What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

[DHK]

I never said David was confessing his sin in verse 5. I have said all along that the context of Psalm 5i is David confessing HIS sin. Surely you know that. He does not say anything about his mother's sin either. I have not tried to say he did, but then you implied that I was advocating that position.

You contend that David is talking about being born a guilty sinner. That is clearly not in in the verse, but you are convinced of it because you have a doctrine that you see the verse through. I understand that. I disagree, but I understand it.

Using the context of the entire Bible I do not see that we are born guilty sinners. I use that context to conclude that he must either be talking about his mother's sin or the world into which he was "shapen" and "conceived". I do not believe in generational sins so he would not be talking about his mother's sin. Clearly the world is full of iniquity and sin. It would be consistent to see David talk about the sin surrounding him, something he did frequently in other Psalms.

We have both agreed that it is a Psalm of repentance; that David is confessing sin. That takes place in other verses.
However, you must take verse five and demonstrate that the verse is speaking of "the world is full of full of iniquity and sin, that David is talking about the sin surrounding him." Tell us how you can possibly get that interpretation out of that verse, when it says nothing of the sort.

"I was shapen in iniquity; in sin did my mother conceive me." Where do you get a world full of sin and iniquity from that?

(KJV-1611) Behold, I was shapen in iniquitie: and in sinne did my mother conceiue me.

(GW) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.

(NET) Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

Just because your pre-conceived theology says: "Using the context of the entire Bible I do not see that we are born guilty sinners," that does not give you license to misinterpret what the Bible is saying. If the Bible is teaching what you don't believe, then your beliefs are wrong, and you need to consider changing them.

 

[trustitl]

We have both agreed that it is a Psalm of repentance; that David is confessing sin. That takes place in other verses.

Which is the immediate context you finally admitted.

However, you must take verse five and demonstrate that the verse is speaking of "the world is full of full of iniquity and sin, that David is talking about the sin surrounding him." Tell us how you can possibly get that interpretation out of that verse, when it says nothing of the sort.

Nor does it say anything close to "I have committed these sins because I was born a guilty sinner."
The verse talks about born "in" or into sin. You contend it says he was born "as" a sinner.

 

[DHK]

Which is the immediate context you finally admitted.


Nor does it say anything close to "I have committed these sins because I was born a guilty sinner."
The verse talks about born "in" or into sin. You contend it says he was born "as" a sinner.

I am not speaking of a person committing sin. I never said that or even implied that, at least not in the exposition of this verse. Furthermore I gave you two translations which plainly say: "Indeed, I was born guilty." When the Bible translators themselves declare that the verse means that David was born a guilty sinner, how can we say otherwise? It is not that he sinned; but rather was born with a sin-nature; a depraved nature. The Bible teaches this all the way through.

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.
--At what age does a person become "accustomed to do evil"? From birth--the same age the Ethiopian receives his color; the same age the leopard receives his spots. It is inherited. This is the plain teaching of Scripture.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
--At what age does the heart become deceitful and desperately wicked?
As soon as it is born (Psalm 58:3). It is born with a sin nature.
There is no "age of accountability" taught in the above verses. We are sinners by birth, inheriting a sin nature from Adam--the Adamic nature.
This is what Psalm 51:5 teaches and it teaches it so clearly I don't see how anyone can miss it.

(GW) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.
--What else can this verse mean but what it says?
I was born guilty!
David is saying I was born a guilty sinner, a sinner with a depraved nature. If the translators of various translations are saying this who are we to say differently. I would say that they know the Hebrew better than you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: (GW) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.
--What else can this verse mean but what it says?
I was born guilty!
David is saying I was born a guilty sinner, a sinner with a depraved nature. If the translators of various translations are saying this who are we to say differently. I would say that they know the Hebrew better than you.

HP: Deceivers abound and translators are no exception. People believe lies and translators are no exception. God blinds the eyes of some men and translators are no exception. They are but men. That goes for all translators including the possibility of the translators of the KJV. They all are not right for they say different things. If people can kill believers and think they do God a service, why would we have any problem believing they would not translate things in such a way that deception would be the end product?

