Why do you sin?

[Winman]

Brother Wes....you're teetering on breaking Commandment #1. You're saying Christ can sin if He chooses to, and man can not sin if they choose to. You're putting God and man on equal ground....exhalting man and lowering God...

That's nonsense and you know it. You do not HAVE to sin. A week or so ago I challenged folks to tell me even one occasion in their life that they HAD to sin, and not one person gave a single example.

Tell me Willis, name even one time in your entire life that you HAD to sin and could not have done the right thing. I'll be waiting.

And Jesus became a real man, subject to the same weaknesses as us. God cannot die, but Jesus truly did die. God does not get tired or hungry, Jesus had to sleep and eat.

Not only that, but Jesus directly implied that he could lie.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

The word "if" denotes possibility, Jesus said "if" he were to deny he knew his Father, then he would be a liar.

He could have said, "I cannot lie, it is impossible". He didn't say that did he?

Jesus also implied he did not have to do his Father's will and be taken in the garden and go to the cross.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

It may have been ordained in eternity past that Jesus would go to the cross, but here he plainly implies that if he did not want to, he could "now" pray to his Father for rescue. And what is more amazing is that Jesus implies his Father would change all his plans and send more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him.

The Father didn't FORCE Jesus to go to the cross, that would be wrong. He desired that Jesus would go to the cross to redeem mankind, but Jesus had to WILLINGLY CHOOSE to do this.

Jesus didn't HAVE to die for us, he could have let us all die for our sins. We deserve to die for our sins, there would have been nothing wrong with that. So if Jesus was unwilling to die for us, the Father would not have forced him, but rescued Jesus if he would have requested it.

You guys are so far out in right field you are not even in the ballpark.

 

[psalms109:31]

Well of course, no man can believe what he does not know, so no man can come to Jesus unless he hears and learns from the word of God.



Yes, it is the power that brings salvation to everyone who believes. It does not say it is the power "to believe", all men have the God given ability to believe.



It gives you the ability to believe in the sense that no one can believe what they do not know.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Does Paul ask, "and how shall they believe unless they be made alive?" NO.

Does Paul ask, "and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" YES.

So what does Paul imply is necessary for a man to believe on Jesus? They must HEAR of Jesus. That's all, Paul doesn't imply that anything else is necessary. He simply says they must hear of Jesus to believe. He doesn't say they must be made alive to believe here or anywhere else in all of scripture.



Exactly. You do not have to be made alive to will to do God's will, but you do have to hear of God's will to will to do God's will. You are starting to catch on.



Yes, but you must receive or believe those words first. Only when you believe those words are you made alive. No one has life until they believe.

Yes, and all scripture says you must first believe before you receive the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question here demands the answer that we receive the Spirit by first hearing and believing the gospel.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here implies that a person receives the Spirit AFTER they believe. You are not alive without the Spirit, therefore a person believes when they are dead in sin, but the moment they believe they receive the Spirit and life.

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

This scripture says you have to believe that "ye might have life".

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Did Jesus say the living shall hear his voice? NO, he said "the dead" shall hear his voice, and those that hear shall live.



The fact that all men have sinned DOES NOT prove we are born with a sin nature. Satan was perfect, he sinned. The fallen angels and Adam and Eve were very good, yet they sinned. So sinning does not prove you were born with a sin nature whatsoever.



And I could say the same to you. I just showed you where Jesus said "the dead" shall hear his voice, and those that hear shall live.

You do not have to be made alive to believe, you believe to be made alive.

You do not have to have life to come to Jesus, you must come to Jesus to have life.

You need to quit listening to Calvinists, they teach the exact opposite of what scripture really says.

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

We are dead sinners doing our own will, the only one that can give life to man is the words of Christ bread, and the life He lived the blood.

If you don't eat His word , drink His blood, listen and learn, you have no life from the life given Spirit you are living in Adam that brings death from a sin nature.

If you don't believe in Sin nature me and you will never see scriptures the same.

This is clearly a waste of my time and yours I must brush the dust off my boots.

 

[Winman]

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

The word "eat" here is just another word for believe.

You eat while you are still dead, and once you eat you will have life in you.

It doesn't say you have life to eat, it says you eat to have life. So when you eat you were dead.

We are dead sinners doing our own will, the only one that can give life to man is the words of Christ bread, and the life He lived the blood.

Yes, we are DEAD, and we have to eat to be made ALIVE.

If you don't eat His word , drink His blood, listen and learn, you have no life from the life given Spirit you are living in Adam that brings death from a sin nature.

