I have found the piece which I had lost.

I say one thing and I get called a name.

The text says the woman HAD ten pieces, LOST one, and FOUND it. Being lost and found is likened to a sinner repenting. Before that happens, as the text says, the coin is in the woman’s possession. If the LOST coin is a sinner, what is the coin before being lost?
It’s their #1 apologetic method. Debaters call it an ad hominem. So as we can all see they do not know how to defend their beliefs.
 
The gospel writer has Jesus explicitly provide the point which is that no one can follow him unless they sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor. Again, this isn't a means of salvation, but the consequence of being found or having God reveal the kingdom. When one finds the treasure, the field is purchased afterwards.
I understand the pearl of great price to be the church.

I also understand the treasure to be the church.

Jesus sold everything he had to purchase His church.
 
I understand the pearl of great price to be the church.

I also understand the treasure to be the church.

Jesus sold everything he had to purchase His church.
I must admit, this is a compelling claim, but I don't see it in the text itself. In other words, Jesus is proclaiming the gospel of "the kingdom", not the good news of the church. The kingdom and the church are not synonymous, at least not in the gospel narratives.
 
I say one thing and I get called a name.

The text says the woman HAD ten pieces, LOST one, and FOUND it. Being lost and found is likened to a sinner repenting. Before that happens, as the text says, the coin is in the woman’s possession. If the LOST coin is a sinner, what is the coin before being lost?
I was going off of #3. No original sin, no total depravity is pelagianism. I think the one thing lost is that this is one of a trio of parables. They are all pointing to the same thing using different parables. The first, the lost sheep. This is the second. The prodigal son is the third. Technically they are not isolated, but are a trio. So to understand one is to understand the others in the same light, but from a different aspect/view point.
 
I was going off of #3. No original sin, no total depravity is pelagianism.
Sharing a doctrinal view with someone doesn’t make me their disciple. Dude was also trinitarian, so that could make you a pelagian as well. It’s a label that’s useless in discussion.
I think the one thing lost is that this is one of a trio of parables. They are all pointing to the same thing using different parables. The first, the lost sheep. This is the second. The prodigal son is the third. Technically they are not isolated, but are a trio. So to understand one is to understand the others in the same light, but from a different aspect/view point.
In both the prodigal son and the coin, there exists a state prior to being lost. False doctrines such as original sin tells us that we are born (conceived) lost already. Jesus says otherwise.
 
Yes, you are.
Thanks. Certainly, you are aware that ad hominem is used when you're losing, and that's why you used it, correct?
I'm adding nothing. I'll let Jesus refute your claims himself:
No, sorry, there is no refutation. Apples and oranges my friend.
"
"for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth...
Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.23 The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment...O ye of little faith? 29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth....And they all with one consent began to make excuse...whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he CANNOT be my disciple." - Luke 12:15,22;28-33;14:18,33

Look at the parables that are juxtaposed to these claims by Christ. They fit perfectly.
I believe every single one of those words, however, they are not in the context of Luke 15.

Show me where it is in the context of Luke 15.
 
Sharing a doctrinal view with someone doesn’t make me their disciple. Dude was also trinitarian, so that could make you a pelagian as well. It’s a label that’s useless in discussion.
Hmm...touched a raw nerve apparently. In this case it is a useful label because pelagianism is a heresy. It runs contrary to the gospel, and we all know what Paul had to say about people who run contrary to the gospel. There is original sin. That is the sin from which all sin sprung forth. For it is through one man that sin entered the world, and with sin, death. The original sin. Rebellion. Disobeying God. The most base sin of all. However, in us, the original sin is the sin nature we are born with. We are totally depraved, not because God has to shut us out, but because our hearts and our minds don't want to focus on righteousness or seeking after God. The prophecy ends with "They have each gone their own way." That way is the way of evil, the way of unrighteousness, the way of rejecting God. Jesus said it is impossible for a man to save themselves. Impossible. However, if God is involved, all things become possible. It is basically an intervention by God, which calvinists refer to as regeneration. A spirit (human) that is dead, being supernaturally brought back to life, to full knowledge of the truth through the foolishness of preaching. Through that foolishness of preaching, the voice of Jesus is heard, His sheep recognize His voice, and as Jesus said, they will follow. Notice how even before they hear His voice, they are identified as His sheep.
In both the prodigal son and the coin, there exists a state prior to being lost. False doctrines such as original sin tells us that we are born (conceived) lost already. Jesus says otherwise.
In the creation there was also a point in time prior to being lost. Have you considered that it is before the elect is born? You can't discount the parable of the wheat and the tares. God planted wheat, and the evil one planted tares. At the early stage of development, they look the same at first glance. As they mature, the differences become pronounced. If God chose the elect before the foundation of the world, and we are talking about a temporal existence next to an eternal one, where the eternal one wins out over the temporal, would that not mean that God has considered the elect as His elect since before they were born? His adopted children. They remain His adopted children through life here, until they return home. (Prodigal son). In the Prodigal son, he technically did to bring himself home, but had an awakening in the fields with the pigs. He woke up and saw what his existence was, and recalled what his existence had been. (A wake up call.) Now awakened and longing for home and to see his father, he goes back. It does create an interesting backdrop to the story of us. The elect, chosen in heaven in Christ, born on earth and separated from same, to return again to Christ and their Father before they die. No, the journey goes no deeper than that surface thought, because the Bible only goes over part of it. The election part in Ephesians 1. The foreordination to the adoption of children through Christ.

