God took David's child's life - a contradicion in the Bible?

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
1 Thes. 5: 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

Thank you. I don't see any permanency implied there. This entire passage is written to believers.

Jesus is saying this about them, so if they could not accept due to stuff outside of their control, Jesus is misleading us, since Jesus says “you people” and not God has kept you from accepting.

Jesus is not misleading anyone! They would not accept Him as Messiah because they were spiritually dead! "But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men," - John 2:24. Jesus directly called them "whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. - Matthew 23:27 Dead is dead! Yes, God continues to hold people accountable for being tares, goats, and vessels of wrath (Romans 9), prepared for destruction before the foundation of the world, just as His elect are.

You gonna accuse God of being unfair? Mercy and grace aren't fair either! If God were fair with all of us, then everyone would go to Hell as we all rightly deserve.

Luke 15; In the prodigal son parable Jesus could use any words He wanted to best describe the condition of the prodigal son in the foreign land and twice he used “dead” to describe the son, so in a dead state the person can still come to their senses by their own foolish acts and turn from their ways for selfish reasons.

^ You added that last part yourself. And here's the kicker, the prodigal son was always a son from the very beginning. He just didn't understand his own sonship. He was blind to it. He was blind to the Father's love for him. The whole time the son had taken it for granted.

Jesus, again, is the very best communicate for the audience He is directing his word at: Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Is not really part of the parable but the explanation of the parable to those there.

And it doesn't indicate the motivator for humbling oneself. If you don't give glory to God for it, then you're glorifying the flesh. You're giving credit to man where it is not deserved.

To accept pure undeserved charity as charity is a very humbling experience, which most people we do almost anything to avoid doing. So people go as far as to say: humans cannot of their own free will choose to humbly accept pure charity as charity, because that would mean they earned their salvation. The elect cannot humbly accept pure charity, so they didn’t (also saying “I never did”) since God made me do it.

So to sum up, you're patting yourself on the back for making yourself humble and telling everyone how humble you are as a result of your own bootstrapping humility. Congrats, you have something to boast of.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,187
1,810
✟826,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There you go again, posting a long, sweet account, and ending it hoping to use it to prove freewill both by mere assertion of the necessity of freewill and circular reasoning, using freewill's supposed influence on your narrative to prove freewill.

Meanwhile, don't forget, Reformed Theology does NOT deny will nor choice. In fact, it insists on it! But free?? Hardly! According to Scripture we are all slaves to sin or to Christ. And logic tells us everything is caused by first cause, whether directly or through means. You still haven't show either of those to be false, except by mere assertion of your thesis, by repetition.
Where do you find in philosophical dictionaries the difference between will and free will?
A slave can still think, but like Paul in Ro. 7 might not be able to do what he wants.
No there is no just one first cause with the first causer around making lot of changes and allowing others to make autonomous free will choices. Are you saying there was only one first cause that happened long ago?
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,187
1,810
✟826,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What?? How did I say otherwise?

Or are you saying that I am wrong to claim you are proposing otherwise? You ARE proposing some degree of perfect integrity within the lost, if you think anyone can truly humble themselves before God apart from God's Spirit working within them. But God says the lost are altogether lost, enslaved to sin. (i.e. Total Depravity).
The Spirit tells us this: Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
That means some (or all) that go to hell will be humbled, so if humility is God's Spirit working in them those going to hell had God's Spirit at some time work in them. Logic would say God provided everyone with the ability to be humble even the lost.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,187
1,810
✟826,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think we've answered this enough. You merely repeat yourself, without showing how it makes it "God's fault". It is almost as though you have no concept of the station, the absolute right, of Creator over his creation. FAULT??? "Who are you, O man?" You apparently are unable to see how you elevate your judgement to God's level. Read Romans 9 SEVERAL times.

The clay does not even have the ability to question the potter. Your protests influence God not at all, unless by reaction to the fleshly insistence on self-determination and self-exaltation.

God cannot do lots of things and must do somethings, because He said he would, so it is God Himself who has limited His rights to do something differently. God is just and God through scripture and Jesus have described "just", so when I say: "God cannot do something" it is either impossible to do or God has told us He will not do it. God is Love, so God cannot be un-Loving.
You have to really study Ro. 9 to understand the meaning being consistent with all other scripture:
Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about on one pot being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?


Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.




The Jews were given a higher position on earth, but with that position came added responsibility which they poorly handled. I do not see them in Rome having any advantage over the gentile Christians, but what do you think?


