Featured What does consistent error look like?

Of course both Esau and Jacob sinned when they had matured and understood right from wrong, ALL men do. This is when a man is condemned by the law and spiritually dies.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Paul explains here that he would not have known sin if not for the law. Can a one year old child understand the law of God? Of course not, so this child cannot be accountable.

Paul said he was alive once without the law. If a man is born dead in sin as you falsely teach, Paul could NEVER say a man was once alive, but that is exactly what Paul said. He did not say he THOUGHT he was alive as some falsely teach, he said he was alive. But when he matured to the point he could understand the law, then he was convicted by the law and spiritually died, sin slew him.

Calvinism cannot explain scripture like this, so they explain it away.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Twice Jesus said the prodigal son was "alive again" when he repented and returned to his father. If a man was born dead in sin as many falsely teach, then never could it be said that any man is "alive again", but that is exactly what Jesus himself said. And I am sure Jesus understood proper doctrine!

Those who hold to the false teachings of Augustine cannot comprehend scripture like this, it overthrows their false doctrine. The scriptures say God has made all men upright, but all men go out in sin and become lost (see Luke 15)

God's election is not according to works, it is according to calling, those who respond to God's call in faith. God in his foreknowledge knew Jacob would believe, and Esau would not. Esau did not believe the promises left to his father Isaac and so sold his birthright for a bowl of soup. Jacob did believe the promises given to his father and desired them. God saw this before it ever happened in time.

Abraham answered the "call".

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Election is according to God's calling, those who respond in faith and obey God's call as Abraham did are chosen. Read Matthew 22, many men were called to the king's wedding for his son, but only those who obeyed and came with a wedding robe (the righteousness imputed to those who believe on Jesus) were chosen.

 

I See You Have Found Your Double in Theolgy?

Just like you, IC, Ben has set himself up as the all-knowing person who tells you he is "correcting" your errors, and when you disagree, you get spiritually lambasted to the point of submission, or else! :laugh:

You two are more alike than you may think or want to believe.

And believe me when I tell you that I have no ill-will towards either of you! However, you must admit, that one person who believes they have ALL the answers, going against another person who thinks they have a corner on God and what God sees as being best for the rest of us, is a little interesting, and it should be entertaining to see how this debate ends, and whether Ben or yourself are the actual winners in this subject.

Dealing with either of you is sort of like :BangHead: but, there are always some good points buried within your cyber bravado! raying:

 

Iconoclast...

You asked me these questions...

I have no scheme. My authority is the truth given by God, and found in the scriptures.

Regarding the security of the believer, God has declared that of all who come to Him, he will lose none.

I claim nothing. God has declared in the scriptures that He will save any who sincerely choose to place thier faith in Christ.

God's salvation is forever. praise the Lord!

Not worthy of a response.

Not worthy of a response.

 

I understand your interpretation of the scriptures well, I simply disagree with it, and I have showed you scripture now and in the past that I believe refutes your view. If a man is born dead in sin as you believe, Paul could have NEVER said he was alive without the law once. If your view is correct, Jesus could NEVER have said the prodigal son was alive AGAIN. And of course you know I have showed you Ecc 7:29 that says God has made all men upright many times. I have showed you other scripture besides this as well.

So, I believe there is much scripture that refutes your view. I understand your view, I simply believe it is error. Your view is all based on Augustine's interpretation of Romans 5:12 from a flawed Latin text, I know it well.

 

Iconoclast...

You asked me 6 questions, and I gave you a clear response to every one of them..excepting the last 2 that were so silly that they didnt deserve my time.

Have a good day.

 

While I disagree with your view as well Icon could learn from your posts how to reasonably respond to others without all the fanfare and arrogance.

 

Oh, I am quite aware of the hold of the doctrine of Original Sin has on the church, not just Catholics and the Reformed, but many non-Cal denominations as well. I believe this is all based on Augustine's interpretation of Romans 5:12 from a flawed Latin text that said "in whom all have sinned", when the correct interpretation is "for that all have sinned" or "because all have sinned". The EOC who have always used only the Greek texts from the beginning rejected Augustine's interpretation, as well as many others like the Anabaptists. John Smyth who is generally credited with being the founder of the Baptist denomination rejected Original Sin.

I believe there is MUCH scripture that refutes Original Sin. I believed in OS at one time, because that is what I was taught. But through study of scripture I now reject it. And I have showed the scripture that I believe refutes it, so it is not something I just made up in my own head.

The best scripture that refutes OS is Ezekiel 18:20;

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father. Seems pretty clear to me. Augustine and all who hold to OS deny this scripture.

 

Does your view of Ezekiel 18:20 stay consistent with what Paul discussed in Romans about righteousness?

Why is it that Paul throughout Romans speaks specifically that God must impute righteousness, and that righteousness is a gift from God if humankind has it already?