Put your faith in any translators you so desire and I will do the same. For me there is no question. Give me the KJV.

Knowing the Hebrew better in no way guarantees one is closer to the truth in their translation. God doesn’t limit His understanding of truth to translators alone. God can reveal truth to our hearts any way He so desires. He is God you know. He can reveal it to babes and hide it from the so called wise and prudent.

Any one that translates Psalm 51:5 to depict guilt from birth is deceived, regardless of their credentials or abilities with the original languages. Babies are innocent not guilty. To try and make innocent babies guilty makes a mockery out of universal first truths of reason, other scriptural passages depicting and defining sin, and matters of immutable justice.

Believe as you will DHK, and I will do the same. One thing is for certain, the KJV in no way places guilt upon David at birth period. The only way you can force that private interpretation is to inject a presupposition of hereditary guilt or original sin into the text where no such presupposition can find support either by the text or in the beliefs of those that penned it.

Edersheim had it right when he states clearly that the Jews, those responsible for penning the OT, had absolutely no place in their theology for inherited depravity, original sin, or guilt from birth. That notion did not arise on the church scene until Augustine fathered and introduced it as dogma years later. To try and inject it into the text is pure deception of the facts.

We have covered this passage about as well as we possibly can. Why don't we move on to your other pasage in question, Psalms 58? Show us the context of that passage and how it supports the notion of a guilty sinful nature from birth.

 

[DHK]

Any one that translates Psalm 51:5 to depict guilt from birth is deceived, regardless of their credentials or abilities with the original languages. Babies are innocent not guilty. To try and make innocent babies guilty makes a mockery out of universal first truths of reason, other scriptural passages depicting and defining sin, and matters of immutable justice.

Thus saith HP. Speak no more for HP hath spoken.
See what you have done. You have stated your case. You have also stated that you don't care "regardless of their credentials or abilities with the original languages..babies are innocent not guilty." There it is. You don't care what others think; what other research has been done; what other scholars say. You are right no matter who says what. No one can convince you otherwise. The argument is over. The debate is done.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

You want to discuss other Scripture, but you will just throw it and all other scholarship out the window as well. What is the use?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You want to discuss other Scripture, but you will just throw it and all other scholarship out the window as well. What is the use?

HP: Scholarship is a very debatable point DHK. Every cult and opinion in town has their scholars. I have set forth well recognized scholars as well and you have not accepted their testimony, but tell me I want to throw all scholarship out the window?? That is not true and you know it.

I simply do not believe the scholars and or translators that abound a dime a dozen in support of original sin. I do not support scholars that try and put into the mouths of Jews doctrines completely foreign to their well established views, both in the OT as well as today. I do not accept scholars that contradict clear first truths of reason and matters of immutable justice and other passages of Scripture that clearly establish the nature of sin and associated guilt. God places within man a conscience and first truths of reason to guide us in our quest for truth, and to believe at direct antipodes to that God given reason and knowledge is to gender error into our thinking, subsequent theology, and Biblical interpretations.

You are the one that brought up Psalm 58 as in support of inherited sin or original sin, so establish the connection by the context of the passage and then we can debate it. It does no good to put one scholar up against another scholar in our debates. They are no part of the discussion anyway. Try using something such as first truths of reason, matters of fact , universally accepted truths of immutable justice, etc to establish your points. Merely finding a translation that says what you desire it to say is not a sound way of establishing spiritual truth, in spite of all those that do just that. Spiritual deception abounds, yes and especially in modern translations. Try and find sources so universal in nature, and so self evident in truth, that to cavil against them is to cavil against any semblance of reason.

Upward and onward!:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

I simply do not believe the scholars and or translators that abound a dime a dozen in support of original sin. I do not support scholars that try and put into the mouths of Jews doctrines completely foreign to their well established views, both in the OT as well as today.

