Did Jesus teach Tulip ?

[Dr. Walter]

This of course is more speculation that must be done because of the first specualtion.

You say Adam loved Eve so much that he CHOSE TO DIE with her. Then you say that the sin changed his attitude towards her and he then hated her. Yes, if you throw your supposed loved one under the bus, even as a unregenerated sinner, you really didn't love that person at all. Even the unregenerated lost examples we see today do not throw their loved ones under the bus, when this does happen it proves they never truly loved that person. Adam's betrayal of Eve proves that his reason for eating the fruit was not because he loved Eve more than God. I admit, Adam chosing to die for his wife sounds wonderfully noble, but that just isn't the underlying motive for his disobedience.

As a matter of fact, I did provide scripture to support my reasoning. I provided James explanation of how sin originates with "lust." I provided Paul's explanation that Eve was deceived but Adam intentionally partook of the fruit knowing full well it could not accomplish what Satan promised. Within the perimeter of those scritures can you provide a better reason? Adam's choice when Eve came and told him what she did was either condemn her or join her because he was not deceived by Satan.

Your reasoning above is not logical. Adam did not turn on Eve until he had no other option to save his own skin. Lost people will turn on those they love when it comes to saving their own skin.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My point to the Calvinist is that they strongly preach the Sovereignty of God, as you said, until someone like me declares God's Sovereignty in Adam's failure, then they declare Adam's freewill has trumped the Sovereignty of God.

Neither conclusion you make above is factual or true. God's sovereingty in Adam did not fail neither did freewill trump God's Sovereignty.

His soverign purpose encompassed far more than merely creating responsible free agency that by its very nature demanded alternative choice and thus permission to sin, or else there was no free choice. His sovereign purpose also included restriction of that permission (Psa. 76:10) and working it for ultimate good and his glory. Therefore, the sovereign purpose of God as a whole, shall accomplish God's sovereign designs in creation as once again He will look upon a NEW creation and pronounce "very good."

Free will PRIOR to the fall does not violate the Biblical teaching of bondage of the will due to fall.

Hence, once again your logic is simply wrong!

 

[Gup20]

Well, I am not a Calvinist. I am a Biblicist. I believe the Calvinistic argument over free will BEFORE the fall is not accurate or necessary. Indeed, I believe it complicates the truth rather than supports the truth.

Indeed that makes sense - both that you are not a Calvinist, and that the Calvinist argument is unnecessary.

1. The bondage of the will is the consequence of the fall. It is sinful man who is totally depraved not prefallen man.

I agree. But herein begs the question of where the sin nature comes from. I believe the scriptures give us a clue to that origin:

Hbr 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Rom 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"​

Also Romans 7:14,24

2. Free will prior to the fall is essential for noncoercive alternative choice or else sin can be blamed on whatever coerced the choice.

3. The fact that God created man a responsible free agent clears God from all intent and accusation as the Author of sin.

4. The scriptures are clear and explicit that God's nature is incapable of temptation because it is established in immutable holiness and therefore cannot contain intent to tempt anyone else to sin.

5. The scripture are clear that EVERYTHING God created was "good" and He could look upon everything and say it was "very good." Hence, sin was not created but originated from the "good" that God created.

I agree.

If that is how you understand my interpretation of Acts 11:18b then either you misinterpreted my words or I failed to make myself clear. I do not believe that God must grant someone repentance "in order FOR THEM to change their heart condition from darkness to light" but that very grant is God changing their heart from darkness to light.

Sorry for the misrepresentation (this is why I like to start by stating my perception). So you put forth that God granting them repentance is equivalent to God changing their heart from darkness to light? And this repentance can only be granted by God and a person is wholly unable to repent unless God grants the repentance?

First your translation is not accurate...
... My Greek teachers taught me ...
... Justification is declarative of righteousness before the Law which grants LEGAL life just as much as it grants LEGAL condemnation to the unrighteous. ...
...Repentance is the negative side of faith...

While this is interesting, I don't see the relevance to the two points I raised. Point #2 is especially interesting. If it is that, (as I understand you now), God granting a person repentance is equal to God changing a heart from darkness to light, then wouldn't the meaning of the verse be that God has granted repentance to "the Gentiles" (meaning everyone who is not a Jew)? So by your interpretation, all Gentiles have LEGAL life and are saved?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Indeed that makes sense - both that you are not a Calvinist, and that the Calvinist argument is unnecessary.

It is only unnecessary for any kind of explanation of the PRE-fallen condition of Adam NOT for the explanation of the post-fallen condition of Adam.

