Double Double Toil and Trouble

[Jacob_Elliott]

According to the infallible Word of God, physically scrubbing oneself or being scrubbed with a course plant will wash away sins.
This is unambiguously stated in Psalm 51.
Psa 51:7
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
You cannot ignore this Scripture Jacob.
So....stop twisting Scripture and telling sinners that simply confessing sin and believing on Christ and repenting will wash away sin, insist the true Gospel which requires a ritual scrubbing from a hyssop plant is necessary for Salvation.

Prior to this ritual cleansing, God chastises men by breaking their bones when they sin (at least his own children).
Psa 51:8
Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

As you said to Winman:

See how absurd that hermeneutic is? Take one statement in Poetic literature literally, and then ignore the other statements just two verses down?

Here's how it happens:

step1.) People assume Original Guilt (they've heard it all their life)
step 2.) The Scriptures are loaded with every conceivable statement that men choose to go astray and BECOME sinners (especially the Old Testament)
step 3.) Those who assume Original Guilt desperate for a passage which calls infants wicked see vs. 5 and their pre-conceived notions kick in.
step 4.) Knowing a literal understanding of vs. 7 and 8 would be absurd, they choose to (rightly) understand it as poetic liscence
step 5.) Because of the oft repetition, the pre-conditioning and the teachings of someone else, they ignore that same standard and apply vs. 5 literally with no justification for why it is any different than vs. 7,8.

I heard that application all my life, and believed it for most of it.......but it was absurd for me to understand vs. 5 that way then, and it is equally absurd to now.

Are you serious,? Sarcasm is occasionally lost on me, so please tell me your not serious

 

[Inspector Javert]

Are you serious,? Sarcasm is occasionally lost on me, so please tell me your not serious

Well, obviously....the bit about God literally breaking legs, and ritual cleansing from hyssop plants was sarcasm (I thought I might have been more clear about that)...but it was designed to illustrate the point that a poem/poetry....is not always to be taken as literally descriptive of a process or a thing.

Thus, since no one exactly derives a doctrine from the request "purge me with hyssop" or David's description of God "breaking his legs"...so also it stands to reason that it is not justified to use verse 5 to derive a doctrine as specific as Original Guilt.......it's....:flower: poetry. :flower:

 

[Skandelon]

Winman, you are debating me like I'm one of the Calvinists and thus I don't think you are reading me clearly. I don't necessarily take the same approach they are taking on this issue and I want you to engage me, not what you think I believe.

I've asked several questions that you didn't actually answer. Instead you defended your view. But have you noticed that we seem to be talking past each other?

You are speaking about righteousness according to law...the Moral Code....the Breaking of a Command. Of course the unborn and babies haven't themselves broken the commands...how could they? But they also haven't kept the commands. They haven't done what Jesus did. They haven't merited salvation by works of the Law...and they never could. Adam proved that. With regard to the path to righteousness by way of LAW...NNE SHALL ENTER! The only thing the law does is reveal our need for God's grace...and even babies need grace, they just don't know it yet.

And all your analogies were about righteousness through grace, not righteousness by Law. For example, you mentioned Children. They are pointed to not because they are righteous according to the law (do you have KIDS?) but they are relatively humble and trusting. God gives GRACE to the HUMBLE and to those who trust. That is an analogy of righteousness by GRACE, not LAW. Jesus is not saying you have to be as morally righteous as a child, he is saying you have to be as humble and trusting as a child. Why? Because God gives grace to the humble, not because humility earns or merits salvation.

But note the elder son, he NEVER sinned, and was NEVER lost.

I'm so glad you brought up the elder brother because this perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about. Both brothers were lost. One was lost in his rebellion and the other was lost in his religion. Both needed GRACE. Both needed their relationship fixed with their father.

At the Father's happiest moment the eldest son doesn't celebrate with him as he would if they had a right relationship, but he despises his father and his rebellious brother. Why? The elder son was attempting to earn his father's affection through works, through merit, through law (just like the pharisees of Christ's day).

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

Well, obviously....the bit about God literally breaking legs, and ritual cleansing from hyssop plants was sarcasm (I thought I might have been more clear about that)...but it was designed to illustrate the point that a poem/poetry....is not always to be taken as literally descriptive of a process or a thing.