Those scholars, like Nicodemus (a leading Rabbi or teacher of his day), who tried to "put into the mouths of Jews doctrines completely foreign to their well established views" were kicked out of the synagogue, while the Jews rejected their Messiah and went on and crucified Him.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Those scholars, like Nicodemus (a leading Rabbi or teacher of his day), who tried to "put into the mouths of Jews doctrines completely foreign to their well established views" were kicked out of the synagogue, while the Jews rejected their Messiah and went on and crucified Him.

HP: Sorry DHK you lost me with that attempt at an analogy. I fail to see any connection whatsoever.

One thing I do know is that the Jews never had any place in their theology for any such notion as original sin, a notion brought into the Church by none other than Augustine, who believed that sin resided in the flesh as opposed to the will, just as many still do today. Augustine confounded the sensibilities with the will, a most common error indeed.

The renown scholar of “The Life and times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” Alfred Edersheim, who even though he himself believed in original sin, from everything I can gather, was at least honest and truly objective in his stating of the facts when he clearly made that point. He also stated that from the writing available of the Rabbis and their stated opinions, the notion of original sin, or constitutional depravity, was simply not held as a belief by them.
Edersheim is widely accepted as a trusted scholar by many of even different denominations, although obviously rejected by you. Are we to assume, as I have been charged, that you believe you know more than this renown scholar of Jewish antiquity knew and clearly understood? I certainly would allow for the possibility, at least in some limited scope in some cases, but reason tells me in this case Edersheim is to be trusted with his conclusion. What impresses me so much with Edersheim, is that he does not try and deny that which via his studies proves to be the facts, even when it ran contrary to support for his own beliefs as a Christian believing in original sin. Now that is a great example of a true objective scholar, one that I can trust in spite of his error in his own personal theology.

Now, what is the context that supports original sin or enherited moral depravity from birth in Psalms 58?

 

[DHK]

HP: Sorry DHK you lost me with that attempt at an analogy. I fail to see any connection whatsoever.

One thing I do know is that the Jews never had any place in their theology for any such notion as original sin, a notion brought into the Church by none other than Augustine, who believed that sin resided in the flesh as opposed to the will, just as many still do today. Augustine confounded the sensibilities with the will, a most common error indeed.

The renown scholar of “The Life and times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” Alfred Edersheim, who even though he himself believed in original sin, from everything I can gather, was at least honest and truly objective in his stating of the facts when he clearly made that point. He also stated that from the writing available of the Rabbis and their stated opinions, the notion of original sin, or constitutional depravity, was simply not held as a belief by them.
Edersheim is widely accepted as a trusted scholar by many of even different denominations, although obviously rejected by you.

I have Edersheim's work, and I don't reject them.
Here is your logic.

1. Jews did not believe in original sin (according to HP, not according to Bible).
2. Edersheim, a Jew, did believe in original sin.
3. HP does not believe in original sin, though Edersheim does, and uses Edersheim as his authority, even though Edersheim believes in original sin being a Jew.

Your statement: "The renown scholar of “The Life and times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” Alfred Edersheim, who even though he himself believed in original sin."

Conclusion: You not only deny the clear teaching of the Bible itself as declared by Bible translators and commentators, but by the Jews themselves; and then you deny what Jewish scholars say about the depravity of man (a more accurate term than original sin).
You, sir, are very, very, confused.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I have Edersheim's work, and I don't reject them.
Here is your logic.

1. Jews did not believe in original sin (according to HP, not according to Bible).

HP: Certainly there are Christian Jews ‘today’ that believe in original sin. That has nothing to do with our discussion. How Edersheim views himself, as a Christian Jew or not, or whether or not he himself is a Jew, is immaterial to the discussion. We are addressing the Jews in the OT who wrote the Scriptures, DAVID in particular (being the one whose writing we are addressing). That is the limitations of this discussion. Edersheim’s position is that the Jews of the OT, let me repeat, the Jews of the OT, the authors of the OT as well as the Rabbin’s in total, did not believe in or have any place in their theology for any such notion as original sin or inherited moral depravity.

