John UK wrote:
Noah and his family were included in the covenant of grace and were saved; the rest of the population of the world perished in the flood, which proves to me that either..
1. God is unjust (for killing innocents).
2. All were guilty and deserved the justice of God.
You have to pick one or the other, bro.
Federal Headship sorts out the dilemma, and is biblical.

1) There is no such thing in the bible as a covenant of grace.

2) If federal headship as you present it allows only the two choices you offered then I reject Federal headship as a false construct.

Dolores wrote:
Here’s my thoughts on this subject

. . .

John, I don't know where you are headed with your last post but here are some thoughts on the flood in anticipation of where you may be headed.

Sarah, Rachel and Hannah immediately come to mind as women who God withheld children from until a time of His choosing. He also has the power to give miscarrying wombs and dry breasts (Hosea 9:14). Had He not the prophet would not have asked.

So I would propose that God closed the wombs of all His enemy's wives some years before the flood so no innocent life was destroyed.

Now John, you know that I'd never actually assert this and argue for it because it's pure speculation. I can't even say it's likely based on good and necessary consequence. But here's the thing.... I actually have biblical precedent for what I proposed. I can quote the texts which make my proposition possible.

Another twist. You assume there were unborn and little children who died in the flood. I gather you also assume they all went to hell because of Adam's sin. Who's to say some of them weren't of the elect and went to heaven? If you're going to speculate can't I do the same?

John UK wrote:
Are we good to go so far? Nothing amiss?

Btw, I am getting ready to start my day's chores so may not be able to respond in a timely manner.

Frank wrote:
I think all of us should remember that when we are considering a theological concept, that we don’t behave like we are working a puzzle and force pieces in that don’t fit.

I think systematic theologies and the many tentacles which sprout from them cause exactly what you said..... forcing pieces in that don't fit or even worse, creating pieces that never existed.

Imho, I believe systems of theology have created more problem than they have ever solved and that because the whole stands only if the sum of the parts stand. Is God the endorser of so much confusion? I think not.

. . .

Hey Doc.

Two thumbs up to your post. Btw, do you rent out your goats? Mine's been gotten.

John UK wrote:
Lurker,
You are simply trying to avoid a truth which is most plain.

You are trying to defend a doctrine on assumptions and I'm not buying it. What you assert is not in the bible but there are several texts which demonstrate God's power to open and close wombs.

What was the old saying... Can't establish a doctrine on one verse. Yet you are trying to defend an argument on nothing at all except assumptions and your fallible logic.

John UK wrote:
he killed the entire population of the earth except eight persons, who found grace in his sight.
Let us look at this act of justice of God, when he drowned to death....whom? Everybody, men, women, children, babies, pregnant women, everybody.
What??! Even innocent children? No, NOT innocent children, there is no such thing, because of IMPUTED guilt.

The reason I get angry about this original sin business is because I see brothers like you, whom I love and respect, check their reverence for the word of God at the door when this topic comes up. If original sin is true as you explain it, why the need to add to the bible that which is not there to defend it?: "children, babies, pregnant women..."

Please quote the chapter and verse that establishes what you have asserted above. If you can't, perhaps you need to reconsider just exactly whose interests you are serving and defending.... the truth of God or the doctrines of men. And since I know you can't I refer you to:

John UK wrote:
Aha, I much prefer these easier questions, bro.
No, of course not. If an unborn child who dies in the womb is sent to hell, it will be because they are not included in the covenant of grace, that covenant between Father and Son. And if an unborn child who dies in the womb is taken up to heaven, it will be because they are included in the covenant of grace, that covenant between Father and Son.

So when you get you definition of original sin sharpened up so there is no more confusion as to what it means, are you going to let me know? After all, you own it and are trying to sell it. If you consider me a potential buyer, I want to know what exactly I'm getting.

John UK wrote:
I need a refresher on defining the terms "original sin" and "total depravity".

Can an unborn child who dies in the womb be sent to hell for inheriting Adam's nature?

John UK wrote:
It just puzzled me, that's all, because the text in its context doesn't mention the ungodly, only those who are "in Christ" and Christ is "in them". The "all" must refer to all Christians (who are "in Christ").

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
I don't buy your premise that one must explain Melchizedek, who may have been a Christophony, in order to hold to original sin.

As for me, I too will be stepping aside as we've been here before many times and the result has always been the same.

John UK wrote:
Greeting brother. I'm glad you are up to commenting on this, as I realise it must be difficult.
I'm not sure what you mean, actually. I said (1 Cor 15:22),
"But our text also says that "in Christ" all shall be made alive (resurrected). But very few are "in Christ". Therefore......????"
Could you therefore complete the sentence I left unfinished? It is not such a simple question, so if you need time to think about it, please do so bro.

I'm not sure where your thoughts were headed so I can't fill in the blanks. But I can say that the text very clearly say "ALL shall be made alive" so your comment that very few are in Christ is contrary to the though of the text and context of the chapter. All who? Mankind? No. All the Father gave to the Son to be redeemed in time and raised on the last day? Yes.