I agree. But herein begs the question of where the sin nature comes from. I believe the scriptures give us a clue to that origin:

Hbr 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Rom 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"​

Also Romans 7:14,24

You are confusing human nature - that which makes up human nature - with the fallen nature of man. Adam had no fallen nature but he was human in nature! Hence, one does not have to be less human in nature if he has no fallen nature of Adam! Jesus knew no sin, did no sin and neither was sin found in him and that is exactly the condition of human nature as found in PRE-fallen Adam. And it is Pre-fallen Adam that the Second Adam is compared with not the FALLEN Adam.

Sorry for the misrepresentation (this is why I like to start by stating my perception). So you put forth that God granting them repentance is equivalent to God changing their heart from darkness to light? And this repentance can only be granted by God and a person is wholly unable to repent unless God grants the repentance?

This is equvilent to God giving a "new" heart (compare Deut. 29:4 with Ezek. 36:26-27 with all characteristics included in each text).

If it is that, (as I understand you now), God granting a person repentance is equal to God changing a heart from darkness to light, then wouldn't the meaning of the verse be that God has granted repentance to "the Gentiles" (meaning everyone who is not a Jew)? So by your interpretation, all Gentiles have LEGAL life and are saved?

You fail to understand Paul's explanation of redemption being transferred by God from the sphere of national Israel to the sphere of gentile nations (Rom. 11:12-13;28). The church at Jerusalem prior to Acts 10 had been restricted to Jews and Jewish proselytes. However, Corneilius was a god fearer, but not a Jewish proselyte. This is the first instance of salvation and baptism of a non-Jew and non-Jewish proselyte. The context has the SAVED house hold of Corneilius in view.

However, you take the text out of context and try to force it to apply to all gentiles without distinction when the context is specifically and explicitly referring to those saved gentiles in chapter 10.

 

[Gup20]

Your missing his point. He says "through one man" not through many men sin entered the world. You cannot deny that Adam represented many by one act of disobedience unless you deny Christ reprsented many by his obedience.

According to your logic we are no more sinners in Adam by "one man's disobedience" than we are righteous in Christ by "one man's obedience."

I do not deny that sin "entered" the world through one man, and death entered the world because of that sin. I just don't believe the sin of Adam is passed to all future generations. It was the judgment for Adam's sin that persists (death). I also acknowledge the totality of that death in that man had dominion (authority and responsibility) over all of creation. And because of that one man's sin, death affects every person and animal on earth.

It is like a virus. Once the infection occurs, it spreads to all. So too death spreads to all (not sin).

Furthermore, you ignore the Aorist tense "for all have sinned" not all SHALL sin. Death spread to all men because all men sinned IN ADAM by representation and by nature as they were literally one with Adam in nature.

The only relevance Adam's sin has on us is that the judgement for his sin (death) is persistent in the world today. We are not guilty of the sin of Adam. We die because Adam's judgement is present with us (death), but we deserve that death because we all have sinned. Jesus was the first to die that didn't deserve death. The law entered to show us that we were sinners who had sinned and deserved to die.

Eze 18:20 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.​

Apply your logic to the same words about Christ and you deny that "by one man's obedience many were made righteous" and thus teach by many men's obediences they are made righteous and thus righteousness spreads to all who are obedient thus repudiating the very purpose for even saying "by one man's obedience many were made righteous" In other words, according to your logic it is not one man's obedience that makes anyone rightoues but their own obedience that makes them righteous as this is exactly what you say of Adam, that it was not his disobedience that made us sinners but our own disobedience that made us sinners.

Dr. Walter, I am a Biblicist - I let the scriptures tell me what to believe.

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.​

You draw a direct correlation between Adam's one sin and Jesus righteousness. However, the Bible clearly states that the free gift is NOT like the offense. Whereas we were all condemned to death because of Adam's one sin, all of our offenses are forgiven because of Jesus' sinless life and sacrifice (not our own righteousness). Do you see how it was the punishment or consequence for Adam's sin that was passed on to us (death), not the guilt or responsibility for that sin? We are each guilty and responsible for our own sin. Otherwise, God could forgive Adam's sin and save the whole world by forgiving one person. There would be no need for God to save individuals... just give Adam grace and all would be saved.

David twice says that infants are born with a sin nature and they sin as soon as they are born.

