Event vrs Process Justification

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:


GOD says Adam was lost and ALL humanity with Him - so ALL (including Adam) need to be SAVED --

You have given no evidence that says Adam was eternally lost. Answer this question, yes or no.
Do you believe that Adam is in heaven? A simple yes or no will do.

Read more Bible and less "Hank".

In Christ,

Bob

Who is Hank, a friend of yours??
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

#1. I don't believe Adam is in heaven - but that is not because I don't think he was saved by Grace and BORN AGAIN in the OT. It has more to do with believing that thing God said in Gen 3 about mankind not having access to the Tree of Life.

#2. Adam NEEDED a Savior and there is NO case AT ALL in scripture where the Savior is needed by one who is NOT condemned as a sinner - lost.

#3. There is only ONE WAY in for the sinner - you MUST be born again!

IF you don't think Adam sinned - then there is a problem with your reading of that text.

If you don't think that the wages of sin is death then -- Romans 6.

If you don't think that Adam was "born again" then there is John 3.

IF you think that the PRE-new-birth condition of a sinner is "saved" -- then again - John 3 and Romans 3.

(Although why in the world Lloyd has not figured any of this out and responded to your post -- escapes me.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by ascund:
[QB] Hey BobRyan

Have you ever noticed that your "proofs" scan scripture for sanctification verses

Lloyd have you ever noticed that NONE of your responses include quote of God's Word??

You make your entire case "on ranting alone".

What is up with that?

Go to the Bible dude.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by ascund:

So Matt 18 also ignores the CONTEXT. T

I guess "God will learn to write Matt 18 better after reading your non-quote post".

Lloyd said -
The parable shows the initial forgiveness that every believer has “in Christ.” The master of the parable forgave the servant a multi-billion debt. This illustrates the believer’s initial and positional forgiveness. The Bible is clear that at the moment we believe in Christ, we are totally forgiven

Forgiveness - yes.

Also true that in Matt 18 the forgiveness GIVEN is the REAL forgiveness that is given at conversion - i.e. justification past.

(Amazingly you seem to get this detail in Matt 18. I am quite surprised Lloyd.)

Amazingly - as the various OSAS proponents DENIED that very point - I belivee you were... "silent".

LLoyd said

But positional forgiveness does not mean that we always are in fellowship with God.

Actually - no such phrase as "positional forgiveness" in the Bible. So "going back to the Bible" that would be "FORGIVENESS does not mean we will ALWAYS REMAIN in Fellowship with God".

Hey - I AGREE with you there too!

(But I am sure some of your Calvinist friends would not).

Do you agree that we can not be "IN UNION" with Christ without being IN FELLOWSHIP with Christ?

Or do you view the wicked - depraved - sinner who forsakes God and chooses rebellion as "IN UNION with Christ" but OUT of fellowship with Him?

If so - WHERE is the text that defines that as "UNION with CHrist"??

Back to MAtt 18 --

In the parable the king is God, the slave is the lost, temporal debt is the REAL sinners debt, and the Kings temporal forgiveness is the REAL SINNERS forgiveness.

We seem to "agree" there.

Lloyd

The disobedient servant received temporal punishment for his failure to forgive another servant.

In the parable the TEMPORAL story shows the ETERNAL truth.

Just as in the Lord's prayer "NEITHER will my Father forgive you if you do not forgive.."

IT is ALL a case of TEMPORAL points made to show ETERNAL truth!

No switching horses in the middle of that stream Lloyd.

Notice the fallacy you have entered. You admit that INITIAL forgiveness is REAL and avoids the unnacceptable consequence of the debt owed. But then when THAT SAME DEBT IS RETURNED -- you 'ignore that detail" and claim that TEMPORAL punishment would SUFFICE to pay what ONLY CHRIST Can pay for us!! (Or what WE can only pay IN HELL fire)

How "instructive".

Why do you go to such lengths??

So that..

Lloyd
This does not make the eternal forgiveness of sins and destiny conditional upon fickle human capacity to forgive others.

