lovingkindness. You don't seem able to do that.

Of course you have faith, you are a grown man. But how can an aborted baby or a newborn baby who dies have faith in Jesus? So, if you believe babies that die are saved, you MUST believe they are saved without faith.

You have just as big a problem as me, NO, bigger, because Jesus actually spoke about persons who have no sin in Luke 15.

Luke 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.

Whether you like it or not, Jesus told a parable about a shepherd who had 100 sheep. None were lost. One went out and became lost, he searched and recovered this one lost sheep, and then Jesus said there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than 99 just persons who need no repentance.

I guess you believe Jesus just makes up imaginary persons that could not possibly exist? Is that what you believe?

Then Jesus tells us of the prodigal son. Was he lost at first? NO, he was at home with his father and went out in sin. He was joined to a citizen of the far country (Satan). When he repented, Jesus twice said he was alive AGAIN.

Then Jesus himself tells us of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. Did the father call the elder son a hypocrite? No, the father called the elder child "Son", said he was "ever with me", and that all that he had was his. He NEVER said the elder son was dead or lost like the prodigal.

You don't get it, I didn't make this scripture up, Jesus is the person who told us about the 99 sheep who never went astray and need no repentance, Jesus told us about the 9 silver pieces that were never lost, and Jesus told us about the elder son who never sinned against his father.

But you just go right ahead and believe Augustine and see where it gets you.

 

[DHK]

It is no doubt that Ezekiel is speaking of the law, but Ezekiel said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father. Why can't you understand that? I think you understand it perfectly.

The son shall not bear the iniquity (sins) of the father. What sins? Look at the context; at the passage itself!!

Ezekiel 18:14 But lo, if he have begotten a son that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like:
15 --he hath not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; he hath not defiled his neighbour's wife,
16 and hath not oppressed any, nor withholden the pledge, neither hath exercised robbery; he hath given his bread to the hungry, and covered the naked with a garment;
17 he hath withdrawn his hand from the poor, hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, [and] walked in my statutes: he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall certainly live.

Ezekiel 18:18 As for his father, because he practised oppression, exercised robbery upon his brother, and did what was not good among his people, behold, he shall die in his iniquity.
19 And ye say, Why doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? But the son hath done judgment and justice, hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them; he shall certainly live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

What sins?
These are violent sins: robbery, oppression, adultery, refusal to be merciful to the poor, idolatry, bribery, etc.
Read again the passage. They are sins related to the law; related to the Ten Commandments. There is nothing here related to the Adamic nature or Original Sin. The Son shall not bear the iniquity, the sins (adultery, murder, idolatry, etc.) of the father. Is it that hard to keep 18:20 in the context of the rest of the passage?

Joseph was a carpenter and therefore Jesus was a carpenter.
Jona was a fisherman and therefore Simon was a fisherman (Mat.16:17; 4:19).
Jack was a sexual predator and therefore Joe is a sexual predator.
--That was the thinking of the day, and still is today to a good degree.
The Bible says that Joe shall not suffer for Jack's sins. He is accountable for his own sins whether good or bad. Whatever lifestyle he chooses, he will be accountable for. That is what the Bible is teaching here.

What are you talking about?

Adamic Sin, Original Sin, Calvinism, etc. You can't find that here in Ezekiel 18:20. You are reading into this passage things that are not there.

You really think I was mocking God?

The passage is about the Ten Commandments and about justice.
Your comments were very sarcastic.

Because many men believe something does not make it true. What scripture says is what matters, and I am able to show scripture that supports my views.

I think you know that very well.

Scripture does not support what you are posting.

Nice attempt to deflect, I was not talking about David's beliefs, but yours.

My beliefs are in harmony with the Bible, and therefore I use David as an example. There is no deflection. David had an infant. The infant went to heaven inspite of the fact that David declared infants had sin natures.

You have to believe that if you think a newborn baby is a sinner. A newborn baby cannot understand the gospel and trust Jesus.

Here is the latest research that I came across today:
http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/toddlers-capable-lying-claims-canadian-study-183346226.html

Of course I have known this and have preaching this for years. It is amazing what science "discovers" that has been in the Bible all along. Psalms 58:3 is true according to the unsaved.