Thus, since no one exactly derives a doctrine from the request "purge me with hyssop" or David's description of God "breaking his legs"...so also it stands to reason that it is not justified to use verse 5 to derive a doctrine as specific as Original Guilt.......it's....:flower: poetry. :flower:

I'm not much of a poet and don't read as much as I should, I do however remember I
n fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.

He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.

A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.
This is great poetry that displays truth. It's FOOLISH to write something off as fiction just because it's in story or poetry format

 

[Inspector Javert]

It's FOOLISH to write something off as fiction just because it's in story or poetry format

Who's calling Biblical literature "fiction"? I was not aware that anyone here was.

All of those statements of David contained real truths. Truths about how he felt, how the Holy Spirit convicts us, how we are to perceive ourselves when humbled by our own sin, how our sin separates us from fellowship with God, how empty we are and feel when we are in sin, how true repentance and God's cleansing grace restores right fellowship with him etc............

I'm just saying what it does NOT do, is establish some specific doctrine about how all infants (at conception) are inherently guilty of sin anymore than it establishes that the method of God's cleansing us from sin is to physically scrub us with a hyssop plant or that when sinning, God physically breaks our bones....

In other words:
Yes...Columbus was indeed kewl and sailed in 1492 and all that, and subsequently that poem contains truth.

But do you honestly BELIEVE that the water in the ocean possesses the property of actually being BLUE?
If you fail to believe that the ocean is indeed "blue" are you then calling that poem and it's historical truths "fiction"?

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

Who's calling Biblical literature "fiction"? I was not aware that anyone here was.

All of those statements of David contained real truths. Truths about how he felt, how the Holy Spirit convicts us, how we are to perceive ourselves when humbled by our own sin, how our sin separates us from fellowship with God, how empty we are and feel when we are in sin, how true repentance and God's cleansing grace restores right fellowship with him etc............

I'm just saying what it does NOT do, is establish some specific doctrine about how all infants (at conception) are inherently guilty of sin anymore than it establishes that the method of God's cleansing us from sin is to physically scrub us with a hyssop plant or that when sinning, God physically breaks our bones....

In other words:
Yes...Columbus was indeed kewl and sailed in 1492 and all that, and subsequently that poem contains truth.

But do you honestly BELIEVE that the water in the ocean possesses the property of actually being BLUE?
If you fail to believe that the ocean is indeed "blue" are you then calling that poem and it's historical truths "fiction"?

The reason God must scrub us is because we are unclean from birth
For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. (Psalm 51:3-5, 7 ESV)

 

[Inspector Javert]

The reason God must scrub us is because we are unclean from birth

Chapter and verse for this assertion would be helpful.

For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.

Those are actual "sins"...real sins, that he committed. Lust, adultery, murder etc....he did none of this prior to his birth.

Against you, you only, have I sinned

Does "Have I sinned"... sound like a substantive innate guilt pre-existent from his nativity to you? Or does it sound more akin to murder and adultery?

and done what is evil in your sight

Does "and done" sound to you like it references a status of wickedness in a pre-pubescent infant (or pre-birth embryo) or more like....a very adult David admitting to having "DONE" something like, oh...say...(to pick something at random)....adultery, lust, murder etc..
Now, remember....you've already asserted that vis-à-vis Jacob and Esau that they had "DONE" no evil, so consider that before you answer.

so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. (Psalm 51:3-5, 7 ESV)

Simply re-quoting the well-known (we probably both have it ostensibly memorized) passage the meaning of which we are debating at present does not serve to prove the correctness of your Hermeneutic. I already possess one or two copies of the Holy Writ myself as well.

 

[Winman]

Winman, you are debating me like I'm one of the Calvinists and thus I don't think you are reading me clearly. I don't necessarily take the same approach they are taking on this issue and I want you to engage me, not what you think I believe.

I've asked several questions that you didn't actually answer. Instead you defended your view. But have you noticed that we seem to be talking past each other?

