Dead Spiritually as a Result of Adam's Sin?

[Winman]

It is really sad to see you avoid clear meanings in Scripture, twist the meanings of words (they have more than one meaning), and deny the clear teaching of Scripture just to defend YOUR doctrine of Pelagianism.

Taken by itself, what does Psalm 58:3 mean.

Psa 58:3 does mean that children soon go astray and sin, but it does not say they are born that way. And this passage is hyperbole, it you take verse 3 as literal, you have to take the other verses as well.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

#1 It is speaking of the wicked only, not all men.
#2 There has never been a child born with the immediate ability to talk, or to formulate a lie in their mind.
#3 Children are not poisonous like snakes
#4 Newborn children do not have teeth, much less great teeth like a young lion.
#5 Children do not melt like snails.
#6 David was not praying that God would melt all children everywhere like snails. In fact, I seriously doubt he was praying about children at all.

You ridicule me, if you use this Psalms for doctrine it is you that is foolish, it is obvious hyperbole and should not be used for doctrine.

 

[Darrell C]

Giant font is not necessary!

Look, I enlarge the scripture that is stands above my own words, and makes it clear what is scripture, and what is merely my own words.

If you do not like the way I post, fine...stop reading and responding.

But don't presume to tell me how to post, it is just the way I do so on every forum, and while I have been told that emboldening at times seems like yelling, it is not intentional, nor is that why it is used.

Why do you try to wiggle around scripture? It says they had done neither good or evil.

And I explained how I view that. And in context, that makes much more sense than an interpretation that disagrees with the clear statement of God.

Actually, Jacob represents Israel, Esau represents Edom, read Malachi 1:2-3. This is where Calvinists misrepresent scripture in Romans 9, Paul was speaking of nations, not Jacob and Esau as mere individuals.

You say this as though I said "Jacob doesn;t represent Israel."

?

Your hatred for Calvinist is your weakness, and until you learn to approach doctrine and those that embrace it, first understanding what they believe, I am afraid that you will be destined to present a theological defense such as you have been doing.

You are entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe.

Awfully kind of you.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, this is concerning Samson.

I will remind you:

I don't think scripture speaks to infants.

Short enough?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

No, it says they go astray. You can't go astray unless originally you were not astray. We are often compared to sheep who go astray, but a sheep that never belonged to a flock cannot go astray.

So you were a member of the body of Christ before salvation? That is amazing. I suggest a talkshow tour, a book, and...


Okay, just being facetious, but maybe, just maybe, you might see the weakness of this argument.

Did you know that when Christ said this:



Matthew 15:24

King James Version (KJV)

24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


(and I have decided, for your sake, I will not enlarge the text, but will still differentiate with the color red)


That the same word for lost is used here:



Matthew 10:28

King James Version (KJV)

28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


You might, if not familiar with the concept of death being a condition that can exist when one is physically alive, not have given this consideration before.

The relevance to the discussion at hand? Those that the Christ was sent to were lost, yet they knew exactly where they were, right?

The relevance to your statement? You imply that being returned to the flock implies that one was once a part of the flock. That is incorrect.

The reference is to Israel, not the individual believer, though they are of course included, as they reap the benefits of Christ's work.

Do you see what I mean?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

You overlook "For ye were AS SHEEP..."

You can claim hyperbole when shown relevant truth to the discussion, but overlook scripture's clear statement when it is evident that this is illustrative.

How can you be RETURNED to Jesus if you were born dead in sins separated from him?

Do you even understand the implications of your argument?

I think not.

Just as Christ was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and speaks of Israel in general, even so thisspeaks of men in general.

Were we really sheep? Did we have a shepherd? But Christ is the Shepherd of our souls, another indication that affirms that salvation is wholly the work of God.

Words have meaning, returned means to go again to a place you have been before.

Get that from Webster's?

Death has a meaning as well, and if we try to force a one-size-fits-all definition and ignore the illustrative nature of scripture, we will surely overlook that which scripture is meant to teach.

I can't return to Utah, because I have never been there. I can return to California, because I have been there.

Me too. Born in Gilroy, garlic capital of the world.

It is man that is returned, and specifically...believers. To whom this is addressed.

Your belief insists that all men are members of the body of Christ, then die spiritually due to sin, and then are reborn spiritually. That is what you are setting forth here, in order to cling to a theology that is in contradiction to the teaching of scripture.