When did the discussion turn to the Trinity? You attempt to change the subject.

The trinity is inexplicable. J.W.'s tell me that they don't believe in the trinity because it cannot be explained. You are saying the same thing. In essence you say: "An infant going to heaven according to Refomed theology, makes no sense, therefore I cannot believe it."
"Original sin would cause an infant to go to hell and therefore cannot be believed."
Because you do not understand, cannot understand, like the J.W., you refuse to believe. That is what the trinity has to do with it. "I can't understand; therefore I will not believe." That is not a good excuse Winman. There are many things we don't understand. How can a finite man understand an infinite God!

Of course you have faith, you are a grown man. But how can an aborted baby or a newborn baby who dies have faith in Jesus? So, if you believe babies that die are saved, you MUST believe they are saved without faith.

Read my comments above. Same reasoning as J.W.'s.
That is also why I said to you: "Do you believe David was a Calvinist? David had enough faith to believe his infant would be in heaven, so what is your problem. David also believed infants had a sin nature, not to mention that he himself was born in sin. Psalm 51:5

You have just as big a problem as me, NO, bigger, because Jesus actually spoke about persons who have no sin in Luke 15.

Luke 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.

But what does the verse really mean. He was speaking in the midst of the Pharisees, and they knew it. It was a statement just like this one.
"Unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise enter into the kingdom of God."
Those "just" persons were the "righteous" by virtue of their "self-righteousness." IOW they were not saved; they said they didn't need repentance. They came wanting to be baptized, but John sent them away telling them to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. Don't just tell me "I have repented," but bring the evidence as well. He was speaking of the self-righteous Pharisee who thought he needed no repentance.

Context: Who was this for?
Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
--This lesson was for the Pharisees and scribes who thought they didn't need repentance.

Whether you like it or not, Jesus told a parable about a shepherd who had 100 sheep. None were lost. One went out and became lost, he searched and recovered this one lost sheep, and then Jesus said there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than 99 just persons who need no repentance.

I guess you believe Jesus just makes up imaginary persons that could not possibly exist? Is that what you believe?

Perhaps you don't understand what Jesus is saying.
I meet so many people who tell me they are not sinners and don't need Christ. That is who Christ is talking about.

Then Jesus tells us of the prodigal son. Was he lost at first? NO, he was at home with his father and went out in sin. He was joined to a citizen of the far country (Satan). When he repented, Jesus twice said he was alive AGAIN.

Then Jesus himself tells us of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. Did the father call the elder son a hypocrite? No, the father called the elder child "Son", said he was "ever with me", and that all that he had was his. He NEVER said the elder son was dead or lost like the prodigal.

You don't get it, I didn't make this scripture up, Jesus is the person who told us about the 99 sheep who never went astray and need no repentance, Jesus told us about the 9 silver pieces that were never lost, and Jesus told us about the elder son who never sinned against his father.

But you just go right ahead and believe Augustine and see where it gets you.

You are making doctrine up from parables. Unbelievable!
Your interpretation of these parables are way off.

 

[convicted1]

To get back to the topic of the OP:


"If righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Galatians 2:21

I think that one verse answers the OP's question quite well.

 

[Winman]

The son shall not bear the iniquity (sins) of the father. What sins? Look at the context; at the passage itself!!

Ezekiel 18:14 But lo, if he have begotten a son that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like:
15 --he hath not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; he hath not defiled his neighbour's wife,
16 and hath not oppressed any, nor withholden the pledge, neither hath exercised robbery; he hath given his bread to the hungry, and covered the naked with a garment;
17 he hath withdrawn his hand from the poor, hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, [and] walked in my statutes: he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall certainly live.

Ezekiel 18:18-20 deleted because post was too long.

What sins?
These are violent sins: robbery, oppression, adultery, refusal to be merciful to the poor, idolatry, bribery, etc.
Read again the passage. They are sins related to the law; related to the Ten Commandments. There is nothing here related to the Adamic nature or Original Sin. The Son shall not bear the iniquity, the sins (adultery, murder, idolatry, etc.) of the father. Is it that hard to keep 18:20 in the context of the rest of the passage?