You are speaking about righteousness according to law...the Moral Code....the Breaking of a Command. Of course the unborn and babies haven't themselves broken the commands...how could they? But they also haven't kept the commands. They haven't done what Jesus did. They haven't merited salvation by works of the Law...and they never could. Adam proved that. With regard to the path to righteousness by way of LAW...NNE SHALL ENTER! The only thing the law does is reveal our need for God's grace...and even babies need grace, they just don't know it yet.

And all your analogies were about righteousness through grace, not righteousness by Law. For example, you mentioned Children. They are pointed to not because they are righteous according to the law (do you have KIDS?) but they are relatively humble and trusting. God gives GRACE to the HUMBLE and to those who trust. That is an analogy of righteousness by GRACE, not LAW. Jesus is not saying you have to be as morally righteous as a child, he is saying you have to be as humble and trusting as a child. Why? Because God gives grace to the humble, not because humility earns or merits salvation.

I agree completely that Jacob and Esau had also done no good, that is directly what Romans 9:11 says.

Nevertheless, it is sin that sends us to hell, the wages of SIN is death, and Jacob and Esau had done no evil. They were not much different than the good angels. The good angels have not merited heaven, but neither have they been cast out of heaven for evil.

Note that in the parable of the lost sheep, there was no celebration for the 99 sheep who never went astray and did not need repentance. Likewise, notice the elder son complained that no celebration had ever been made for him.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

There is no celebration for those who were never lost.

I'm so glad you brought up the elder brother because this perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about. Both brothers were lost. One was lost in his rebellion and the other was lost in his religion. Both needed GRACE. Both needed their relationship fixed with their father.

At the Father's happiest moment the eldest son doesn't celebrate with him as he would if they had a right relationship, but he despises his father and his rebellious brother. Why? The elder son was attempting to earn his father's affection through works, through merit, through law (just like the pharisees of Christ's day).

There is NO WAY the elder son is lost, you cannot possibly get that from the text. The father calls him "Son" and says, "thou art EVER with me and ALL that I have is THINE". This is absolutely not a lost person. God does not call lost persons his "son" and sinners are separated from God by sin. This young man was NEVER separated from his father and never will be.

Note also that the father contrasts the elder son to his younger brother the prodigal. Only the prodigal was "dead" and "lost". The elder son was never dead or lost.

Finally, twice Jesus said the prodigal son was "alive again". If Original Sin is true, then no man was ever born alive to begin with, and it could not be said that any man was "alive again", but Jesus said this twice pertaining to the prodigal. This is further proof that the prodigal son was not born dead in sin, and he was not originally separated from his father. It is only when he knowingly and willingly went out in sin that he became dead and lost.

The elder son was NEVER dead or lost. You cannot get that from the text, the text by contrasting him to his prodigal brother strongly implies he was never lost or dead.

Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

NO WAY the elder son was lost.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

Chapter and verse for this assertion would be helpful.

Those are actual "sins"...real sins, that he committed. Lust, adultery, murder etc....he did none of this prior to his birth.

Does "Have I sinned"... sound like a substantive innate guilt pre-existent from his nativity to you? Or does it sound more akin to murder and adultery?

Does "and done" sound to you like it references a status of wickedness in a pre-pubescent infant (or pre-birth embryo) or more like....a very adult David admitting to having "DONE" something like, oh...say...(to pick something at random)....adultery, lust, murder etc..
Now, remember....you've already asserted that vis-à-vis Jacob and Esau that they had "DONE" no evil, so consider that before you answer.

Simply re-quoting the well-known (we probably both have it ostensibly memorized) passage the meaning of which we are debating at present does not serve to prove the correctness of your Hermeneutic. I already possess one or two copies of the Holy Writ myself as well.

Alright ignore psalm 51 I don't really care anymore.
Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are "sons of disobedience." Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all "by nature children of wrath." If we are all "by nature children of wrath," it can only be because we are all by nature sinners

Proverbs 22:15 says "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child." Genesis 8:21 declares, "...the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence...so that the word here translated youth, comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy."

A final point I would like to make is that if we are born without sin or rightious then it is possible not to sin and to be saved without Christ and the grace of God, which we know can't be true because Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Thank you for your responses Jacob (I haven't bothered to say Welcome to B.B. yet) sorry! :wavey:

Gonna go play with my gazillion kids. I would like to respond to this post of yours later. I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation. I hope I have not in any way been rude, insulting or un-brotherly in my posts to you:1_grouphug:

 

[Skandelon]

I agree completely that Jacob and Esau had also done no good, that is directly what Romans 9:11 says.