I assume one of the passages you are referring to is Psalms 51:5

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.​

In the Hebrew, "I was shapen" is the word "chuwl". It literally means "to bring forth, bear, travail with, to writhe, to suffer, to be born." Then, the verse uses the words "iniquity" and "sin". They are two different Hebrew words. The word "iniquity" (in the Hebrew `avon) literally means "punishment or consequence of iniquity". The word for sin is chet, which is the word that we would more closely associate with the word sin -- meaning guilt of sin.

Furthermore, when it says "in sin did my mother conceive me" we know that the subject is "my mother" ... David himself is not the subject. If you apply the "in sin" to David, then you must also apply "conceived me" to David, and that doesn't make any sense because David cannot conceive himself.

So this verse could literally be translated "I was born under the punishment for sin, and my mother was a sinner when she conceived me."

I believe it is the fear of death that enslaves us to sin or produces in us a sin nature. We do not inherit the guilt of sin of our parents - we inherit the death God judged Adam (and thereby the whole world) with -- as Romans 5:12 says "death is passed". But, Good News (gospel), we can be saved from that death and forgiven from our sin (we can be declared righteous) in Jesus Christ.

I understand your reasoning but I believe it is wrong. In the preceding chapters Paul proves that the law given by Moses to the jews was to define what sin is (Rom. 3:21) but that we are justified "without the works of the law" (Rom. 3:24-4:16). Many of his reader were Jews. His point in verse 13 is that the Law given to Moses did not exist between Adam until Moses but yet all died between Adam and Moses - proof that death did not occur because of violation of Mosaic Law. Hence, death had some other origin for its cause and the only other origin is "through the offence of one many be dead," - they sinned in Adam - "for all HAVE sinned."

Secondly, death even reigned over those who did not commit the same kind of sin that Adam committed! 1 Tim. 2:13 tells us explicitly that Adam's sin was intentional with full light. However, infants and mentally impaired persons who are incapable of discerning right from wrong and therefore without intentional sin still die. Therefore the source of their death must originate before their birth in someone else - "through the offence of one many be dead,"

We seem to agree that the law was not the cause of death between Adam and Moses. What we appear to disagree on is whether sin was passed from Adam to all or whether death was passed from Adam to all. Is that an accurate representation of the disagreement?

My question would be, if sin is passed to all (rather than the judgement for the sin, which is death, being passed to all) wouldn't Jesus then be similarly guilty of sin as we all are? If we have all sinned in Adam, so has Jesus and he deserves to die on the cross, and is no longer a sinless sacrifice. So it makes more sense to me that - as Romans 5:12 says - death is passed, not sin is passed.

 

[Gup20]

It is only unnecessary for any kind of explanation of the PRE-fallen condition of Adam NOT for the explanation of the post-fallen condition of Adam.

I would equally assert that it is unnecessary all together.

You are confusing human nature - that which makes up human nature - with the fallen nature of man. Adam had no fallen nature but he was human in nature! Hence, one does not have to be less human in nature if he has no fallen nature of Adam! Jesus knew no sin, did no sin and neither was sin found in him and that is exactly the condition of human nature as found in PRE-fallen Adam. And it is Pre-fallen Adam that the Second Adam is compared with not the FALLEN Adam.

Perhaps you have misunderstood or I have not explained my perspective adequately. In my perspective, sin nature comes from the fear of death, and there was no death prior to the fall, therefore there was no sin nature prior to the fall. I agree that Jesus knew no sin, did no sin, and neither was sin found in him, which is why I cannot accept that all men are sinners in Adam. If this was the case, Jesus (a son of man and descendant of Adam) would be a sinner, though he never sinned. We are sinners because we have all sinned, not because we inherit our sin from Adam.

Additionally, I believe there will be no sin nature when we are reunited with God and achieve eternal life.

You fail to understand Paul's explanation of redemption being transferred by God from the sphere of national Israel to the sphere of gentile nations (Rom. 11:12-13;28). The church at Jerusalem prior to Acts 10 had been restricted to Jews and Jewish proselytes. However, Corneilius was a god fearer, but not a Jewish proselyte. This is the first instance of salvation and baptism of a non-Jew and non-Jewish proselyte. The context has the SAVED house hold of Corneilius in view.

I understand the Apostle Paul, but I believe you are wrong. You fail to understand Paul's explanation of God's promise. The first instance of salvation of a non-Jew is Abraham (read Romans 4, Galatians 3-4).

Rom 4:9 [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.

