Did Jesus teach Tulip ?

[webdog]

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.

...and it's honest to judge the intent of my post as being dishonest?!? I was using LEARN in a figurative sense, you know...like David used the very phrases "from the womb" and the rest you hold so literally to in order to form your doctrine. Again, this is the second time in recent days you have questioned me being dishonest or deceptive. This from someone who is not really a Dr. and leads the readers here to believe he is. If that is not hypocrisy...
:wavey:

 

[Dr. Walter]

...and it's honest to judge the intent of my post as being dishonest?!? I was using LEARN in a figurative sense, you know...like David used the very phrases "from the womb"

That is the very point of your "spin." No one has shown, proven, or provided any kind of evidence based upon sound principles of exegesis that David's statement is "figurative" in the first place. That is all IMAGINATION gone wild!

Why state something as fact, when you have provided NO EVIDENCE that what you are saying is factual? Isn't that on the surface being two faced at the very minimum?

No one can deny what it says LITERALLY and no one has yet provided evidence it should not be understood LITERALLY but you and others are making unfounded, unproven, non-exegetical based assertions that it should not be understood as it reads. I would say the burden of proof is upon those who deny what it obvously says.

 

[Gup20]

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.

This is an ad hominem fallacy. Since you have no footing or ground to stand on to make a sound argument, you resort to trying to level personal attacks rather than deal with the issue. All you really have done here is expose the bankruptcy of your position. Spin is so easy to discredit. All you have to do is show where the "spinner" has diverged from the truth. You've assumed a point of view that is not explicitly supported by scripture, and then pronounced it as truth. But upon examination of scriptures that explicitly contradict you, you fold up like a house of cards.

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.

Lying doesn't require vocabulary, but "speaking lies" certainly does. You are grasping at straws here, Walt. It is really a desperate argument. You are so desperate to impose your own eisegesis, that you are blind to reality, logic, and reason (Isa 1:18a)

If you wish to treat Psalms 58 with ultra literalism (rather than as poetry), lets see just where that takes us, shall we?

You believe babies speak lies as they come out of the womb
You believe the sons of man have venom like a cobra (literally)
You believe David asked God to shatter the teeth of (literal) lions
You believe the sons of man can melt in the sun
You believe that David is asking God to cause the mothers of wicked people to miscarry them
You believe that inanimate pots can "feel" fire
You believe the righteous should wash their feet in the blood of the wicked people (literally)

Surely, you wish to be consistent in your interpretation of Psalms 58 -- clearly you believe it to be completely literal and not poetic.

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).

Once again, ad hominem is a useless and unsound argument. You are avoiding having to support your point of view hermeneutically by attempting to attack me personally. It doesn't help your case because I have laid out my reasoning and demonstrated an actual hermeneutic for you to see (the surrounding verses show a poetic style of making a statement, and then having the second statement define or expound upon the meaning of the first statement). Because you have attacked me rather than dealt with the actual hermeneutics I have presented, it is clear that you cannot refute the argument. Therefore the onus is upon you to demonstrate or provide support for your argument.

 

[Gup20]

The Scripture speaks of humans sinning --not beasts.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.​

There is a connection between us because of life - Genesis uses the term nephesh chaya to describe soulish life. The Bible describes animals and humans as having this type of life (the life God breathed in), but not plants. When Adam fell, this is the life that was affected by death. The animals experience death because of our dominion and authority over them, and we have death.

Interestingly, animals are not said to sin, but they were used in the Old Testament as a covering for sin via animal sacrifice so there is a Biblical connection.

I think billwald's point is that, just as sin is not imputed to animals because they have no awareness of the law, so too sin is not imputed to babies because they have no knowledge of the law.

Even Paul said,

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

 

[Gup20]

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.

Shapen in iniquity is from Psalms 51, and the word "iniquity" translates "punishment for iniquity", while the word "shapen" means "to be born". "in sin did my mother conceive me" is curious... Walt thinks that David is the subject of this sentence rather than David's mother. But if David is the subject, then not only do you have to apply "in sin" to David, but also the verb "conceived". So either the verse means that David was a sinner as soon as he conceived himself in his mother's womb, or it means that Davids mother was a sinner when she conceived David. Well I don't know if conceiving yourself is a sin, but it's impossible, so you can't interpret the verse that way hermeneutically. It must be interpreted as David's mother was a sinner when she conceived him, denoting that he is a sinner who comes from other sinners (that he has no righteous birthright or inheritance to fall back on).