Nevertheless, it is sin that sends us to hell

No, there are sinners in heaven and hell. Unbelief sends you to hell.

"they were unable to enter because of unbelief." -Heb. 3:19

We are not on the merit/law system because Christ fulfilled that. The only reason anyone doesn't enter the promised land is due to their unbelief...not due to their sin. Sin has been atoned. God graces the humble...those who believe and confess.

Note that in the parable of the lost sheep, there was no celebration for the 99 sheep who never went astray and did not need repentance.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to argue here Winman? Do the 99 represent babies and those who haven't reached the 'age of accountability?' Who doesn't need repentance besides them in your system?

There is no celebration for those who were never lost.

And so you think the elder brother represents babies? What other commentary supports your view on this? I'd be interested to read up on this.

Finally, twice Jesus said the prodigal son was "alive again". If Original Sin is true, then no man was ever born alive to begin with

Well, I take a different approach with the analogy of 'death' than the Calvinists do so this rebuttal doesn't apply to me. I agree with you on this.

I just think you have missed the point of the analogy in contrasting the Jews, those following the law, and the Gentiles, those living in open rebellion. I believe MOST commentators see that as the point of this analogy...and its not to say the pharisees don't need grace, but to show that the Jews don't need to be bitter about their ingrafting...

 

[Winman]

Alright ignore psalm 51 I don't really care anymore.
Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are "sons of disobedience." Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all "by nature children of wrath." If we are all "by nature children of wrath," it can only be because we are all by nature sinners

Proverbs 22:15 says "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child." Genesis 8:21 declares, "...the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence...so that the word here translated youth, comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy."

A final point I would like to make is that if we are born without sin or rightious then it is possible not to sin and to be saved without Christ and the grace of God, which we know can't be true because Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me.

The parable of the prodigal son actually answers this question of yours.

The prodigal son was not originally lost;

Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

Note how the prodigal turned on his father and rebelled against him. He asked for his inheritance. This amounts to telling his Father that he is dead to him, a tremendous insult.

Luk 15:12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

Note how the prodigal son knowingly and willingly turned on his father and left his home. He went out and wasted his substance in riotous living.

Now note that he "joined himself to a citizen of that country". I believe this represents Satan. This is when a person becomes a child of the devil, a child of wrath, when they knowingly and willingly choose to live a life of sin.

Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

Many people dismiss parables, but Jesus said that parables contained spiritual truths, hidden from unbelievers, but revealed to believers. These analogies have real applications. This is when the prodigal son joined himself to the devil and became a child of wrath. But he was not that way originally.

I believe a lot of the problem is with the word "nature". Nature can mean the way you are born, your instincts, your constitution. But nature can also mean learned behavior, and most of the time this is what the scriptures are saying. Men learn sin from their parents and those around them.

1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

Note that Peter says our "vain conversation" or sinful lifestyle was received by tradition from our fathers.

Here is another famous verse used to supposedly prove we are born with a sin nature, that actually says the exact opposite.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Calvinists especially love this verse, as they claim it proves Total Inability. It does no such thing, in fact, it says the exact opposite.

If men are born with a sin nature that compels them to sin, then these Jews could have justly replied,

"Why do you condemn us for sin Jeremiah? You yourself say we MUST sin, it is our nature, just as a leopard is born with spots, and the Ethiopian is born with dark skin. It is not our fault we have a sin nature, God gave us a sin nature just like he gave the leopard his spots, and the Ethiopian his dark skin."

And you know what? They would be absolutely correct! It would not be their fault that they sinned, but God's if this verse means what Calvinism interprets it to mean.

No, in reality it means the opposite. Jeremiah is condemning these Jews because it is NOT their born nature to sin, but they have chosen to sin, and been so obstinate to refuse to repent that it is as if they were born sinners!

And note that Jeremiah says they are "accustomed" to sin. The word accustomed means a learned behavior, not a natural behavior. Nobody is born with a cigarette in their mouth, and most folks choke and cough the first time they try to smoke, because it is not natural. But if they continue to smoke they become accustomed or used to it, and in time it almost becomes their nature to smoke.