16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.​

Galatians 3 tells us more about how Abraham was saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Yes - Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gen 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
​

God preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Abraham, and he believed it, and this faith in Christ was why Abraham was counted as righteous. This was Abraham's salvation, and it is why he is called the "father of those who believe". He was the first saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Paul makes that pretty clear. And it was prior to him being circumcised, and 430 years prior to the law of Moses.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.​

So you see, from the very beginning - from the very first salvation by grace - it was of those who were uncircumcised ... it was non-Jew. And he was saved (counted righteous) prior to any works of the law (such as circumcision).

 

[Dr. Walter]

I would equally assert that it is unnecessary all together.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your facts. Deuteronomy 29:4; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:18 and many more speak directlty to the inabilityof the natural man in regard to spiritual abilities. These texts you have never dealt with and simply cannot ignore them by pitting scripture against scripture, which in itself is an hermeneutic admission of error.

Perhaps you have misunderstood or I have not explained my perspective adequately. In my perspective, sin nature comes from the fear of death

You are born with a sinful nature, it is not something added after birth.

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

The term "estranged" means SEPARATED and that is what spiritual death is - separation from God. The words "go astray" is the concept of "sin" and the proof is the following words "speaking lies" and this is their condition/nature "from the womb" not from any experiential "fear"!!

Rom. 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul speaking explicitly and clearly about how sin, death, condemnation entered into the human reace says it was BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were "MADE SINNERS" not by fear!!!!!

Are you simply going to ignore this evidence and find some scripture that is not clear and not explicit but has to be INFERRED to contradict these plain scriptures that speak right to the point of this issue????????????

, and there was no death prior to the fall, therefore there was no sin nature prior to the fall.

No one disputes that Adam did not have a FALLEN nature BEFORE THE FALL!!!!!! What do think the word "fall" is all about? Neither was there death before the fall or FEAR before the fall? Paul flatly denies your theory by repeatedly attributed condemnation, judgement, death, sin to ONE MAN'S OFFENCE not to any fear by Him or anyone else!!

I agree that Jesus knew no sin, did no sin, and neither was sin found in him, which is why I cannot accept that all men are sinners in Adam.

Tell me, how many human beings were virgin born? How many human beings had no human father involved in conception? ANSWER? None but Christ.

Tell me was he "estranged" and did he tell lies "from the womb"????? Did he "go astray" AS SOON AS he was born? ANSWER: ALL but Christ. So are you going to tell us that the birth of Christ was no different than the birth of all other men??????

You said, you believed that he did not sin, knew no sin and neither could anyone find sin in him? How about all other human beings born into this world?????? Yet, he is said to have "FEARED":

Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Now you say the sin nature is derived from FEAR not birth right? So Christ had no sinful nature until he "feared"?????????

You say one man's offence did not make all men sinners (calling Paul a liar) but it is fear that makes men sinners by nature right??????? If that is so, the Paul is a liar, and so is David a liar.

You say that men are not sinners until they actually sin. Whereas Paul say by one mans offence many were made sinners rather than by their own sin many were made sinners! Who do we believe? Paul or You?

I understand the Apostle Paul, but I believe you are wrong.

You ignored the evidence! It is PETER who is speaking of specific gentiles at the house of Corneilus of whom the church at Jerusalem speaks of in Acts 11:16! That is the context that precedes verse 16 in every verse of Acts 11:1-15!!!!!!! So your generic gentile interpretation is completely and totally contextually false!

 

[steaver]

I'm not sure we could say "pride" was any part of the sin. Afterall, Adam was without any sin nature. Pride would not have existed within him.

What in reallity was the choice Adam was given? Was it eat or not eat? Was the test a test of obedience?

I say we must look beyond the tree, beyond the command even. What really is the choice God presented to Adam and Eve?

Think about it a bit more Thinkingstuff, this is a good brain exercise for a screen name such as yours. Lol. I know you will see it plainly if I say it, but I want to give you a bit more time before I say.

God Bless!

The choice presented to Adam and Eve was BELIEVE God or believe Satan. From the very beginning, the preaching of the everlasting gospel had begun..... Believe and live. This God given choice has never been withdrawn from mankind. It has not been made void by Adam's sin nor did Adam's sin make God's everlasting gospel change in any way.

Adam was ordained of God to sin that all in Adam would be made sinners, that God's everlasting gospel would be glorified. After Adam had sinned and "died" he then would look to the everlasting gospel to live again.

What a marvelest plan! Praise God!

"Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" From Adam to the last one born. Freewill choice to believe has never changed. Praise Him! Choice is the sovereign will of God revealed unto Adam and ultimately to all men.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The choice presented to Adam and Eve was BELIEVE God or believe Satan.

