No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[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.

 

[civic]

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?

 

[civic]

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

 

[cadwell]

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.

More projections. It is you who said this:

"Rom. 5 is solely about the "elect"," link

Now I am asking you based on YOUR reading of the text. I will ask again, if you believe that Romans 5 is solely about the elect as YOU SAID, how can it be so that Paul is telling them that they are the only ones (the MANY) that are made sinners by Adam?

 

[cadwell]

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

Do you know what a "non sequitur" is?

Everything seeing as we are talking about the same person. You believe David says everyone is conceived in sin, while at the same time expecting to see his child in heaven. Something has to happen to make that child fit for the kingdom, I am trying to determine what that is in your theology. So far there has been no answer.

 

[Theo1689]

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.

That doesn't follow.

And here's the thing.... Civic is going to come and tell you that's not true, but that you are misrepresenting what he said, and making unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS about what he believes. And the sad thing is that you are likely not going to accept correction, even when civic is here to tell you you're wrong.

You make the same baseless assumptions and misinterpretations of Scripture, yet the authors aren't around to tell you you're wrong.

 

[cadwell]

No you are misrepresenting me.

Please correct the misrepresentation. Saying that without showing how is hollow. From what I have gathered so far, your proof text of original sin (ps 51:5) has David proclaiming to the world that we are all sinners from conception. I am asking you for a biblical reason for him to expect, to hope, to see his infant in heaven?

 

[civic]

Please correct the misrepresentation. Saying that without showing how is hollow. From what I have gathered so far, your proof text of original sin (ps 51:5) has David proclaiming to the world that we are all sinners from conception. I am asking you for a biblical reason for him to expect, to hope, to see his infant in heaven?

He said so and that is good enough for me as I don’t need to question why David thought he would see his child in the future . Like I said I don’t base my beliefs on assumptions.

next…..

 

[cadwell]

He said so and that is good enough for me as I don’t need to question why David thought he would see his child in the future . Like I said I don’t base my beliefs on assumptions.

next…..

I never asked for assumptions, I asked BIBLICALLY how could David say that he would see his son again, seeing as how your doctrine views his writing in Ps 51 as a grand declaration that every person born is a sinner at conception. Theologically you have no answer. While its clear you disagree, the answer is that Ps 51 isnt the statement you have been taught it is, and that there is no original sin.

 

[Theo1689]

More projections. It is you who said this:

"Rom. 5 is solely about the "elect"," link

Now I am asking you based on YOUR reading of the text. I will ask again, if you believe that Romans 5 is solely about the elect as YOU SAID, how can it be so that Paul is telling them that they are the only ones (the MANY) that are made sinners by Adam?

Romans 5 is solely about the elect.
Nothing in Rom. 5 is making ANY statements, pro- or con-, about the non-elect.

Romans 5 does NOT say that "only the elect" have sinned.
Romans 3 ALREADY says that ALL have sinned (even though you don't believe that).

Romans 5 isn't about the non-elect, so it is not making any statement about the non-elect.
However, we ALREADY KNOW from Rom. 3 that all the non-elect has sinned, as well.
That's not relevant to Rom. 5, since it is not talking about the non-elect, only the elect.

Rom. 5 is NOT saying, "only the elect are sinners".
Rom. 5 is specifically about the elated and saying that they ARE sinners.
It it not making any statement about the non-elect.

Your interpretation is ridiculous, and let me provide an analogy to show you why.

Suppose you're reading a book on the Dallas Cowboys.
And the book says that the Dallas Cowboys are football players.

And then you conclude that the Buffalo Bills aren't football players.
And I say, what are you talking about?
And you say, well, this book says ONLY the Dallas Cowboys are football players.
And I say, no, it never said that.
That book isn't ABOUT the Bills, it's ONLY about the Cowboys.
And just because the book is ONLY about the Cowboys, doesn't mean that ONLY the Cowboys are football players.

And likewise, just because Rom. 5 is ONLY about the elect, doesn't mean that ONLY the elect are sinners.

 

[Theo1689]

Please correct the misrepresentation. Saying that without showing how is hollow. From what I have gathered so far, your proof text of original sin (ps 51:5) has David proclaiming to the world that we are all sinners from conception. I am asking you for a biblical reason for him to expect, to hope, to see his infant in heaven?

I'm beginning to think you are here only to argue and cause contention.

Your criticism is INCREDIBLY unreasonable.

If I said, "cadwell believes that the Moon is inhabited with little green men", you would probably say that's a misrepresentation. Why? Presumably because you DON'T believe that.

So if you told me, "That is a misrepresentation", what if I simply said, "please correct the misrepresentation". What is there to "correct"?! You don't believe it, therefore there was no basis for me to say it. Period. End of story.

IN THE EXACT SAME WAY, if you claim something about civic, "According to what you believe, you must also believe <X>", that is simply FALSE. And when you are corrected, the ONLY reasonable and honest response is, "I'm sorry, I should never have assumed that. I was wrong." PERIOD. END OF STORY.

None of this worthless, "prove that you don't believe it" garbage.

 

[Theo1689]

I never asked for assumptions, I asked BIBLICALLY how could David say that he would see his son again, seeing as how your doctrine views his writing in Ps 51 as a grand declaration that every person born is a sinner at conception.

civic has ALREADY explained to you that ONLY sinners get to heaven.
So David proclaiming that his son is a sinner, can be looked at in one way, as his son has fulfilled one of the "criteria" to get to heaven.

Or is it your personal belief that only sinless people (ie. people under 20) will end up in heaven, and anyone who has ever sinned no longer has a chance at heaven? Sure makes evangelism pointless for you, doesn't it? Yeah, your theology is "quite a mess".

Theologically you have no answer.