Joseph was a carpenter and therefore Jesus was a carpenter.
Jona was a fisherman and therefore Simon was a fisherman (Mat.16:17; 4:19).
Jack was a sexual predator and therefore Joe is a sexual predator.
--That was the thinking of the day, and still is today to a good degree.
The Bible says that Joe shall not suffer for Jack's sins. He is accountable for his own sins whether good or bad. Whatever lifestyle he chooses, he will be accountable for. That is what the Bible is teaching here.

No, Ezekiel 18 is actually addressing a form of Original Sin the Jews falsely held to, that is what the beginning of the chapter shows. There was a proverb that said the father eats a sour grape and the children's teeth are set on edge. God said this proverb would be said no more.

Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

The Jews actually had a form of Original Sin here, and that is what God is speaking about. He says that all souls belong to him and the soul that sins shall die. No man shall die for the sins another man committed.

Adamic Sin, Original Sin, Calvinism, etc. You can't find that here in Ezekiel 18:20. You are reading into this passage things that are not there.

That is exactly what is being discussed. How can a father eat a sour grape and his children's teeth be set on edge? It is you that cannot understand the context.

The passage is about the Ten Commandments and about justice.
Your comments were very sarcastic.

No, God is saying that a child is not guilty of his father's sin or vice versa.

Scripture does not support what you are posting.

This scripture does support my view, even if you disagree.

My beliefs are in harmony with the Bible, and therefore I use David as an example. There is no deflection. David had an infant. The infant went to heaven inspite of the fact that David declared infants had sin natures.

You are right about the child going to paradise (no one went to heaven in the OT), but David never said children have a sin nature. David said he was fearfully and wonderfully made. What is wonderful about being a wicked sinner?

Here is the latest research that I came across today:
http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/toddlers-capable-lying-claims-canadian-study-183346226.html

A newborn baby cannot lie, because they cannot form intent. Now, I agree that it doesn't take long at all for any child to mature and intentionally lie.

Of course I have known this and have preaching this for years. It is amazing what science "discovers" that has been in the Bible all along. Psalms 58:3 is true according to the unsaved.

Psalm 58 is hyperbole! There has never been a newborn child that can speak, much less tell a lie. If you believe verse 3 is literal, then you must believe the following verses are literal, and that children are poisonous like snakes, have huge teeth like a young lion, and melt like snails. You would have to believe that David was praying for every single baby everywhere to pass away. Total nonsense!

The trinity is inexplicable. J.W.'s tell me that they don't believe in the trinity because it cannot be explained. You are saying the same thing. In essence you say: "An infant going to heaven according to Refomed theology, makes no sense, therefore I cannot believe it."
"Original sin would cause an infant to go to hell and therefore cannot be believed."
Because you do not understand, cannot understand, like the J.W., you refuse to believe. That is what the trinity has to do with it. "I can't understand; therefore I will not believe." That is not a good excuse Winman. There are many things we don't understand. How can a finite man understand an infinite God!

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Trinity, I believe the Trinity.

The reason I don't believe Original Sin are many. Ecc. 7:29 says all men are made upright, Eze. 18:20 says the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. Jesus said we must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. I could show you MUCH scripture that I believe clearly teaches babies are not sinners. Rom. 9:11 directly tells us that Esau and Jacob had done no evil in their mother's womb.

Read my comments above. Same reasoning as J.W.'s.
That is also why I said to you: "Do you believe David was a Calvinist? David had enough faith to believe his infant would be in heaven, so what is your problem. David also believed infants had a sin nature, not to mention that he himself was born in sin. Psalm 51:5

Another abuse of scripture. David was confessing his sin with Bathsheba in Psalm 51. It makes no sense that he would suddenly change course in verse 5 and excuse his sin on the grounds that he was born a sinner. David was simply saying he was born into a sinful world, this is how the Jews have always understood this verse.

But what does the verse really mean. He was speaking in the midst of the Pharisees, and they knew it. It was a statement just like this one.
"Unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise enter into the kingdom of God."
Those "just" persons were the "righteous" by virtue of their "self-righteousness." IOW they were not saved; they said they didn't need repentance. They came wanting to be baptized, but John sent them away telling them to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. Don't just tell me "I have repented," but bring the evidence as well. He was speaking of the self-righteous Pharisee who thought he needed no repentance.