Correct, you have to eat and drink his blood, or you do not have life in you. That means you are DEAD when you eat and drink, but once that blood is inside you, you are made ALIVE.

If you don't believe in Sin nature me and you will never see scriptures the same.

I do believe men have a sin nature, but I believe "nature" means a learned lifestyle. Man are not born with a sin nature, but through practice all men develop a sin nature.

If you believe our nature is something we are born with that compels us to act a certain way, then scripture supports we are NOT born with a sin nature.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul said the Gentiles "do by NATURE the things contained in the law". This says we are born with a GOOD and OBEDIENT NATURE.

How come you Calvinists all ignore this scripture? :laugh:

This is clearly a waste of my time and yours I must brush the dust off my boots.

And I could say the same of you.

 

[DHK]

That's nonsense and you know it. You do not HAVE to sin. A week or so ago I challenged folks to tell me even one occasion in their life that they HAD to sin, and not one person gave a single example.

Tell me Willis, name even one time in your entire life that you HAD to sin and could not have done the right thing. I'll be waiting.

I already showed you that Winman, but as usual you did not accept my answer.
Try again.
You called individuals "idiots," when you didn't have to. I had to edit it out.
If you can control yourself why didn't you? Then you gave me the excuse (according to Rom.2:14,15), that it is your nature to use sarcasm, as if that is an excuse to sin. Another excuse--we all do it. Another excuse--"I suppose you never sin" (That also refers back to Rom.2:14,15--"while accusing and excusing one another"). Instead of admitting the sin, you both excused yourself and accused me, just like Rom.2:14,15 says. You didn't have to sin, but you did. It wasn't glorifying to God nor edifying to anyone on this board or anyone reading it.

And Jesus became a real man, subject to the same weaknesses as us. God cannot die, but Jesus truly did die. God does not get tired or hungry, Jesus had to sleep and eat.

When you start with a false premise you are going to end with a false conclusion. That is your problem, and why no one can reason with. Your premise is that all flesh is innocent at birth, whereas it isn't. All flesh is depraved, and all flesh is sinful from birth onward, as David said in Psalms 51:5, and as Paul taught in Rom.5:12-19. It is the premise that you start with that is false.
Now look at Romans 8:3

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
--He didn't come in the same flesh. We all have sinful flesh. If he came in the exact same flesh he would be a sinner like you and I. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. You infer that Christ is a sinner which is blasphemy. The Bible says that Christ was not a sinner, did not have sinful flesh, but rather came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Yes, he had a body that functioned exactly like ours, would tire, hunger, be weak, thirst, etc. But he could not sin.

Not only that, but Jesus directly implied that he could lie.

No he did not.

Jhn 8:55

Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

The word "if" denotes possibility, Jesus said "if" he were to deny he knew his Father, then he would be a liar.

He could have said, "I cannot lie, it is impossible". He didn't say that did he?[/quote]
You are twisting the Scripture. Actually he is saying the opposite.
The "if" denotes that he cannot lie.

Jesus also implied he did not have to do his Father's will and be taken in the garden and go to the cross.

The will of his Father was to be perfect, sinless, undefiled, and obedient always. He could not sin..

Mat 26:53

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

It may have been ordained in eternity past that Jesus would go to the cross, but here he plainly implies that if he did not want to, he could "now" pray to his Father for rescue. And what is more amazing is that Jesus implies his Father would change all his plans and send more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him.

It was the demonstration of the power available to him; power that he gladly put aside that he might go to the cross willingly. He is not showing that he could sin. That is just absurd!!

The Father didn't FORCE Jesus to go to the cross, that would be wrong. He desired that Jesus would go to the cross to redeem mankind, but Jesus had to WILLINGLY CHOOSE to do this.

Jesus didn't HAVE to die for us, he could have let us all die for our sins. We deserve to die for our sins, there would have been nothing wrong with that. So if Jesus was unwilling to die for us, the Father would not have forced him, but rescued Jesus if he would have requested it.

You guys are so far out in right field you are not even in the ballpark.

Who is the one out in right field?
Christ went willingly to the cross. He said that plainly.
I lay my life down, I take it up again. No man takes it from me.
Who has an argument with that? Remember I am not a Calvinist. But I certainly can't agree with your assumptions here. You are not only way out in right field you are way out in left field too. You are so confused.

 

[Winman]

I already showed you that Winman, but as usual you did not accept my answer.

No you didn't, and you can't. You can't possibly name a time when you HAD to sin and couldn't have done otherwise. If you say you HAD to sin you are just fooling yourself, NOBODY is going to believe you, because they know better too.