Walt ignores the clear and explicit teaching of scripture and believes that all people are guilty of sin in Adam (not that they are guilty of sin because of their own sin) before they are born because the guilt of that sin is passed on from Adam to them.

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.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

The Bible explicitly says that death is passed, not that the guilt of sin is passed. The problem is, by the time we die, we HAVE sinned, and therefore deserve the death that reigns in us. Jesus was the only person to live a sinless life and not deserve death.

 

[Gup20]

That is the very point of your "spin." No one has shown, proven, or provided any kind of evidence based upon sound principles of exegesis that David's statement is "figurative" in the first place. That is all IMAGINATION gone wild!

I beg to differ. I demonstrated sound exegesis from scripture. You have yet to even try to provide a single cogent argument against it, instead turning to ad hominem claims to try to cling desperately and blindly to your point of view.

Why state something as fact, when you have provided NO EVIDENCE that what you are saying is factual? Isn't that on the surface being two faced at the very minimum?

You really do have no idea why you believe what you believe, do you walt? You consistently turn to ad hominem at the slightest challenge. You are consistently unable to provide a single sound Biblical exegesis to support your claims.

No one can deny what it says LITERALLY and no one has yet provided evidence it should not be understood LITERALLY but you and others are making unfounded, unproven, non-exegetical based assertions that it should not be understood as it reads. I would say the burden of proof is upon those who deny what it obvously says.

Burying your head in the sand once again, I see. Do you have your hands in your ears as well yelling "la la la... I can't hear you!"

 

[DHK]

Shapen in iniquity is from Psalms 51, and the word "iniquity" translates "punishment for iniquity", while the word "shapen" means "to be born". "in sin did my mother conceive me" is curious... Walt thinks that David is the subject of this sentence rather than David's mother. But if David is the subject, then not only do you have to apply "in sin" to David, but also the verb "conceived". So either the verse means that David was a sinner as soon as he conceived himself in his mother's womb, or it means that Davids mother was a sinner when she conceived David. Well I don't know if conceiving yourself is a sin, but it's impossible, so you can't interpret the verse that way hermeneutically. It must be interpreted as David's mother was a sinner when she conceived him, denoting that he is a sinner who comes from other sinners (that he has no righteous birthright or inheritance to fall back on).

Now you have a contextual problem with that view. David's psalm is a psalm of repentance. He grieves over his own sin. He reaches down to the depths of his soul confessing his own sinfulness in figurative language.
One thing he does not do is blame his mother; point to his mother's sin, etc. That would be entirely out of context and character for David to do. David's mother was an honorable woman. The entire psalm has nothing to with David's mother or David's birth for that fact. There was nothing sinful about his birth, nor anything sinful about her giving birth to David. Your interpretation does not fit the context. You need to look for a better answer; a better solution.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I beg to differ. I demonstrated sound exegesis from scripture. You have yet to even try to provide a single cogent argument against it, instead turning to ad hominem claims to try to cling desperately and blindly to your point of view.

You have done no such thing. All you have done is give your personal opinions that are contrary to the face value of the text. You have not shown any evidence that the actual words must be taken any other way than at face value. The introduction of Psalm 58 (vv. 1-2) provides a contextual basis to take verse 3 literally. The remaining verses of Psalm 58 are commentary in symbolism to reinforce the literalness of verses 1-3. The remaining verses are of the exact same nature used by Paul in Romans 3:12-18 to reinforce the literal statements in Romans 3:9-11 and for the exact same purpose to describe the literal total depravity of the fallen unregenerated human nature.

 

[Gup20]

Now you have a contextual problem with that view. David's psalm is a psalm of repentance. He grieves over his own sin. He reaches down to the depths of his soul confessing his own sinfulness in figurative language.
One thing he does not do is blame his mother; point to his mother's sin, etc. That would be entirely out of context and character for David to do. David's mother was an honorable woman. The entire psalm has nothing to with David's mother or David's birth for that fact. There was nothing sinful about his birth, nor anything sinful about her giving birth to David. Your interpretation does not fit the context. You need to look for a better answer; a better solution.

Well I am glad to see that we agree on the poetic nature of the passage. I also agree with you, David is certainly confessing his own sinfulness. I don't think the point is to show his mother is a sinner so much as it is to demonstrate he has nothing to fall back on - to show that he doesn't even have a righteous birthright or inheritance to fall back on since he has failed to qualify as righteous on his own. It shows the depth of his hopelessness in his sin.