I see.

"So that" you can get out of Christs OWN statement at the end --

I see.

No wonder you need to spin that chapter around a few times -- and no wonder you have "waited until know" to show HOW you need to spin the details IN THE TEXT.

But as we have just SEEN - you take the SAME debt that is OWED and claim that when it COMES BACK it is NO LONGER of eternal consequence! You argue that a SAVED SINNER can PAY THEIR OWN DEBT and STILL go to heaven!!

Notice that no such "heavenly reward" is given the servant in that case - your "sunny day" outcome is MISSING from the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK,
One thing good comes of Bob Ryan's posts which makes them worth being allowed on this forum - it is that their proponent cannot argue better against their fallacy.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Most offensive to me, Bob Ryan, is your regular ending. After what you have to say, every time?

 

[BobRyan]

Since nothing of substance has been posted since my last unanswered post - with the host of Bible points remaining "ignored" --

Here is a point of reminder ...

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ascund:

So Matt 18 also ignores the CONTEXT. T

I guess "God will learn to write Matt 18 better after reading your non-quote post".

Lloyd said -
The parable shows the initial forgiveness that every believer has “in Christ.” The master of the parable forgave the servant a multi-billion debt. This illustrates the believer’s initial and positional forgiveness. The Bible is clear that at the moment we believe in Christ, we are totally forgiven

Forgiveness - yes.

Also true that in Matt 18 the forgiveness GIVEN is the REAL forgiveness that is given at conversion - i.e. justification past.

(Amazingly you seem to get this detail in Matt 18. I am quite surprised Lloyd.)

Amazingly - as the various OSAS proponents DENIED that very point - I belivee you were... "silent".

LLoyd said

But positional forgiveness does not mean that we always are in fellowship with God.

Actually - no such phrase as "positional forgiveness" in the Bible. So "going back to the Bible" that would be "FORGIVENESS does not mean we will ALWAYS REMAIN in Fellowship with God".

Hey - I AGREE with you there too!

(But I am sure some of your Calvinist friends would not).

Do you agree that we can not be "IN UNION" with Christ without being IN FELLOWSHIP with Christ?

Or do you view the wicked - depraved - sinner who forsakes God and chooses rebellion as "IN UNION with Christ" but OUT of fellowship with Him?

If so - WHERE is the text that defines that as "UNION with CHrist"??

Back to MAtt 18 --

In the parable the king is God, the slave is the lost, temporal debt is the REAL sinners debt, and the Kings temporal forgiveness is the REAL SINNERS forgiveness.

We seem to "agree" there.

Lloyd

The disobedient servant received temporal punishment for his failure to forgive another servant.

In the parable the TEMPORAL story shows the ETERNAL truth.

Just as in the Lord's prayer "NEITHER will my Father forgive you if you do not forgive.."

IT is ALL a case of TEMPORAL points made to show ETERNAL truth!

No switching horses in the middle of that stream Lloyd.

Notice the fallacy you have entered. You admit that INITIAL forgiveness is REAL and avoids the unnacceptable consequence of the debt owed. But then when THAT SAME DEBT IS RETURNED -- you 'ignore that detail" and claim that TEMPORAL punishment would SUFFICE to pay what ONLY CHRIST Can pay for us!! (Or what WE can only pay IN HELL fire)

How "instructive".

Why do you go to such lengths??

So that..

Lloyd
This does not make the eternal forgiveness of sins and destiny conditional upon fickle human capacity to forgive others.

I see.

"So that" you can get out of Christs OWN statement at the end --

I see.

No wonder you need to spin that chapter around a few times -- and no wonder you have "waited until know" to show HOW you need to spin the details IN THE TEXT.

But as we have just SEEN - you take the SAME debt that is OWED and claim that when it COMES BACK it is NO LONGER of eternal consequence! You argue that a SAVED SINNER can PAY THEIR OWN DEBT and STILL go to heaven!!