Continued...

 

[Winman]

Look, I enlarge the scripture that is stands above my own words, and makes it clear what is scripture, and what is merely my own words.

I do not mind bold font, or underlining, or even different color font that some use. But the giant font is not necessary.

[edited: This was unnecessary. Darrell has not used excessively large fonts.]

Not trying to be cruel, but that big font has to go.

If you do not like the way I post, fine...stop reading and responding.

That's just it, your posts are difficult to read because you use all sorts of huge font and excessive spacing.

But don't presume to tell me how to post, it is just the way I do so on every forum, and while I have been told that emboldening at times seems like yelling, it is not intentional, nor is that why it is used.

And I would not be surprised if others have told you the same thing I have. Look, you can post any way you want, that doesn't negate that huge font is distracting, seems like yelling, and makes your posts more difficult to read, not easier.

And I explained how I view that. And in context, that makes much more sense than an interpretation that disagrees with the clear statement of God.

What clear statement?

You say this as though I said "Jacob doesn;t represent Israel."

?

I don't recall that I said that. If I said that I didn't intend to.

Your hatred for Calvinist is your weakness, and until you learn to approach doctrine and those that embrace it, first understanding what they believe, I am afraid that you will be destined to present a theological defense such as you have been doing.

I hate Calvinism because it is false and unscriptural doctrine.

Awfully kind of you.

Thank you.

I will remind you:

How can you remind me of something I didn't understand?

Short enough?

Well, I had to backspace a lot because of your excessive spacing, but it is getting better.

Continued...

And if I feel the urge I will respond.

 

[Darrell C]

You also have to interpret the rest of the verses literally in this Psalm.

Psa 58:
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

It does not say "their poison is poison of serpents," but "like."

Rather than go through and point this out on every point, I am hoping this should make the response clear.

First, there has never been a baby born with the ability to talk.

Sure there has. Every baby talks. That you don't understand his talk does not negate this fact.

Even adults sometimes talk in speech that is not understandable...which is why I love the forums.

Just kidding.

While you may not recognize it as speech, babies verbally communicate according to their understanding. As they grow, they are taught specific skills that make communication understandable.

And they do not have the mental faculties to tell a lie.

I would agree with this. However, how this proves that this baby was born with the spiritual life of God and that this baby is in relationship with God...I don't know.

Second, they are not poisonous like a snake, they do not have great teeth like a young lion, and they will not melt like snails if you sprinkle salt on them.

All of the above are illustrative of truth.

Would you call the Psalmist a liar?

He aptly describes the wicked.


Now pay attention to another statement that denies man the righteousness he thinks he has of his own accord:

Psalm 58

1Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?

2Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.


The Psalmist goes directly to the problem...man's heart, which we see very early on as...


Genesis 6

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.



Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

This Psalm is figurative language and hyperbole.

But it spaks of literal truth, just as every instance of hyperbole, symbology, typology, figurative speech, and even culturally distinguished concepts.

Your point is?

It was not intended to be taken literally and should not be the foundation of doctrine.

Look, I responded to the statement that scripture does not "speak to infants."

I do not view this as a foundation of doctrine, I view doctrine as a foundation of doctrine.

This merely reinforces it. :smilewinkgrin:

Again, this is hyperbole, read vs. 4

Isa 48:4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

Again, this is hyperbole and should not be taken literally to form doctrine.

It is speaking a basic, foundational biblical truth: Israel is a stiffnecked and hardhearted people historically.

To pick up thier condition, consider:


Isaiah 48

1Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.

2For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts is his name.

OK, not sure what you are trying to prove here, this is speaking of John the Baptist.

That scripture speaks to infants...before birth.

Here, John is said to be filled with the holy Spirit from his mother's womb. Meaning, scripture is assuredly speaking about infants, and ascribing a condition.

Now, I ask you...was John in need of a Savior, or did was he, being filled with the Spirit, have no need for Christ to die in his place?

Also, if he was filled with the SPirit of God from birth, where exactly did he sin and die spiritually?

 

[Darrell C]

If anything it refutes you view, he was not born depraved, dead in sin.

No? So you would affirm that John, at least, was not in need of Jesus dying for his sin?

That is exactly what this doctrine teaches, and is contrary to sound doctrine.

Hey, if you are going to keep writing, keep your posts short and use normal font.