Try again.
You called individuals "idiots," when you didn't have to.

I did not call anybody an idiot. I said, "I cannot stand idiots". Your comprehension skills are VERY poor.

I had to edit it out.

No, you chose to.

If you can control yourself why didn't you? Then you gave me the excuse (according to Rom.2:14,15), that it is your nature to use sarcasm, as if that is an excuse to sin. Another excuse--we all do it. Another excuse--"I suppose you never sin" (That also refers back to Rom.2:14,15--"while accusing and excusing one another"). Instead of admitting the sin, you both excused yourself and accused me, just like Rom.2:14,15 says. You didn't have to sin, but you did. It wasn't glorifying to God nor edifying to anyone on this board or anyone reading it.

I wasn't out of control, I wrote what I wrote on purpose. I knew you would take it personal, and it worked like a charm. But I didn't call you or anybody else an idiot, just like you do with much of your theology, you ASSUMED that when it wasn't there.

When you start with a false premise you are going to end with a false conclusion. That is your problem, and why no one can reason with. Your premise is that all flesh is innocent at birth, whereas it isn't. All flesh is depraved, and all flesh is sinful from birth onward, as David said in Psalms 51:5, and as Paul taught in Rom.5:12-19. It is the premise that you start with that is false.

Psa 51:5 does not say one word about all flesh being depraved, neither does Rom 5:12. And I have shown you and others a hundred times (or more) that scripture says God has made man upright.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The word "they" shows this is speaking of all men, not Adam alone, and the word "many" shows men are sinners for many different offences, not Adam's single sin.

You do not have one verse that says all men are born sinners, while I have a verse that says God made all men upright. What do you say when you are presented with this scripture? You say it doesn't mean what it says! Foolish.

Now look at Romans 8:3

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The law cannot save a man, all it can do is tell a man what is right and wrong. It has no power to save you. It is weak, because if you break one single law you are condemned.

--He didn't come in the same flesh. We all have sinful flesh. If he came in the exact same flesh he would be a sinner like you and I. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. You infer that Christ is a sinner which is blasphemy. The Bible says that Christ was not a sinner, did not have sinful flesh, but rather came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

The word "sinful" is an adjective. Our flesh is "sinful" because we have sinned. We aren't born sinful, Romans 9:11 proves that babies have committed no sin. The moment we sin we are "sinful".

Yes, he had a body that functioned exactly like ours, would tire, hunger, be weak, thirst, etc. But he could not sin.

No he did not.

Jesus's body was EXACTLY like ours in every way, or else he did not come in the flesh and was not truly a man. Jesus never sinned, that is why he did not have "sinful flesh".

The word "if" denotes possibility, Jesus said "if" he were to deny he knew his Father, then he would be a liar.

He could have said, "I cannot lie, it is impossible". He didn't say that did he?

You are twisting the Scripture. Actually he is saying the opposite.
The "if" denotes that he cannot lie.

No he's not. He's saying that IF he denied that he knew his Father he would be a liar. He could have said that it was impossible for himself to lie, but he never said that.

The will of his Father was to be perfect, sinless, undefiled, and obedient always. He could not sin..

The word "will" is nonsensical outside of choice and option. Your "will" is your choice.

It was the demonstration of the power available to him; power that he gladly put aside that he might go to the cross willingly. He is not showing that he could sin. That is just absurd!!

Jesus could have prayed and asked his Father to rescue him, and his Father would have granted his request. If this is not true, then Jesus's statement is an outright lie.

Who is the one out in right field?
Christ went willingly to the cross. He said that plainly.
I lay my life down, I take it up again. No man takes it from me.
Who has an argument with that? Remember I am not a Calvinist. But I certainly can't agree with your assumptions here. You are not only way out in right field you are way out in left field too. You are so confused.

I am just showing you that Jesus had option and choice. He chose to always tell the truth, he chose to let those soldiers come and take him a put him on a cross.

 

[DHK]

No you didn't, and you can't. You can't possibly name a time when you HAD to sin and couldn't have done otherwise. If you say you HAD to sin you are just fooling yourself, NOBODY is going to believe you, because they know better too.

I did not call anybody an idiot. I said, "I cannot stand idiots". Your comprehension skills are VERY poor.

No, you chose to.

I wasn't out of control, I wrote what I wrote on purpose. I knew you would take it personal, and it worked like a charm. But I didn't call you or anybody else an idiot, just like you do with much of your theology, you ASSUMED that when it wasn't there.