Notice that no such "heavenly reward" is given the servant in that case - your "sunny day" outcome is MISSING from the text.

</font>[/QUOTE]GE now posts that his list of things to be offended at "has gone up". As thrilling as that subject would be to explore further - how about the subject of the thread instead?

How about addressing the unanswered points already standing against the OSAS position?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Briguy]

Bob you did not address my last couple of posts and I won't address your until you address mine. You seldom take what we say and directly refute it. You normally just either re-state your first argument or make up a totally new one. That does not make for a good debate, just ships passing in the night. Please respond to the logic arguments as well as the scriptual ones. Thanks!!!

In Christ,
Brian

 

[DHK]

Bob,
Here are some points you fail to address, but continually gloss over?

1. Was Adam lost? You say, "yes."
The Bible says, "No." The answer I gave you that you fail to address is provided for you in Scripture:

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
--Was there shedding of blood on Adam's behalf?

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
--Why wasn't the covering of fig leaves good enough? Why did God have to sacrifice an animal and shed the blood of an animal to make coats of skins to cover Adam and Eve? The answer lies in Hebrews 9:22--Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. God forgave their sin with this sacrifice. Indeed they were his children, and he provided a sacrifice, as He provided us a sacrifice in the person of His Son, that they might have eternal life. They are not lost. Their fellowship was broken. God no longer walked with them in coolness of the evening in the garden. But with the sacrifice their fellowship with God was restored, albeit because of sin entering into the world, that form of fellowship would never be the same, it would take a different form from that time onward. But saved they were. There is no indication that they were lost just because they sinned. If they were, then so are you and everyone else on this board, no matter what you do. No sacrifice, not even the sacrifice of Christ would be acceptable to God. If God's sacrifice was not good enough for Adam, then how would God's sacrifice be good enough for us now?

Second, you have never explained fully the imaginary doctrine of "forgiveness revoked." It doesn't exist. It is man-made. It is taken from a parable which doesn't teach it. You have wrenched it out of its context to fit your own preconceived ideas. You have not rightly divided the word of truth. You cannot make up a doctrine from a parable and then try to find supporting Scriptures elsewhere. That is not good hermeneutics, and I think you are intelligent enough to know that. Doctrine does not come from parables; parables only support doctrine that is already taught elsewhere in the Bible--and "forgiveness revoked" is taught nowhere in the Bible.

The first thing to consider about the passage in Matthew 18 is that it is not talking about salvation or even remotely related to salvation. You somehow twist the Scriptures to read something into it that is not there. You are as bad as the Catholics who would say that the same passage would teach purgatory. It does not; neither does it teach it "forgiveness revoked." If it teaches "forgivenss revoked" it may as well teach "purgatory" as well. You have done a good job of butchering the Word of God here.

Peter says: "How often shall I forgive my brother, Lord? seven time seventy?"
That is the context; not "forgiveness revoked," but forgiving one another, specifically one saved brother forgiving another saved brother. Let me give you a specific example. If I said something to offend Gerhard, would that have any effect on my salvation? Of course not! Would Gerhard forgive me. You may ask him, but I think he would. How often would he forgive me if I kept on offending him in my tone of voice, and the manner of speaking to him? Jesus says 70 times 7, or as many tmes as I would do it. Is Gerhard that forgiving? You would have to ask him. But that is what Jesus is teaching. It has nothing to do with salvation. He is teaching about forgiving your brother. If you can read "forgiveness revoked" into that, then I can read "purgatory" into the same passage. It is a parable to teach about forgiving your brother, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with salvation or OSAS. And you have yet to address that. Here is how I address your approach to the passage of Mat. 18:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The next thing that you fail to address is how a born person can become "unborn???" This must a real trick. Is it magic? I gave you an example two or three times, but you have failed to properly address this point. One cannot undo that which is done. You cannot change history. Once a person is born, it is a fact of history that cannot be changed. Can you deny the fact of history that President George Bush is a real person in real life. He was born and not hatched. Likewise a person is born into God's family, and nothing can change that fact. I know the year, month, day, and even the hour when I was born again. It is a historical fact of my life. It can't be undone. I can't be unborn. You can't redo history. I am part of God's family because I was born into it. I am now his child, and there is nothing that can be done to change that fact. That is the whole teaching of the new birth. But you fail to address this point.
It looks like you have a lot of explaining to do!
DHK

 

[BadDog]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

Justification is the chief article by which the Church and an individual stands or falls (Luther).