How can I make that more clear than what I have said? Are you listening or simply drawing conclusions as to what I say based on your own ambitions to promote your own agenda to the destruction of truth, fairness, and reason concerning the views of all others?

I am not confused. Your comments in no way reflect my logic in the least. Try again DHK.

 

[DHK]

HP: Certainly there are Christian Jews ‘today’ that believe in original sin. That has nothing to do with our discussion.

Yes it does. There is one group that believes in "original sin," just as past Jews. Don't neglect them.

How Edersheim views himself, as a Christian Jew or not, or whether or not he himself is a Jew, is immaterial to the discussion.

He is not immaterial. He is a second witness to "original sin," that you now have discounted.

We are addressing the Jews in the OT who wrote the Scriptures, DAVID in particular (being the one whose writing we are addressing). That is the limitations of this discussion.

No it is not the limitations of this discussion. Look at the title of the thread, and read the OP again. The title says: "What constitutes a Depraved Nature," and does not limit it to the OT. This is just more material, more evidence to "original sin" that you are discounting.

Edersheim’s position is that

the Jews of the OT, let me repeat, the Jews of the OT, the authors of the OT as well as the Rabbin’s in total, did not believe in or have any place in their theology for any such notion as original sin or inherited moral depravity.

First, I looked back and I saw no quote from you verifying his position on this. So I must simply take your word on this that you are telling the truth. But the truth is, it is simply your opinion until it is verified. I will wait until the evidence is out.
Second, in consideration of Edersheim's own view, I find what you say unlikely. I also find it unlikely that the Jews of the OT did not believe in "original sin" since David so clearly stated it in the Psalms. So we have a definite contradiction between what you say and what the Bible says.

How can I make that more clear than what I have said? Are you listening or simply drawing conclusions as to what I say based on your own ambitions to promote your own agenda to the destruction of truth, fairness, and reason concerning the views of all others?

You are clear in this: You have put a doctrine forth. It is yours. It is your presupposition that what you believe must be true. And then you have gone to the Bible to try and justify a false doctrine. That is what you have attempted to do. That is what is clear to almost everyone on this board. Is it not odd to you that only one other person on this board believes as you do, and the rest believe in the doctrine of the depravity of man? Who is promoting whose agenda? You have things backwards. Don't accuse me of promoting an agenda. That is an insult. 99% of the posters here believe as I do. You are the one, if anyone, that is promoting an agenda here.
Taken to its logical conclusion you are teaching that man doesn't need a Saviour because he is basically good. He doesn't have a sin nature and therefore is good. He needs no Saviour. And that is heresy.

I

am not confused. Your comments in no way reflect my logic in the least. Try again DHK.

You are very confused.
In fact this is what you said to Marcia:

"It matters not in reality if there is not a man alive that can read the Hebrew, God is still able to communicate His Word and the meanings thereof to those that diligently seek Him and His truth."

Only a gnostic would say something like that, or could say something like that. The word "gnostic" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means "to know." They claime to have special knowledge above and beyond others. That is what you are claiming. You are claiming that God is communicating his Word and the meanings thereof to you and therefore you do not need to take heed to all the evidence, by means of scholars, commentators and other translations. That is the essence of gnosticism. You claim knowledge, a higher knowlege than others. It is a heresy right from the first century.

 

[Frogman]

Is God not able to speak?

What of the deaf who cannot hear man?

The blind who cannot read man's commentaries, scholars' scholarship, etc.?

I fail to see the statement quoted as a form of gnosticism. Perhaps I am gnostic?

I believe the Holy Spirit (third person of the Trinity of God, which is one) does speak to HIS people today.

This is my personal opinion perhaps, if that makes me gnostic, then I guess I am gnostic.

bro. Dallas

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Frogman: This is my personal opinion perhaps, if that makes me gnostic, then I guess I am gnostic.

HP: I am indebted to you for taking a stand for truth and sanity. Just remember, that it does not stop with the name calling of Gnostic. DHK went beyond even that, labeling ones beliefs if they run contrary to his warped idea of another’s beliefs as ‘heresy’ as well.