I don't think he is blaming his mother at all. In fact the verse doesn't lay blame (and that is the point, isn't it!). His reference to his mother is within his own perspective. I'm not saying that this chapter is about his mother, but rather that to understand the point David is making you have to read the verse as written... that David's mother is the subject of that particular sentence.

Whether David is saying he inherited the sin of Adam, or whether he is saying that he has no righteous inheritance to fall back on, makes no difference to the poetic nature and meaning of the passage. Both convey the depth of David's sinfulness and depravity. However, the far reaching implications of misinterpreting are profound. Therefore, we have to get it right.

 

[Dr. Walter]

"in sin did my mother conceive me" is curious... Walt thinks that David is the subject of this sentence rather than David's mother.

What Biblical evidence can you present that Jesse had sex with David's mother out of wedlock???? Please present the evidence or drop the argument as there is NOTHING to support it. Secondly, not only is there NOTHING to support that argument the other text by David demonstrates that a SIN NATURE is present from the woman in more than the case of David. Thirdly, Psalm 51 is a penitent Psalm in regard to Davids GUILT of sin. All these things taken together anihilates your theory as even plausable.

But if David is the subject, then not only do you have to apply "in sin" to David, but also the verb "conceived". So either the verse means that David was a sinner as soon as he conceived himself in his mother's womb, or it means that Davids mother was a sinner when she conceived David.

What kind of irrational nonsense is this? David is presented as the OBJECT of conception and neither David or his mother can be the subject as CONCEPTION is an act of God not of mother's and fathers. Many parents desire to conceive children and can't. No, God is not the author of the sin nature, just the author of CONCEPTION which follows the reproductive principle "after its own kind."

Walt ignores the clear and explicit teaching of scripture and believes that all people are guilty of sin in Adam (not that they are guilty of sin because of their own sin) before they are born because the guilt of that sin is passed on from Adam to them.

You fail to acknowledge that Paul says "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS" not "by MANY MENS SINS many men were made sinners."

You also faith to acknowledge that that BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were CONDEMNED but according to your theory they are not condemned by one man's disobedience but by their own disobedience independent of Adam's act of disobedience. Death is passed down because they are condemned by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE otherwise death could not be passed down because death is the CONDEMNATION for sin. When Adam sinned "ALL SINNED" because ALL humanity was literally and actually ONE with Adam.

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.​

I have answered this illogical objection at least three times and no one has responded to the evidences I presented. However, just for you, I will do it again.

1. It is a contrast between FALLEN fathers and their INDIVIDUAL acts of sin and the UNFALLEN Adam and his REPRESENTATIVE singular act of sin.

2. FALLEN fathers do not stand in the POSITION to their posterity as Adam or Christ stood in POSITION to their posterity. If so, then the whole comparison between Adam and Christ by Paul is stupid as neither would have any consequences on their posterity but according to your position each person stands individually.

The Bible explicitly says that death is passed, not that the guilt of sin is passed. The problem is, by the time we die, we HAVE sinned, and therefore deserve the death that reigns in us. Jesus was the only person to live a sinless life and not deserve death.

Did you finish reading Paul? Death came to all men "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE" equally so did "CONDEMNATION" and there can be no condemnation where there is no sin or guilt - period! Is death the condemnation for sin? What then is the basis of death in infants if there is no condemnation for sin being charged to infants? Paul makes it clear that it is by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE that death, condemnation, judgement passed to all men NOT by many mens sins, death, condemnation and judgement passed to all men as you assert.​

 

[Dr. Walter]

makes no difference to the poetic nature and meaning of the passage.

Will you please explain the heremenutic principle by which you make "poetic nature" equal to symbolic or spiritualization or non-literal in meaning?

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you wish to treat Psalms 58 with ultra literalism (rather than as poetry), lets see just where that takes us, shall we?

You believe babies speak lies as they come out of the womb
You believe the sons of man have venom like a cobra (literally)
You believe David asked God to shatter the teeth of (literal) lions
You believe the sons of man can melt in the sun
You believe that David is asking God to cause the mothers of wicked people to miscarry them
You believe that inanimate pots can "feel" fire
You believe the righteous should wash their feet in the blood of the wicked people (literally)

Surely, you wish to be consistent in your interpretation of Psalms 58 -- clearly you believe it to be completely literal and not poetic.

