Eternal Security is NEVER wrong.

[quantumfaith]

You are right. Conditions for salvation do not have to be listed. And they aren't for good reason. There are none to list. Salvation is unconditional. It is the free gift of God. There are no conditions on a free gift.

:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quantumfaith, does believing in God require an act of the will? If so, is not this, in and of itself, a condition of salvation??? Just wondering.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I would rather go with an inspired man - Paul than with you. He quotes and applies it to "the whole world" (Rom. 3:10-20) not merely to just one generation of mankind or to just "fools" as all men are born "fools" as God rejectors by nature.

DW, do us all a favor. If I was to address your last post effectively I would have to write a book on multiple issues. Pick one passage of Scripture or one issue (which I thought we were looking directly at the foreknowledge of God) and I will respond to it. Since you started with the following Scripture, I will address it first. Better yet, I would hope that we could stick with the direct issue of the foreknowledge of God for just a moment. :wavey:

So as not to be accused of simply overlooking your post, or failing to possess rounded objects commonly denoted of men, or being a coward, etc. etc as others have falsely accused of me of in the recent the past, I will take one of the verses you mention and address it directly although I believe it has little if anything to do with the discussion of the foreknowledge of God. :saint:




HP: No one on this list that I know of would argue that all men, especially in our generation , have become morally depraved. Scripture asserts that all are in need of repentance. The question is, does the passage of Scripture you present here make a case for original sin. (for that is what I believe you must be referring to) I say it does not for several reasons. You are a stickler for context, so it would seem to me that you should have picked up on the clear context of this passage in the first verse which you conveniently do not mention. Here it is to get us in focus with just who the Psalmist is referring to. "The FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, There is no God. THEY ((who are ‘they??? The fools) are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none( of the subset mentioned, i,e,, the fools) that doeth good.

The point is NOT that I believe that man has not became morally depraved, or that all are not sinners, but rather that this passage is NOT establishing any notion of issues like original sin, for the Jews did NOT believe man was born in sin and rightfully so. The renowned scholar Alfred Edersheim points out clearly in “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” that there was simply no place whatsoever in the theology held by the Jews for any such notion as original sin. I for one believe Mr. Edersheim in his conclusion. Others have came to that conclusion as well. The notiuon of original sin was not introduced or taught in the church prior to Augustine that is clearly and justly denoted as the father of the doctrine of original sin.

David was comparing two groups of individuals in this text as he did in other texts as well, Psalm 53 for instance, where he again pits the “FOOL” in the following manner: Ps 53:3 EVERY ONE of THEM is GONE BACK (not born that way, but GONE BACK) they are altogether BECOME FILTHY; (not born filthy) there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

David was speaking directly to those he considered as fools and was by no means making any universal acknowledgement of original sin in both Psalms, 14 as well as 53.


David uses the cliché’, “children of men” in this passage much the in the same manner he did in another passage, to point to a group of individuals unlike himself. He considered himself to be a follower of God and righteousness, and those workers of iniquity to be merely referred to as the ‘children of men.’ Listen to David as he speaks again in the same manner in yet another text. 1Sa 26:19 Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods.” Note clearly that these workers of iniquity David spoken of were NOT as himself, but are those evil persons(those 'children of men') who drove him from abiding in the presence of the inheritance of the Lord.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now I will not do as others and offer crude remarks and personal attacks nor goad you, but giving such an answer should well appear to the listener as a quick way to avoid taking the time to give a reasoned approach, or show how I have failed to present the Scriptures within their clear context. Neither does your response here add credence to any positions you have taken and clearly appear to be skirting meaningful debate by constantly jumping from this Scripture to that Scripture without any sound exegesis of the passages mentioned. I fully understand that you are free to answer as you will and I will leave it at that for now.

By the way, do the readers such as DHK, CCrobinson and others see how one can coin their words apart from personal attacks?? It can be done in a Christian manner if one has a willingness to, even when they disagree. You don’t have to accuse one of being a coward, or lacking manly stones. :thumbs:

Now DW, if you are going to point to Romans 3: 10-20, why not share with us how the apostle Paul felt, or why you see what he coined in this passage as in opposition to what I have stated. :wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: I would rather go with an inspired man - Paul than with you. He quotes and applies it to "the whole world" (Rom. 3:10-20) not merely to just one generation of mankind or to just "fools" as all men are born "fools" as God rejectors by nature

.