I will add comments about Paul using Jerimiah’s reference to the Potter, since they are very different. In Jerimiah the pot has not been made and is still clay being molded by the Potter, with Paul the pots are completed and have gone forth.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,187
1,810
✟826,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thank you. I don't see any permanency implied there. This entire passage is written to believers.
OK
Jesus is not misleading anyone! They would not accept Him as Messiah because they were spiritually dead! "But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men," - John 2:24. Jesus directly called them "whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. - Matthew 23:27 Dead is dead! Yes, God continues to hold people accountable for being tares, goats, and vessels of wrath (Romans 9), prepared for destruction before the foundation of the world, just as His elect are.
We need to use the Deity’s definition of “dead”.

Jesus was the very best communicator and He could use any words he wanted to describe the prodigal son in the foreign land, but chose to use “dead” twice to describe the son in the foreign land. While “dead” the son could come to his senses and turn to his father for charity. Some spiritual dead people can do something for selfish reasons but cannot do anything worthy or righteous.

You gonna accuse God of being unfair? Mercy and grace aren't fair either! If God were fair with all of us, then everyone would go to Hell as we all rightly deserve.
You can be completely merciful and gracious and at the same time being fair and just, you just have to treat everyone equally in the areas which really matter (Salvation/forgiveness).

God is just, so God treats all mature adults equally in the merciful matter of salvation. To say differently is to suggest God is unjust.



^ You added that last part yourself. And here's the kicker, the prodigal son was always a son from the very beginning. He just didn't understand his own sonship. He was blind to it. He was blind to the Father's love for him. The whole time the son had taken it for granted.
I am describing what Jesus said, it says: “When he came to his senses, he said…” and Jesus did not say “when he was brought to his senses”. Jesus also describes why he went home and it was for a selfish undeserving reason: “How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death!” and “…make me like one of your hired servants.”

If you are suggesting the son was always part of the saved, then an elect saved child of God can become dead?
And it doesn't indicate the motivator for humbling oneself. If you don't give glory to God for it, then you're glorifying the flesh. You're giving credit to man where it is not deserved.
God has provides every mature adult with the ability to be humble or those lost could not be humble.



So to sum up, you're patting yourself on the back for making yourself humble and telling everyone how humble you are as a result of your own bootstrapping humility. Congrats, you have something to boast of.
I just got through showing everyone can be humble and will be humble at some time (this is a gift from God to everyone). Yes, there are those who have exalted themselves now and are not using their God given humility, but they will be humble. How can I exalt myself by being humble, since it is either/or and never both? Christ was extremely truly humble, so could He boast of His humility?

True sincere beggars desiring pure undeserved charity must be humble, so can they be proud, pat themselves on the back, feel they are pulling themselves up, and boast about the charity they got?
A person can certainly boast for never having to humble themselves to the point of having to choose to accept pure undeserved charity.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
We need to use the Deity’s definition of “dead”.

I am. Ephesians 2:1.

While “dead” the son could come to his senses and turn to his father for charity. Some spiritual dead people can do something for selfish reasons but cannot do anything worthy or righteous.

^ You added this. Forcing your eisegetical presuppositions onto the text is a no-no. Will you ever learn?

You can be completely merciful and gracious and at the same time being fair and just, you just have to treat everyone equally in the areas which really matter (Salvation/forgiveness).

Everyone is already treated equally. We all equally deserve God's eternal wrath upon the sin we all share equally. <-- That is God's justice. Grace is not owed!

I am describing what Jesus said, it says: “When he came to his senses, he said…” and Jesus did not say “when he was brought to his senses”.

It also does not say, "when he brought himself to his senses." This verse does not give you an excuse to read "bootstrapping" into it.

If you are suggesting the son was always part of the saved, then an elect saved child of God can become dead?

They're born dead, but their legal status from the foundation of the world is never in question, because they are fore-ordained.

God has provides every mature adult with the ability to be humble or those lost could not be humble.

You're trucking that assumption in from outside of scripture.

A person can certainly boast for never having to humble themselves to the point of having to choose to accept pure undeserved charity.

The we are agreed. You have something to boast of, and you're contradicting the apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,187
1,810
✟826,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am. Ephesians 2:1.
Eph. 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Again, while dead in our transgressions and sins we did selfish stuff, but that does not mean we could not humbly accept pure undeserving charity for selfish (unrighteous) reasons and that is what happens.