Well, for now, I will aquiesce to your wishes, but here are a few for you:

Sorry, couldn't think of any, and I do not have to subject anyone to my demands, so, post as you like.

:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Psa 58:3 does mean that children soon go astray and sin, but it does not say they are born that way. And this passage is hyperbole, it you take verse 3 as literal, you have to take the other verses as well.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

#1 It is speaking of the wicked only, not all men.
#2 There has never been a child born with the immediate ability to talk, or to formulate a lie in their mind.
#3 Children are not poisonous like snakes
#4 Newborn children do not have teeth, much less great teeth like a young lion.
#5 Children do not melt like snails.
#6 David was not praying that God would melt all children everywhere like snails. In fact, I seriously doubt he was praying about children at all.

You ridicule me, if you use this Psalms for doctrine it is you that is foolish, it is obvious hyperbole and should not be used for doctrine.

You couldn't answer my question could you?

Taken by itself what does Psalm 58:3 mean?

Try again, without using the rest of the psalm.

I often use this verse as a principle of prayer:

If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me: (Psalms 66:18)
--Our prayers are hindered if there is sin in our hearts. Do you agree with that principle.

Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water: but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place. (Psalms 66:12)
--Oh, I just realized it can't be used "for teaching doctrine," according to you. There are metaphors and hyperbole used in the rest of the Psalm. That negates all truth, doesn't it? Isn't this your reasoning?

 

[Winman]

It does not say "their poison is poison of serpents," but "like."

Ok, but it does say they have great teeth like a young lion and that they melt like a snail.

Rather than go through and point this out on every point, I am hoping this should make the response clear.[

OK.

Sure there has. Every baby talks. That you don't understand his talk does not negate this fact.

I have eight children and three grandchildren, and I assure you that none of them could speak the moment they were born. And babies do not even understand what a lie is, how can they lie?

Even adults sometimes talk in speech that is not understandable...which is why I love the forums.

Then you would really love a Pentacostal church.

Just kidding.

I appreciate that, humor is good.

While you may not recognize it as speech, babies verbally communicate according to their understanding. As they grow, they are taught specific skills that make communication understandable.

Newborn babies do not understand the concept of a lie. A child does not really start to understand this until they are about 3 years old.

I would agree with this. However, how this proves that this baby was born with the spiritual life of God and that this baby is in relationship with God...I don't know.

God says they are innocent. God said children are born unto him. He calls children "my children". Those who say we are born children of the devil, children of wrath are in error.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.


Children are not only born unto God and are His children, God said they are innocent.

All of the above are illustrative of truth.

Would you call the Psalmist a liar?

He aptly describes the wicked.

All of God's word is true, but you must understand the Psalms are poetic language and often are not intended to be taken literally. They are figurative, and hyperbole, intentional exaggeration. No one should form doctrine from scripture that is using these devices.

Now pay attention to another statement that denies man the righteousness he thinks he has of his own accord:

Psalm 58

1Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?

2Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.


The Psalmist goes directly to the problem...man's heart, which we see very early on as...

I agree, but you are assuming they were born that way. The scriptures say we have "become" unprofitable.

Genesis 6

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Yes, but read down to verse 12.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Do you know what the definition of corrupt is? It means to spoil, or go bad, to become unpure, to be tainted or perverted. It means to go from a good state to a bad state. Look it up in any dictionary. Genesis 6 is not saying men are born evil, it is saying all men have gone astray and become corrupt.

Words are important. Lots of folks read scripture with pre-conceived ideas and miss important words like this. For example, what did Paul say in Romans 3?

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

This is one of Calvinism's favorite verses, I cannot count how many times it has been used to teach Total Depravity. But it IS NOT saying we are born depraved, it says we have "gone out" of the way. To go out of the way, at one time you had to be "in" the way. You can't go out of your house if you were not in the house. And it does not say we are born unprofitable, it says they are altogether "become" unprofitable. This denotes a change, at one time they were profitable, now they have "become" unprofitable.

Start paying attention to the little words and you will see Total Depravity is false, or at least that we are not born that way. We do become depraved when we practice sin and become enslaved to it. For example, nobody is born with a cigarette in their mouth. It is when they willingly choose to smoke that they "become" addicted and enslaved. All sin is like this, and everyone can observe it. The first time you sin is the most difficult, after that it becomes easier.