HP: There is yet another thing. If you do not like the clear context of David in Psalms 14 and 53, tell him about it, but you have absolutely no right to act as if something is in keeping with the context of the passages when in fact it can be clearly shown such is not the case.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Anyone capable of reading, can clearly see that in Romans 3:9 Paul sets forth what he has attempted to prove in the previous chapters. He clearly states what he has proven and that is that Gentiles and Jews are all "under sin." Where in Romans 1-3:8 has he dealt with Gentiles and proved they are under sin??? The only place possible is Romans 1:19-3:5. Where has he mentioned Jews specifically by name with the intent to demonstrate they are under sin? The first place he deals directly with Jews is Romans 2:17-3:8. Therefore, Romans 1:19-3:5 and 2:17-3:8 is the backdrop for Romans 3:9. If you don't agree with precisely what texts make this application before Romans 3:9 - fine - pick your own - but it does not change the following application one iota.


Romans 3:10-20 declares and reaffirms what he says he has proven in Romans 3:9. That is, both Jews and Gentiles are all "under sin." DO YOU KNOW OF ANY HUMAN THAT IS NOT EITHER A GENTILE OR A JEW? Does not those two options taken in "ALL" mankind or "the whole world"?

Paul's intent for Romans 3:10-18 is not limited to a certain race of people. It is not limited to a certain kind of sinner. It is not limited to a certain generation of people. It is definitive of ALL MANKIND "under sin" as that is his own application in Romans 3:19-20:


19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Do you see the universal application in the bold underlined descriptions above??? - EVERY mouth - ALL the world - No flesh.

That is the design and intent behind BEGINNING His affirmation of Romans 3:9 with Psalm 14:2-3 (53:2-3).

All men are born "fools" as all men are SINNERS by both nature and practice. Paul applies Psalm 14:2-3 or 53:2-3 to EVERY GENERATION of mankind - EVERY RACE - and EVERY human being.

You may attempt to argue that David applies it only to his generation and a certain class of sinners but you cannot argue that Paul applies it to EVERY GENERATION and EVERY RACE (Jew and Gentiles) and EVERY HUMAN BEING or "the whole world."

That is my reasoning in using the text and saying what I did.

Now I will not do as others and offer crude remarks and personal attacks nor goad you, but giving such an answer should well appear to the listener as a quick way to avoid taking the time to give a reasoned approach, or show how I have failed to present the Scriptures within their clear context. Neither does your response here add credence to any positions you have taken and clearly appear to be skirting meaningful debate by constantly jumping from this Scripture to that Scripture without any sound exegesis of the passages mentioned. I fully understand that you are free to answer as you will and I will leave it at that for now.

By the way, do the readers such as DHK, CCrobinson and others see how one can coin their words apart from personal attacks?? It can be done in a Christian manner if one has a willingness to, even when they disagree. You don’t have to accuse one of being a coward, or lacking manly stones. :thumbs:

Now DW, if you are going to point to Romans 3: 10-20, why not share with us how the apostle Paul felt, or why you see what he coined in this passage as in opposition to what I have stated. :wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Anyone capable of reading, can clearly see .......

HP: And who might I ask believes that all are not under sin??? Note he did NOT say that all HAVE BEEN under sin, he spoke directly to those then living both Jews and Gentiles. One thing you have no just cause in doing is try to make the case that there was never a man not under sin, for Paul is not making that case by the text itself. He does not affirm or deny the ‘possibility’ that one might have lived apart from sin. Enoch and Elijah not seeing death certainly gives this reader cause to wonder at least. The best that be said of what Paul stated was that all in the dispensation he was addressing have indeed sinned and came short of the glory of God.

DW: Romans 3:10-20 declares and reaffirms......

HP: I believe I have made my position clear and the position of the apostle Paul as well. The problem with your position is that you try and make every notion a proof text to support, as far as I can gather, original sin, when such is not stated or implied by Scripture or reason.