You are being inconsistent with your own charges. I could equally respond do you believe the following things are non-literal:

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


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

Are the above to be taken NON-literal? Is not verse 3 a further commentary on the literal expressions of verses 1-2? If so, then even if we spiritualize verse 3 or make it non-literal do you honestly believe what it symoblizes will not express a commentary upon the literal ideas expressed in verses 1-2?????


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

Are the "wicked" symbolic of something or some different than what has been literally expressed in verse 1-2????

Are "wicked" born? Do "wicked" come from the "womb"? Do the idea's of "speaking lies" convey something different than what is charged to them in verses 1-2? Nothing is stated in verses 1-3 that cannot be understood literally.

However, verses 3-10 is clearly symbolic language but symbolic language that expresses the LITERAL charges in verses 1-3

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.

Are these descriptions any different than what Paul uses in Romans 2:12-18 to characterize the fallen human nature, the unregenerate condition/state of all mankind????? What makes you think they are different here according to the introduction provided in verses 1-2?

I am saying you are not being objective with the Biblical context or evidences but are placing "spin" on them to suit your own bias.

 

[Gup20]

What Biblical evidence can you present that Jesse had sex with David's mother out of wedlock???? Please present the evidence or drop the argument as there is NOTHING to support it.

This is known as a strawman fallacy. Never did I say that Jesse had sex out of wedlock. And even if I had made that statement (which I did not) you would have to assume that fornication was the only sin in the world to make that giant leap in logic.

What kind of irrational nonsense is this? David is presented as the OBJECT of conception and neither David or his mother can be the subject as CONCEPTION is an act of God not of mother's and fathers. No, God is not the author of the sin nature, just the author of CONCEPTION which follows the reproductive principle "after its own kind."

It's like you ran out of bullets and then threw your gun at me.

Neither David or his mother are the subject? God is the subject? The verb here is chuwl which means to twist, writhe, travail, bear, bring forth, to be born, to suffer. So God gave literal birth to David. Your rationalizations are just getting more and more desperate.

Many parents desire to conceive children and can't.

Many parents desire to conceive children and can.

No, God is not the author of the sin nature, just the author of CONCEPTION which follows the reproductive principle "after its own kind."

I agree God is not the author of sin nature (which is why I am not a proponent of TULIP).

You fail to acknowledge that Paul says "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS" not "by MANY MENS SINS many men were made sinners."

Actually I did acknowledge that in post #150. Let me refresh your memory:

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.

You also faith to acknowledge that that BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE many were CONDEMNED but according to your theory they are not condemned by one man's disobedience but by their own disobedience independent of Adam's act of disobedience. Death is passed down because they are condemned by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE otherwise death could not be passed down because death is the CONDEMNATION for sin. When Adam sinned "ALL SINNED" because ALL humanity was literally and actually ONE with Adam.

With one exception, I (and my point of view) agree with everything here. The one point I will contend is your mischaracterization of my point of view. I do believe they are condemned because of Adam's sin. They are forced to live with the death that resulted from Adam's sin, though they are not guilty of Adam's sin. The distinction is that God JUDGED the world the very day that Adam sinned, and death was instituted as a result of Adam's sin. Every being on earth from that point on was subject to death (even Christ). It wasn't until Christ died having lived a sinless life that he gained power over death.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.​

The day Adam sinned, death entered the world as judgement for Adam's sin (we know because God killed animals to make clothes for them). Romans 5 says that death reigned over those who did not partake in Adam's sin until the time of Moses. It doesn't say sin reigned, it says death reigned. It actually says their sin was not imputed (meaning they had sinned, but it wasn't counted against them because their was no law).

Adam's sin being passed is in direct violation of Biblical law:

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.​

This verse makes it clear that everyone will be judged for their own sin, not the sin of their predecessor. Romans 5:12 says "for all have sinned". It doesn't say all have sinned in Adam. Adam was the first to sin, and bring death... and that death is passed to all, for all have sinned. Nowhere in Rom 5:12 doesn't it say "in adam".

Rom 3:23 says that all have sinned, but it says absolutely nothing about Adam.

James says,

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

1. It is a contrast between FALLEN fathers and their INDIVIDUAL acts of sin and the UNFALLEN Adam and his REPRESENTATIVE singular act of sin.

2. FALLEN fathers do not stand in the POSITION to their posterity as Adam or Christ stood in POSITION to their posterity. If so, then the whole comparison between Adam and Christ by Paul is stupid as neither would have any consequences on their posterity but according to your position each person stands individually.

