The coupe de grace of deniers of original sin

You have accused me of philosophy and not using Scripture. I don't see you using any Scripture. You set forth philosophy regularly. In my last post to "Convicted" I used plenty of Scripture. He also agreed with my post.
I can only label your posts as philosophical in nature because you don't use Scripture. But you cannot label me with that. Read my posts and then try to respond to them instead of sitting behind a keyboard and making baseless accusations.

 

HP: You have absolutely no proof to make any such remark. That is nothing more than humanistic fodder to cover for your false Augustinian dogma of original sin. Your comment is completely without evidence or merit. You use 'context' concerning this passage as a convient tool and nothing more.

 

I have been waiting for this for years and have never seen it.
Prove your position with Scripture.

To put it bluntly: You need to put up or shut up!

 

DHK, I hope by now we have learned a few things in all of our discussions. First, no one is devoid of using philosophy in their arguments. We all do. We either have a philosophy or assume one at every turn dealing in theology. Would you agree with that one simple point?

 

HP: DHK you have to have eyes to see with and ears to hear if you desire the truth. Scripture simply does not list false philosophical positions such as original sin.

For instance what if I said that Scripture indicates Pluto is a cube and asked you to prove from Scripture is not? The burden of proof lies on those that claim Scripture supports that such a notion, not on those that say it simply is not supported by Scripture or reason.

All I can do is show that the passages or notions used in support of that dogma are inconsistent with reason as well as Scripture. If you for even a moment try to act as if though I have not carefully examined every text that has been set forth as evidence of the dogma of original sin, you are being less than honest concerning the facts. I cannot think of one verse or one passage I have not addressed even multiple times. If there is one that you can think of, set it forth to the list and I will do my best to address it. The truth is that I have set forth the truths of Scripture that clearly either refute the notion of original sin, or I have shown the misuse of Scripture by trying to make proof texts, like PS 14, Ps53, Ps 58, passages in Romans etc. walk on all four legs in support of the doctrine of original sin which by context prove those using those passages in support of original sin are being careless with Scripture.

 

I will reiterate my position so you will clearly understand the worthlessness of your philosophy.

If you do not use Scripture your position is worthless. Is that clear enough?

 

HP: Now are not you a fine one to lecture us after your recent philosophical post on God not punishing infants for their sin. Take some of the medicine yourself that you want to dish out. Prove that Scripture supports that philosophical notion, that God needs to or does takes away the sin of infants by whatever means you say he does. Show us how God excludes infants, incapable of faith, from exhibiting faith, when it clearly states that without faith no one can see God. Show where God states or implies that every sinner must repent if in fact he is to be forgiven, but sinful infants are excluded. We are looking for solid Scriptural evidence.:thumbsup:

 

Indeed, death is separation, but not only spiritual separation. Adam's punishment (judgment) for his sin was also physical:

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.​

Note that the curse that God pronounces is a CHANGE in the way things were. This demonstrates that "returning to the dust" was not part of the original design. This returning to the dust is what we consider physical death... and it is what Ecc 12:7 was talking about:

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.​

 

In essence you only can try to refute what you don't believe but you have no idea to present what you do believe, because you don't know. You have no alternative. You cannot say "Original sin is false but this is what is true......." You can only deny, deny, deny, without adding anything beneficial.

Scripture relies on historical truth, as it is a history book as well. History tells us Pluto was a person, not a cube. That is not philosophy. Scripture says that Pluto, as a person was a sinner with a sin nature, born in original sin. That is not philosophy. It is Biblical truth. And if you don't believe it, don't just deny it, refute with Scripture and give a viable alternative with a Biblical basis.

No you can do better than that. You must not only refute the position with Scripture, but give an alternative that is Scripturally viable.

You take passages like Psalm 51:5 and make David's mother an adulteress, clearly an unacceptable interpretation. Then you have no Scripture to back up what you say. It is your opinion against all of orthodox Christianity. You might as well start your own religion. It is follow HP or Orthodox Christianity, except that HP can't give Scripture for his position.

 

Physical death is also separation:

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26)
--When the spirit separates from the body, that is death.
This is a much better verse to us than the one in Ecclesiastes, as Ecclesiastes is a book where the author looks upon life from the outside, from man's point of view. That is why the cults like it so much. He searches for happiness in every area of life, and finds nothing but emptiness. Even the verse you quote is looking at life from man's point of view, for we know that "the spirit" (of all men) do not return to God. Only those that are saved will go to be with the Lord. What is written is from the point of view of a man, until you get to the last chapter, and Solomon says: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter..."

 

What you say is nothing but worthless rhetoric because Romans 5:14 teaches no such thing because when we look at the context it is clear that all die spiritually as a result of their own sin:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Ro.5:12).

 

This thread is clearly a shot to the foot of the authors position more than anything. Would that be called a "Coupe de foot?":smilewinkgrin:

 

Famous last words of the Romanists spoken to Martin Luther!

That is so typical of those who put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than they in what the Scriptures actually say!

The Calvinists teach that spiritual death comes as a result of Adam's sin:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" (The Westminster Confession of Faith: VI./3).

However, the Scriptures tell a different story. Paul says that his spiritual death came as a result of breaking God's law:

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).

Paul describes the Ten Commandments as being "the ministration of death":

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life...the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2 Cor.3:6-8).

It is impossible to die spiritually as a result of breaking a commandemt if a person is already dead spiritually. That is because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually. So common sense dictates that a person does not come out of the womb spiritually dead!

 

So you are ok with abortion then... the fetus is just getting what it deserves for being a sinner? Unless you think the death of the sinful fetus is unjust.