^ You added this. Forcing your eisegetical presuppositions onto the text is a no-no. Will you ever learn?[/QUOTE]
The son came to his senses prior to being transformed/new birth/made alive by the father which we see with the father’s greeting. Jesus uses the word “dead” to describe the young son in the foreign land, so when was he transformed given a new birth and made alive from being dead.

If the son had been given a new birth while in the foreign land he would have returned out of Love for the Father and not with just a undeserving request.

How are you reading the story and when the son was made alive?



Everyone is already treated equally. We all equally deserve God's eternal wrath upon the sin we all share equally. <-- That is God's justice. Grace is not owed!
Is God treating everyone equally (justly) if God extends “grace” to some who need it and refuses to extend grace to others who need it, both groups are undeserving? Does this seem fair to you?

It also does not say, "when he brought himself to his senses." This verse does not give you an excuse to read "bootstrapping" into it.
Coming to your senses is a mental activity worthy of absolutely nothing, everyone is brought to their senses at some times in their life, but it does not change anything unless they decide to change.



They're born dead, but their legal status from the foundation of the world is never in question, because they are fore-ordained.
Are you saying all new born babies who die are hell bound?

It is foreordained that all those who accept God’s charity as charity are saved, but it is up to us to accept or reject.

Can Born again children become spiritually dead?



You're trucking that assumption in from outside of scripture.
Not really or how could those that exalt themselves today be humble later on?



The we are agreed. You have something to boast of, and you're contradicting the apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9.

I can look up genders and dust off my Greek New Testament, but here is what Barnes and Robertson have to say and they do an honest job as far as I can tell:


And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - ͂ touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - ́ pistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" ( ͂ touto ) refers to "faith" ( ́ pistis ); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance.



Robertson, on the topic of pronouns, wrote:

9. Gender and Number of outos. ... In general, like other adjectives, outos agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive. ... In Eph. 2:8 , ..., there is no reference to pisteos in touto, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, p.704)


Robertson, on the topic of particles, wrote:

(ii) Kai. ... The Mere Connective ('And') ... kai tauta (frequent in ancient Greek). See in particular Eph. 2:8 , kai touto ouk ex umon, where touto refers to the whole conception, not to chariti. (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 1181-1182)


Robertson, on the topic of prepositions, wrote:

(d) dia ... 3. 'Passing Between' or 'Through.' The idea of interval between leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of objects. 'Through' is thus not the original meaning of dia, but is a very common one. ... The agent may also be expressed by dia. This function was also performed in the ancient Greek, through, when means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was commonly employed. dia is thus used with inanimate and animate objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in between the non-attainmnet and the attainment of the object in view. ... Abstract ideas are frequently so expressed, as sesosmenoi dia pisteos (Eph. 2:8 ), ... (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament, pp. 580-582)



"Gift" and "faith," are both nouns and would not need to agree. However, agreement in gender is necessary between a pronoun and its antecedent. The demonstrative pronoun will change its gender to match the previous noun (or other substantive) to which it refers.


This verse tells us that the antecedent for "This" is also the "gift of God." But the "gift" cannot be "faith" because there is no agreement in gender between "faith" and the demonstrative pronoun, "touto" (This).


You call look up lots of Greek scholars work and let me know if you find any one disagreeing with this, because I have not among scholars.


There is also the verse right after Eph. 2:8 which is Eph 2:8… “it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.” If “faith” was the gift then Paul is saying do not “work” to get it, but that is contrary to the way “faith” is described: “Working to get faith” is not a possibility anyone would even consider, but Paul does tell us we cannot “work to gain salvation”, so that does fit. Taking something on “faith” is the opposite of trying to gain something through hard work, which everyone knows.


Thomas R. Schreiner goes on showing how all the gifts from God are not the result of what we do which is great and I agree with, but that does not address the important question: How can God be all that He says He is in scripture described as being perfectly loving including “just, merciful and consistent” yet Thomas is saying: God shower only some with unbelievable gifts and unjustly does not show other who are exactly the equal?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
A selfish person can be humble if it fulfills his selfish desires, but does not have to be.

Only if he is inconsistently "selfish," which is where your contradiction remains. Consistently selfish people are never truly humble.

Love of contrition is truly saved.
Love of attrition still goes to Hell.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
This entire post all you did was add even more eisegetical commentary and forced presuppositions that aren't in the Biblical text.

Again, while dead in our transgressions and sins we did selfish stuff, but that does not mean we could not humbly accept pure undeserving charity for selfish (unrighteous) reasons and that is what happens.

But that's not in the text. That's your presuppositions forced into the text.

If the son had been given a new birth while in the foreign land he would have returned out of Love for the Father and not with just a undeserving request.