What this section of the board needs is moderators that will honor and stay within the guidelines of the rules of the forum. DHK has proved many times over that he is above the rules of this forum and refuses to abide by them.

Name calling is prohibited. Such hypocrisy looks bad for Baptist Board and all the moderators that conduct themselves in accordance to the rules.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

For those following the discussion and would happen to have a copy of Alfred Edersheim’s book, “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” you will find his remarks on the beliefs of the Rabbinic denial of original sin on pp. 165-166. On page 52 he states clearly that although he himself believes in original sin and goes as far as to possibly call it the “starting point of Christian theology” (which I believe is a totally false conclusion on his part) he states that such is “entirely unknown to Rabbinical Judaism.”

Again, although I disagree with Edersheim in his personal conclusions of the matter, I still honor him, holding his work in high esteem for his honesty even when it can be seen to place his own conclusions in a bad light, and agree completely with his historical findings in the matter of the Jews and their beliefs. His book is a must read for every Christian's library shelf for those interested in an indepth study of the life and times of Jesus as well as the doctrines held and taught by the Jews in the OT, IMO of course.

 

[DHK]

Is God not able to speak?

What of the deaf who cannot hear man?

The blind who cannot read man's commentaries, scholars' scholarship, etc.?

I fail to see the statement quoted as a form of gnosticism. Perhaps I am gnostic?

I believe the Holy Spirit (third person of the Trinity of God, which is one) does speak to HIS people today.

This is my personal opinion perhaps, if that makes me gnostic, then I guess I am gnostic.

bro. Dallas

"It matters not in reality if there is not a man alive that can read the Hebrew, God is still able to communicate His Word and the meanings thereof to those that diligently seek Him and His truth."

This is the original statement that HP made to Marcia concerning a specific interpretation of Psalm 51:5. It was made in response to the OT, which was originally written in Hebrew. When one claims a private interpretation above and beyond what the Hebrew says, a special revelation, then that is gnosticism. The Lord speaks to us, in these days through the Scriptures. He has revealed Jesus Christ to us through the Scriptures, and has chosen the Scriptures as his vehicle to reveal him to us.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

God does not communicate His Word the same way that He did in the OT any more. He uses His Word. To claim special revelation is gnosticism.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: God does not communicate His Word the same way that He did in the OT any more. He uses His Word. To claim special revelation is gnosticism.[/QUOTE]

HP: Since my quote is the one in question I will respond as well. It is a complete misrepresentation of the facts to claim I have said that I have some ‘special revelation’ or that God’s Word is somehow novel with me. I have never stated any such thing nor implied it. That is again a misrepresentation not in keeping with the truth DHK. There is not one thing that I know of that I have stated on this subject that is novel with me. If you are unaware of all those that even today believe as I do within the Church concerning inherited guilt, you have reason for serious study. If you do not believe that God has honored the notion that man is not born guilty of sin, you have not read or studied the doctrinal beliefs of the men largely responsible for the greatest revival of religion this nation has ever witnessed, or for that matter might ever witness. As men have been willing to leave the plantation of Augustinian thought, and placed the guilt of sin squarely on the shoulders of the individual sinner alone, God has indeed testified to the truth of that truth in years gone by with a mighty outpouring of His Spirit. Could the rejection of this truth be one of the reasons why revival now tarries in our once great nation?

God has preserved His Word for all of us in our native tongue, English. I say again that if there is not one still alive that can read the Hebrew, I have full confidence in His written word to me in the English language that I can understand it with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit. If they lined up every Hebrew or GK scholar and killed them, God still will be faithful to His Word and communicate the truth of His Word to the hearts and lives of those that diligently seek His truth with all their heart.