It seems your view presents an inconsistency with exactly what constitutes righteousness, the giver of righteousness, and the imputation of righteousness.

It is certainly true that the Decalogue is imprinted on the hearts of every humankind. That provides for orderly societal structures and for a recognition of some type of higher authority.

Are you taking that as the righteousness of Ezekiel?

Do you not see that merely the imprinting of the Decalogue upon the heart is the death warrant?

The statement of Jesus in John 3 does not wait upon some action or even acknowledgement of "sin" for condemnation to be imposed upon humankind.

The John 3 statement is that condemnation is already applied.

Your scheme just doesn't seem to hold consistency throughout Scriptures.

 

I see no contradiction at all. Though all men are made upright (Ecc 7:29), the same verse says they have sought out many inventions. All men who reach the age of accountability sin.

Because all men spiritually die when they sin just as Adam and Eve did. It only takes one sin to come short of the glory of God. Once a man sins, his only remedy is to trust in Christ and have righteousness imputed to him.

To be righteous means to be without sin. It is that simple.

Yes, it is foolish to deny that all men have a sense of right and wrong, it is obvious. All men are born with a conscience which by definition is to know right from wrong and have a desire to do what is right. Look up the definition of conscience in any dictionary.

Of course, this completely contradicts Total Inability.

Righteousness means to be without sin.

Yes, the scriptures say those who sin without the law shall die without the law, because their own conscience convicts them. But a little infant has no such conscience developed yet.

What statement is that? Jesus said a man must be "converted" and become as a little child to enter heaven. Surely Jesus was not saying we must become sinners when he said this. Is that what you believe?

Jesus was speaking to men who knew the law, not babies or infants. A little infant would not understand what Jesus was talking about.

Sure it does, but I don't expect you to agree with it.

 

How disingenuous of you! You are striking out at me and trying to get back at me because you're still fuming and having hissy fits over me pegging your behavior if front of your dogs as attributing to its fear…this after your childish little PMs attacks…..And you wonder how I know what your behavior is like at home when the ILLegAL!!! fireworks are going off…

 

Icon, with your level of reasoning abilities I don’t expect you to understand why I wouldn’t just sit here and play the game of returning to you scripture for scripture while engaging in the same style of misuse of them that you do. But just know that to dodge simple rational critical thinking skills to participate in your style of debate is too far beneath me.

Other than in an occasional sarcastic mimicking of you to try to show you what you are doing, for me to use your style would weigh heavily on my conscience because I am not ignorant of the value of ethical philosophical principles to draw out the truth in debate like you are. I would have no excuse to engage in your kind of nonsense and to go about constantly displaying the kind of debate tactics you use and to come down to your level while knowing better, that would be to deny my accountability before God to speak forth words in truth.

To wrongly divide the word, to twist the scriptures and force fit it to a doctrine of men, to only rely on the traditional philosophical reasoning of others, to be carried away in man-made doctrinal winds and use common irrational and foolish tactics of debate like my opponents, the hyper-determinists, would be a shame on me.

Your accusations of not using scriptures are merely baseless insistence on your part that I should not ethically and rationally reason to the meaning of individual scriptures but rather engage in irrational and foolish circular scriptural food fights to no reasonable end which you ignorantly believe helps your arguments. That was the sole purpose of the thread I recently started which was to provide you with those scriptures, without going into reasoning as you always complain about, and also to make a point because before starting it I knew the Calvinists on this board would anything thing they could, use irrational childish tactics to derail and prevent the kind of debate they have been asking for and it would not be long before you once again would fall back on the claim that we don’t use scriptures.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79718

I could be wrong, but I suspect a certain Calvinist-Administrator was responsible for closing that thread with one of his typical stealth like fly-bys, probably after being alerted by complaints by Calvinists, when all I was I doing was trying to hold the thread on topic against ridiculous attempts and tactics of the Calvinist to stop those verses from being presented to which they constantly love to repeat that others don't use them while continuing to use the ignorant argument that you do about philosophical reasoning.

 

That was my thought as well. I thought the thread to be a great idea....GIVE THEM THE SCRIPTIRES!!! This would, at least, take away the "you aren't using Scripture" canard....Some non-Cals then try to oblige. I was going to throw a couple of Scriptures in myself...And then it gets shut down....hmmmm Could it be that a possibly Calvinist-leaning mod or admin had something to do with it?? We can't know for sure...But, at least Cals can continue to put blinders on and feign ignorance of any Scriptures being used to rebutt their dogma. My first thought was that that would be the only reason they would want it shut down. We can't know for sure though. I wish that thread or another one were back in place.

 

Precisely.....:thumbsup::thumbs: they proved you admirably correct. They recoiled from Scripture like witches from water. I found it very telling and revealing. They HATED your posting of Scripture Ben...they HATED it!!!!

 

Take ur own advice Archie...:thumbs: