Double Double Toil and Trouble

[Yeshua1]

what condemns a sinner is that they are born into Adam, that we have received in us the penalty God pronounced in the curse from/of the fall...

Unbelief just exhibits/manifests that sinful nature...

NONE could ever keep the law, ONLY jesus as God in human flesh could do that!

 

[Skandelon]

what condemns a sinner is that they are born into Adam, that we have received in us the penalty God pronounced in the curse from/of the fall...

Unbelief just exhibits/manifests that sinful nature...

NONE could ever keep the law, ONLY jesus as God in human flesh could do that!

Again, 'they could not enter due to their unbelief.'

That is what the text says and that is the truth. It wasn't because they broke the moral code that they couldn't enter, it was because of unbelief, period.

Maybe you will listen to Calvin, he wrote: "No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief."

 

[Skandelon]

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.

Two things...

1. I'm pretty sure that he denies that mankind is born with a sin nature...and I believe that is what is being described above. And yes I understand that view and realize others hold to it (not typically 'baptist' believers, but yes others do affirm this)

2. The part I was accusing of being NEW and UNIQUE to Winman is his view of the parable of the prodigal's elder brother and the lost coins as being representative of babies and the unborn.

I don't think any other believer has ever held to that view in the history of Christendom, but I suppose I could be wrong.

 

[Winman]

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.

Of course this man was a sinner who needed to be forgiven, but that does not negate the fact that if any man perfectly keeps the law and never sins he will merit eternal 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.

Nevertheless, it is true that if a man perfectly keeps the commandments he will earn eternal life. Jesus did not lie to him.

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.

He could not have been obedient unless he had choice.

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

The reason I take the view that the elder son never sinned is because Jesus said he never sinned. Do you think Jesus would say such an incredible thing by mistake?

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

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

There is a reason Jesus told us about 99 just persons which need no repentance. There is a reason Jesus told us a story about the elder son who never sinned. Jesus did not say vain or nonsensical things Skan.

So, we can call this view Winmanism?

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

You can read. I am not the person who spoke of 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance, I am not the person who told the incredible story of the elder son who never sinned at any time, JESUS DID.

You act like I am the one who said these things. Open your Bible and read for yourself, it was Jesus who said this, and Jesus knows what he is talking about.

 

[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:

Again, 'they could not enter due to their unbelief.'

That is what the text says and that is the truth. It wasn't because they broke the moral code that they couldn't enter, it was because of unbelief, period.

Maybe you will listen to Calvin, he wrote: "No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief."

That did not just happen lol

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

Of course this man was a sinner who needed to be forgiven, but that does not negate the fact that if any man perfectly keeps the law and never sins he will merit eternal life.



Nevertheless, it is true that if a man perfectly keeps the commandments he will earn eternal life. Jesus did not lie to him.




He could not have been obedient unless he had choice.



The reason I take the view that the elder son never sinned is because Jesus said he never sinned. Do you think Jesus would say such an incredible thing by mistake?



There is a reason Jesus told us about 99 just persons which need no repentance. There is a reason Jesus told us a story about the elder son who never sinned. Jesus did not say vain or nonsensical things Skan.



You can read. I am not the person who spoke of 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance, I am not the person who told the incredible story of the elder son who never sinned at any time, JESUS DID.

You act like I am the one who said these things. Open your Bible and read for yourself, it was Jesus who said this, and Jesus knows what he is talking about.

Winman I want to understand your view better. You believe that children are born rightious ( not having sinned) but with a sin nature? And that we are not guilty for Adams sin correct?

 

[Winman]

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

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

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.

You are correct, they are not lost and do not need grace. Jesus himself spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance.

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.

You see, I don't believe Jesus said foolish, nonsensical things. I do not believe Jesus would make up stories about fictitious persons who have never sinned like the elder son unless such persons truly exist.

What is the purpose of such a story? Why go into such detail about someone who cannot possibly exist if Original Sin is true?