That was not the choice. God said nothing about "beleive" anyone. He gave a command that they should not eat of a certain tree - period!

Adam was ordained of God to sin that all in Adam would be made sinners, that God's everlasting gospel would be glorified. After Adam had sinned and "died" he then would look to the everlasting gospel to live again.

I have proven this theory to be false and you have yet to respond to the evidence.

 

[Gup20]

You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your facts. Deuteronomy 29:4; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:18 and many more speak directlty to the inabilityof the natural man in regard to spiritual abilities.

I don't dispute the facts regarding natural man's inability in regard to spiritual abilities. This is true even of the believer who has attained their salvation. Even a saved believer has no power or holiness but that which God works through them. They are equally depraved as an unsaved person if they choose to walk in the flesh rather than the spirit. What I am at odds with is the TULIP position on the matter, which is also at odds with your point of view, that states that man is so deprived that he is entirely unable to have the free will to choose God.

Deuteronomy 30 states:

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:​

Scripture explicitly states that he has placed before us a choice - life or death. Then he commands us to choose life.

As I read each of the scriptures you presented I am pressed with the notion that all of them deal with someone who has been transformed or "saved" but none of them explicitly deal with how that salvation is attained or instituted. They speak only of the distinction between the flesh and the spirit. The inability of natural man in regard to spiritual abilities has never been the point of the dispute with Calvinism and TULIP... what is in dispute is whether as human beings we have the free will to choose God or initiate the human side of the covenant. The Bible tells me that if I believe in God, God will renew me and give me life. Not that I was able to do anything, but in my choosing Jesus, who is the way the truth and the life, God does a mighty work in me to transform me from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light.

You are born with a sinful nature, it is not something added after birth.

I agree... because all of us are born in a world marred by the death that was the result of Adam's sin (Rom 8:22). James says (James 1:14-15) we sin because we are drawn away by our own lusts. And when lust has conceived it brings for sin, and when sin is accomplished it brings forth death.

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

The term "estranged" means SEPARATED and that is what spiritual death is - separation from God. The words "go astray" is the concept of "sin" and the proof is the following words "speaking lies" and this is their condition/nature "from the womb" not from any experiential "fear"!!

So "the wicked are separated from the womb." Well anyone who has been born has been separated from their mother's womb. How does this verse explicitly state that Adam's sin is passed on, and not that death (death is simply separation from God) is passed on?

Additionally, do you honestly expect me to believe that you take this literally? That you believe a child can come out of the womb speaking -- and lies no less? In fact, this verse supports my view that death is passed because it says that they are separated, and then points to their own sin as the means to that separation.

Furthermore, how then would you reconcile Psalms 22:10?

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.​

Rom. 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul speaking explicitly and clearly about how sin, death, condemnation entered into the human reace says it was BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were "MADE SINNERS" not by fear!!!!!

Are you simply going to ignore this evidence and find some scripture that is not clear and not explicit but has to be INFERRED to contradict these plain scriptures that speak right to the point of this issue????????????

I could very well ask you the same questions in regard to ignoring explicit scripture. Do you ignore Romans 5:12 when it says explicitly "Death is passed" rather than saying that "Sin is passed"? Do you ignore Hebrews 2:15 which explicitly states that those were all their lifetime subject to bondage through their fear of death?

The verse says they were "made" sinners. "Made" is the same word as "charged" or "appointed". I can be charged with a crime and then be justified at the time of my hearing. Or I could be condemned at the time of the judgement.

Furthermore that a difference exists - by one many are made sinners is NOT the same as by one many are righteous within the latter half of the verse. We know from the previous context that it means by one man, everyone has had death passed to them, and by one man, some will have life passed to them (not everyone). You can take an explicit meaning from the verse, but you MUST explicitly take it in context and constrain it's explicit meaning by what has already been stated.

I agree, if you take it out of context, the verse explicitly states sin came from the one (meaning Adam). Had the meaning not been constrained by the context informing us explicitly that death is passed and not sin, we could misunderstand the verse.

No one disputes that Adam did not have a FALLEN nature BEFORE THE FALL!!!!!!

I, too, do not dispute the fact that Adam did not have a fallen nature before the fall, and I am confused as to how you got the impression that this was my argument? Since there was no death before the fall, I don't see how a fear of death could have existed. Your argument demonstrates there has been a misunderstanding of my point somewhere.

Tell me, how many human beings were virgin born? ANSWER? None but Christ.

He still had a human mother. He called himself the "son of man". If he wasn't descended from Adam, then he wasn't qualified as a human being and couldn't die in our place.