By the way, the notion of the federal headship theory you have mentioned, is nothing more or less than a Calvinisitc theory not supported in or by Scripture or reason.

DW: Paul's intent for Romans 3:10-18 is not limited ......

HP: You can say that all you so desire but there is no proof, in and of itself, that Paul was not speaking directly to the generation he lived in to those currently 'under sin.' If he was to conclude that every living person that ever lived was so, he would have said that in plain words but he did not. The point is that such may or may not be the case, for Scripture does not tell us in absolute terms. Enoch and Elijah certainly give me cause to wonder, and rightfully so seeing that neither saw physical death.

DW: 19 ¶ Now we know......

Do you see the universal application in the bold underlined descriptions above??? - EVERY mouth - ALL the world - No flesh.

HP: The only mouths that needed or could be stopped were those of the living at the time he stated what he did. You beg the question when you tell us that it of necessity applies to every living soul that has ever lived. You have no just right to make that case. God alone knows the truth of that matter and He simply gave us cause to question at least two individuals.

 

[Dr. Walter]

"but if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant" and yes, I am making a direct application to you.

HP: And who might I ask believes that all are not under sin??? Note he did NOT say that all HAVE BEEN under sin, he spoke directly to those then living both Jews and Gentiles. One thing you have no just cause in doing is try to make the case that there was never a man not under sin, for Paul is not making that case by the text itself. He does not affirm or deny the ‘possibility’ that one might have lived apart from sin. Enoch and Elijah not seeing death certainly gives this reader cause to wonder at least. The best that be said of what Paul stated was that all in the dispensation he was addressing have indeed sinned ad came short of the glory of God.


HP: I believe I have made my position clear and the position of the apostle Paul as well. The problem with your position is that you try and make every notion a proof text to support, as far as I can gather, original sin, when such is not stated or implied by Scripture or reason.

By the way, the notion of the federal headship theory you have mentioned, is nothing more or less than a Calvinisitc theory not supported in or by Scripture or reason.




HP: You can say that all you so desire but there is no proof, in and of itself, that Paul was not speaking directly to the generation he lived in to those currently 'under sin.' If he was to conclude that every living person that ever lived was so, he would have said that in plain words but he did not. The point is that such may or may not be the case, for Scripture does not tell us in absolute terms. Enoch and Elijah certainly give me cause to wonder, and rightfully so seeing that neither saw physical death.



HP: The only mouths that needed or could be stopped were those of the living at the time he stated what he did. You beg the question when you tell us that it of necessity applies to every living soul that has ever lived. You have no just right to make that case. God alone knows the truth of that matter and He simply gave us cause to question at least two individuals.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: "but if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant" and yes, I am making a direct application to you.

HP: It is indeed a small thing to be judged ignorant by you. So that is the end of all your arguments. Either DW’s way or the highway, all others are merely ignorant. So much for meaningful debate or even reasonable discussion on the issues.

Here is a passage to consider. Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let the reader carefully notice, that context indeed has a tendency, when fairly applied, to defeat some at their own game.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let the reader carefully notice, that context indeed has a tendency, when fairly applied, to defeat some at their own game.

Let the reader carefully notice that when you deal with an irrational unreasonable opponent it makes no difference what the Bible clearly and explicitly says. To think, that Paul had no further intention of applying Romans 3:10-11 in its applied context of verses 10-20 to his own generation means he had no further intention to apply the solution (Rom. 3:21-26) to no one but his own generation as well. This is the logical conclusion of such thinking and is the stupidity of such rationalization.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Where are you CCRobinson, the one with the comment concerning anothers 'stones???' Where is your sound input into this whole discussion??? Can you add anything to this debate other than crudely belittle another Christian brother?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Where are you DHK, that calls another Christian man 'cowardly'??? How about you taking up where DW left us and explain to the list the clear context of Psalms 14 and 53.:thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Where are you DHK, that calls another Christian man 'cowardly'??? How about you taking up where DW left us and explain to the list the clear context of Psalms 14 and 53.:thumbs:

If you do not have the powers of rational thinking to see that the solution set forth in Romans 3:21-26 is for the problem presented in Romans 3:9-20 then what good is it to discuss it with you????