Sinclair Fergusson agrees: "If the article of justification is lost, all Christian doctrine is lost at the same time. And all the people in the world who do not hold to this justification are either Jews or Turks or papists or heretics; for there is no middle ground between these two righteousness: the active one of the Law and the passive one which comes from Christ. Therefore the man who strays from Christian righteousness must relapse into the active one, that is, since he has lost Christ, he must put his confidence in his own works."

So if justification is imputed, then it is an event!

Lloyd

Lloyd,

Amen!

BD

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Bob you did not address my last couple of posts and I won't address your until you address mine. You seldom take what we say and directly refute it. You normally just either re-state your first argument or make up a totally new one. That does not make for a good debate, just ships passing in the night. Please respond to the logic arguments as well as the scriptual ones. Thanks!!!

In Christ,
Brian

Post a link when you do that -- otherwise I have no idea as to how many are scattered on previous pages that were missed.

Having said that - I am going back for the most recent.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This post of mine - to you is not answered...

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384/11.html#000152

but after that post - I find this post from you to me.

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi Bob, I don't think it matters so much the words used as long as the concept is understood. The point I was making is that those in Christ are as Holy as God is Holy. Why?, because we are covered by God's very own Holiness.

We are justified.

The whole appeasement argument I don't even have to think about.

The appeasement argument is not mine. It is the argument of those who choose to reject the Hebrew concept of "Atoning Sacrifice" in 1John 2:2 NIV - and put in its please "propitiation" claiming that God was being "appeased by Christ" into being good to us.

By contrast the point of "Atoning Sacrifice" is "God so Loved that He Gave".

The death of Jesus should not be seen as the same as the death of bulls and goats, OT sacrifices appeased,

According to God's Word - OT sacrifices were used as symbols of "ATONEMENT" not "APPEASEMENT".

In fact God says that HE IS NOT pleased with animal blood as a sacrifice but rather with a human heart that turns to God who calls us in love.

Brian
Christ now continually makes intercession for us,

As 1John 2:1 says "WE HAVE an advocate with the father" as 1John 1:9 reminds us "IF we CONFESS our sins He is faithful AND JUST to FORGIVE us our SIN AND to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".

Not merely to solve the GUILT problem but to also address the Romans 6 problem of slavery to sin.

But the text does NOT SAY "If we DO NOT confess our sins he is faithful and just to FORGIVES US ANYWAY".

See?

Brian said --
Also, Back a couple posts I mentioned a couple more flaws in your Matt. 18 example, which you cling to like it is a canteen of water in the dessert. Please address my points. Thanks much!! and take care.

Again I would say - post the link.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Brian -

Actually you posted here --

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384/10.html#000145

And then I responded here


http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384/11.html#000152


And then you kept claiming I never responded - and you never responded to the post I sent.

What is up with that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by DHK: Bob,
Here are some points you fail to address, but continually gloss over?

1. Was Adam lost? You say, "yes."
The Bible says, "No."

Wrong - the bible says "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3.

And the Bible says that ALL are fully condemned by the LAw of God as sinners - under the penalty of death EVEN ADAM (See Romans 5).

I keep pointing this out and you keep ducking the point.

How is that glossing over it?

In fact I will end this post with that "ONE" Point to EMPHASIZE the need to actually address it.

DHK said

The answer I gave you that you fail to address is provided for you in Scripture:

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
--Was there shedding of blood on Adam's behalf?

Yes.