Well, for me the answer is easy, Original Sin is not true. And could there be someone who has never sinned? YES, children. We are directly told that Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. If they had died at this point (and millions of babies have died at this point) they would be SINLESS.

This is not rocket science, we are told directly in scripture that babies in their mother's womb have done no evil. So if they died, they would be sinless.

Is that really difficult for folks to understand?

And is it so shocking they do not need grace? Do the good angels need grace? They have never sinned.

 

[Skandelon]

Of course this man was a sinner who needed to be forgiven, but that does not negate the fact that if any man perfectly keeps the law and never sins he will merit eternal life.

I'd submit that this would be impossible since the fall, and you seem to agree, so what's the point in debating it? Like I said, it's like debating if they can jump to Saturn...why bother?

Nevertheless, it is true that if a man perfectly keeps the commandments he will earn eternal life.

I don't believe this is true due to the fall, but nevertheless, even if I did concede this point what does it matter if such is NOT POSSIBLE? The point of the law is to show its not possible, so why argue that it would be if it could be? Its silly.

The reason I take the view that the elder son never sinned is because Jesus said he never sinned. Do you think Jesus would say such an incredible thing by mistake?

I already explained Jesus' point, but you refuse to deal with my words.

The elder brother, as representative of Israel (those who kept the law), is not representing the nature of man or the doctrine of man. He is representing those who are the elect people of God who are keeping the law all these years but now are getting jealous because the Gentiles are being celebrated. Almost every commentary agrees with this interpretation, but I guess your theory that the elder brother represents the unborn babies of the world makes more sense to you?

Sorry, but that is just really strange...ok I said I'd give you the last word and here I go again..

 

[Winman]

I'd submit that this would be impossible since the fall, and you seem to agree, so what's the point in debating it? Like I said, it's like debating if they can jump to Saturn...why bother?

It is the ANSWER that Jesus gave to the lawyer.

I don't believe this is true due to the fall, but nevertheless, even if I did concede this point what does it matter if such is NOT POSSIBLE? The point of the law is to show its not possible, so why argue that it would be if it could be? Its silly.

Actually, it is quite possible, babies die in their mother's womb all the time, and they have not sinned according to Romans 9:11.

I already explained Jesus' point, but you refuse to deal with my words.

Skan, I don't need you to explain what I easily understand.

The elder brother, as representative of Israel (those who kept the law), is not representing the nature of man or the doctrine of man. He is representing those who are the elect people of God who are keeping the law all these years but now are getting jealous because the Gentiles are being celebrated. Almost every commentary agrees with this interpretation, but I guess your theory that the elder brother represents the unborn babies of the world makes more sense to you?

Sorry, but that is just really strange...ok I said I'd give you the last word and here I go again..

Skan, sorry, but I don't buy that interpretation at all. Too contrived, too forced, doesn't match up with the other three parables.

All three parables are ONE.

Luk 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

Although Jesus told four separate stories, it is ONE parable according to scripture itself.

What do all four stories have in common? The person was not lost originally.

The sheep was not lost originally;

4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

The silver piece was not originally lost;

8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

The prodigal son was not originally lost;

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

The elder son was NEVER lost;

31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

If Original Sin is true, then all I can say is that Jesus blew it big time with these four stories, because in each story he made it a point to tell us these persons were not originally lost.

If you want to believe Jesus would make such an incredible mistake, you go ahead and believe that. I find this impossible to believe.

 

[Skandelon]

Winman, just because I and the rest of scholars in Christendom don't buy your interpretation that the coins, the 99 sheep and the elder brother all represent young ones who have yet to reach the age of accountability doesn't mean we think Jesus 'made a mistake.'

We just believe he is making a different point with his ANALOGIES than the one you are attempting to read into them.

You are really WAY off in left field on this one brother. Don't you have any scholars you respect that you could consult on this? Someone you respect enough not to debate, but to listen and learn from?

 

[Winman]

Winman, just because I and the rest of scholars in Christendom don't buy your interpretation that the coins, the 99 sheep and the elder brother all represent young ones who have yet to reach the age of accountability doesn't mean we think Jesus 'made a mistake.'