Nonsense, Jesus never led the Pharisees to believe they were righteous. Jesus called them "hypocrites" and "whited sepulchres". Jesus condemned the Pharisees.

Context: Who was this for?
Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
--This lesson was for the Pharisees and scribes who thought they didn't need repentance.

Perhaps you don't understand what Jesus is saying.
I meet so many people who tell me they are not sinners and don't need Christ. That is who Christ is talking about.

It is you that does not understand. Jesus is showing these Pharisees that these wicked sinners they despised belonged to God at one time before they went out in sin and became lost. Jesus is showing the Pharisees that God does not hate these sinners, but goes out like a shepherd and seeks for his lost sheep until it is found. But Jesus is also showing there is more joy in heaven over this one lost sinner that is recovered than 99 just persons who never go astray and need no repentance.

And if you go to Matthew 18 you will see who these 99 are, LITTLE CHILDREN.

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.

Jesus had just picked up a small child and set him in the midst of the disciples, so it is certain this was a very young child, perhaps 3-5 years old at most. He told the disciples they must be converted and become as little children (meaning any child) to enter heaven, and that their angels do always behold his Father's face in heaven. Jesus is clearly showing little children are not sinners.

You are making doctrine up from parables. Unbelievable!
Your interpretation of these parables are way off.

Parables express spiritual truths, but only believers can understand them.

 

[OldRegular]

To get back to the topic of the OP:


"If righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Galatians 2:21

I think that one verse answers the OP's question quite well.

So you knew the answer all along and let us go on bickering! Very sad!

 

[DHK]

No, Ezekiel 18 is actually addressing a form of Original Sin the Jews falsely held to, that is what the beginning of the chapter shows. There was a proverb that said the father eats a sour grape and the children's teeth are set on edge. God said this proverb would be said no more.

The Jews actually had a form of Original Sin here, and that is what God is speaking about. He says that all souls belong to him and the soul that sins shall die. No man shall die for the sins another man committed.

You are one confused person.
You reject the Scriptures that teach Original Sin:
Psalms 51:5; 58:3; Jer.23:25; Rom.3:9-18; Eph.2:1-3; and many more.
But when it comes to a Scripture that doesn't teach Original Sin, you say it does, and are its biggest advocate. Now you believe in Original Sin. Why the turn about? Why are you preaching about Original Sin when previously you say you don't believe in it, and you said it is a heretical doctrine. You seem to be very confused.

 

[Winman]

You are one confused person.
You reject the Scriptures that teach Original Sin:
Psalms 51:5; 58:3; Jer.23:25; Rom.3:9-18; Eph.2:1-3; and many more.
But when it comes to a Scripture that doesn't teach Original Sin, you say it does, and are its biggest advocate. Now you believe in Original Sin. Why the turn about? Why are you preaching about Original Sin when previously you say you don't believe in it, and you said it is a heretical doctrine. You seem to be very confused.

You are exceptionally stubborn, I have come to expect that from you. I am not about to carry on page after page the way you do with others. I already know that you always believe yourself to be absolutely correct and that no one can tell you a thing.

I will let John Gill himself tell you that this chapter was addressing a false belief the Jews had, a form of Original Sin, where they thought they were being punished for their parents sin. Of course you will not listen to Gill or anyone else. But for those who are able to learn...

Ezekiel 18:2
What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of
Israel
This is spoken to the Jews in Babylon, who used the following proverb concerning the land of Israel; not the ten tribes, but the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, concerning the desolation of the land, and the hardships the Jews laboured under, since the captivity of Jeconiah, and they became subject to the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar: this expostulation with them suggests that they had no just cause, or true reason, to make use of the proverb; that it was impious, impudent, and insolent in them, and daring and dangerous; and that they did not surely well consider what they said. The proverb follows: saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

that is, as the Targum explains it,

``the fathers have sinned, and the children are smitten,''
or punished, as the ten tribes for the sins of Jeroboam, and the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin for the sins of Manasseh; hereby wiping themselves clean; and as if they were innocent persons, and free from sin, and were only punished for their forefathers' sins, and so charging God with injustice and cruelty; whereas, though the Lord threatened to visit the iniquity of parents upon their children, and sometimes did so, to deter parents from sinning, lest they should entail a curse, and bring ruin upon their posterity; yet he never did this but when children followed their fathers' practices, and committed the same sins, or worse; so that this was no act of unrighteousness in God, but rather an instance of his patience and long suffering; see ( Jeremiah 31:29 Jeremiah 31:30 ) .