The son showed contrition. Not attrition.

How are you reading the story and when the son was made alive?

It doesn't say "how" he came to his senses, so you're reading into that as well.

Is God treating everyone equally (justly) if God extends “grace” to some who need it and refuses to extend grace to others who need it, both groups are undeserving? Does this seem fair to you?

It's totally fair! Why? Because 100% every-one that is ever born, every soul that ever lived under the curse of Adam, is entitled to only one thing: God's eternal wrath in Hell.

That's fair. "Grace" is un-merited favor. "Mercy" by definition is un-deserved. That's what is so amazing about grace. If you receive grace but I don't, it's no cause for envy on my part, because you did nothing to earn it. That's what grace is --un-merited favor.

Coming to your senses is a mental activity worthy of absolutely nothing, everyone is brought to their senses at some times in their life, but it does not change anything unless they decide to change.

Good observation! Thus, the son came to his senses first (where we can never tell how that happens, it's like a light bulb going off), and then he made the decision. <-- In that order.

Are you saying all new born babies who die are hell bound?

No. They are born in the exact same circumstances we are (no one is born innocent), but they get instant mercy and grace too. They don't even have to ask for it. See, "Safe in the Arms of God," by John MacArthur. It's just one Biblical citation after another.

There was an incident at our church some 10 years ago or so, where 3-4 women in very prominent families had a baby die under separate and unrelated circumstances all in the space of the same month. The odds of that sort of thing happening all at once was incredible. There wasn't anyone to comfort them, because they were already experiencing the same tragedy in their own families. I knew a faithful woman in my church who wasn't able to have children, so she ministered to these families by buying them all a copy of MacArthur's book. Later on, they thanked her for the ministry of comfort to them, because they weren't certain their baby was in Hell or not, and were very relieved to hear the good news that, while their child was born in sin the same as we are, they are shown mercy and grace.

It is foreordained that all those who accept God’s charity as charity are saved, but it is up to us to accept or reject.

That puts the executive decision (ordination) upon "those who accept," meaning it is not fore-ordained by God, but rather ordained by the individual decisions of "those who accept." See, you're contradicting yourself here as well. The serpent is saying, "Hath God really said fore-ordained? No, it's all you honey! When it came down to the final decision, you saved yourself; not God. You deserve at least a. . .little glory."
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,187
1,810
✟826,768.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Only if he is inconsistently "selfish," which is where your contradiction remains. Consistently selfish people are never truly humble.

Love of contrition is truly saved.
Love of attrition still goes to Hell.
Jesus said those that exalt themselves now will be humble later. Jesus did not say "they might think they are humble".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
All I am saying is, God has provided all mature adults with the ablility to be humbles, since all will eventually be humble.

1st contradiction: You're either humbling yourself or you will be humbled. It can't be both.
2nd contradiction: If they're "dead in sin and trespasses," then they have total inability to be humble, or "non posse non peccari."

Can men do anything to help themselves?
  • Colossians 2:13 - And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses
  • Ephesians 2:1-2, 4-5 - And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked… But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved
c.f. Psalm 49:7-9; Jeremiah 2:22; Ezekiel 16:6, 37:1-3; Romans 5:6

Can man do anything to please God?
  • Proverbs 15:9 - The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord
  • Proverbs 15:8 - The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord (c.f. Proverbs 21:27)
  • Proverbs 28:9 - If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.
  • Isaiah 64:6 - We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
  • Hebrews 11:6 - And without faith it is impossible to please [God]
  • Romans 8:7-8 - Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
c.f. Psalm 50:16; Proverbs 21:4; Isaiah 1:10-15; Amos 5:21-24

Are people good deep down?
  • Mark 7:21-23 - “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (c.f. Matthew 15:19)
  • Psalm 5:9 - For there is no truth in their mouth; their inmost self is destruction; their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.
Can men change themselves or still do good when they want to?
  • Jeremiah 13:23 - Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
  • 1 Samuel 24:13 - “As the proverb of the ancients says, ‘Out of the wicked comes wickedness.’”
  • Matthew 7:18 - “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.” (c.f. Luke 6:43)
  • Matthew 12:34-35 - “How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.”
  • Romans 8:7 - For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
  • Genesis 6:5 & 8:21 - The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually… from youth.
  • Titus 1:15-16 - to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
c.f. Job 14:4; Matthew 12:34; John 15:5; Romans 14:23; Philippians 1:11; 1 John 5:18-19
 
Upvote 0