Continued...

Well, I'm getting off for awhile, but I'll be back.

 

[Darrell C]

I do not mind bold font, or underlining, or even different color font that some use. But the giant font is not necessary.

It is to me, as I prefer to emphasize the word of God, not my own.

I could in turn ask that you learn how to quote properly, so that there is no question as to who said what. This would make it easier for me, but, again, w have to learn to address what comes before us, not seek to subject people or circumstances to our liking.

[edited: This was unnecessary. Darrell has not used excessively large fonts.]

Thanks for that.:thumbsup:

Not trying to be cruel, but that big font has to go.

AARGH! No...not my font, not my...

Sorry, I have a facetious streak. Okay. Always try to keep my pride and irritation to a minimum, and if that is all it takes to make you happy, you got it.

I once debated someone that insisted that I enlarge the font...he had eye trouble at the time.

That's just it, your posts are difficult to read because you use all sorts of huge font and excessive spacing.

I can understand that when you get into the quoting box, it does make it more difficult to read, but you should quote yourself sometime, and see how yours look at times.

And watch out for that beam while you are in there...lol.

And I would not be surprised if others have told you the same thing I have.

Actually, no. I have been told that the emboldening makes it seem that I am shouting, but I can assure you, I went numb years ago.

Just kidding. I have been told that the way I enlarge, as well as space, makes it much easier to read than a single long paragragh.

I post in a fashion that for most make it much easier to follow.


Continued...


[

 

[Winman]

It is to me, as I prefer to emphasize the word of God, not my own.

I could in turn ask that you learn how to quote properly, so that there is no question as to who said what. This would make it easier for me, but, again, w have to learn to address what comes before us, not seek to subject people or circumstances to our liking.




Thanks for that.:thumbsup:



AARGH! No...not my font, not my...

Sorry, I have a facetious streak. Okay. Always try to keep my pride and irritation to a minimum, and if that is all it takes to make you happy, you got it.

I once debated someone that insisted that I enlarge the font...he had eye trouble at the time.



I can understand that when you get into the quoting box, it does make it more difficult to read, but you should quote yourself sometime, and see how yours look at times.

And watch out for that beam while you are in there...lol.







Actually, no. I have been told that the emboldening makes it seem that I am shouting, but I can assure you, I went numb years ago.

Just kidding. I have been told that the way I enlarge, as well as space, makes it much easier to read than a single long paragragh.

I post in a fashion that for most make it much easier to follow.


Continued...


[

Well, I certainly do not claim to be an expert at posting. Sometimes I try to observe posts that are well written. It is a learning process.

 

[Darrell C]

Look, you can post any way you want, that doesn't negate that huge font is distracting, seems like yelling, and makes your posts more difficult to read, not easier.

Apparently not...lol.

Look, if I come across as mad, or abusive in my speech...just let me know.

I don't take the command of Christ to live in peace lightly, you know.

What clear statement?

See? If ou were quoting properly, I would not have to search out the context of the discussion, and would be able to answer.

As it is, my time is about up, so if you provide this in context, showing both your statement as well as mine, I will be able to better answer.

I don't recall that I said that. If I said that I didn't intend to.

You replied to my statement concerning Edom and Esau with:

Actually, Jacob represents Israel, Esau represents Edom, read Malachi 1:2-3. This is where Calvinists misrepresent scripture in Romans 9, Paul was speaking of nations, not Jacob and Esau as mere individuals.

Hence the response.

I never mentioned Jacob as I recall. At least, I am sure that I did not concerning my point.

I hate Calvinism because it is false and unscriptural doctrine.

Calvinism lends itself to a sound theology. While I am not a Calvinist, I can attest to the fact that Calvinism is not false and unscriptural doctrine, in the sense that we can treat it as we would Mormonism.

First, I would suggest you consider what will result from harboring a hatred...for anything...in your heart. This will eat you up, as scripture will attest.

Secondly, I would like for you to speak to the members of the fellowship which you attend, and determine their level of understanding of the doctrinal statement your fellowship embraces. You might find, as you will in most fellowships, that the level of interest, much less the level of understanding, is going to be as diverse as a hospital nursery in New York. And the number of people that study, understand, and teach that doctrinal statement will be in a small percentage.

Of course that is not true in my fellowship, most are astute in doctrine...lol. Just kidding.

