No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

Chalcedon

Well-known member
I have a two part question about King David. Yes, I am going somewhere with this, but first I would like yours (and everyone elses) opinion on it.

This is just for opinion, but do you think that David went to heaven or hell? And where do you think HE expected to go when he died?
100% heaven do you doubt that and why ?
 

cadwell

Well-known member
He also misused Exodus 30:11-16 in which ransom and atonement has nothing to do with salvation eternally but with a census taken, and those of age are expected to contribute to the offering for the tabernacle.
Sorry but the Lord already explained the purpose of the offering, calling it a ransom for the soul. He demanded no ransom for the soul of anyone under 20. If you dont understand the connection between atonement and eternal salvation I dont know what to tell you.
That and it generally refers to taking a census to number also those who can go to war.
Thats false. The census in ex 30 and those taken in matters of war are two different things. The former only excluded children under 20, and the latter excludes children under 20, women, and those unfit for war (generally the elderly).

Numbers 1
2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.


Thats not the same as exodus 30.
He makes hyperbole out of what isn't, for example Psalm 51, and tries to make hyperbole out of the aforementioned texts, showing his inconsistent hermeneutic.
The bible is a much better read if you read with understanding.
He also misused Deuteronomy 1:39 as I detailed out, while conflating it with his misusage of Genesis 3.
Deut 1:39 is the first time anyone is spoken of concerning the knowledge of good and evil after genesis 3. Thats kinda a big deal.
He's to be avoided as he has misused these texts against plain biblical doctrine as in Romans 3, 5 &c and doesn't hold to sound teaching and in turn puts out obstacles in front of others, causing division &c Romans 16:17.
Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

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.

Whats the difference between ALL and MANY?
 

cadwell

Well-known member
100% heaven do you doubt that and why ?
I dont doubt it, I agree fully, I am sure everyone agrees. Both that he is in heaven, and that he believed he would one day be in heaven. We share the same opinion. That leads to what I am actually getting at:

2 Samuel 12:13-23, the story of David and Beersheba's baby. We all know what happened, refresh yourself if need be. Verse 23 is my focus:

2 Sam 12
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David says that he shall one day (in death) go to his child. We both agree that David went to heaven and expected to go to heaven, but why does David think the child will be there too? Its clear, like ps 51 says, that child was conceived in sin also right? It never had a chance to cry out for forgiveness or repent, so then why does David expect to see the child again? What made the child fit for heaven. This is where I dont want opinion, I only want biblical answers if you have them.
 

Theo1689

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

Rom. 3 is about ALL mankind, both Jews and Gentiles.

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.

Whats the difference between ALL and MANY?

Rom. 5 is solely about the "elect", those who were "justified by faith" (v.1), and been given the Holy Spirit (v.5).

This is a good example of why you need to read Scripture IN CONTEXT (in this case, starting from v.1), rather than immediately jumping to v.19, and pretending the verse stands on its own.

As MANY others here have pointed out, you have no clue how to properly interpret Scripture.
 

cadwell

Well-known member
Rom. 3 is about ALL mankind, both Jews and Gentiles.



Rom. 5 is solely about the "elect", those who were "justified by faith" (v.1), and been given the Holy Spirit (v.5).

This is a good example of why you need to read Scripture IN CONTEXT (in this case, starting from v.1), rather than immediately jumping to v.19, and pretending the verse stands on its own.

As MANY others here have pointed out, you have no clue how to properly interpret Scripture
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.


Paul is still talking about all. 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. 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.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
I dont doubt it, I agree fully, I am sure everyone agrees. Both that he is in heaven, and that he believed he would one day be in heaven. We share the same opinion. That leads to what I am actually getting at:

2 Samuel 12:13-23, the story of David and Beersheba's baby. We all know what happened, refresh yourself if need be. Verse 23 is my focus:

2 Sam 12
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David says that he shall one day (in death) go to his child. We both agree that David went to heaven and expected to go to heaven, but why does David think the child will be there too? Its clear, like ps 51 says, that child was conceived in sin also right? It never had a chance to cry out for forgiveness or repent, so then why does David expect to see the child again? What made the child fit for heaven. This is where I dont want opinion, I only want biblical answers if you have them.
David doesn’t give a reason why it was his hope. Are you going to give us David’s reasons for his comments ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
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".
 
Last edited:

cadwell

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
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 !!!
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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?
 
Top