Tell me was he "estranged" and did he tell lies "from the womb"????? Did he "go astray" AS SOON AS he was born? ANSWER: ALL but Christ. So are you going to tell us that the birth of Christ was no different than the birth of all other men??????

If he isn't a descendant of Adam then he isn't human and has no right to die for us. Do you think the genealogies in the scripture that clearly show Jesus heritage back to Adam are there for their entertainment value? Obviously his birth was unique, but clearly the Bible shows he is descended from Adam.

You said, you believed that he did not sin, knew no sin and neither could anyone find sin in him? How about all other human beings born into this world?????? Yet, he is said to have "FEARED":

Indeed, and his lack of sin made him special and unique in all of history. He was still tempted and tried with all the same temptations as every other man. The difference was, he didn't sin.

Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Now you say the sin nature is derived from FEAR not birth right? So Christ had no sinful nature until he "feared"?????????

No, I say sin nature is derived from our sin. We sin because we fear the death that has already corrupted us. We are slaves to sin through our feath of death. We do the things we do not want to do because sin is our master. We obey sin and subject ourselves to it's lusts and desires because of our fear of death.

In other words, we do not come into the light because our deeds are evil. We fear the judgement for our deeds... we fear death. So we are slaves to the darkness because we are afraid of our deeds being exposed by the light.

This is why John says,

1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

You say one man's offence did not make all men sinners (calling Paul a liar) but it is fear that makes men sinners by nature right??????? If that is so, the Paul is a liar, and so is David a liar.

No so, Dr. Walter. I take them at their word - their full word - not just one phrase cherry picked out of context.

You say that men are not sinners until they actually sin. Whereas Paul say by one mans offence many were made sinners rather than by their own sin many were made sinners! Who do we believe? Paul or You?

Paul says "death is passed" not "sin is passed" therefore, I must accept that "by one mans offense many were made sinners" must be interpreted through that lens.

You ignored the evidence! It is PETER who is speaking of specific gentiles at the house of Corneilus of whom the church at Jerusalem speaks of in Acts 11:16! That is the context that precedes verse 16 in every verse of Acts 11:1-15!!!!!!! So your generic gentile interpretation is completely and totally contextually false!

So it is your contention that Peter's vision of the sheet being let down and God commanding him to eat was specific to a couple of individuals? What lengths you will go to in order to prove a point - you would desecrate this passage that gives hope to all gentiles who believe. Wow.

 

[Dr. Walter]

So "the wicked are separated from the womb." Well anyone who has been born has been separated from their mother's womb.

Your response imputes stupidity to David for saying something trivial. Your misinterpretation is exposed by the following facts:

1. They are described as "WICKED" before they are "enstranged" from the womb.

2. The term "enstranged" is a negative conatation by context not a postive one as you rightly point out it would be stupidity on David's part to inform us that babies are simply separated at birth from their womb. This is the first half of a Hebrewism that corresponds to the second half which is "gone astray."

3. "speaking lies" is another negative in a series of negatives to support they are "wicked".

Apparently, you have never had any children. Infants lie without being taught and they vocalize their lies by "crying" when their is nothing wrong with them. I have never had to teach my children to sin - it comes natural and they are that way by nature BEFORE birth in regard to their nature.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

David says the exact same thing here as in the previous verse. In the previous verse those in the womb BEFORE birth are characterized as "WICKED" in nature. How did they were "WICKED" before birth???? Even common sense should tell you they were "WICKED" before birth because they were "shapen in iniquity."

Here is absolute proof that the SIN NATURE is acquired IN CONCEPTION before birth and not as you imagine. Here is absolute proof that sin occurs WITHOUT fear or even knowledge of death. The sin nature is passed on through reproduction of LIKE KIND as the infant is subject to death and to sin BEFORE they can they have any knowledge of death.

Furthermore, how then would you reconcile Psalms 22:10?

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.​

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. [/QUOTE]

Note the difference of subject "the wicked" versus "I." David was God's "Annointed king" and many of his psalms were prophetic of the Messiah speaking. Christ never needed to be born AGAIN but from physical birth he could call the Father "my God."

This evidence completely and comprehensively condemns your whole theory.

 

[Gup20]

Your response imputes stupidity to David for saying something trivial.