1. Sounds interesting. Unfortunately you have given zero by way of supporting scripture for your claim. I read through Eze 18, for example, and found no references to Adam.

I did find, however:

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.​

How can turning from his own sin save him if he is guilty of Adam's sin?

The Apostle Paul says,

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.​

2. Yes, each person does stand individually. The Bible makes that abundantly clear (the verses I've already listed show that quite well). However, the day Adam ate of the fruit, God judged the whole creation and death entered. Now that same death is with us and persists. Thing is.... except Jesus, everyone has sinned and deserves the death that reigns within them.

Did you finish reading Paul? Death came to all men "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE" equally so did "CONDEMNATION" and there can be no condemnation where there is no sin or guilt - period!

Indeed... but it is not Adam's guilt or sin, it is their own.

Is death the condemnation for sin? What then is the basis of death in infants if there is no condemnation for sin being charged to infants?

I personally believe infants who die do not go to hell for this very reason. They died having had no knowledge of the law or of sin. Nevertheless, death reigns even when sin is not imputed.

Paul makes it clear that it is by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE that death, condemnation, judgement passed to all men NOT by many mens sins, death, condemnation and judgement passed to all men as you assert.

Indeed. God judged the world with death for Adam's sin. Consider that the animals are not required to follow the law, yet they die because of Adam's sin... because of the death that entered the world from Adam's sin. However, an animal was eligible to be a sacrifice for a human's sin in the old testament. If the animals die because Adam's sin is passed to them (rather than dying because the death that resulted from Adam's sin is passed to them) then how can they be an acceptable sacrifice for our sin? Wouldn't their death be warranted because they bear the guilt of Adam's sin and therefore they would be an unacceptable propitiation for our sin?

Similarly, we were all infected by death because of the condemnation that fell on Adam. By the time we die, we have sinned and in doing so deserve the death within us. Those who die before they have the capability to make the choice do not have their sin imputed.

Jesus was the only one who was slain having had the opportunity to make the choice, and yet remained sinless.

 

[Gup20]

Will you please explain the heremenutic principle by which you make "poetic nature" equal to symbolic or spiritualization or non-literal in meaning?

What I meant to say is "poetically" both mean the same thing - that David was extolling the depth of his sinfulness. Where hermeneutics comes into play is in interpreting the greater implications and applying them beyond the immediate intended meaning (implications beyond David trying to convey his own sinfulness).

In other words, both interpretations fit within the intended poetic meaning of the chapter (to convey David's sinfulness) but only one of them will be hermeneutically correct, and thereby convey the greater meaning with further reaching implications than to the condition of David's own individual sinfulness.

 

[Gup20]

You are being inconsistent with your own charges. I could equally respond do you believe the following things are non-literal:

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


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

Are the above to be taken NON-literal?

It depends upon how many grams violence weighs... but I'm open minded... if you can provide your answer in pounds, I'll do the conversion to grams on my own.

And how does he do anything inside his heart without cutting and bleeding out?

Are these descriptions any different than what Paul uses in Romans 2:12-18 to characterize the fallen human nature, the unregenerate condition/state of all mankind????? What makes you think they are different here according to the introduction provided in verses 1-2?

Uh... yeah. Because Psalms is written as poetry and Romans is a letter or epistle.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It depends upon how many grams violence weighs... but I'm open minded... if you can provide your answer in pounds, I'll do the conversion to grams on my own.

And how does he do anything inside his heart without cutting and bleeding out?



Uh... yeah. Because Psalms is written as poetry and Romans is a letter or epistle.

It is very obvious to me at least, that it is futile to conduct any objective discussion with you.

 

[steaver]

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!

This is what TULIP does to believers. Learn what this means...Everlasting Gospel...and you will understand the tree and the command not to eat. :wavey:

 

[steaver]

As we can see, there is two, sometimes three, very plausable applications/definitions when it comes to the proof text given for TULIP. This is why the issue should be placed in the "non-essential" category of Christian brotherhood. Charity is more important than the rise or fall of TULIP.

God Bless! :love2:

 

[steaver]

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!

Interesting rebutal. Can you prove your theory by something God said that Adam chose to die with Eve because he loved her so much?

My theory seems more probable than yours since the whole of scripture presses the point of believing God and the just shall walk by faith. God may not have said it, but Adam had a clear choice before him, believe God and live or believe Satan and die.

 

[Amy.G]

No. Jesus did not teach TULIP. But He did make them. :love2: