Psalms 51:5

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Some small children came to Jesus. Are you going to tell me that you know for certain that these children were all from righteous people.

HP: Rightoeusness is not an inherited trait any more than sin is. The moral state of the parents have nothing to do with the innocence of a child.

DHK: Rather they were probably children from Pharisees and unbelievers; children of the unrighteous.

HP: Children none the less, not even moral agents, and as such are morally innocent until the age of accountability. Why not just trust the judgment of our Lord??? He said “of such IS the kingdom of heaven.” Wicked sinners will not be there DHK.

DHK: You have set forth a Hyper-Calvinistic premise (which now you seem to believe) that according to this Scripture all the infants of unrighteous people will go to Hell.

HP: Have you simply lost all ability to comprehend and judge according to truth?

 

[RAdam]

Solomon wasn't confused when he wrote Ecclesiastes, and he certainly didn't get anything wrong. It's sad that you believe God would give you a book that claims to be a book of wisdom but is actually wrong.

Solomon wrote that book when he was old after living many years under the sun, or down here on earth. He had tried or observed it all. He had been rich, wise, had many wives, followed God, rebelled against God, etc. His final conclusion was that life lived for oneself is vanity, and that the whole duty of man is to serve and honor God.

Now, since you say that God does not agree with Solomon (which is ridiculous) on the subject of whether there are any righteous in themselves, I would direct you to Psalm 53. Here we see that: "God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God." What was His conclusion? "Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." God looked down upon a ruined and fallen race and saw that "every one of them" is gone astray, become filthy, and none are following Him are doing righteousness. This is man in his natural state left to himself. Praise God that He didn't leave us in that state.

Man's righteousness is as filthy rags, or a filthy garment. The bible says that our righteousness is of Him. He is the Lord our righteousness.

 

[ccrobinson]

I gave you the plain Word of God, you quoted it and then said in essence you do not believe it. In not believing you have accepted a lie.

How ironic that you would accuse somebody else of not believing the plain Word of God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCrobinson: How ironic that you would accuse somebody else of not believing the plain Word of God.

HP: What is really ironic is why would one deny the truth of such a clear passage of Scripture???
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated THAT HE SHOULD NOT SEE DEATH; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

 

[RAdam]

Why was Enoch translated? That he should not see death. What would have happened had God not translated him? He would have seen death. He was on a collision course with death, as we all are, until God intervened. If original sin is wrong and Enoch was righteous before God by hiw own merits, God wouldn't have had to translate him to keep him from seeing death.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What about you CCrobinson? Will you deny the truth of that passage as well and tell us that Enoch in fact did see death contrary to the Scriptures?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RAdam, if a frog had wings he would not bump his rear every time he jumped. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RAdam: Why was Enoch translated?

HP: Ask God. Scripture do say that all see death because of sin. Enoch simply walked with God without the slightest testimony of sin period and God simply translated him. The same goes for Elijah. God took him up in a chariot of fire in a whirlwind!

RAdam: What would have happened had God not translated him?

HP: Let’s see. What would have happened IF???? Is that sort of like asking what if God had not made man, or any other nonsensical question?

RAdam: He would have seen death.

HP: Possibly he would have turned into a frog or something.
Why not why we are speculating about things that did not happen?

RAdam: He was on a collision course with death, as we all are, until God intervened.

HP: Because we are finite beings as descendents of Adam, I tend to agree with you, but again, from your philosophical/theological perspective why would you desire to speculate about God’s done deal?? You might as well ask what would have happened to man if God would have not chose to create them?

RAdam: If original sin is wrong and Enoch was righteous before God by hiw own merits, God wouldn't have had to translate him to keep him from seeing death.

HP: Enoch had no ability to survive on this earth indefinitely. God had to translate him at some point in time, which He did, and that without seeing death.

 

[DHK]

HP: Rightoeusness is not an inherited trait any more than sin is. The moral state of the parents have nothing to do with the innocence of a child.


HP: Children none the less, not even moral agents, and as such are morally innocent until the age of accountability. Why not just trust the judgment of our Lord??? He said “of such IS the kingdom of heaven.” Wicked sinners will not be there DHK.


HP: Have you simply lost all ability to comprehend and judge according to truth?

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--I trust the Lord that the truths spoken of in this verse are indeed of the Lord and true. Whether or not the infants come from the righteous or unrighteous is totally irrelevant. Your inference that they come from the unrighteous (though it may be true) has no bearing on this verse. They still "go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies" as the Lord has proclaimed. That is depravity from birth or original sin. That is what you can't get around.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, who are the righteous spoken of in that Psalm? Did David desire for God to smash the teeth of infants? Would that not be a rather hard thing to do? When was the last time you saw the righteous rejoicing at the destruction of infants? Do you think protesters outside of abortion clinics are there to rejoice over the death and destruction of the innocent lives butchered at the hands of an abortionist's knife? You are exhibiting the moral savvy of a Neanderthal if you believe for a minute David would rejoice at seeing the teeth of innocent babies smashed in their mouths, if that was even possible. Your theology is blinding your ability to discern the truth DHK, and it is beyond absurdity on this point.