It is obvious to anyone with a little common sense that Paul is applying Psalms 14:2-3 to a far wider application in Romans 3:10-20 than his own present generation just as he is applying the SOLUTION to that problem to far more than his own generation in Romans 3:21-26.

You can't have your cake and eat it too! You can't demand that Romans 3:9-20 with its conclusive application in UNIVERSAL language (no flesh, all the world, every mouth) MUST refer no further than Paul's own generation and not also demand that the solution to that problem in Romans 3:21-26 is also restricted to his own generation as well. But who with two grains of common sense would take that interpretation of Romans 3:21-26???????????

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: But who with two grains of common sense.....

HP: Your comments betray your love for the brethern DW. You cannot hardly make a post without a personal attack. Why cannot you simply make your points without such personal demeaning remarks? Such comments add nothing to debate, they only show your attitude towards others.

Why don't you tell us of the sins of Enoch and of Elijah, and explain to us if in fact they sinned why they did not see death?

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Your comments betray your love for the brethern DW. You cannot hardly make a post without a personal attack. Why cannot you simply make your points without such personal demeaning remarks? Such comments add nothing to debate, they only show your attitude towards others.

Why don't you tell us of the sins of Enoch and of Elijah, and explain to us if in fact they sinned why they did not see death?

There is but one man who never sinned and that man did not have Adam as his father. The only thing you have to defend a view that says that neither Enoch or Elijah never sinned is your own RATIONAL by undue inferences. Elijah sinned in his DEPRESSED condition in the wilderness when he wished to die and WRONGLY claimed there were no one left in Israel but him.

I cannot believe that anyone would advance such a position???

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Your comments betray your love for the brethern DW. You cannot hardly make a post without a personal attack. Why cannot you simply make your points without such personal demeaning remarks? Such comments add nothing to debate, they only show your attitude towards others.

Why don't you tell us of the sins of Enoch and of Elijah, and explain to us if in fact they sinned why they did not see death?

You have interacted at least "7000" times on this forum and yet this is the kind of rationale that comes out of your mouth???? If you were a beginner on the forum or even in my category of 2000 I could understand perhaps the need to baby you and respond to such nonsense, but not a person who has been on this forum for over 7000 posts! There is no reasonable and rational excuse but one that I can think of - rejection of truth that concludes with God turning you over to inability to discern spiritual things!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I believe a great lesson for all of us is that when one first does not give the response another feels is warranted, or even when one does not soon reply, that is no just cause for personal remarks such as some have offered towards myself in this debate. Often it is nothing more than time constraints or other matters that interfere with the free time we give to this list or other endeavors. At other times one might desire to reflect or give ourselves to study and prayer before answering. Sometimes we might desire others to respond for various reasons. Every time another feels in their own mind something that at first might appear to be an avoidance of an answer, it does not necessarily necessitate the end one is making out of it. Patience might be a needed virtue to cultivate on lists such as this. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: There is no reasonable and rational excuse but one that I can think of - rejection of truth that concludes with God turning you over to inability to discern spiritual things!

HP: Well! That should settle all debate for reasonable individuals seeking the truth. Either accept DW's conclusions or God is going to turn you over to an inability to discern spiritual things! Now that is real logical DW, really balanced and fair, a real show of Christian kindness and mutual respect.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe a great lesson for all of us is that when one first does not give the response another feels is warranted, or even when one does not soon reply, that is no just cause for personal remarks such as some have offered towards myself in this debate. Often it is nothing more than time constraints or other matters that interfere with the free time we give to this list or other endeavors. At other times one might desire to reflect or give ourselves to study and prayer before answering. Sometimes we might desire others to respond for various reasons. Every time another feels in their own mind something that at first might appear to be an avoidance of an answer, it does not necessarily necessitate the end one is making out of it. Patience might be a needed virtue to cultivate on lists such as this. :thumbs:

This is a joke! You made yourself perfectly clear and so did I. There were no time restraints! There were no requested time for reflection by you! Zilch! You just want to be seen as pious and paint me as a jerk - period. Our discussion has ended.