I don't impute stupidity to David. I simply appreciate the imagery David invokes by this clearly poetic prose without imposing an overly literal interpretation to poetic text. But assuming for the sake of argument that I did impute stupidity to David, would that be a bad thing? Does stupidity lessen the value of David or his contribution to God's Word? The statement "imputes stupidity" caught my attention for a very specific reason. Stupidity is the cardinal sin of Satanism, but Jesus tells us that unless we have the simple faith of a child, we can not enter the kingdom of heaven:

Luke 18:17 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all​

You would be wise not to judge a person or their usefulness to God by your impression of their stupidity - that is a slippery slope to the indulgence of the flesh and self-interest. Afterall, God used an ass to speak to Balaam. The intelligence of the speaker is inconsequential to their usefulness or the level of their Godly inspiration.

Furthermore, if we look at the poetic pattern of the verses surrounding Psalms 58:3, we see that they follow a specific pattern; they make a statement, and then they make a second statement that further defines or expounds on the first statement.

Psa 58:2 No, in heart you work unrighteousness; On earth you weigh out the violence of your hands.

Psa 58:4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent; Like a deaf cobra that stops up its ear, 5 So that it does not hear the voice of charmers, Or a skillful caster of spells.​

The second half defines what is meant by the first half. So in verse 3, when it says "they go astray as soon as they be born" we know that this is meant to further our understanding of what is meant by the first statement "The wicked are estranged from the womb". Additionally "from the womb" doesn't mean "in the womb" it means once you have 'come from' the womb ... or in essence, once you have been born (which is corroborated by the second half of the verse).

Your misinterpretation is exposed by the following facts:

1. They are described as "WICKED" before they are "enstranged" from the womb.

2. The term "enstranged" is a negative conatation by context not a postive one as you rightly point out it would be stupidity on David's part to inform us that babies are simply separated at birth from their womb. This is the first half of a Hebrewism that corresponds to the second half which is "gone astray."

3. "speaking lies" is another negative in a series of negatives to support they are "wicked".

You seem to ascribe a significant amount of literal interpretation to a clearly poetic verse. You would be wise to adopt a broader, less literal stance when it comes to poetry and it's meaning. The problem with your 3 facts is they do nothing to bolster your position because both sin being passed and death being passed would have the same general affect on the wickedness of a person, and this verse doesn't speak to the cause, only to the affect. It is a useless argument to contend about the effects (especially in the case of this verse where the effects are identical) when the cause is what we are disputing.

Apparently, you have never had any children. Infants lie without being taught and they vocalize their lies by "crying" when their is nothing wrong with them. I have never had to teach my children to sin - it comes natural and they are that way by nature BEFORE birth in regard to their nature.

And the fact that they cry at all or are hungry or thirsty only demonstrates that death reigns within them, and they fear it. At a basic level, even at the earliest stages of development in the womb, a baby will strive to survive.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

David says the exact same thing here as in the previous verse. In the previous verse those in the womb BEFORE birth are characterized as "WICKED" in nature. How did they were "WICKED" before birth???? Even common sense should tell you they were "WICKED" before birth because they were "shapen in iniquity."

Deja Vu.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.​

In the Hebrew, "I was shapen" is the word "chuwl". It literally means "to bring forth, bear, travail with, to writhe, to suffer, to be born." Then, the verse uses the words "iniquity" and "sin". They are two different Hebrew words. The word "iniquity" (in the Hebrew `avon) literally means "punishment or consequence of iniquity". The word for sin is chet, which is the word that we would more closely associate with the word sin -- meaning guilt of sin.

Furthermore, when it says "in sin did my mother conceive me" we know that the subject is "my mother" ... David himself is not the subject. If you apply the "in sin" to David, then you must also apply "conceived me" to David, and that doesn't make any sense because David cannot conceive himself.

So this verse could literally be translated "I was born under the punishment for sin, and my mother was a sinner when she conceived me."

Here is absolute proof that the SIN NATURE is acquired IN CONCEPTION before birth and not as you imagine. Here is absolute proof that sin occurs WITHOUT fear or even knowledge of death. The sin nature is passed on through reproduction of LIKE KIND as the infant is subject to death and to sin BEFORE they can they have any knowledge of death.

You and I must have different meaning of the phrase "absolute proof". To me, absolute proof means it cannot be refuted, but as you can see your argument is easily refuted. As I have stated previously, "my mother" must be the subject of the sentence. If "me" is the subject, then David would be stating that he conceived himself which is an impossibility. It is truly an absurd interpretation.

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Note the difference of subject "the wicked" versus "I." David was God's "Annointed king" and many of his psalms were prophetic of the Messiah speaking. Christ never needed to be born AGAIN but from physical birth he could call the Father "my God."

This evidence completely and comprehensively condemns your whole theory.