The same could be said with drinking, most folks have great difficulty drinking the first few times, but as they continue to drink they become accustomed to it.

And this is how the scriptures describe men. God has made men upright, but they have sought out many inventions. Men go out and commit sin, and in time it becomes their nature to sin. Men separate themselves from God by sin, and join themselves to the devil by sin. This is what the Bible teaches.

 

[Skandelon]

You are speaking about righteousness according to law...the Moral Code....the Breaking of a Command. Of course the unborn and babies haven't themselves broken the commands...how could they? But they also haven't kept the commands. They haven't done what Jesus did. They haven't merited salvation by works of the Law...and they never could. Adam proved that. With regard to the path to righteousness by way of LAW...NNE SHALL ENTER! The only thing the law does is reveal our need for God's grace...and even babies need grace, they just don't know it yet.

And all your analogies were about righteousness through grace, not righteousness by Law. For example, you mentioned Children. They are pointed to not because they are righteous according to the law (do you have KIDS?) but they are relatively humble and trusting. God gives GRACE to the HUMBLE and to those who trust. That is an analogy of righteousness by GRACE, not LAW. Jesus is not saying you have to be as morally righteous as a child, he is saying you have to be as humble and trusting as a child. Why? Because God gives grace to the humble, not because humility earns or merits salvation.

Winman, did you see this part?

 

[Winman]

No, there are sinners in heaven and hell. Unbelief sends you to hell.

No Skan, they are no longer sinners, their sin is washed away. They are as white as snow.

"they were unable to enter because of unbelief." -Heb. 3:19

All sin is unbelief. If Adam and Eve would have believed God's word, they would not have eaten the forbidden fruit.

We are not on the merit/law system because Christ fulfilled that. The only reason anyone doesn't enter the promised land is due to their unbelief...not due to their sin. Sin has been atoned. God graces the humble...those who believe and confess.

No, you are wrong. When the rich ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit life, Jesus told him "You know the commandments, this do and live". If a man perfectly kept the commandments, he would merit eternal life.

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

If a man perfectly keeps the commandments, he will merit life. When the scriptures say that no man is justified by the law, it is simply saying that no man has or will ever perfectly keep the law. But in reality, if a man did keep the law, he would live. Jesus does not lie.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to argue here Winman? Do the 99 represent babies and those who haven't reached the 'age of accountability?' Who doesn't need repentance besides them in your system?

I think the 99 just persons who have never sinned and need no repentance are the millions, if not billions of unborn and little children who have died before they reached the age of accountability. Heaven must be FULL of children like this.

I can think of no one else that lived without sinning.

And I cannot believe Jesus would make up nonsensical stories about people that could not possibly exist. That makes no sense whatsoever. Jesus was not given to flights of fancy. And Jesus did not make mistakes, if he said the elder son never sinned, he knew exactly what he was saying.

And so you think the elder brother represents babies? What other commentary supports your view on this? I'd be interested to read up on this.

Yes, he died early, that is why he has been there (heaven) so many years serving his father.

I doubt you'll find anybody anywhere that interprets this scripture like this, so what? You can read, it says what it says.

Well, I take a different approach with the analogy of 'death' than the Calvinists do so this rebuttal doesn't apply to me. I agree with you on this.

You believe death is separation, and the elder son was never separated from this father and never will be. That is what the text says.

I just think you have missed the point of the analogy in contrasting the Jews, those following the law, and the Gentiles, those living in open rebellion. I believe MOST commentators see that as the point of this analogy...and its not to say the pharisees don't need grace, but to show that the Jews don't need to be bitter about their ingrafting...

Give me a break, this parable has nothing to do with Jews and Gentiles.

The three parables are one. The Pharisees condemned Jesus because he spent time and ate with "sinners". Jesus is showing these Pharisees that these wicked sinners are in reality children of God that God is very concerned about. He is not willing that even one of these persons perish, he will leave 99 that have not sinned and need no repentance to go and look for that one lost sinner. He is showing these Pharisees that these "wicked sinners" that they despise hold great value to God.

Nevertheless, Jesus is also showing that there are some persons who have not sinned and need no repentance. I cannot think of any persons these could be except children. And it is notable in Matthew 18 when speaking specifically of children that Jesus repeats the story of a shepherd with 100 sheep, one goes astray and becomes lost, he searches and recovers it.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

It's right there if you will receive it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do the Calvinistic believers who frequent this forum affirm Double Predestination?

I know many Calvinists denounce the reprobation concept of Double predestination, but didn't know what most of you believed in this regard...

I do not, as my understanding is that while the Lord himself determines by act of His will the salvation of those whom he desired to save out from among all sinners, in that He determined and predestined those to salvation, He passive fashion passed over the rest, as he alloows/permits them to go the way they want to go!

 

[Skandelon]

No, you are wrong. When the rich ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit life, Jesus told him "You know the commandments, this do and live". If a man perfectly kept the commandments, he would merit eternal life.

And you honestly think that is what Jesus wanted him to walk away thinking? That he could earn his way in by keeping the law? ORRRR could Jesus have been doing the very purpose of the law, which is to reveal his need for grace? The point is to get men OFF the merit based rat wheel that gets them no where. Its to reveal their need, not provide an alternative solution.

If a man perfectly keeps the commandments, he will merit life.

I suppose we could argue that point but that would be about as silly as arguing we might be saved if we could jump to Saturn and dance around its rings. And that's the point....the law reveals that it is FRUITLESS to try cause you aint gonna ever jump that high or dance that good. You NEED Grace...and so does the baby, so did the elder brother, and so does every one for all time.

I'd even say that Adam needed Grace. Why do you suppose God put the tree in the garden, Winman? Adam was lacking something. He wasn't perfect. He was innocent, but he wasn't perfect. He needed to understand unconditional love. He had never been pursued and loved unconditionally. He lacked that and thus HE too needed grace. He needed to experience true love...and he who is forgiven much loves much.

When the scriptures say that no man is justified by the law, it is simply saying that no man has or will ever perfectly keep the law.

Exactly, so why argue that the brother represents those who do? Why take that view?

I think the 99 just persons who have never sinned and need no repentance are the millions, if not billions of unborn and little children who have died before they reached the age of accountability. Heaven must be FULL of children like this.

Really? You really think that is what he had in mind when he told that parable?

And I cannot believe Jesus would make up nonsensical stories about people that could not possibly exist.

Its a parable, Winman. Its given to make a specific point, not to fully represent the full doctrine of man.

I doubt you'll find anybody anywhere that interprets this scripture like this, so what? You can read, it says what it says.

So, we can call this view Winmanism?

Enough said... You can have the last word.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

Thank you for your responses Jacob (I haven't bothered to say Welcome to B.B. yet) sorry! :wavey:

Gonna go play with my gazillion kids. I would like to respond to this post of yours later. I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation. I hope I have not in any way been rude, insulting or un-brotherly in my posts to you:1_grouphug:

Thank you very much! Have fun!

 

[Skandelon]

This boards statement of faith...

III. Man

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I'd rather not speak for Winman...but I think simple clarification might be helpful:

And you honestly think that is what Jesus wanted him to walk away thinking? That he could earn his way in by keeping the law?

No....his position is that he has NEITHER broken NOR fulfilled the law. Win insists that:
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

ORRRR could Jesus have been doing the very purpose of the law, which is to reveal his need for grace?

I think Winman insists that "grace" is necessary for "sinners" or Those who have ACTUALLY SINNED.

I think Winman would say that an infant has no need of "grace".

(As a liner note....I don't actually agree with him that this parable is about innocent infants etc...)

Just trying to sum-up what I think his clearly stated position to be.

 

[Inspector Javert]

This boards statement of faith...

III. Man

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.

Winman affirms this...especially the portion you bolded.

He agrees that they are inclined irreparably towards evil-doing and that that is inherited from Adam by their very nature and their present accursed environment....

What he doesn't say, is that they are actually GUILTY of having committed any sin when it is (by default) impossible for them to have actually done so.

I don't see how that is so very difficult to understand.

Many Christians throughout history have affirmed a similar Theology.


I hope is wasn't overly presumptuous to speak for him....or that I mis-represent his view.