I plead with Chris that this topic makes me angry so I'm glad you all accept that the anger which no doubt shined through my post last night was directed at the doctrine and not any of my dear brothers.

I will also say that I agree we all inherit Adam's nature but flatly reject that we inherit his actual sin.

Bro. US, when David said he was conceived in sin he was talking of his mother's sin. This is established in Psalm 139:13-16. David's name was written in the book of life as he was being formed in the womb.

Bro John UK. Instead of addressing the point I made regarding 1 Cor 15:22 you just reinterpreted it in light of your doctrine.... again. That's called circular reasoning and establishes nothing. The context of the chapter is the resurrection and you just inserted a 6,000 year gap in the chapter.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Heb.7

Respectfully, to use Hebrews 7 to prove all are guilty of Adam's sin is a huge stretch. The context regards a comparison of priesthoods; Levi the lesser and Melchizedek the greater. That Levi paid tithes while yet in Abraham's loins simply means the lesser submitted to the greater.

But to take your position to its logical conclusion; all the tribes of Jacob paid tithes too yet they aren't mentioned. Why? And all Gentile believers paid tithes as we are the children of Abraham. And then there is Hagar. Do we share responsibility with Abraham for bringing the seed of Ishmael into the world? The consequences of this idea are far reaching.

As for 1 Cor 15, the context of the chapter is the resurrection. Verse 22: "shall all be made alive" is future tense thus speaking of the resurrection of our mortal bodies to incorruption, immortality and eternal life as our souls have already been quickened. So if the "In Christ" part speaks of our mortal bodies, doesn't it follow the "In Adam" part also speaks of our mortal bodies? Does it bother you that your soul is in Christ but you body is still in Adam? That's what the text teaches, not original sin.

John UK wrote:
Acts 13:42-44 KJV
(42)  And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
(43)  Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
(44)  And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Lurker, you have some interesting ideas.

Jesus, and Him crucified, is the substance of the first covenant Sabbath shadow. He is and remains the Sabbath for Gentile believers. He didn't abolish Himself so for JMac to say He abolished the Sabbath requires an explanation he didn't provide.

Further, Jewish converts are required to remain in the state of circumcision in which they were called (1 Cor 7:18-20) meaning they remain under the first covenant Mosaic Law. So how can they keep a covenant that is missing one commandment?

And finally, if the gospel (Christ crucified) is the substance of the NC Sabbath for Gentiles, why do we still tend to look to the shadows to define biblical work? Isn't that mixing apples and oranges?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Christ abolished the Sabbath
--[URL=https://tinyurl.com/zl7waxn]]]http://tinyurl.com/zl7waxn (Understanding the Sabbath)[/URL]

There has never been a works based righteousness acceptable to God under the first covenant and, if in the new covenant, all who are in Christ have forever entered into His rest, then who is going to work during the day of salvation to preach the gospel? Paul said he who does not work (preach the gospel) should not eat (of the Lord's table).

JMac did good to point out the spiritual reality of the Sabbath shadow but he didn't take it to its biblical conclusion on all fronts. Biblically, and in this life, there remains both work and rest in their seasons.... not the shadows but the substance.

1 Cor 16:10 Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do.

The soul (heart of flesh, mind) is feminine gender in both Hebrew (Nephesh) and Greek (Psyche) and is the dwelling place of God the Holy Spirit, the down payment of the inheritance of eternal life, upon regeneration. The souls of the born again are the espoused bride of the Lamb regardless of our natural gender.

Christopher000 wrote:
Lurker Wrote:
White washed sepulchers ... beautiful on the outside but filled with dead bones.
Good morning Lurker, God sure does have a way with words, doesn't He? The above still describes so many of today, the Pharisees of old are still alive and well
Everything looks just fine on the outside, but slowly and surely, are exposed for what's really living within. Unfortunately, it's no matter for those wilfully ignorant because they still appear beautiful on the outside, even when they spring a leak, and the sludge slowly begins to seep out. Study to show thyself approved...seems simple enough.

God never spoke from a mean spirit but He never minced words either. This politically correct liberal mentality that we need to apologize for God's speech and terms and "tone it down so as not to offend", all in the name of gender equality, is disgusting.

God the Son declared the one who gave Him life was His Father yet these CINO posers say God is bigger than gender. I wonder if they think that will flatter and appease God when they officially declare Him to be an It.

. . . .

Jim Lincoln wrote:
UPS:
--[URL=https://tinyurl.com/yctsl6q5]]]https://tinyurl.com/yctsl6q5 (Why Fact-Checking Doesn't Faze Trump Fans)[/URL]
Psalms 52:3
You love evil more than good, lying rather than speaking the truth.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
We really should look at what some of the influence that the Don has had on his familyâť— đź‘Ž
--[URL=https://tinyurl.com/yckeclzz]]]The Inconvenient Legal Troubles That Lie Ahead for the Trump Foundation[/URL]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
If you don't support Universal Health Care, you certainly are not pro-life. It's hypocritical to say otherwise. It's usually the racist who are anti-abortion and not pro anything else.
--[URL=https://tinyurl.com/yaphwtke]]]https://tinyurl.com/yaphwtke[/URL]