No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[cadwell]

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.

Great but that does nothing to answer the actual question. And here is another one:

Can you show me where in the bible it says that ONLY sinners get to heaven? And I an not trying to be combative or anything, I honestly dont know of a verse that says that?

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".

I believe its both, actually. There are those who God demands ransom for, and those He doesnt. Thanks for asking.

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).

God gave you an answer and you rejected it in favor of false teaching. There is no original sin. Done.

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...)

Ok great.

 

[Theo1689]

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.

Not sure why you're bringing this up.
It sounds like you've bit off more than you can chew, and want to blame us for YOUR choices.

I also find it amusing that even though you seem to be saying you have difficulty following all these discussions, you still consider yourself inerrant and infallible whenever you privately interpret Scripture with your own OPINION.

 

[cadwell]

Theo1689 is correct in what he said regarding our conversation.

next……..

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.

 

[cadwell]

Not sure why you're bringing this up.
It sounds like you've bit off more than you can chew, and want to blame us for YOUR choices.

I also find it amusing that even though you seem to be saying you have difficulty following all these discussions, you still consider yourself inerrant and infallible whenever you privately interpret Scripture with your own OPINION.

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.

 

[Chalcedon]

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 can carry this conversation with others I’m not interested

 

[Theo1689]

God gave you an answer and you rejected it in favor of false teaching. There is no original sin. Done.

Yeah, we're done.
I'm not interested in arguing with individuals who have God-complexes.

BUH-bye.

 

[cadwell]

<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.

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).

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.

This is false. All men have sinned, not just all "the elect". You are denying sola scriptura once again.

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

So no, Paul did NOT "lie".

You are becoming frustrated with this conversation, and now seek to falsely accuse me of calling Paul a liar. Typical.

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.

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.

And "ALL" of the elect has sinned.
But that doesn't mean that "only" the elect has sinned.
That is YOUR assumption.

Paul says all men in verse 12, not all **the elect**. He has widened the scope and you are left behind.

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

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.

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.

You don't speak for Paul.

Say that in a mirror.

 

[cadwell]

You can carry this conversation with others I’m not interested

So should I just ask you about it a half dozen more times then?

 

[ReverendRV]

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?

I think King David went to Heaven, and I think he expected to go to Heaven to be with his baby son...

 

[cadwell]

I think King David went to Heaven, and I think he expected to go to Heaven to be with his baby son...

I agree.

 

[Chalcedon]

I agree.

Another contradiction as I said the same thing as Reverend . You are inconsistent to say the least .

 

[ReverendRV]

Another contradiction as I said the same thing as Reverend . You are inconsistent to say the least .

What did I miss?

 

[cadwell]

Another contradiction as I said the same thing as Reverend . You are inconsistent to say the least .

What’s the contradiction. When you said it I agreed as well. This time he said it when i don’t really feel like going in depth. Sorry if you feel like he got off easier than you.

 

[Chalcedon]

What did I miss?

I believe David knew he would be with his son in heaven and that was his hope even though we cannot prove it from David’s comment. He fought me on this snd turned it into an original sin debate.

 

[ReverendRV]

I believe David knew he would be with his son in heaven and that was his hope even though we cannot prove it from David’s comment. He fought me on this snd turned it into an original sin debate.

Certainly Original Sin is the Truth of the Bible...

You are against the Prophet David knowing his Son will be in Heaven?

 

[Chalcedon]

Certainly Original Sin is the Truth of the Bible...

You are against the Prophet David knowing his Son will be in Heaven?

No my comment was that of David’s hope as defined in Hebrews 11- faith is the evidence of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for. So yes by faith David believed he would reunite with his son in the future.

I have this same hope as we once lost a son in our first trimester and a granddaughter recently in my daughters first trimester. So I have a similar hope . I will have to wait and see.

 

[cadwell]

I believe David knew he would be with his son in heaven and that was his hope even though we cannot prove it from David’s comment. He fought me on this snd turned it into an original sin debate.

Now whos misrepresenting? I never contended with you about what David and his expectations in 2 sam 12:23, all I asked for was theological evidence that would explain Davids hope, in light of your view of Ps 51. I didnt turn it into an "original sin" debate, your view of Ps 51 was in focus from the beginning. I was upfront about that.

 

[ReverendRV]

No my comment was that of David’s hope as defined in Hebrews 11- faith is the evidence of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for. So yes by faith David believed he would reunite with his son in the future.

I have this same hope as we once lost a son in our first trimester and a granddaughter recently in my daughters first trimester. So I have a similar hope . I will have to wait and see.

Amen!

Do you think his belief he will go to Heaven and meet his baby, was also a Divine Revelation that Elect Infants dying in their Infancy go to Heaven?

 

[cadwell]

No my comment was that of David’s hope as defined in Hebrews 11- faith is the evidence of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for. So yes by faith David believed he would reunite with his son in the future.

I have this same hope as we once lost a son in our first trimester and a granddaughter recently in my daughters first trimester. So I have a similar hope . I will have to wait and see.

Did David "hope" to be with his child again? Is that what he said?

 

[cadwell]

Amen!

Do you think his belief he will go to Heaven and meet his baby, was also a Divine Revelation that Elect Infants dying in their Infancy go to Heaven?

I know people type "lol" all the time, but at most will smirk. But your unyielding desire to inject calvinism into EVERYTHING actually gave me a hearty laugh.