1John 2:2 "He is the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR SINS and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"

In Heb 2 we find that Christ tasted the sufferings of death "for every one of mankind".

How much of a bigger yes can you ask for?

DHK
There is no indication that they were lost just because they sinned.

Then they needed no savior.

The entire point Paul makes in Romans 5 is that we all share THE SAME FATE as Adam.

How in the world can you gloss over that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK If God's sacrifice was not good enough for Adam, then how would God's sacrifice be good enough for us now?

I have no idea why you are going there.

DHK

Second, you have never explained fully the imaginary doctrine of "forgiveness revoked."

That would be the part where all Christianity "imagines reading Matt 18".

The chapter SHOWS the original debt OWED - is forgiven and then RETURNED.

DHK said

It doesn't exist. It is man-made.

Well that is "one way" to solve the problem for OSAS.

For the rest of us - we will just have to be content reading the chapter that doesn't exist - Matt 18.

DHK j-
Doctrine does not come from parables;

Teaching comes from parables and when Christ said "SO SHALL My Father DO TO EACH ONE OF YOU IF you do not..."--

We can believe it - rather than turning a deaf ear to Christ saying "yeah yeah doctrine does not come from parables".

Your idea of tossing out anything you don't like when a parable does not please you - was not something that Jews were good at doing. Christ continually debunked their errors using parables.

The first thing to consider about the passage in Matthew 18 is that it is not talking about salvation or even remotely related to salvation.

I guess this is where you and Lloyd differ eh?

"FOR THIS reason the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN may be compared to a KING who ..."

In ALL the KINGDOM of HEAVEN may be COMPARED To style parables - the subject is ALWAYS SALVATION!

Next.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK --

The next thing that you fail to address is how a born person can become "unborn???"

That was addressed in DETAIL.

I show that Adam did not become "UNCREATED" to choose rebellion - embrace sin - get kicked out of the garden and die.

The "unborn" argument as the "the only way to fail" does not work for BIRTH any more than it does for LIFE itself!!

"AS in ADAM ALL DIE - so in Christ shall ALL be made ALIVE".

Must we all be "UNCREATED" or "UNBORN" to die?

Find something that works.

Next.

In the mean time you need to take the ACTUAL post of Matt 18 and address the points I listed there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Wrong - the bible says "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3.

No one doubts the veracity of Romans 3:23. You are a sinner; I am a sinner; So are we all, and that included Adam after he sinned. Was Adam then completely unredeemable. Nonsense. Was the sacrifice that God made for Adam not sufficient enough to redeem him from his sins. Nonsense. You believe in a very anemic god if you believe that God was unable to atone for the sins of Adam. He sacrificed an animal. Blood was shed. Sins was forgiven. The case is closed.

And the Bible says that ALL are fully condemned by the LAw of God as sinners - under the penalty of death EVEN ADAM (See Romans 5).

If your interpretation of Scripture is correct then every person on this board including you and I are doomed to a Christless eternity. If there was no hope for Adam, then there is certainly no hope for us. If God couldn't save Adam from his sin, what makes you think that he can save us? Wasn't the sacrifice that God paid for Adam good enough. God himself sacrificed an animal, and you say it is not good enough?? Preposterous!!

In fact I will end this post with that "ONE" Point to EMPHASIZE the need to actually address it.

The fact is you are not addressintg the point as shown above.

DHK said
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
--Was there shedding of blood on Adam's behalf?

Yes.
1John 2:2 "He is the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR SINS and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"

In Heb 2 we find that Christ tasted the sufferings of death "for every one of mankind".

How much of a bigger yes can you ask for?

Consequently, and contrary to your previous statements, Adam then, was saved. For Christ tasted the sufferings of death for every man which includes Adam, and Adam never rejected the sacrifice that God provided for him.

DHK
There is no indication that they were lost just because they sinned.

Then they needed no savior.