I agree, Psalms 22 is speaking of Jesus Christ. But you have yet to put even the smallest dent in "my whole theory" as you have yet to put forward a single argument that is salient to "my whole theory". You seem preoccupied with the effects (which we agree on for the most part) and you have yet to address any root causes (the part we do not agree on).

Perhaps you would do well to define for me your perception of what "my whole theory" is, exactly. I am an open to the Holy Spirit teaching me and the scripture guiding me, and if you can present a coherent argument from scripture that shows me why I should adjust my interpretation, I will do so. But so far I haven't seen that.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You seem to ascribe a significant amount of literal interpretation to a clearly poetic verse.

So, what does the term "The wicked" signify to you poetically? So much for your "clearly poetic verse." Hebrew parallelism does not deny it is literal, but simply repeats the same thing in another literal form. Your responses are absurd, irrational and rediculous. They are simply "political" spins on the truth by one who refuses to be objective and honest with the scriptures.

If I responded after the same manner, just putting "spins" on the truth in order to avoid the truth of the text then both of us would be perverting the scriptures to suite ourselves. [/QUOTE]

 

[Gup20]

So, what does the term "The wicked" signify to you poetically?

It means to me that David is saying "his whole life" he has been separated from God, since the day he was born.

So much for your "clearly poetic verse." Hebrew parallelism does not deny it is literal, but simply repeats the same thing in another literal form.

:thumbsup:
When you tried to justify your position by rationalizing that babies literally come out of the womb speaking (and lying) then you've imposed an unwarranted literal interpretation upon poetic text.

Your responses are absurd, irrational and rediculous. They are simply "political" spins on the truth by one who refuses to be objective and honest with the scriptures.

(says the guy who purports that babies come out of the womb speaking and telling lies, and that David somehow conceived himself). I'm willing to debate that. Show me which responses are absurd. Show me the flaw in my logic - I've laid it out for your plainly... surely you can point to the place where I went wrong. Show me where I have not provided Biblical evidence to support my perspective. Additionally, I don't know what you mean by "political spins". What do politics have to do with this?

 

[Dr. Walter]

It means to me that David is saying "his whole life" he has been separated from God, since the day he was born.

Proved my point! You are a "spin" doctor. You have no concept of proper Bibical hermeneutics and there is no possible basis to even have a rational dialogue with someone that handles the scripture as you do.

When you tried to justify your position by rationalizing that babies literally come out of the womb speaking (and lying) then you've imposed an unwarranted literal interpretation upon poetic text.

Any parent who has raised children knows exactly what David is saying. Apparently that is out of your area of experience. Every parent knows that you do not have to teach children to sin it comes BY NATURE right from the womb wthout any instruction or practice whatsoever. Apparently, you have the mistaken idea that "lying" requires a vocabulary.

The real truth is that you do not want to be honest with this text or deal with it objectively or deal with it according to basic hermeneutics as either you are obviously ignorant OR you are intentionally spinning this text to suit your belly (desires).

 

[billwald]

> Every parent knows that you do not have to teach children to sin it comes BY NATURE right from the womb wthout any instruction or practice whatsoever.

I've heard this for decades but somehow it doesn't compute. That's like saying a puppy sins when it pees on a rug.

 

[Rippon]

I've heard this for decades but somehow it doesn't compute. That's like saying a puppy sins when it pees on a rug.

The Scripture speaks of humans sinning --not beasts.

 

[webdog]

> Every parent knows that you do not have to teach children to sin it comes BY NATURE right from the womb wthout any instruction or practice whatsoever.

I've heard this for decades but somehow it doesn't compute. That's like saying a puppy sins when it pees on a rug.

They learn selfishness and disobedience on their own, you don't have to teach a child this. Now I will agree it is not counted as sin until they know they are violating God's law

 

[Dr. Walter]

They learn selfishness and disobedience on their own, you don't have to teach a child this. Now I will agree it is not counted as sin until they know they are violating God's law

It is not something they LEARN, it is what they ARE by nature from the womb. This is David's point - "from the womb." "I was shapen in inquity" "in sin did my mother CONCEIVE me."

Trying to "spin" these words to avoid their clear and explicit intent is simply not honest.

 

[Dr. Walter]

> Every parent knows that you do not have to teach children to sin it comes BY NATURE right from the womb wthout any instruction or practice whatsoever.

I've heard this for decades but somehow it doesn't compute. That's like saying a puppy sins when it pees on a rug.

Does anyone have to teach a puppy to pee? Where he does it is inconsequential!