Now, you just go on believing what you choose to believe. Gill and others understood this chapter and that the Jews falsely believed God punished them for their parents sin, and that God is telling the Jews that he does not impute the sins of their fathers to their account, but every man dies for his own sin.

I expect you to completely ignore this and carry on in your ignorance.

 

[DHK]

You are exceptionally stubborn, I have come to expect that from you. I am not about to carry on page after page the way you do with others. I already know that you always believe yourself to be absolutely correct and that no one can tell you a thing.

There was no need for personal attacks.
You didn't answer my question.
Why in almost every post you deny Original Sin, and then in this thread, when it comes to this passage you defend it? Forget about the interpretation for a minute why are you defending Original Sin from this passage when you don't even believe in the doctrine?

 

[Winman]

There was no need for personal attacks.
You didn't answer my question.
Why in almost every post you deny Original Sin, and then in this thread, when it comes to this passage you defend it? Forget about the interpretation for a minute why are you defending Original Sin from this passage when you don't even believe in the doctrine?

When I run into an exceptionally stubborn person, I tell them to their face.

I have shown you from John Gill what was being spoken about in Ezekiel 18, the chapter starts with the proverb that the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. These Jews falsely believed they were being punished for their parents sin, not unlike the doctrine of Original Sin. In fact, in the JF & B commentary they point this out:

2. fathers . . . eaten sour grapes, . . . children's teeth . . . set on edge--Their unbelieving calumnies on God's justice had become so common as to have assumed a proverbial form. The sin of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, visited on his posterity, seems to have suggested the peculiar form; noticed also by Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 31:29 ); and explained in Lamentations 5:7 , "Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities." They mean by "the children," themselves, as though they were innocent, whereas they were far from being so. The partial reformation effected since Manasseh's wicked reign, especially among the exiles at Chebar, was their ground for thinking so; but the improvement was only superficial and only fostered their self-righteous spirit, which sought anywhere but in themselves the cause of their calamities; just as the modern Jews attribute their present dispersion, not to their own sins, but to those of their forefathers. It is a universal mark of corrupt nature to lay the blame, which belongs to ourselves, on others and to arraign the justice of God. Compare Genesis 3:12 , where Adam transfers the blame of his sin to Eve, and even to God, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

That makes TWO commentaries that agrees with my interpretation and refutes yours. But I hardly expect you to listen, you already think you know everything.

The fact is, the whole 18 chapter of Ezekiel deals with the false belief that God imputes the sin of the parents to their children. God clearly says that this is false, and that every person dies for their own sins.

This is why Original Sin is wrong. Now, it is true that all men experience physical death when man was barred from the tree of life, but men do not spiritually die because of Adam's sin.

It is actually a blessing that we physically die, if we lived forever there would be no incentive to turn from sin, man would continue to wax worse and worse. It it the threat of eternal death that is our greatest incentive to repent and turn to God and escape ruin.

Now, you just go on believing what you want, I am sure nothing will ever change your mind, you think you know everything. Too bad.

 

[DHK]

There was no need for personal attacks.
You didn't answer my question.
Why in almost every post you deny Original Sin, and then in this thread, when it comes to this passage you defend it? Forget about the interpretation for a minute why are you defending Original Sin from this passage when you don't even believe in the doctrine?

You can go on repeating yourself and quoting others, but if many of the posters here believe like I do--that the passage refers to the Jewish justice system, why would you be defending the teaching of Original Sin from this passage? You still have not answered that question. You seem to be very confused. You want to defend OS from this passage and attack it from others. What gives?
No need to expound the passage again. I have read your explanations.
You want the passage to teach OS for some warped reason. This is truly odd.

I don't believe it has anything to do with OS; it is teaching about the Jewish justice system; the Ten Commandments. But if you want to be a Calvinist and convert to the Reformed be my guest.