We just believe he is making a different point with his ANALOGIES than the one you are attempting to read into them.

You are really WAY off in left field on this one brother. Don't you have any scholars you respect that you could consult on this? Someone you respect enough not to debate, but to listen and learn from?

Fine, I understand. And I read some of those commentaries years ago when I first read Luke 15.

It was Luke 15 that first made me doubt Original Sin. It simply does not agree with OS, because in all 4 stories the persons described are not originally lost. And these parables are not about Israel and the Gentiles, but about lost sinners that God rejoices when they repent and are saved.

And Skan, even you must admit this is common to all 4 stories. The sheep was not originally lost, the silver coin was not originally lost, the prodigal son was not originally lost, and the elder son was NEVER lost.

Jesus did not tell us these details without reason Skan. And that is a very important detail.

Original Sin is false doctrine plain and simple. And it is almost as if Jesus knew in the last days this false doctrine would abound, and so he left us these important parables in scripture. :thumbsup:

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

Why would Jesus say I am the way the truth and the light no one comes to the father but by me if it was possible to achieve salvation by Works also Ephesians 2:8

 

[Skandelon]

Fine, I understand. And I read some of those commentaries years ago when I first read Luke 15.

It was Luke 15 that first made me doubt Original Sin. It simply does not agree with OS, because in all 4 stories the persons described are not originally lost. And these parables are not about Israel and the Gentiles, but about lost sinners that God rejoices when they repent and are saved.

And Skan, even you must admit this is common to all 4 stories. The sheep was not originally lost, the silver coin was not originally lost, the prodigal son was not originally lost, and the elder son was NEVER lost.

Jesus did not tell us these details without reason Skan. And that is a very important detail.

Original Sin is false doctrine plain and simple. And it is almost as if Jesus knew in the last days this false doctrine would abound, and so he left us these important parables in scripture. :thumbsup:

Mankind wasn't originally lost either. We fell from our once innocent state in the garden and thus as a people became lost.

I do think some applications of O.S. are false, but the concept that we are born with the tendency toward pride, selfishness and sinful lives is widely accepted even by the most ardent Arminians.

I think if we were to get out of the heat of a debate forum and the competitive nature of it you wouldn't be so persistent to stick with your new found belief that these 'non-lost' people represent babies.

 

[Winman]

Mankind wasn't originally lost either. We fell from our once innocent state in the garden and thus as a people became lost.

I do think some applications of O.S. are false, but the concept that we are born with the tendency toward pride, selfishness and sinful lives is widely accepted even by the most ardent Arminians.

I think if we were to get out of the heat of a debate forum and the competitive nature of it you wouldn't be so persistent to stick with your new found belief that these 'non-lost' people represent babies.

It is not my new found belief, I read Luke 15 MANY years ago. It does not agree with Original Sin whatsoever, that is OBVIOUS. This chapter is not discussing Jews and Gentiles and you know that Skan, you are smart. No, it is about lost sinners repenting, and God and the angels in heaven rejoicing.

Luke 15 is not the only scripture that refutes Original Sin, I actually believe I could show you hundreds of scriptures that refute it, though you might be unable to see it. Some of the very scriptures used to teach OS actually refute it when properly interpreted. For example;

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

One of Calvinism's favorite verses, they believe this verse proves Total Depravity. But in truth this verse completely refutes Calvinism, because it refutes Original Sin.

No piece of clothing ever starts out as a filthy rag, absolutely NONE. All clothing starts out clean and whole. Our sin over time turns our original clean clothing of righteousness into a filthy rag.

No leaf starts out dead and brown, absolutely NONE. All leaves start out green, moist, and alive. Only over time does a leaf fade and die.

Folks do not see the forest for the trees. This verse refutes Original Sin, it shows that we start out whole and clean, but over time our sin corrupts us and finally kills us.

Pay attention and you will see ALL scripture is written like this, it shows man goes from an original good state to a corrupt state. Watch and see.

 

[Skandelon]

It is not my new found belief, I read Luke 15 MANY years ago.