Laslty, I say this only because I know what it is to hold hatred for people...I don't even know. This is one of the greatest and dearest lessons the Lord has taught me, and though I fail at times in representing Christ with a heart of love, I can of course offer the excuse that I am a work in progress, and hope to do better the next time. The circumstances of my life may at times cause my understanding of how I approach people to vary, that is true, but that is no excuse.

So, from one man that professes to belong to Christ to another, I humbly urge you to forego hatred, and set your dislike for Calvinism on the shelf, until you have opportunity to first speak to a Calvinist, learn where exactly that Calvinist is in his understanding of Calvinism, and also what he does with the knowledge he has...before condemning them all.

You might find that some of them assuredly belong to Christ as well, which places the burden of your responsibility to love them, not revile them, squarely on your shoulders, and on your heart, and on your conscience.

And if you believe them not to belong to Christ, after you get to know them, then, that responsibility is increased.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Thank you.

Your welcome...I think, lol.

How can you remind me of something I didn't understand?

I don't know, you will have to remind me of what I posted.

Well, I had to backspace a lot because of your excessive spacing, but it is getting better.

Sorry to make this difficult.

And if I feel the urge I will respond.

Well, there is plenty there to respond to. I have to get going, but I will look over the last post you did, and see if I should start it. Even short ones for me can turn into great lengths of time...it's a curse, I guess.

God bless.

 

[Winman]

Well, we will have to disagree on Calvinism, I firmly believe it is false. I don't just say it, I present scripture that I believe refutes it, like as I showed Ecc 7:29 and many other verses to refute original sin. OS is the foundation of Calvinism.

I don't hate Calvinists or anyone else, just the doctrine.

 

[Darrell C]

Well, I certainly do not claim to be an expert at posting. Sometimes I try to observe posts that are well written. It is a learning process.

Agreed, but there is more to learn than just form. In the true application of our Christianity we also learn to "post" our hearts, and in the process, examine them.

I am ashamed when emotion leads to saying things that are less than kind.

Don't get me wrong, I will be adamant in approach when confronting doctrine that I believe to be in error, but, that can be done without forgetting that we have a responsibility to maintain self control.

And where can we work on this better than in a good ole doctrinal debate?

Ok, but it does say they have great teeth like a young lion and that they melt like a snail.

Like. Like a lion.

Now consider what the Psalmist is trying to get across. He uses this terminolgy to give a picture of the wicked. It doesn't have to be literal for the truth he presents to be literal.

Keep in mind he writes under inspiration. Which is why we do not see verses that say "The wicked are misunderstood, it is not their fault that they eat up the righteous like lions."

OK.
I have eight children and three grandchildren, and I assure you that none of them could speak the moment they were born.

So the moment each of them were born, they produced no sound?

You know they did, for the first thing they experience is a slap on the bottom.

Their first sound is a cry. Would you say the child does not understand pain? They merely make this sound with no understanding that they have received the first of many spankings?

And babies do not even understand what a lie is, how can they lie?

They don't. But neither do they walk, pray, or sing. But they will.

Then you would really love a Pentacostal church.

Actually, I am opposed to many doctrines espoused by pentecostals, but I do know some pentecostals, and despite their error, they love Christ and actually show the love of Christ in their dealings with other.

I will love them, but I will not approve of their doctrine, and hopefully, some good will come of that.

I appreciate that, humor is good.

Finally! I have gotten someone to actually call it humor!

Newborn babies do not understand the concept of a lie. A child does not really start to understand this until they are about 3 years old.

Then where exactly did the phrase "terrible twos" come from...lol.

God says they are innocent. God said children are born unto him. He calls children "my children". Those who say we are born children of the devil, children of wrath are in error.

God does not contradict Himself. We will look at the verse in a minute, but first:


Romans 3

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17And the way of peace have they not known:

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

It was true in the Old Testament, it was true when quoted in the New.

Man's sin is timeless.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Notice who "bears them unto God." This does not mean they are "born of God," as happens after Christ manifested unto men.

Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Their blood is innocent because they are not dying for their own sin, but because of their parents sin, which is idolatry.

This does not mean they would escape the wages of their own sin. Had they lived, they would have had to offer up sacrifice for their own sin.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Sorry for the length on the last one, I am in a hurry, I have to leave in about ten minutes.

Children are not only born unto God and are His children, God said they are innocent.

