No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[Theo1689]

Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
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.

You keep IGNORING Rom. 5:1-5. Why?
(No, scratch that.... We all KNOW why. Because it refutes your misinterpretation.)

Paul is still talking about all.

<Chuckle>

That's because you're IGNORING the change in scope between Rom. 1-3 and Rom. 4-5.

Furthermore, if Romans 5:19 is about the elect and they are the many that were made sinners, you believe Paul just contradicted himself in the previous verse.

Not at all.

If all have sinned (Romans 3), doesnt that mean they all were made sinners by Adam. Are you saying that something other than Adam makes the non elect sinners? This is a mess.

Further, if you insist that Rom. 5 refers to "all men" universally, then you can't avoid "original sin". You're right... Your interpretation certainly IS "a mess".

 

[cadwell]

David doesn’t give a reason why it was his hope. Are you going to give us David’s reasons for his comments ?

I can only give you what I have so far, and thats a strong biblical case that original sin is a false idea. I say what I do about Ps 51, that David was using hyperbolic language to describe his own despair at his own sin, because in practice in 2 Sam 12:23, its obvious David thought differently. There should be no denying that David expected to see his son in heaven, so its impossible (for me anyway) to view Ps 51 as doctrine that everyone is a sinner from conception.

 

[Theo1689]

I can only give you what I have so far, and thats a strong biblical case that original sin is a false idea. I say what I do about Ps 51, that David was using hyperbolic language to describe his own despair at his own sin, because in practice in 2 Sam 12:23, its obvious David thought differently.

It's NOT the least bit "obvious" to 99% of Christians.

"You keep using dat word. I don't t'ink it means what you t'ink it means."
-- Inigo Montoya.

In my 30+ years in Christian apologetics, I've found that when people claim their doctrine is "obvious" (or "clear", or "plain"), it is not the case at all, and it's simply an excuse to cover up the fact that they can't defend their false doctrine with actual SCRIPTURE.

There should be no denying that David expected to see his son in heaven, so its impossible (for me anyway) to view Ps 51 as doctrine that everyone is a sinner from conception.

Why not?
Sinners can still go to heaven.

 

[guest1]

I can only give you what I have so far, and thats a strong biblical case that original sin is a false idea. I say what I do about Ps 51, that David was using hyperbolic language to describe his own despair at his own sin, because in practice in 2 Sam 12:23, its obvious David thought differently. There should be no denying that David expected to see his son in heaven, so its impossible (for me anyway) to view Ps 51 as doctrine that everyone is a sinner from conception.

You don’t have to believe in original since that is your choice but don’t expect to ever change my mind on it I’ve heard all the arguments a 100 times before.

hope this helps !!!

 

[guest1]

It's NOT the least bit "obvious" to 99% of Christians.

"You keep using dat word. I don't t'ink it means what you t'ink it means."
-- Inigo Montoya.

In my 30+ years in Christian apologetics, I've found that when people claim their doctrine is "obvious" (or "clear", or "plain"), it is not the case at all, and it's simply an excuse to cover up the fact that they can't defend their false doctrine with actual SCRIPTURE.



Why not?
Sinners can still go to heaven.

Exactly and only sinners go to heaven. There is none who does good no not one. All have sinned and all are under sin whether in the womb or out regardless of ones age. All are tainted by sin even though we might not see the sin it’s still there and this guy just wants to toot his own horn with his human reasoning and philosophy.

 

[cadwell]

You keep IGNORING Rom. 5:1-5. Why?
(No, scratch that.... We all KNOW why. Because it refutes your misinterpretation.)

<Chuckle>

That's because you're IGNORING the change in scope between Rom. 1-3 and Rom. 4-5.

I dont ignore it, I just realize that the change in scope doesnt make a difference. Paul doesnt say all **of you** have sinned in Romans 5, thats an idea you read into the text.

Not at all.

Further, if you insist that Rom. 5 refers to "all men" universally, the you can't avoid "original sin". You're right... Your interpretation certainly IS "a mess".

All refers to all men in verse 12, yes. But "many" in verse 19 does not refer to all men being made sinners by Adam. The idea that Paul is telling them that only the elect have been made sinners by Adam leads to other questions. Like...how???

 

[cadwell]

It's NOT the least bit "obvious" to 99% of Christians.

"You keep using dat word. I don't t'ink it means what you t'ink it means."
-- Inigo Montoya.

In my 30+ years in Christian apologetics, I've found that when people claim their doctrine is "obvious" (or "clear", or "plain"), it is not the case at all, and it's simply an excuse to cover up the fact that they can't defend their false doctrine with actual SCRIPTURE.



Why not?
Sinners can still go to heaven.

How does a sinner get to heaven, and did Davids baby do those things?

 

[cadwell]

You don’t have to believe in original since that is your choice but don’t expect to ever change my mind on it I’ve heard all the arguments a 100 times before.

hope this helps !!!

Its not really about changing minds for me. I am just having a conversation.

 

[cadwell]

Exactly and only sinners go to heaven. There is none who does good no not one. All have sinned and all are under sin whether in the womb or out regardless of ones age. All are tainted by sin even though we might not see the sin it’s still there and this guy just wants to toot his own horn with his human reasoning and philosophy.

I asked for a biblical explanation as to why David would expect to see his newborn son in heaven, considering your views on Davids writings. All I get is personally attacked. Thanks.

 

[guest1]

I asked for a biblical explanation as to why David would expect to see his newborn son in heaven, considering your views on Davids writings. All I get is personally attacked. Thanks.

I don’t work off assumptions and David doesn’t give a reason . So I leave it at that which was his hope.

 

[Theo1689]

How does a sinner get to heaven, and did Davids baby do those things?

Scripture is silent on what David's baby did.
Silence is usually a very POOR basis for creating doctrines.
Especially when the opposite doctrine is clear in the NT.

(Btw.... Still waiting for you to explain to us the "obvious" meaning of the text.
And wondering if it is so "obvious", why it is necessary for you to have to "explain" it... I mean, didn't you say it was "obvious"?)

 

[cadwell]

I don’t work off assumptions and David doesn’t give a reason . So I leave it at that which was his hope.

I can respect that. Is there a biblical reason you can give of his hope? Why would he hope such a thing considering your interpretation of Ps 51?

 

[guest1]

I can respect that. Is there a biblical reason you can give of his hope? Why would he hope such a thing considering your interpretation of Ps 51?

Would your hope if your child died be hell ?

 

[cadwell]

Scripture is silent on what David's baby did.

So you believe there was something for the newborn baby to "do"? Is scripture silent on what newborns are supposed to do to ensure they get to heaven?

Silence is usually a very POOR basis for creating doctrines.
Especially when the opposite doctrine is clear in the NT.

(Btw.... Still waiting for you to explain to us the "obvious" meaning of the text.
And wondering if it is so "obvious", why it is necessary for you to have to "explain" it... I mean, didn't you say it was "obvious"?)

To me its obvious that David expected to see his son again. There arent many ways to interpret I shall go to him in 2 sam 12:23. Thats why I asked everyones opinion on David, whether he expected to go to heaven or hell. I dont personally think David said that, expecting to see his son in hell.

 

[Theo1689]

All refers to all men in verse 12, yes. But "many" in verse 19 does not refer to all men being made sinners by Adam. The idea that Paul is telling them that only the elect have been made sinners by Adam leads to other questions. Like...how???

Please quote the word "only" in Rom. 5:19.

More proof that you REJECT "Sola Scriptura", and you have to keep ADDING to God's word to try to make your false theology work.

 

[cadwell]

Would your hope if your child died be hell ?

No, but thats because I know there is no such thing as original sin. I am asking you about David. According your interpretation of what he said, David should have no hope.

 

[Theo1689]

I asked for a biblical explanation as to why David would expect to see his newborn son in heaven,

They only reasonable answer would be to "ask David".
It's David's expectation.
He knows. We don't.

 

[guest1]

No, but thats because I know there is no such thing as original sin. I am asking you about David. According your interpretation of what he said, David should have no hope.

No you are misrepresenting me.

 

[Theo1689]

I can respect that. Is there a biblical reason you can give of his hope? Why would he hope such a thing considering your interpretation of Ps 51?

What does Ps. 51 have to do with hoping your dead child will be in heaven?

Do you know what a "non sequitur" is?

 

[guest1]

What does Ps. 51 have to do with hoping your dead child will be in heaven?

Do you know what a "non sequitur" is?

Ditto