I didn't mean new to you Winman, I meant new to the world...as if you discovered a brand new meaning. That in itself should be a HUGE red flag to you that you just may be wrong. Think about it, that is all I'm saying...

 

[Winman]

I didn't mean new to you Winman, I meant new to the world...as if you discovered a brand new meaning. That in itself should be a HUGE red flag to you that you just may be wrong. Think about it, that is all I'm saying...

Millions of Christians have rejected Original Sin throughout church history.

As for Luke 15, I seriously doubt I am the first Christian to notice that none of the persons was originally lost. I am sure many Christians noticed this.

And I doubt I am the first to conclude that the 99 who never sinned and need no repentance are children, who else could qualify as these persons? The same with the elder son who never sinned, who else could it be but a child? A person might think angels, but an angel is not the brother of a person (the prodigal). And besides, the "servants" would be the angels.

In addition, Matthew 18 lends support to this view, there Jesus is specifically discussing children and repeats the parable of the 99 sheep who did not go astray.

And if I were the first to come up with this interpretation (very doubtful) that would not necessarily mean I am wrong.

 

[Winman]

Why would Jesus say I am the way the truth and the light no one comes to the father but by me if it was possible to achieve salvation by Works also Ephesians 2:8

Babies that die don't achieve "salvation", they were never lost. This is why Jesus spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance. They committed no sin, what do they need to repent of?

The wages of SIN is death. If you do not sin, you do not merit death. Folks assume that just being born or conceived is sinful, that is what is wrong with this false doctrine.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

The same with the elder son who never sinned

But the Older son did sin, he was so overcome with jealousy he couldn't celebrate the return of his lost brother. Right?
But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. (Luke 15:28, 29 ESV)

 

[The Biblicist]

But the Older son did sin, he was so overcome with jealousy he couldn't celebrate the return of his lost brother. Right?
But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. (Luke 15:28, 29 ESV)

What both Winman and Skandelon are missing in their understanding and interpetation of Luke 15 is the contextual designed application. This is being directed to LOST RELIGIOUS pharisees who see themselves as ALREADY SAVED and NEVER IN NEED OF REPENTANCE.

Jesus presents this kind of person in the parables as those NEVER NEEDING REPENTANCE but declares repeatedly that the one who sees himself as LOST and in need of REPENTANCE is whom the Son brings home and rejoices over MORE than 99 LEFT in the wilderness who NEED NO SALVATION. This is the one whom HEAVEN REJOICES over MORE than nine coins NEVER LOST. This is whom the Father provides a robe, a ring, a sacrifice for MORE than one who sees himself as one who NEVER HAS SINNED AT ANY TIME, never been given a robe, a ring, or rejoiced over.

This parable repudiates the absolute nonsense of Wiman who denies original sin as Jesus is mocking his position rather than affirming it.

 

[convicted1]

Double Predestination

Calvinism, or Reformed Theology, affirms "double predestination", i.e.that God has decreed the salvation of some through election and the damnation of others through reprobation. It's supralapsarianism & in my book it makes God the first cause of sin.

Primitive Baptist's believe that predestination concerns only the salvation of the elect and that the non-elect are simply left in their fallen state to be punished for their wicked works. (Note that the word predestinate appears in it’s various forms four times in the Bible and always refers to people and not events of time.) Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5&11, Matthew 7:23, Revelation 20:13

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden with free will to eat anything there, including the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only He told them the ramifications of eating it. They were neither compulsed nor coerced when they ate of it, but received the effects of it by sinning and falling, causing their posterity to fall as well. God, through His divine work, chose the sheep from their fallen posterity through no merits of their own(doing this before Adam and Eve were created), but according to His good pleasure, to give to the Lamb to atone for their sins. By doing so, He made all plans possible to redeem them and bring them to the Lamb, ensuring He would lose none.

The goats, the fallen portion of Adam's posterity not chosen to be redeemed, being born fallen through Adam's transgression, were left in their already fallen state, and will stand before Him and give an account for the deeds done in their body.