Let's say you were to decide I was right (I'd be careful about that...). Does that mean you become a Calvinist? Absolutely not, unless you wish to be packed into a tiny box stamped Calvinist, planted in the middle of a field full of wondrous doctrine, lessons from God, and, well... life. Beliefs don't make someone a Calvinist. It is a label they take upon themselves. I mention calvinism because my beliefs line up more with calvinism then other belief systems, however, I don't see myself as one. Calvinistic. In no way is the vast richness of scripture simply covered in TULIP. If anything, it is but a good starting point for trying to understand God.
 
Hmm...touched a raw nerve apparently. In this case it is a useful label because pelagianism is a heresy. It runs contrary to the gospel, and we all know what Paul had to say about people who run contrary to the gospel.
The name calling and labeling is a way of responding to, without actually answering, an objection. The charge of running contrary to the gospel is more of the same.
There is original sin. That is the sin from which all sin sprung forth. For it is through one man that sin entered the world, and with sin, death. The original sin. Rebellion. Disobeying God. The most base sin of all. However, in us, the original sin is the sin nature we are born with.
I can find no scripture telling me that I am born with a "sin nature". Just long explanations of such, like the one I am responding to. The bible says that man is corruptible (Rom 1:23). So it is not that we have a "sin nature", our nature is that we are corruptible, and become corrupted, by sin. Adam was not in the garden corrupted, he was there corruptible, became corrupted, and "died".
We are totally depraved, not because God has to shut us out, but because our hearts and our minds don't want to focus on righteousness or seeking after God. The prophecy ends with "They have each gone their own way." That way is the way of evil, the way of unrighteousness, the way of rejecting God. Jesus said it is impossible for a man to save themselves. Impossible. However, if God is involved, all things become possible. It is basically an intervention by God, which calvinists refer to as regeneration. A spirit (human) that is dead, being supernaturally brought back to life, to full knowledge of the truth through the foolishness of preaching. Through that foolishness of preaching, the voice of Jesus is heard, His sheep recognize His voice, and as Jesus said, they will follow. Notice how even before they hear His voice, they are identified as His sheep.

In the creation there was also a point in time prior to being lost. Have you considered that it is before the elect is born?
In the parable of the coin, it was not in the woman's possession prior to being a coin, it was always a coin. Same with the prodigal son. If the woman is Christ, there is clearly a time (after being born) that a person is His, before being lost. In His possession corruptible, before being lost to corruption.
You can't discount the parable of the wheat and the tares. God planted wheat, and the evil one planted tares. At the early stage of development, they look the same at first glance. As they mature, the differences become pronounced. If God chose the elect before the foundation of the world, and we are talking about a temporal existence next to an eternal one, where the eternal one wins out over the temporal, would that not mean that God has considered the elect as His elect since before they were born? His adopted children.
Absent any biblical proof, no.
They remain His adopted children through life here, until they return home.
No, adoption is linked with receiving the Spirit (Rom 8:15). Without the Spirit you are none of His (Rom 8:9).
(Prodigal son). In the Prodigal son, he technically did to bring himself home, but had an awakening in the fields with the pigs.
But you said earlier that the his father (representing God) had to intervene first. Where does that intervention happen in this parable?
He woke up and saw what his existence was, and recalled what his existence had been. (A wake up call.) Now awakened and longing for home and to see his father, he goes back.
The "wake up call" was his living conditions, and hunger. His father never needed to intervene as your doctrine teaches, so much of what you have to say is being read into the text. The bottom line is that Jesus promised that those who come to Him will never hunger (or thirst, John 6:35). In the text of the prodigal son, this plays out. The son hungered, came, and was fed.

The point I am focusing on is that BEFORE he left, the son was also with his father, and well fed.
It does create an interesting backdrop to the story of us. The elect, chosen in heaven in Christ, born on earth and separated from same, to return again to Christ and their Father before they die.
This is more of you spinning the text to reflect your doctrine. The prodigal son is already living and breathing, eating in his fathers house. The coin is already shaped and imprinted, not just a shapeless piece of silver or gold. Even Adam, as I said earlier, was in the garden walking with God before he was corrupted. Your doctrine does not have an answer for this.
No, the journey goes no deeper than that surface thought, because the Bible only goes over part of it. The election part in Ephesians 1. The foreordination to the adoption of children through Christ.

Let's say you were to decide I was right (I'd be careful about that...). Does that mean you become a Calvinist? Absolutely not, unless you wish to be packed into a tiny box stamped Calvinist, planted in the middle of a field full of wondrous doctrine, lessons from God, and, well... life. Beliefs don't make someone a Calvinist. It is a label they take upon themselves. I mention calvinism because my beliefs line up more with calvinism then other belief systems, however, I don't see myself as one. Calvinistic. In no way is the vast richness of scripture simply covered in TULIP. If anything, it is but a good starting point for trying to understand God.
Understood. I am simply speaking to those places you allude to, the vast richness of scripture calvinism misses the mark on. And I only call out calvinism because this is the forum which bears its name, and thats what you identify as, but I speak more in terms of biblical truths in general. I think original sin and td is believed in both A and C.
 
The name calling and labeling is a way of responding to, without actually answering, an objection. The charge of running contrary to the gospel is more of the same.

I can find no scripture telling me that I am born with a "sin nature". Just long explanations of such, like the one I am responding to. The bible says that man is corruptible (Rom 1:23). So it is not that we have a "sin nature", our nature is that we are corruptible, and become corrupted, by sin. Adam was not in the garden corrupted, he was there corruptible, became corrupted, and "died".

In the parable of the coin, it was not in the woman's possession prior to being a coin, it was always a coin. Same with the prodigal son. If the woman is Christ, there is clearly a time (after being born) that a person is His, before being lost. In His possession corruptible, before being lost to corruption.

Absent any biblical proof, no.

No, adoption is linked with receiving the Spirit (Rom 8:15). Without the Spirit you are none of His (Rom 8:9).

But you said earlier that the his father (representing God) had to intervene first. Where does that intervention happen in this parable?

The "wake up call" was his living conditions, and hunger. His father never needed to intervene as your doctrine teaches, so much of what you have to say is being read into the text. The bottom line is that Jesus promised that those who come to Him will never hunger (or thirst, John 6:35). In the text of the prodigal son, this plays out. The son hungered, came, and was fed.

The point I am focusing on is that BEFORE he left, the son was also with his father, and well fed.

This is more of you spinning the text to reflect your doctrine. The prodigal son is already living and breathing, eating in his fathers house. The coin is already shaped and imprinted, not just a shapeless piece of silver or gold. Even Adam, as I said earlier, was in the garden walking with God before he was corrupted. Your doctrine does not have an answer for this.

Understood. I am simply speaking to those places you allude to, the vast richness of scripture calvinism misses the mark on. And I only call out calvinism because this is the forum which bears its name, and thats what you identify as, but I speak more in terms of biblical truths in general. I think original sin and td is believed in both A and C.
Yes its sin- missing the mark.
 
The name calling and labeling is a way of responding to, without actually answering, an objection. The charge of running contrary to the gospel is more of the same.

I can find no scripture telling me that I am born with a "sin nature". Just long explanations of such, like the one I am responding to. The bible says that man is corruptible (Rom 1:23). So it is not that we have a "sin nature", our nature is that we are corruptible, and become corrupted, by sin. Adam was not in the garden corrupted, he was there corruptible, became corrupted, and "died".
Wow. I guess my labeling wasn't far off the mark. If you look up Romans 1:23 in a lexicon, you will find that the word corruptible does not mean what you believe it means. ἀφθάρτου "862a: undecaying, i.e. imperishable" for God, and φθαρτοῦ "perishable, corruptible". It is not speaking about whether we are sinners or not, but that God is basically immortal, and we are mortal. (Hence some bible translations using the words immortal and mortal, instead of incorruptible and corruptible.) As far as Adam's true condition in the garden, we cannot know. If he didn't sin, would he have died at 1000 years of age? Would he die at all? If not, then he was incorruptible. That doesn't give him the rest of the characteristics of God, it just means that he too was immortal. (though not eternal like God, because Adam had a beginning.) There are A LOT of verses that speak against you. If we our corruptible, but start incorruptible, how is it that we die, as death is the mark of sin?

Romans 7:20 "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." Shin which "dwells" in me? Sounds like a sin nature. Also, I John says that if anyone says they are without sin, they are liars. David said that he was conceived in sin.

Romans 6:6 "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;" Just what is "our old self"? I know that self is basically my nature, my consciousness. What is this "body of sin"? Paul spoke of it as something chained to him that he drags around with him, that is rotting his flesh. Who will free me from this body of death? It is our old nature, our sin nature. That nature which is replaced by the Holy Spirit at salvation.

Psalms 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth."
In the parable of the coin, it was not in the woman's possession prior to being a coin, it was always a coin. Same with the prodigal son. If the woman is Christ, there is clearly a time (after being born) that a person is His, before being lost. In His possession corruptible, before being lost to corruption.
The prodigal son was not always... prodigal. Now I think it is hilarious that you believe God was born. (Christ is God, so... what you said makes no sense.) Ephesians 1 states that we were (the elect, that is, believers) adopted as children of God through Christ before the foundation of the world. If we make that temporal, then, before the foundation of the world, the elect were not yet lost. They then became lost, but just because that happened didn't make them less then God's adopted children. God then redeemed His lost possession, His children, through Christ through whom they were adopted in the first place, and gave them the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of the inheritance they have in the Kingdom as adopted children, until they take possession of said inheritance.
Absent any biblical proof, no.
So, given Ephesians 1... (a passage everyone seems to ignore)
No, adoption is linked with receiving the Spirit (Rom 8:15). Without the Spirit you are none of His (Rom 8:9).
Ephesians 1:4-5 "4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