Deny, Deny, Deny.
You Demonstrate Romans 2:14,15. "while accusing and excusing one another."
--The word "idiot" is not allowed under any circumstance. You know better.
The context, as I already explained, was plain to see.

I will use another example that may be clearer for you to see.
If you debate a Catholic over the topic of the Assumption of Mary.
You know he is wrong. But after a well laid out argument by the Catholic, you respond "I can't stand idiots," just who are you referring to and why?
Everyone knows who you are referring to and why. Words have meaning. They have meaning in the context they are used. Obviously you were referring to individuals. Those individuals were the ones that you were debating that did not believe the same that you did. I can dig up the post and prove that to you.

You used ungodly language, sinful language when you didn't have to. You chose to do it, to use language which is against the rules.
Yes, I had to edit it out. Others complained about it. I acted on the complaints I received.

It is amazing how you justify your own sin.
It is as if you are proving the doctrine of the depravity of man, your own sinful nature, by saying "I just couldn't help myself."
You have justified your own sin! Amazing!!

 

[Winman]

Deny, Deny, Deny.
You Demonstrate Romans 2:14,15. "while accusing and excusing one another."
--The word "idiot" is not allowed under any circumstance. You know better.
The context, as I already explained, was plain to see.

I will use another example that may be clearer for you to see.
If you debate a Catholic over the topic of the Assumption of Mary.
You know he is wrong. But after a well laid out argument by the Catholic, you respond "I can't stand idiots," just who are you referring to and why?
Everyone knows who you are referring to and why. Words have meaning. They have meaning in the context they are used. Obviously you were referring to individuals. Those individuals were the ones that you were debating that did not believe the same that you did. I can dig up the post and prove that to you.

You used ungodly language, sinful language when you didn't have to. You chose to do it, to use language which is against the rules.
Yes, I had to edit it out. Others complained about it. I acted on the complaints I received.

It is amazing how you justify your own sin.
It is as if you are proving the doctrine of the depravity of man, your own sinful nature, by saying "I just couldn't help myself."
You have justified your own sin! Amazing!!

I am not denying that I used the word idiot, I freely admitted that. Is that a nice word? NO. I said it, and I meant to say it.

But I did not call you or anybody else an idiot. I said that I could not stand idiots. I know what I said and why I said it, and you have the audacity to tell me why I said it. You are too much.

You are demonstrating the very problem, you hear what you WANT to hear, not what is really being said. I did not say "You are an idiot", but that is what you heard. I said, "I cannot stand idiots". But you hear what you want to hear.

And that was the exact reason I said I cannot stand idiots, because I was almost certain you would assume I was calling you an idiot. I was doing it to demonstrate how you assume and hear what you want to hear, and not what I or the scriptures are really saying.

You just don't get it.

You need to learn to read and listen with comprehension.

 

[Winman]

Here is the very post you chose to edit.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2108816&postcount=188

Now, the part that says "offensive language edited" is where I said "I cannot stand idiots".

But read the very next line. I said "I just threw you a splitter." :laugh:

The laugh smiley was supposed to be your clue that I was playing a trick or joke on you. I even said I just threw you a "splitter". I wasn't calling you or anybody else an idiot.

What I was doing is demonstrating how easy it is to sin. I knew you would take this as a personal insult, when I was not speaking about you at all. I knew you would get angry. And it worked perfectly. You behaved exactly as I predicted you would, because you have shown a propensity to assume things and hear what you want to hear.

Now you can insist all day I called you an idiot, but I did not. I was playing a trick on you, and it worked. You assumed I was calling you an idiot.

 

[DHK]

I am not denying that I used the word idiot, I freely admitted that. Is that a nice word? NO. I said it, and I meant to say it.

But I did not call you or anybody else an idiot. I said that I could not stand idiots. I know what I said and why I said it, and you have the audacity to tell me why I said it. You are too much.

You are demonstrating the very problem, you hear what you WANT to hear, not what is really being said. I did not say "You are an idiot", but that is what you heard. I said, "I cannot stand idiots". But you hear what you want to hear.

Justify your sin--just like the unsaved.
I will give you an example. I was listening to a radio program this morning on home-improvement. It is a call in program. One caller's impression about a particular product was that it is c*r*a*p. This secular radio announcer reminded or rebuked him that we cannot use such language on the public airwaves.
Now if they can't use such language on the radio how much more is it wrong for you to use a word that is even more offensive on a Christian board. You are demonstrating you sinful nature, your depravity, the correct position of the Calvinist, just by your attitude on this board. You continue in sin in your attitude. You continue to justify your own sin. Truly amazing!

And that was the exact reason I said I cannot stand idiots, because I was almost certain you would assume I was calling you an idiot. I was doing it to demonstrate how you assume and hear what you want to hear, and not what I or the scriptures are really saying.

You just don't get it.

I get it. And it is sad when those that are arrogant refuse to admit they are wrong and continue in their sin. Realize what the Bible says about that.

You need to learn to read and listen with comprehension.

I know what you said, and the context in which you said it. I also know how other people would have taken and did. Why do you think I got complaints about it?

 

[DHK]

Here is the very post you chose to edit.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2108816&postcount=188

Now, the part that says "offensive language edited" is where I said "I cannot stand idiots".

It is quite evident that you are calling "you guys" idiots. Anyone can see that.

For instance, debating with you guys often tempts me to lose my cool. [offensive language edited]

 

[Winman]

Justify your sin--just like the unsaved.
I will give you an example. I was listening to a radio program this morning on home-improvement. It is a call in program. One caller's impression about a particular product was that it is c*r*a*p. This secular radio announcer reminded or rebuked him that we cannot use such language on the public airwaves.
Now if they can't use such language on the radio how much more is it wrong for you to use a word that is even more offensive on a Christian board. You are demonstrating you sinful nature, your depravity, the correct position of the Calvinist, just by your attitude on this board. You continue in sin in your attitude. You continue to justify your own sin. Truly amazing!

I get it. And it is sad when those that are arrogant refuse to admit they are wrong and continue in their sin. Realize what the Bible says about that.

I know what you said, and the context in which you said it. I also know how other people would have taken and did. Why do you think I got complaints about it?

I have admitted from the beginning that it was not nice to use that word. But I was not calling you or anybody else an idiot, I was playing a trick on you that worked exactly as I thought it would.

You want me to admit I am a sinner? OK, I am a sinner. I couldn't be a Christian if I was unable to admit I am a sinner.

If it will make you feel better, I apologize for playing such a devious trick on you. That was not nice, and I am sorry.

 

[Winman]

It is quite evident that you are calling "you guys" idiots. Anyone can see that.

For instance, debating with you guys often tempts me to lose my cool. [offensive language edited]

Oh, I freely admit it appears that way, and that is the point. I know what I was doing, and I was not calling you an idiot. That is why I followed that statement with, "I just threw you a splitter." :laugh:

A splitter is a tricky pitch that dives out of the strike zone, it is a trick pitch. And I was playing a trick on you. If I had not said that, then you would have a case, but I was very open that I was playing a trick on you, though you may not have understood. That is why I also showed the laughing smiley face.

Now, we can keep arguing about this, but I know what I said and why I said it, and I did not call you or anybody else an idiot, no matter how much it might appear that way. It fooled you, it was a trick pitch.

 

[DHK]

Oh, I freely admit it appears that way, and that is the point. I know what I was doing, and I was not calling you an idiot. That is why I followed that statement with, "I just threw you a splitter." :laugh:

A splitter is a tricky pitch that dives out of the strike zone, it is a trick pitch. And I was playing a trick on you. If I had not said that, then you would have a case, but I was very open that I was playing a trick on you, though you may not have understood. That is why I also showed the laughing smiley face.

Now, we can keep arguing about this, but I know what I said and why I said it, and I did not call you or anybody else an idiot, no matter how much it might appear that way. It fooled you, it was a trick pitch.

You didn't fool me. Why do you think you fooled me when all you did was offend?
I don't watch baseball. Your obtuse remark about a "splitter" went over my head. I have no idea what you are talking about. Thus all I understood is that you are calling "you guys" idiots. The following remark made no sense and did not justify the previous remark. There was no trick, just offensive language being posted, and that is all.
Yes, it is time to move on.

 

[Winman]

People often read into scripture what is not there. I was demonstrating that.

"For instance, debating with you guys often tempts me to lose my cool. I cannot stand idiots."

Now, does this seem or appear that I was calling you an idiot? YES. I freely admit it does. In fact, I wrote it like this on purpose because I knew it could mislead you.

But did I actually call you an idiot? NO, I did not, no matter how much you insist I did, I did not. It is simply a statement that stands alone. I cannot stand idiots.

The point is, when you read scripture, you have to be very careful you do not read into it what it is not saying. It can often "appear" to say something, but not be saying that at all. An example.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

This is one of Calvinism's favorite verses. They claim it shows that God ordained or determined who would believe. Is that what it says?