Let us be reminded that some day we all will stand and give an account for every idle word that is spoken and every deed done in the flesh, and that without any GK or Hebrew scholars to stand as our Advocate. We will stand alone before an Almighty God and His Word, and our Advocate Jesus Christ the Righteous if we are found in Him in that last day. There will be no excuses such as “But God, the greatest Hebrew scholar said this or that!” God expects us to avail ourselves to the Holy Spirit as our source of truth and enlightenment. I am not saying that Hebrew and GK scholars are not helpful or serve no earthly purpose because they do. What I am saying is that they are but men and we are to judge what they say as well as what every preacher says by the Word of God and the understanding we each receive from the Holy Spirit. Some of us will be found to have understood and lived the truth and others will have been found to have set aside the truth and as such been deceived. I want to study to show myself approved and I trust all others do as well. Our final authority must be the Holy Spirit and His Word and the bar of our conscience, not any teacher, scholar, or minister of the gospel as useful as they are. That is not Gnosticism and that is no heresy.

 

[DHK]

DHK: God does not communicate His Word the same way that He did in the OT any more. He uses His Word. To claim special revelation is gnosticism.[/QUOTE]

HP: Since my quote is the one in question I will respond as well. It is a complete misrepresentation of the facts to claim I have said that I have some ‘special revelation’ or that God’s Word is somehow novel with me. I have never stated any such thing nor implied it. That is again a misrepresentation not in keeping with the truth DHK. There is not one thing that I know of that I have stated on this subject that is novel with me. If you are unaware of all those that even today believe as I do within the Church concerning inherited guilt, you have reason for serious study. If you do not believe that God has honored the notion that man is not born guilty of sin, you have not read or studied the doctrinal beliefs of the men largely responsible for the greatest revival of religion this nation has ever witnessed, or for that matter might ever witness.

Let me guess. You are referring to Charles Finney. Am I correct?

As men have been willing to leave the plantation of Augustinian thought, and placed the guilt of sin squarely on the shoulders of the individual sinner alone, God has indeed testified to the truth of that truth in years gone by with a mighty outpouring of His Spirit. Could the rejection of this truth be one of the reasons why revival now tarries in our once great nation?

You confuse two doctrines.
1. Man's responsibility for his sin and his need to repent.
2. The doctrine of the depravity of man.
The two doctrines are both true and both need to be taught.

God has preserved His Word for all of us in our native tongue, English. I say again that if there is not one still alive that can read the Hebrew, I have full confidence in His written word to me in the English language that I can understand it with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

"IF THERE..." You have set up a conjecture that is not true and probably never will be, so you have no need to worry, and the conclusion you have drawn is obviously false. There are men that know Hebrew, and know it well. There are Hebrew scholars--many of them. I am not a Hebrew scholar; I only studied it for one year. But the professor under whom I studied was a Hebrew scholar. Seminaries and Universities, as well as Jewish institutes of higher learning abound with such teachers.
Thus we have more than just one translation that was translated more than 400 years ago. There are Hebrew scholars today that are quite capable of doing this work. They also join organizations like Wycliffe and translate the Bible into scores of other languages from the Hebrew OT that other nations might have the Word of God. English is not the only language in the world. It only serves 10% of the world. We are the minority; not the majority.

Your mistake is that you reject the scholarship done by other Hebrew scholars. I present to you other translations that clearly show the meaning of Psalm 51:5, and you toss them out the window. You refuse to even consider the possibility thatthese men may be right and you may be wrong.

If they lined up every Hebrew or GK scholar and killed them, God still will be faithful to His Word and communicate the truth of His Word to the hearts and lives of those that diligently seek His truth with all their heart.

What nonsense is this all about. The holocaust is not currently taking place as you seem to be suggesting. Nor are we in the midst of the Great Tribulation. There are plenty of Greek and Hebrew scholars. God is faithful to his Word, but you are rejecting the Word that God has been faithful to. God does not give you special revelation that goes against His Word. That is what the gnostics claimed.

Here is what the NET Bible says:
(Psa 51:5) Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

But you don't accept the plain truth that the Scripture teaches when it is put in the words of the NET Bible. The meaning is too obvious. There is no getting around that man has a sinful nature. That is what David was speaking about and you don't want to agree, so you dismiss the translation, and say that you have more and greater knowledge than the Hebrew Scholars involved in the translation of the NET Bible. God spoke to you directly, right?