 

[DHK]

DHK, who are the righteous spoken of in that Psalm? Did David desire for God to smash the teeth of infants? Would that not be a rather hard thing to do? When was the last time you saw the righteous rejoicing at the destruction of infants? Do you think protesters outside of abortion clinics are there to rejoice over the death and destruction of the innocent lives butchered at the hands of an abortionist's knife? You are exhibiting the moral savvy of a Neanderthal if you believe for a minute David would rejoice at seeing the teeth of innocent babies smashed in their mouths, if that was even possible. Your theology is blinding your ability to discern the truth DHK, and it is beyond absurdity on this point.

Whatever the context of the Psalm HP, the truth of verse one remains the same. It speaks of infants (whether of the unrighteous or righteous is irrelevant does not matter), and they go astray speaking lies as soon as they are born. That is the truth: infants speaking lies. So if you believe that the infants of just the unrighteous go to Hell or come under the severe judgement of God then you have taken the position of a hyper-Calvinist, and concluded that not only God's elect will go to heaven, but just the infants of God's elect will go to heaven. Even the infants of the unrighteous will go to Hell. This is the conclusion I get from you.

 

[ccrobinson]

Will you deny the truth of that passage as well and tell us that Enoch in fact did see death contrary to the Scriptures?

The Scripture says that Enoch didn't see death. Does Scripture say whether Enoch will die in the future?

The same goes for Elijah. God took him up in a chariot of fire in a whirlwind!

Are you implying that Elijah was without sin? If his moment of unbelief in 1 Kings 19 wasn't sin, I don't know what else you would call it. Even a great man of God like Elijah had his moment of fear and unbelief.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

When you decide to ignore the total scope of that chapter, and refuse to inject common sense, and then base your ideas of what I feel as a result of your failure to do so, do not wonder why your conclusion is all wet and is not based upon truth but rather a figment of your own imagination.

 

[DHK]

When you decide to ignore the total scope of that chapter, and refuse to inject common sense, and then base your ideas of what I feel as a result of your failure to do so, do not wonder why your conclusion is all wet and is not based upon truth but rather a figment of your own imagination.

There are some verses which can stand alone as timeless truths forever speaking forth the truth regardless of context. This is one of them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: There are some verses which can stand alone as timeless truths forever speaking forth the truth regardless of context.

HP:Now there is a definate boomerang that will come back to haunt you. :wavey:

Let me interpret that remark for the listener. In essence DHK is saying that there are some verses that by themselves are of such great value in supporting the Augustinian presupposition of original sin, that regardless of context we insist on using (rather abusing) them for our own purposes inspite of any context stated or implied. If we took into account the context the passage would be deemed useless or counter productive to our only objective, i.e., of supporting our Augustinian presuppositon of original sin.

 

[DHK]

HP:Now there is a definate boomerang that will come back to haunt you. :wavey:

Let me interpret that remark for the listener. In essence DHK is saying that there are some verses that by themselves are of such great value in supporting the Augustinian presupposition of original sin, that regardless of context we insist on using (rather abusing) them for our own purposes inspite of any context stated or implied. If we took into account the context the passage would be deemed useless or counter productive to our only objective, i.e., of supporting our Augustinian presuppositon of original sin.

That is not what I said. Like the serpent speaking to Eve, you misconstrued the Word of God; so did the devil speaking to Jesus in the temptation. If I said:
"there are some verses that by themselves are of such great value in supporting the Augustinian presupposition of original sin,"

then quote me. But that is not what I said. It is a false allegation and you know that. Again, you are a troll. You do this over and over again. You misrepresent people's positions and words, misquote them in order to cause trouble--the definition of a troll.

I said: There are some verses that are timeless truths that even when set apart from the context the truths that they teach will stand alone.
Note that I said nothing in that statement of Augustine (of whom I have never read), or of original sin, or of Calvinism.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
--a timeless truth, apart from its context.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
--a timeless truth apart from its context.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--a timeless truth apart from its context.

Jeremiah 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.
--a timeless truth apart from its context.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
--a timeless truth apart from its context.

You need to learn some principles in the Bible, principles that the Lord teaches over and over again. Regardless of the context that they are in, they still tell the truth. This is true of Psalm 58:3. Regardless of the context, it is still truth. The context doesn't make it a false statement. Whatever would give you that idea?

 

[RAdam]

I'm not speculating, I'm reading the passage as it is written. Enoch was translated that he should not see death. "That" here means that "for the purpose of" or "to acheive this goal." For instance, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth." That here means the same thing. Here's another: "even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ."

Again, that's not speculation, that's comparing scripture with scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Deleted by the author

 

[ccrobinson]

You either have the Bible upside down RAdam or you need to visit an optometrist. First just try turning it over and reading it right side up.

My Bible is on my computer and I'm not reading it upside down. I also visited my eye doctor a week ago. I think DHK was right when he said you're a troll.

Here's the verse. Please point out where RAdam didn't read it correctly.

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCR: The Scripture says that Enoch didn't see death. Does Scripture say whether Enoch will die in the future?

[/QUOTE]
HP: There is absolutely no indication that Enoch will see death in the future that I know of. If you have such a verse you might share it with us.

CCR: Are you implying that Elijah was without sin? If his moment of unbelief in 1 Kings 19 wasn't sin, I don't know what else you would call it. Even a great man of God like Elijah had his moment of fear and unbelief.

HP: Job had his miserable comforters as well.