Where is your logic here?
"The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men," including Adam.
Adam needed a Saviour. God provided a way through a sacrifice just as he did throughout the entire period of the law with the Israelites. Did the Israelites need a Saviour? Of course! How was a Saviuor provided in the days of Moses through Malachi? The same way it was provided for Adam. It was provided through the shedding of blood. "For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

The entire point Paul makes in Romans 5 is that we all share THE SAME FATE as Adam.

All same the fate as Adam in that all have sinned, all have come short of the glory of God, and all need a Saviour in order to be saved. Adam sinned. Adam needed a Saviuor. Adam was provided with a sacrifice to atone for His sins, through His Saviuor, Jehovah God Himself. Is there anyone greater than Jehovah, the Lord of hosts?
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

DHK If God's sacrifice was not good enough for Adam, then how would God's sacrifice be good enough for us now?

I have no idea why you are going there.

God did provide a sacrifice for Adam didn't he?
The Scriptures say he did:

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
God clothed them with animal skins. An animal's life had to be taken. Blood had to be shed. An animal sacrifice had to be made. What makes this sacrifice of any less significance than any of the Jews' sacrifices, by which their sins were atoned (eg. Day of Atonement). Is this sacrifice of God, offered by God himself not good enough? Was God not righteous enough to offer it on behalf of Adam and Eve?

DHK
Second, you have never explained fully the imaginary doctrine of "forgiveness revoked."

That would be the part where all Christianity "imagines reading Matt 18".

[/quote[
No Bob, we read and believe the teaching of Mat. 18. We just don't believe it teaches aberrant doctrines such as purgatory and forgiveness revoked. If you teach one, you might as well teach the other. They both make about as much sense. In fact the teaching of purgatory can be more easily be taught from Math.18 than "forgiveness revoked," because (like most Catholic doctrine) "forgiveness revoked" is a man-made doctrine unsupportable by Scripture. If my child gets angry at me and loses his temper, he has sinned. He needs to apologize. I will forgive him if he is sorry for what he has done. I am not going to come to him the next day and "revoke his forgiveness" as you teach. How ridiculous! Once forgiven the matter is forgotten. It is dealt with and it will not be brought up again. He has been forgiven. God operates the same way:

Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Micah 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

God forgives sins unconditionally. He remembers them no more. He never revokes them. He casts them behind his back to remember them no more. Promis after promise he gives us that once our sins are forgiven they are put under the blood never to be brought up again, never to be remembered again. There is no such thing as "forgiveness revoked." That is an imaginary man-made doctrine not taught in the Bible.

The chapter SHOWS the original debt OWED - is forgiven and then RETURNED.

Your imagination. The context cleary shows that this parable simply teaches that we should forgive our brother as many times that he offends us, and that is all.

DHK said
It doesn't exist. It is man-made.

Well that is "one way" to solve the problem for OSAS.

There is no problem for OSAS. Anyone who does not understand this doctrine does not understand what Biblical salvation is all about.

For the rest of us - we will just have to be content reading the chapter that doesn't exist - Matt 18.

You can read it, but unless you understand it, it won't do you much good will it? Reading one's presuppositions into a chapter does no one any good. I can prove the doctrine of purgatory out of that chapter, and do a better job at it, than you can prove "forgiveness revoked."

DHK j-
Doctrine does not come from parables;

Teaching comes from parables and when Christ said "SO SHALL My Father DO TO EACH ONE OF YOU IF you do not..."--

We can believe it - rather than turning a deaf ear to Christ saying "yeah yeah doctrine does not come from parables".

Your idea of tossing out anything you don't like when a parable does not please you - was not something that Jews were good at doing. Christ continually debunked their errors using parables.

This is exactly how the cults operate--getting their teaching through parables. This is bad hermeneutics. Parables do NOT teach doctrine, and never did. They illustrate the doctrine that is taught elsewhere in Scripture. A parable is simply an illustration. I use plenty of illustrations in my preaching. But the illustration is never the doctrine or the teaching. It is a help to understand the teaching that is being presented. Illustrations (parables) do not teach doctrine; they only illustrate it. Those who teach doctrine through parables usually find themselves in a cult.

The first thing to consider about the passage in Matthew 18 is that it is not talking about salvation or even remotely related to salvation.

I guess this is where you and Lloyd differ eh?
"FOR THIS reason the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN may be compared to a KING who ..."

In ALL the KINGDOM of HEAVEN may be COMPARED To style parables - the subject is ALWAYS SALVATION!

Yes I would disagree. The subject is not alwasys the kingdom. The subject is what Christ declares it to be. For example in Luke 18:1. Jesus spoke a parable unto them that men ought always to pray and not to faint. This has nothing to do with the kingdom but with prayer. He proceeds to give a parable about prayer, about intercession. The parable is introduced by Christ, and the topic is usually given by Christ right away. In Mat. 18, the topic of the parable is given right away--forgiving the brother that sins or offends you. That is all that the parable is all about, no more.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

DHK --

The next thing that you fail to address is how a born person can become "unborn???"

That was addressed in DETAIL.

Not really. You fail to explain how a person born into the world can take back his birth. How can he go back into history and redo that which was already done. This is an impossiblity, such as it is with the spiritual birth. It has ntohing to do with Adam. Jesus said to everyone of us: You must be born again. Study John 2, and then get back to me. Either you are born into God's family or the devil's family; which one?
Do you match up with what Jesus said in John 8:44

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Or, is the heavenly Father your father. He can onnly be your father if you have been born into his family. Have you been born again. This has nothing to do with baptism.

I show that Adam did not become "UNCREATED" to choose rebellion - embrace sin - get kicked out of the garden and die.

You are right. Adam did not and could not become uncreated. He needed to be saved. And so he was when God provided a sacrifice for him. I have shown this to you many times now, Why do you still not believe.

The "unborn" argument as the "the only way to fail" does not work for BIRTH any more than it does for LIFE itself!!

It is a conclusive argument for OSAS. The fact that a child cannot go back into his mother's womb and be reborn physically is proof enough that when a person is born again, he is born again for all eternity. "For that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I say unto you, you must be born again."
Just as a person is born once into this world physically, so a person must be born once into God's family. He cannot be born again and again, and again, etc. It is a one time event in the history of his life that cannot be repeated, just like your physical birth. Thus the natural conclusion--you cannot lose the salvation that Christ has given you.

"AS in ADAM ALL DIE - so in Christ shall ALL be made ALIVE".

Isn't it wonderful. Praise God for such wonderful promises. I once was lost in sin. Now in Christ I am made alive, and not only spiritually alive, I also have eternal life.

Must we all be "UNCREATED" or "UNBORN" to die?

Of course not. This is the proof of OSAS. It is impossible as Nicodemus knew.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

He knew that one could not be "unborn." in order to be reborn. Such was an impossibllity. You are born once in the flesh, and in the same way must be born once in the Spirit. You cannot have two births in the flesh; and you cannot have two spiritual births. Only one. Thus the doctrine of OSAS. Once given salvation at the new birth, God never revokes it. He forgives all of your sins, and grants you eternal life. It is that simple.

Find something that works.

The Bible's teaching is so simple. It works for me.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Wrong - the bible says "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3.

Originally posted by DHK:

No one doubts the veracity of Romans 3:23. You are a sinner; I am a sinner; So are we all, and that included Adam after he sinned. Was Adam then completely unredeemable. Nonsense.

Did you find/quote me saying "Adam was completely unredeemable"??

No?

Then why go there?

My point was that Adam NEEDED a redeemer for the SAME reason that ALL the fallen lost children of Adam NEED a Savior - the very SAME reason. We are ALL lost - ALL condemned ALL under the curse of sin - the wages of sin is the second death!

Christ came to REDEEM us from the CURSE. IF we are NOT under the curse then there is nothing to redeem us FROM!

This point is so simple and obvious -- how can it be that you refuse it??

In Christ,

Bob