Abraham never had the Holy Spirit, so does that mean he was never actually beloved of God? I mean, as you say, "Without the Spirit you are none of His."
But you said earlier that the his father (representing God) had to intervene first. Where does that intervention happen in this parable?
When he woke up. There is no way to know why he woke up to his condition. We do know he was in that condition for some time. We do have a very showy, a very visible example of God's intervention when He killed Saul on the road to Damascus. It was such a horrible accident, only Paul survived. What did God tell Ananias about Paul? HE CHOSE HIM. Paul did not choose God. Even this ONE example contradicts what you believe because it wasn't some kind of exception. He went above and beyond in making it clear that His enemy was no longer His enemy, and that HE personally made it so.
The "wake up call" was his living conditions, and hunger.
Luke 15 "13 `And not many days after, having gathered all together, the younger son went abroad to a far country, and there he scattered his substance, living riotously;
14 and he having spent all, there came a mighty famine on that country, and himself began to be in want;
15 and having gone on, he joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him to the fields to feed swine,
16 and he was desirous to fill his belly from the husks that the swine were eating, and no one was giving to him."

"17 `And having come to himself, he said, How many hirelings of my father have a superabundance of bread, and I here with hunger am perishing!"

The wake up call is clear here "And having come to himself". That is all you need to see. Something caused him to come to his senses. Something brought home to mind. (If you have never been in a downward spiral that feeds on itself, you may not understand just how much meaning is in those words "and having come to himself." Some have, and some understand exactly what this means.
His father never needed to intervene as your doctrine teaches, so much of what you have to say is being read into the text. The bottom line is that Jesus promised that those who come to Him will never hunger (or thirst, John 6:35). In the text of the prodigal son, this plays out. The son hungered, came, and was fed.
We don't know if there was an intervention, or not. We don't know what broke him out of his self-feeding downward spiral. Yet something pulled him out of it and "he came to himself". (That is, he came to his senses.) He went from the downward spiral that is self-perpetuating, and suddenly was rational again. His conditions did not bring him to his senses, they fed the downward spiral he was in.
The point I am focusing on is that BEFORE he left, the son was also with his father, and well fed.
Which is fine when lined up with Ephesians 1. The elect went from adopted children, to sin bound adopted children, to redeemed adopted children.
This is more of you spinning the text to reflect your doctrine. The prodigal son is already living and breathing, eating in his fathers house. The coin is already shaped and imprinted, not just a shapeless piece of silver or gold. Even Adam, as I said earlier, was in the garden walking with God before he was corrupted. Your doctrine does not have an answer for this.
I don't need to spin it. You need to look into words. Adam was not incorruptible. He was always corruptible. However, this did not come into focus until after he sinned, and Adam became truly MORTAL. Look into the meaning of the words. No doctrine has an answer to what Adam's condition truly was before the fall, as to how it would have continued if there was no fall. NO ONE KNOWS. So, unless your name is No One, then you don't know either.
Understood. I am simply speaking to those places you allude to, the vast richness of scripture calvinism misses the mark on. And I only call out calvinism because this is the forum which bears its name, and thats what you identify as, but I speak more in terms of biblical truths in general. I think original sin and td is believed in both A and C.
I don't identify as a calvinist. Did you know that I believe things that Calvinists in general HATE? To me, Calvinism is just a view of soteriology that happens to closely align to my own. There is original sin (Paul said so), and there is total depravity (God said so). For by one man did sin enter the world, and through sin death. If sin entered the world through one man, then there was an original sin. If we also die, then we are connected to that original sin by death. Original sin is not so much a calvinist belief, as it is a reformed belief that is found in calvinism as well.
 
Wow. I guess my labeling wasn't far off the mark.
Its way off the mark, as evidenced by your response below. You arent replying to much of anything I said, opting to reply to your label.
If you look up Romans 1:23 in a lexicon, you will find that the word corruptible does not mean what you believe it means. ἀφθάρτου "862a: undecaying, i.e. imperishable" for God, and φθαρτοῦ "perishable, corruptible".
Thats exactly what I think it means lol.
It is not speaking about whether we are sinners or not, but that God is basically immortal, and we are mortal. (Hence some bible translations using the words immortal and mortal, instead of incorruptible and corruptible.)
This is incorrect, considering the context. Verse 17 established we are talking about the righteousness of God, and verse 18 goes into the unrighteousness of man. This is all about sin. In Rom 1:23, Paul is looking back to a time when a people had corrupted themselves with graven images (Deut 9:12), saying the same about Gentiles.
As far as Adam's true condition in the garden, we cannot know. If he didn't sin, would he have died at 1000 years of age? Would he die at all? If not, then he was incorruptible. That doesn't give him the rest of the characteristics of God, it just means that he too was immortal. (though not eternal like God, because Adam had a beginning.) There are A LOT of verses that speak against you. If we our corruptible, but start incorruptible, how is it that we die, as death is the mark of sin?
I never said Adam started INCORRUPTIBLE. I said Adam was CORRUPTIBLE, became CORRUPTED, and died. Gen 3:22 says that the only reason that Adam would live forever, was that he ate from the tree of life. That is how death enters the world, man no longer has access to the tree of life in the garden (Gen 3:24). Jesus reverses that curse, giving us access to the tree of life (Rev 2:7, 22:14).
Romans 7:20 "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." Shin which "dwells" in me? Sounds like a sin nature. Also, I John says that if anyone says they are without sin, they are liars. David said that he was conceived in sin.
These are your own rationalizations. David was not speaking of himself, but the child he had with the woman whose husband he had murdered.
Romans 6:6 "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;" Just what is "our old self"? I know that self is basically my nature, my consciousness. What is this "body of sin"? Paul spoke of it as something chained to him that he drags around with him, that is rotting his flesh. Who will free me from this body of death? It is our old nature, our sin nature. That nature which is replaced by the Holy Spirit at salvation.
Rationalizations.
Psalms 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth."
Many times I have seen your side attempt to pin this verse on every person ever born. Despite what the bible says:

Ps 71:6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.
If we make that temporal, then, before the foundation of the world, the elect were not yet lost. They then became lost, but just because that happened didn't make them less then God's adopted children.
Non biblical explanations. Romans 8:9 is pretty straightforward. If you do not have the Spirit, you are none of His. There is no such thing as being adopted without the Spirit. That my friend, is heresy.
Ephesians 1:4-5 "4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"
Eph 1:1-2 is Paul greeting his readers, and in verses 3-12, he is speaking of ONLY himself and the other apostles. It is not until verse 13, in whom ye also trusted, does Paul go back to describing them.
Abraham never had the Holy Spirit, so does that mean he was never actually beloved of God? I mean, as you say, "Without the Spirit you are none of His."
I dont say that, the bible says that, Romans 8:9. "Beloved by God" is a small change to your argument from "adopted by God". Romans 8:15 says the Spirit of adoption we receive is where by we cry "Abba, Father". You are simply wrong about about anyone belonging to Christ before receiving the Spirit.
When he woke up. There is no way to know why he woke up to his condition. We do know he was in that condition for some time. We do have a very showy, a very visible example of God's intervention when He killed Saul on the road to Damascus.
None of this answers the question I asked. You claimed that an intervention was necessary, and the story of the prodigal son has ZERO mention of any intervention from the Father. Giving me an different example of God intervening does not make your claim about this parable true. The fact is sometimes God intervenes, sometimes He does not.
The wake up call is clear here "And having come to himself". That is all you need to see. Something caused him to come to his senses.
The "something" was hunger. He was hungry, and came to himself and remembered how he never hungered at his fathers house.
We don't know if there was an intervention, or not.
We know the bible doesnt speak of any intervention, which should be our cue not to speak on one either. You are wasting your time if you think you can convince me that there was something going on the bible fails to mention.
We don't know what broke him out of his self-feeding downward spiral. Yet something pulled him out of it and "he came to himself". (That is, he came to his senses.)
We do know, its called hunger and famine. Thats literally what the text says, the son lamented not having bread.
He went from the downward spiral that is self-perpetuating, and suddenly was rational again. His conditions did not bring him to his senses, they fed the downward spiral he was in.
Sigh.
Which is fine when lined up with Ephesians 1. The elect went from adopted children, to sin bound adopted children, to redeemed adopted children.
Non biblical rationalizations.

Romans 8:15 ....but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Romans 8:9 ......Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
However, this did not come into focus until after he sinned, and Adam became truly MORTAL. Look into the meaning of the words. No doctrine has an answer to what Adam's condition truly was before the fall, as to how it would have continued if there was no fall. NO ONE KNOWS. So, unless your name is No One, then you don't know either.
Adams condition is known by Adams location. Corruption from sin got him banished from the garden, where he formerly resided uncorrupted.
There is original sin (Paul said so),
Where?
and there is total depravity (God said so).
Where?
For by one man did sin enter the world, and through sin death. If sin entered the world through one man, then there was an original sin.
Rationalization. "Sin enters the world" does not explain when sin enters you.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Notice MANY are made sinners, where you teach ALL are. Why does Paul stop short of saying everyone in verse 19?
If we also die, then we are connected to that original sin by death.
The connection is that man no longer freely eats of the tree of life. Thats the death Adam gave you. Eating of the tree of life is the life Jesus gave you.
Original sin is not so much a calvinist belief, as it is a reformed belief that is found in calvinism as well.
Its not found in the bible, thats the issue.
 
Thats exactly what I think it means lol.
Really? It doesn't line up with what you say next...
This is incorrect, considering the context. Verse 17 established we are talking about the righteousness of God, and verse 18 goes into the unrighteousness of man. This is all about sin. In Rom 1:23, Paul is looking back to a time when a people had corrupted themselves with graven images (Deut 9:12), saying the same about Gentiles.

I never said Adam started INCORRUPTIBLE. I said Adam was CORRUPTIBLE, became CORRUPTED, and died. Gen 3:22 says that the only reason that Adam would live forever, was that he ate from the tree of life.
It does not say that. It says that if Adam were to eat of the tree of life after sinning, he would then be a sinner that would live forever.
That is how death enters the world, man no longer has access to the tree of life in the garden (Gen 3:24). Jesus reverses that curse, giving us access to the tree of life (Rev 2:7, 22:14).
Um...no. Jesus was our substitute on the cross, taking our death due to the law upon Himself, innocent of all sin. As such, He is seen as the perfect substitute for those who believe, and thus they no longer fall under the condemnation of the law.
These are your own rationalizations. David was not speaking of himself, but the child he had with the woman whose husband he had murdered.
According to David, we are born in sin, that is the sin nature. Psalm 51, a Psalm of King David, written after Nathan visited him. He is speaking of himself.
"Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; According to the abundance of Your compassion blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin.
3 For [b]I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me.
4 Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You [c]are justified [d]when You speak And pure when You judge.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
6 Behold, You delight in truth in the [e]innermost being, And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
7 [f]Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; [g]Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 [h]Make me to hear joy and gladness, Let the bones which You have crushed rejoice.
9 Hide Your face from my sins And blot out all my iniquities."
Rationalizations.
Many times I have seen your side attempt to pin this verse on every person ever born. Despite what the bible says:
No, you mean despite what a single verse says. You ignore the rest of the Bible.
Non biblical explanations. Romans 8:9 is pretty straightforward. If you do not have the Spirit, you are none of His. There is no such thing as being adopted without the Spirit. That my friend, is heresy.
Sure there is. We can be adopted, and not find out about it until it is proven through our redemption and receipt of the Holy Spirit. That does not contradict or violate any scripture.
Eph 1:1-2 is Paul greeting his readers, and in verses 3-12, he is speaking of ONLY himself and the other apostles. It is not until verse 13, in whom ye also trusted, does Paul go back to describing them.
If we were to actually go through and change the verses (as you would have to) to reflect that, wow. That would mean that as believers, we are free to make merry in sin, that Jesus did not redeem us, and that Jesus did not forgive us our sins. Wow. Only for the apostles, right?
I dont say that, the bible says that, Romans 8:9. "Beloved by God" is a small change to your argument from "adopted by God". Romans 8:15 says the Spirit of adoption we receive is where by we cry "Abba, Father". You are simply wrong about about anyone belonging to Christ before receiving the Spirit.
Adopted by God is in Ephesians 1:5. And it says not simply adopted, but adopted through Christ. How? Paul is alluding to the cross. It is through rebirth that we are the adopted children of God, by His choosing before the foundation of the world.
None of this answers the question I asked. You claimed that an intervention was necessary, and the story of the prodigal son has ZERO mention of any intervention from the Father. Giving me an different example of God intervening does not make your claim about this parable true. The fact is sometimes God intervenes, sometimes He does not.
I don't claim it. I just repeat what Jesus said to His disciples when they asked him a blunt question. "Then...who...can...be...saved?" Jesus response? No one. No one can be saved. "With man, it is impossible." If Jesus, if God Himself, says something is impossible, does that mean it is possible? I mean, this is the omnipotent God saying that with man, it is impossible. When someone who is omnipotent says something is impossible, you can be sure... it is impossible. However, God made an exception. If God is involved, it is possible. "but with God, all things are possible." Why do you deny what Jesus said?
The "something" was hunger. He was hungry, and came to himself and remembered how he never hungered at his fathers house.
It was a parable. Stop adding to it. All we know is that he came to his senses. In most cases, that means God tapped him on the shoulder, or someone directly intervened. You forget about the downward spiral. Gets drug addicted people all the time. Something has to happen, or someone has to intervene.
We know the bible doesnt speak of any intervention, which should be our cue not to speak on one either. You are wasting your time if you think you can convince me that there was something going on the bible fails to mention.
It's still a parable. If you can't see the spiritual truth, or hear it, you are a part of the crowd.
We do know, its called hunger and famine. Thats literally what the text says, the son lamented not having bread.
He had food. The food fed to the pigs. Jesus said so.
Sigh.
Non biblical rationalizations.
Romans 8:15 ....but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Romans 8:9 ......Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Adams condition is known by Adams location. Corruption from sin got him banished from the garden, where he formerly resided uncorrupted.
Corruption from sin? Really? Didn't God say it was so that, now as a sinner, he doesn't eat of the tree of life and live forever as a sinner? Genesis tells us point blank. We don't need someone to invent a reason. It had nothing to do with location. Besides, God would be breaking his word if Adam remained somewhere where he wouldn't have to work the ground to get food.
Where?

Where?

Rationalization. "Sin enters the world" does not explain when sin enters you.
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Notice MANY are made sinners, where you teach ALL are. Why does Paul stop short of saying everyone in verse 19?
Yes, many are made sinners. Humans, but not animals, plants, etc. They are under the effect of sin, brought into the world by Adam, but they are not sinners. They don't have a law from God. They have a command, and they are pretty good about fulfilling it. Rabbits are perhaps too good at it. Humans were made sinners. Now why doesn't it say "so by the obedience of one shall all be made righteous"? That would be universalism, that's why. So, all humans next to the rest of creation, were made sinners, while believers (but not all humanity) are made righteous.

Why are you asking me why universalism isn't true. You already know I don't accept it. Paul is making a proper comparison in that not all creation was made sinners, just humanity, and not all humanity will be made righteous, only believers.
The connection is that man no longer freely eats of the tree of life. Thats the death Adam gave you. Eating of the tree of life is the life Jesus gave you.
Um...OK. I will back away very slowly and head back out the door... Jesus was the bread of life...
Its not found in the bible, thats the issue.
It is indeed. You may want to go back and put back into the Bible all you cut out.
 
Really? It doesn't line up with what you say next...

It does not say that. It says that if Adam were to eat of the tree of life after sinning, he would then be a sinner that would live forever.
No sinner has access to the tree of life, which is the point. The other point is that eating of the tree of life = living forever. So Adam was made CORRUPTIBLE, became CORRUPTED by sin, and lost access to the very thing the bible attributes his eternal life: eating of the tree of life.
Um...no. Jesus was our substitute on the cross, taking our death due to the law upon Himself, innocent of all sin. As such, He is seen as the perfect substitute for those who believe, and thus they no longer fall under the condemnation of the law.
Indeed, and there is more to the story. He also reverses the curse Adam placed on mankind, in that He gives us access to the tree of life:

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
According to David, we are born in sin, that is the sin nature.
David said no such thing, you are putting words into his mouth:

David: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
You: Behold, everyone is shapen in iniquity; and in sin did everyones mother conceive them.

This is easily refuted, because David also said this:

Ps 71:6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.

So right there, Psalms 51:5 should stop being applied to everyone, because David clearly does not.
No, you mean despite what a single verse says. You ignore the rest of the Bible.
I am forsaking additions and alterations to the bible, in favor of a plain and unbiased reading.
Sure there is. We can be adopted, and not find out about it until it is proven through our redemption and receipt of the Holy Spirit. That does not contradict or violate any scripture.
It violates Romans 8:9,15. You are not adopted, you are none of His, without the Spirit of adoption. Go to an orphanage and try to adopt a child without doing the paperwork, see if they let you take the kid home.
If we were to actually go through and change the verses (as you would have to) to reflect that, wow. That would mean that as believers, we are free to make merry in sin, that Jesus did not redeem us, and that Jesus did not forgive us our sins. Wow. Only for the apostles, right?
You can find other places in scripture stating the pitfalls of sin, so I am not even sure what point you are making here. Eph 1:3-12 referring only to the Apostles does no harm to anything else the bible says. It is just that in those verses, Paul is only speaking of them. Verse 13 is when his focus turns to his readers.
Adopted by God is in Ephesians 1:5. And it says not simply adopted, but adopted through Christ. How? Paul is alluding to the cross. It is through rebirth that we are the adopted children of God, by His choosing before the foundation of the world.
The apostles in that particular verse, yes. He is not talking about everyone.
I don't claim it. I just repeat what Jesus said to His disciples when they asked him a blunt question. "Then...who...can...be...saved?" Jesus response? No one. No one can be saved. "With man, it is impossible." If Jesus, if God Himself, says something is impossible, does that mean it is possible? I mean, this is the omnipotent God saying that with man, it is impossible. When someone who is omnipotent says something is impossible, you can be sure... it is impossible. However, God made an exception. If God is involved, it is possible. "but with God, all things are possible." Why do you deny what Jesus said?
Why are you adding to what Jesus said? You are still inventing an "intervention" by God not found in the text. The point is that the son was with his father, then lost, then found with his father again. You have said much so for, but too little of it about the implications of the state of the son before being lost.
It was a parable. Stop adding to it. All we know is that he came to his senses. In most cases, that means God tapped him on the shoulder, or someone directly intervened. You forget about the downward spiral. Gets drug addicted people all the time. Something has to happen, or someone has to intervene.
And that "something" was famine and hunger, according to the text.
It's still a parable. If you can't see the spiritual truth, or hear it, you are a part of the crowd.
He had food. The food fed to the pigs. Jesus said so.
Luke 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

I know you dont consider yourself a full calvinist, but you are again displaying traits I often find in them, in that you are denying basic written text. He DID NOT eat the food fed to the pigs, he LONGED FOR it. Jesus said the son was hungry, why even fight against that? If you cant see or hear the spiritual truth, maybe its YOU who are part of the crowd.
Corruption from sin? Really? Didn't God say it was so that, now as a sinner, he doesn't eat of the tree of life and live forever as a sinner?
Yes, sin corrupts (2 Pet 1:14), this isnt some novel idea. We are corruptible, and are corrupted by sin. As was Adam.
Genesis tells us point blank. We don't need someone to invent a reason. It had nothing to do with location. Besides, God would be breaking his word if Adam remained somewhere where he wouldn't have to work the ground to get food.
I brought up location because it relates directly to our proximity to God. No sin = with God. Sin = not with God. This is pretty basic stuff, you are hanging on every little point, fighting against the wind.
Yes, many are made sinners. Humans, but not animals, plants, etc. They are under the effect of sin, brought into the world by Adam, but they are not sinners. They don't have a law from God. They have a command, and they are pretty good about fulfilling it. Rabbits are perhaps too good at it. Humans were made sinners. Now why doesn't it say "so by the obedience of one shall all be made righteous"? That would be universalism, that's why. So, all humans next to the rest of creation, were made sinners, while believers (but not all humanity) are made righteous.
This is complete nonsense, and I mean that with all due respect.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

It is crystal clear (at least to the unbiased) that Paul is not including "plants and animals" here, but speaking only of mankind. Romans 5:19 presents all kinds of trouble for your belief system, yours is one of the worst explanations anyone has ever attempted. You inject "creation" into that verse with no shame, unable to accept whats written. MANY were made sinners, not ALL, just like MANY are made righteous, not ALL.
Why are you asking me why universalism isn't true. You already know I don't accept it. Paul is making a proper comparison in that not all creation was made sinners, just humanity, and not all humanity will be made righteous, only believers.
Paul is simply saying not everyone is made a sinner, just like not everyone is made righteous.
 
Paul is simply saying not everyone is made a sinner, just like not everyone is made righteous.
No, he is not denying God's prophetic word. That is why just a few chapters earlier He says "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God." Why did all fall short of the glory of God? Because all were sinners. I mean, it is right there, and you still let it smack you in the face and steal your lunch money.

Consider that God said, There are none righteous, no not one. There are none that do good. There are none that seek after God. Yet you still say that that is a lie and that it is not none, but only many, or some? God was clear. There are NONE. Why? He gave the reason. For they have all gone their own way. Paul even brings up this prophecy in his letters. There must be a reason.

What does Paul say in Romans 3?

9 What then? Are we [f]better? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,

“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become worthless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open tomb,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are in the Law, so that every mouth may be shut and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works [g]of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for [h]through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

You claim not to be pelagian, but your words show different.

Paul is separating humanity from the rest of creation (animals, plants, etc.), and then separating the elect/those who believe from the whole of humanity. I think it is funny that you believe that animals are sinners, and that Jesus died for them as well.
 
Luke 15
8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

9 And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

What is this a picture of?

1. Sinners searching for Christ.
2. Christ searching for His Sheep.

This woman had oil, light, and she owned this piece of silver before losing it...
Neither.

It's always been my understanding that it's about the importance of not giving up hope of finding what you lost, and matters.
 
Neither.

It's always been my understanding that it's about the importance of not giving up hope of finding what you lost, and matters.

Just... wow.

Luke 15:8 “Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? 9 And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ 10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

So you think Jesus is teaching that after we find something we lost, we should REPENT for finding it?

You can't be serious...
 
Neither.

It's always been my understanding that it's about the importance of not giving up hope of finding what you lost, and matters.
I don't know what this means, sorry.

I see this passage similar to the Good Samaritan.

Luke 10
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.


1. This man was stripped of his rainment, wounded and left half dead. This is a picture of man being depraved(Rom 5:19)

2. A Priest passed by. You would expect a Priest to help.

3. A Levite passed by. You would expect a Levite to help.

4. But, a certain Samaritan had compassion on him.

5. This man bound up his wounds(forgiveness of sin), poured on him oil(The Holy Spirit indwelling) and wine(the blood of Christ).

6. This man also, out of his own pocket, paid more than enough for the innkeeper to take care of him until his return.

This "Good Samaritan" is Christ. He finds sinners half dead, causes them to be born again and pays all the costs associated with healing them.

The man who bought the pearl of great price and sold all he had is Christ. The pearl is His bride, the church.

The man who found the treasure in the field is Christ. The treasure is His bride, the church.
 
I don't know what this means, sorry.
?
So, you're telling me that you can't read and understand American English?
What is your native language, or mother tongue?
I'll translate it for you. Well, Google will translate it for you.

I see this passage similar to the Good Samaritan.

Luke 10
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.


1. This man was stripped of his rainment, wounded and left half dead. This is a picture of man being depraved(Rom 5:19)

2. A Priest passed by. You would expect a Priest to help.

3. A Levite passed by. You would expect a Levite to help.

4. But, a certain Samaritan had compassion on him.

5. This man bound up his wounds(forgiveness of sin), poured on him oil(The Holy Spirit indwelling) and wine(the blood of Christ).

6. This man also, out of his own pocket, paid more than enough for the innkeeper to take care of him until his return.

This "Good Samaritan" is Christ. He finds sinners half dead, causes them to be born again and pays all the costs associated with healing them.
Ok. Totally unrelated to your original passage references, and question.


The man who bought the pearl of great price and sold all he had is Christ. The pearl is His bride, the church.
Ok.

The man who found the treasure in the field is Christ. The treasure is His bride, the church.
Ok.

You asked a different question.
I answered that question.

Are you now asking a new question?
If so, what is it?
 
Back
Top