How can we give you an answer that God hasn't give us?
Sometimes the answer is simply, "We don't know" (Deut. 29:29, 1 Cor. 13:12).

While its clear you disagree, the answer is that Ps 51 isnt the statement you have been taught it is, and that there is no original sin.

We weren't "taught" original sin.
We LEARNED it from the Bible.

And here's the marvellous thing!
If we can "learn" something from the Bible, yet still be wrong (which you seem to think we are), then it's possible that things YOU'VE "learned" from the Bible, could possibly be wrong as well...

Maybe it's time for you to start exercising those "humility" muscles, don't you think?

(And FYI, Ps. 51 is NOT the only passage which teaches original sin...)

 

[cadwell]

Romans 5 is solely about the elect.

Please quote the word "solely" in Rom. 5.

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.

Nothing in Rom. 5 is making ANY statements, pro- or con-, about the non-elect.

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:

So you think Paul is lying, that actually not all men have sinned. Got it.

Romans 5 does NOT say that "only the elect" have sinned.
Romans 3 ALREADY says that ALL have sinned (even though you don't believe that).

Romans 5 isn't about the non-elect, so it is not making any statement about the non-elect.
However, we ALREADY KNOW from Rom. 3 that all the non-elect has sinned, as well.
That's not relevant to Rom. 5, since it is not talking about the non-elect, only the elect.

So ALL in Romans 5:12 isnt ALL, there it just means SOME???

Rom. 5 is NOT saying, "only the elect are sinners".
Rom. 5 is specifically about the elated and saying that they ARE sinners.
It it not making any statement about the non-elect

Your interpretation is ridiculous, and let me provide an analogy to show you why.

Suppose you're reading a book on the Dallas Cowboys.
And the book says that the Dallas Cowboys are football players.

And then you conclude that the Buffalo Bills aren't football players.
And I say, what are you talking about?
And you say, well, this book says ONLY the Dallas Cowboys are football players.
And I say, no, it never said that.
That book isn't ABOUT the Bills, it's ONLY about the Cowboys.
And just because the book is ONLY about the Cowboys, doesn't mean that ONLY the Cowboys are football players.

And likewise, just because Rom. 5 is ONLY about the elect, doesn't mean that ONLY the elect are sinners.

Terrible analogy, as that is not whats happening in Romans 5. The fact that Paul again states that death is upon ALL MEN because all have sinned, in Romans 5:12, makes it about everyone. If he was limiting verse 12 to ONLY the elect, he is free to say ALL **OF YOU**. Thats where you came in to save the day and tell us what Paul meant. While you are busy narrowing his focus, he is trying to make a larger point.

 

[cadwell]

I'm beginning to think you are here only to argue and cause contention.

Your criticism is INCREDIBLY unreasonable.

If I said, "cadwell believes that the Moon is inhabited with little green men", you would probably say that's a misrepresentation. Why? Presumably because you DON'T believe that.

So if you told me, "That is a misrepresentation", what if I simply said, "please correct the misrepresentation". What is there to "correct"?! You don't believe it, therefore there was no basis for me to say it. Period. End of story.

IN THE EXACT SAME WAY, if you claim something about civic, "According to what you believe, you must also believe <X>", that is simply FALSE. And when you are corrected, the ONLY reasonable and honest response is, "I'm sorry, I should never have assumed that. I was wrong." PERIOD. END OF STORY.

None of this worthless, "prove that you don't believe it" garbage.

If anything is worthless it is posts like the one I am replying to. I asked civic to correct whatever it was he felt was misinterpreted, which I wasnt sure of. I am talking to three people at once on here, and sending an email to another, so vague comments that require me to scroll up and verify are met with that type of response. He and I moved along after he responded and were fine. So what you are saying here is useless. Thanks though.

 

[civic]

If anything is worthless it is posts like the one I am replying to. I asked civic to correct whatever it was he felt was misinterpreted, which I wasnt sure of. I am talking to three people at once on here, and sending an email to another, so vague comments that require me to scroll up and verify are met with that type of response. He and I moved along after he responded and were fine. So what you are saying here is useless. Thanks though.

Theo1689 is correct in what he said regarding our conversation.

next……..

 

[Theo1689]

Please quote the word "solely" in Rom. 5.

<sigh>

I ALREADY explained to you how Rom. 5:1-5 limits the SCOPE of the chapter to those who have been "justified by faith", and "given the Holy Spirit".

If you refuse to accept that, that's NOT my problem.

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:

So you think Paul is lying, that actually not all men have sinned. Got it.

No, Paul is NOT "lying" at all.
You simply don't comprehend basic English.

Rom. 5:12 teaches that all the elect have sinned.
Rom. 5:12 is SILENT on the "sinfulness" of the non-elect.

Paul has ALREADY told us in Rom. 3 that EVERYONE (including the non-elect) has sinned.

So no, Paul did NOT "lie".

So ALL in Romans 5:12 isnt ALL, there it just means SOME???

No, and again, this simply demonstrates that you don't comprehend basic English.
Rom. 5:1-5 has already LIMITED the scope to just the elect.
And "ALL" of the elect has sinned.
But that doesn't mean that "only" the elect has sinned.
That is YOUR assumption.

Terrible analogy, as that is not whats happening in Romans 5. The fact that Paul again states that death is upon ALL MEN because all have sinned, in Romans 5:12, makes it about everyone.

No, Rom. 5:1-5 (which you keep RUNNING AWAY from) makes Rom. 5 specific to the elect.

If he was limiting verse 12 to ONLY the elect, he is free to say ALL **OF YOU**.

Since Paul has already limited the scope of Rom. 5 in vv. 1-5, he has no need to be redundant and RESTATE the scope in v. 12.

Thats where you came in to save the day and tell us what Paul meant. While you are busy narrowing his focus, he is trying to make a larger point.

You don't speak for Paul.