NO. It does not say people are ordained to believe. It says that people who were ordained "to eternal life" believed.

What was ordained is eternal life. God determined before the foundation of the world that whosoever believed on his Son Jesus would receive eternal life. But he did not ordain or determine who would believe. Men have to choose to believe for themselves.

But this is a scripture that can "appear" to say what it is not saying at all.

And when I played a joke on you, it "appeared" I was calling you an idiot, but I was not.

 

[DHK]

People often read into scripture what is not there. I was demonstrating that.

"For instance, debating with you guys often tempts me to lose my cool. I cannot stand idiots."

Now, does this seem or appear that I was calling you an idiot? YES. I freely admit it does. In fact, I wrote it like this on purpose because I knew it could mislead you.

But did I actually call you an idiot? NO, I did not, no matter how much you insist I did, I did not. It is simply a statement that stands alone. I cannot stand idiots.

You still won't admit you are wrong. An unsaved woman is rebuked for saying crap on the airwaves, yet you see nothing wrong with saying idiot on a Christian website.
You justify your sin at all costs. I end with that.

The point is, when you read scripture, you have to be very careful you do not read into it what it is not saying. It can often "appear" to say something, but not be saying that at all. An example.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

This is one of Calvinism's favorite verses. They claim it shows that God ordained or determined who would believe. Is that what it says?

NO. It does not say people are ordained to believe. It says that people who were ordained "to eternal life" believed.

What was ordained is eternal life. God determined before the foundation of the world that whosoever believed on his Son Jesus would receive eternal life. But he did not ordain or determine who would believe. Men have to choose to believe for themselves.

But this is a scripture that can "appear" to say what it is not saying at all.

And when I played a joke on you, it "appeared" I was calling you an idiot, but I was not.

You didn't play a joke on me. You used offensive language which I had to edit out. I am sorry that you cannot see that. It is a pity.

 

[The Biblicist]

The point is, when you read scripture, you have to be very careful you do not read into it what it is not saying. It can often "appear" to say something, but not be saying that at all. An example.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed...... It does not say people are ordained to believe. It says that people who were ordained "to eternal life" believed.

What was ordained is eternal life. God determined before the foundation of the world that whosoever believed on his Son Jesus would receive eternal life. But he did not ordain or determine who would believe. Men have to choose to believe for themselves.

Your explanation is oxymoronic! You interpretation reverses the text to say "as many as believed were ordained to eternal life" - that is your interpetation of the text when it actually says the very reverse. If that what you force on to this text was what Paul meant he could have said so, but did not. The text clearly states that believing is the result not the cause for being ordained to eternal life. As many as were ordained to eternal life, which occurred before the world began (Eph. 1:4) believed which occurs in time. You are simply being dishonest with text and forcing it to read according to your soteriology. It needs no twisting to fit my soteriology at all, just honest reading of the text as it appears.

 

[Winman]

Your explanation is oxymoronic! You interpretation reverses the text to say "as many as believed were ordained to eternal life" - that is your interpetation of the text when it actually says the very reverse. If that what you force on to this text was what Paul meant he could have said so, but did not. The text clearly states that believing is the result not the cause for being ordained to eternal life. As many as were ordained to eternal life, which occurred before the world began (Eph. 1:4) believed which occurs in time. You are simply being dishonest with text and forcing it to read according to your soteriology. It needs no twisting to fit my soteriology at all, just honest reading of the text as it appears.

Biblicist has proved my point perfectly. :thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

You still won't admit you are wrong. An unsaved woman is rebuked for saying crap on the airwaves, yet you see nothing wrong with saying idiot on a Christian website.
You justify your sin at all costs. I end with that.

The word idiot is not profanity, at one time it was a common term in psychology for people with an IQ between 0 and 25. People with IQs from 26-50 were called imbeciles, and people with IQs from 51-70 were called morons. These terms were commonly used until the 60s. But the word idiot is not profanity. Insulting? Perhaps. Profanity? NO.

You didn't play a joke on me. You used offensive language which I had to edit out. I am sorry that you cannot see that. It is a pity.

No, you chose to edit it out. That might be your job, but no one stuck a gun to your head and forced you to edit it.

 

[DHK]

Biblicist has proved my point perfectly. :thumbsup:

Proved that you can't properly exegete a passage of scripture?
Yes, he did that.

 

[Winman]

Proved that you can't properly exegete a passage of scripture?
Yes, he did that.

So you agree with him that God ordained and determined who would believe and who would not? Yes or no?