Let us be reminded that some day we all will stand and give an account for every idle word that is spoken and every deed done in the flesh, and that without any GK or Hebrew scholars to stand as our Advocate. We will stand alone before an Almighty God and His Word, and our Advocate Jesus Christ the Righteous if we are found in Him in that last day. There will be no excuses such as “But God, the greatest Hebrew scholar said this or that!” God expects us to avail ourselves to the Holy Spirit as our source of truth and enlightenment. I am not saying that Hebrew and GK scholars are not helpful or serve no earthly purpose because they do. What I am saying is that they are but men and we are to judge what they say as well as what every preacher says by the Word of God and the understanding we each receive from the Holy Spirit. Some of us will be found to have understood and lived the truth and others will have been found to have set aside the truth and as such been deceived. I want to study to show myself approved and I trust all others do as well. Our final authority must be the Holy Spirit and His Word and the bar of our conscience, not any teacher, scholar, or minister of the gospel as useful as they are. That is not Gnosticism and that is no heresy.

It becomes gnosticism if you claim your knowledge greater than all the Hebrew scholars and commentaries, and those who also say they are guided by the Holy Spirit, who say the opposite that you do. The Holy Spirit does not work against himself. I ask you again. Out of all the members on this board there is only one other that I have encountered that takes the same position that you do on this subject. Don't you think that counts for something?

You are wrong to say this doctrine originated with Augustine. That is a fable in and of itself. It is a doctrine that originates with Adam. The widely published McGuffey Readers, used for years to teach elementary children stated: "In Adam's fall; we sinned all." It is all very elementary, and has been taught that way for years, since before the time of the Apostles.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Out of all the members on this board there is only one other that I have encountered that takes the same position that you do on this subject. Don't you think that counts for something?

HP: Absolutely that counts for something. When I gave my heart and life to the Lord I pledged to follow Him wherever He leads me and to be willing to say the things that He would have me to say against all odds and in whatever setting He would be pleased to place me in. It seems clear from what you say that I am indeed in the midst of a needy mission field. That certainly counts for something, i.e., the spreading of the truth where it is needed most. Others before me have found themselves in such a place and God was able to sustain them against all odds! Isn’t God’s sustaining power wonderful! He gives us peace in the midst of every storm! Duty in mine, the results are the Lord's. Praise ye the Lord!! :godisgood:

 

[DHK]

HP: Absolutely that counts for something. When I gave my heart and life to the Lord I pledged to follow Him wherever He leads me and to be willing to say the things that He would have me to say against all odds and in whatever setting He would be pleased to place me in. It seems clear from what you say that I am indeed in the midst of a needy mission field.

Please consider carefully what you say here. Remember that this is an answer to my post in reference to the members of BB. You are stating that your doctrine, in opposition to 99% of the board, is the correct one even though you can't substantiate it with Scripture. You have stated that God has revealed it to you. And now you have stated that God has led you here "to have me say against all odds and it whatever setting...it seems clear...I am in the midst of a needy mission field.

You believe that the Baptist Board is a needy mission field to disseminate your doctrine which goes against all orthodox Christian doctrine throughout the centuries. Because I call you on it you report me. But now you have exposed yourself by deeming this board to be your personal mission field.

Now, answer me honestly. In the interest of fair play: Who do you think should be the one reported?

Some years ago the RCC's came on here, and because they considered this their mission field were all promptly banned, and from that time on are not allowed entrance into this board.
It is a privilege to post here; not a right. This is not your personal mission field. If that is your attitude I suggest you go somewhere else.

 

[BD17]

DHK: HP has been doing this for sometime his denial of the scriptural evidence that refute his beliefs goes back two years, I had the same "I know more than you but can't back it up with scripture" excuse when debating him on the Geneology of Christ. He takes his beliefs and will only read those that support those beliefs, claiming that all others are wrong.