All chidren need to be born of God, and this happens through faith in Christ.

It is not possible for the child that has not trusted Christ to be born of God.

Christ made it clear that the doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God is false when calling the Pharisees children of the devil. I know it will be reiterated that they "departed" from a spiritual relationship with God, but I do not see that scripture will bear this out.

All doctrine must be borne of scripture...lol.

All of God's word is true,

Agreed. We do see occasion, though, where people lie, such as those who bore false witness against Christ. So we must be on top of the context at all times.

This also is a learning process we are all involved in.

but you must understand the Psalms are poetic language and often are not intended to be taken literally.

But they convey no untruths. Typology, symbology, pictoral illustrations, parables...they all are used to convey truth.

When we see such things as "They are LIKE lions," we know this to be symbolism conveying a truth, and we need to get to the truth that is meant to be conveyed.

 

[Darrell C]

They are figurative, and hyperbole, intentional exaggeration.

At times, yes.

No one should form doctrine from scripture that is using these devices.

To a certain extent, agreed, but...we cannot ignore them either. When Christ said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, the truth revealed was the difficulty for man to gain heaven.

I agree, but you are assuming they were born that way. The scriptures say we have "become" unprofitable.

All of us, if we are honest, can look at our lives and attest that we were not in relationship with God...before salvation.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, but read down to verse 12.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Does that change the fact that they were evil?

And are we sure here "Who's" way was corrupted?

Do you know what the definition of corrupt is? It means to spoil, or go bad, to become unpure, to be tainted or perverted. It means to go from a good state to a bad state.

The same word is used for destroy, when God said He would destroy them from the earth. Did God "spoil them?"

The word destroy is a good word study. It plays a big role in the debate against annihilationism.

Look it up in any dictionary. Genesis 6 is not saying men are born evil, it is saying all men have gone astray and become corrupt.

Just as the Jews living in the time of Christ were lost, we see that the result does not deny the condition.

Words are important. Lots of folks read scripture with pre-conceived ideas and miss important words like this. For example, what did Paul say in Romans 3?

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Just does not deny a nature that will, as we know, sin.

This is one of Calvinism's favorite verses, I cannot count how many times it has been used to teach Total Depravity.

I can imagine.

But it IS NOT saying we are born depraved, it says we have "gone out" of the way.

I understand your point here, but we have scripture that also speaks of condemnation given to all men at the time of Adam's sin.

To go out of the way, at one time you had to be "in" the way.

Again, this suggests that man was in Christ...before he was in Christ.

You can't go out of your house if you were not in the house. And it does not say we are born unprofitable, it says they are altogether "become" unprofitable. This denotes a change, at one time they were profitable, now they have "become" unprofitable.

If I emphasize that it says "altogether" unprofitable, meaning, well, altogether, a strengthened form of unprofitableness, would that matter?

Start paying attention to the little words and you will see Total Depravity is false, or at least that we are not born that way.

I will try.

We do become depraved when we practice sin and become enslaved to it.

Except God keep a man from depravity's end result, all will owe the penalty of sin. It is God's mercy which saves man, not his efforts.

Gotta go, thoroughly enjoyed it,

God bless.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No, I am simply clarifying that Jerry believes that death is part of God's design in creation of the body. For example, IF Adam would never had sinned and never had eaten of the tree of life then his body would have NATURALLY died according to his position and thus death would be part and parcel with God's design in creation.

God's design in creation was that Adam would have continued to eat of the tree of life.

You say that you are clarifying my teaching but you continue to misrepresent what I say.

I do not think that you do it on purpose but instead your spiritual IQ is practically nonexistent so therefore you cannot understand the most elementary arguments which others make.

 

[The Biblicist]

God's design in creation was that Adam would have continued to eat of the tree of life

Your missing the point! He did not design the human body to be immortal but mortal. He NEVER told Adam or Eve to eat of the tree of life but only told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil.

Hence, by design the body was not created immortal but mortal and mortal means "subject to death." Hence, God created the human body to be "subject to death."

However, being "subject to death" and being under death are not one and the same. Being subject to death and being in the process of dying are not one and the same thing. Death entered the body only by sin and no sooner than in the day he sinned (Gen. 2:16). Hence, God did not create a dying body but that was the product of sin.

If man had not sinned he would have continued living in a body that was subject to death but without death.