More projections. It is you who said this:
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.
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.
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.
Please quote the word "solely" in Rom. 5.
Romans 5
So ALL in Romans 5:12 isnt ALL, there it just means SOME???
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.
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.
Great but that does nothing to answer the actual question. And here is another one:
I believe its both, actually. There are those who God demands ransom for, and those He doesnt. Thanks for asking.
God gave you an answer and you rejected it in favor of false teaching. There is no original sin. Done.
Ok great.
He claimed that I assumed something about something you said which I didnt, which means he isnt correct about our conversation. The point I wasnt clear on, I asked you for clarity before assuming anything.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said it was difficult, I explained how I manage things, by asking for clarity instead of trying to look at every old post.
You can carry this conversation with others I’m not interested
The issue you are having is that Paul changes scope when he sees fit. He started off addressing the church in Rome (1:7) and jumped all over the place. He addressed his readers directly (1:12) and when he wanted to speak about all men, he said all men (romans 5:12).
This is false. All men have sinned, not just all "the elect". You are denying sola scriptura once again.
You are becoming frustrated with this conversation, and now seek to falsely accuse me of calling Paul a liar. Typical.
The scope is widened in verse 12 to include all men. Your inability to advance your weak point now has you hurling insults. Calm down.
Paul says all men in verse 12, not all **the elect**. He has widened the scope and you are left behind.
Says you. As was Pauls style of writing, he often changed scope. Romans 3:1-8, the scope was on the Jew. He widened the scope a verse later to include gentiles. Changes in scope happen all the time. You cannot argue that away.
Say that in a mirror.