HELL

[Rescued One]

Right, we do nothing to earn, deserve or be worthy of such a gift.

ARE YOU A UNIVERSALIST?

 

[Rescued One]

Does Jesus not tell you to hate the members of your famiy?

Christians love God more than we love humans.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Right, we do nothing to earn, deserve or be worthy of such a gift.

Not even to produce—what was it?—"humble acceptance" worthy of grace nor activity of free will, worthy of grace. Salvation of those undeserving to whom God has chosen from the foundation of the world to show mercy, does not hinge on their decision, but on God's mercy. "...children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." John 1:13 sounds remarkably like Romans 9:16, doesn't it? "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."

And no, your analysis in post 85 does not explain it away. In fact, in context, the facts within the things you bring up (the Jew-Gentile matter, and Paul's use of diatribe rhetoric) only reinforce this fact of Salvation entirely "by grace through faith, and that not of yourself..." (And, no, I didn't say your use of those facts, but just the facts.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

ARE YOU A UNIVERSALIST?

Apparently he is!

 

[Mark Quayle]

They are so because God provides man with this miraculous free will ability to make them.

Home-made doctrine. The Bible doesn't say so. Sophistry; based on human reasoning and not on scripture.

 

[bling]

If you were so inclined, you could have done a google search. It's right there.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—"

Adam and Eve sinned with the “nature” they had and only one way to sin, so why does man’s nature have to change in order for all mature adults after Adam to sin, since they now with knowledge have tons of ways to sin.

Psalms 51:5
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." –

Psalm 51 briefly:

I have taken a lot of my research on this subject from Jewish Scholars (Some being Messianic Scholars) and especially some individuals I corresponded with in Jerusalem who had access to untranslated Hebrew writings.

The Jews are mostly wanting to understand why Jesse and David’s brothers treated him so poorly.

Psalms 51:5 is a problem translation for Jews and Christians, so this one verse takes a lot of explaining, but it also has to be consistent with all these verse in Psalms at least.

It has been decades since I did my study and I have many pages of notes.

This could all be a very poetic hyperbole David is using and he should be allowed some poetic license.

We have similar verses:

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Ps 22 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.

On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Ps. 139: 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.



I argue that a child is Innocent:

Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who committed the act: Ezek 18:1-4; 18-20; Jer 32:29-30

Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law: 1 Jn 3:4

The spoken and written gospel message is God's power for salvation: Rom 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18

God said that the king of Tyrus was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." Ezek 28:15

"God made men upright but they sought devices" Eccl 7:29 (plural can't refer only to Adam)

Jer 19:2-6 human sacrifices of children to Baal is called the "blood of the innocent"

Jesus teaches us that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 18:3- 4; Lk. 18:16-17)

Apostle Paul: Rom 7:9-11 "Once alive" "sin killed me"

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Ps 22 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.

On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Ps. 139: 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.



Looking Deeper into Psalms 51:5

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the 'circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act.

Read some of the English translation Psalms 51:5

KJV Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

YLT Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

WEB Behold, I was born in iniquity. My mother conceived me in sin

RSV Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

KJV Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Granted some translators have a problem with the sin being David’s mother’s problem and will point to verses like these:

In PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's positive relationship with the Lord.

Psalm 86:16 Turn to me and have mercy on me; show your strength in behalf of your servant; save me, because I serve you just as my mother did. She sounds righteous to me.

Thus, they majorly change the translation to be David’s sin, But are these translations the result of preconceived ideas?

The wording seems to be saying: the sin is the mothers at conception.

What do we know which could show it to be David’s mother and a problem?

David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail)…..:

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

Again the translators do not like the idea of these sisters only being David’s so the change the wording and meaning, but the better translations is:

KJV Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.

Why might these two only be David’s sisters and not Jesse’s daughters: 2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man’s son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab’s mother.”

Nahash is king of the Ammonites.

1 Chronicles 19:2 David thought, “I will show kindness to Hanun son of Nahash, because his father showed kindness to me.” So David sent a delegation to express his sympathy to Hanun concerning his father. When David’s envoys came to Hanun in the land of the Ammonites to express sympathy to him,

Why did Nahash show kindness to David?

David’s Jewish mother seems to have been previously married to Nahash the Ammonite and later was the second wife of Jesse, this was not a “sin” most likely but later could have been perceived as a sin, thus Jesse not counting David as one of his sons and all his brothers treating him badly.

A lot more can be said, but it was not David being conceived a sinner, but his mother conceiving him could be perceived as a sin.

Now we can go further into scripture showing how David was treated and persecuted as an outsider by his family and loved only by his mother.

Looking at David’s Mother

Exodus 34:7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

Matthew 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse

Torah specifically forbids an Israelite to marry a Moabite convert, since this is the nation that cruelly refused the Jewish people passage through their land, or food and drink to purchase, when they wandered in the desert after being freed from Egypt.

It is an interesting study, but there is no proof text scripture I can point to. I am convinced it was the wrongfully perceived sin of David’s mother’s conception.

The list goes on, but that's enough.

Obviously not.

Are you going to throw yourself against 2000 years of instruction and 6000 years of obvious fact? You would deny what Orthodoxy (settled doctrine) has taught all this time? Good luck with that!

The idea of humans not having free will is much more resent than 2000 years ago.

What does that have to do with it. That's illogical, backwards, to say that because they did not have a sin nature that sin does not necessary result from the sin nature. The fact that the sin nature renders the means of choice by one's enmity with God, does not mean that Adam should have chosen sin only because of his enmity with God.

I am pointing out Adam and Eve did not inherit a sin nature and yet sinned, so it stands to reason you do not have to have a sin nature to sin, so sinning does not mean your have a sin nature.

WHAAAaaaa???? Did I just hear you say "really impossible for us not to sin???"

It is impossible for mature adults to not sin, but sin itself is not the problem, because not sinning is not the objective.

It is a change in our nature from what Adam was at first. And that change is demonstrated all our lives, even in the "Old Man" within the regenerated. It will plague us til our deaths.

No see above.

You assert, but can't prove, that God, looking ahead, saw the two and decided which one was best. No! He MADE the two precisely as he did for the roles they would play as a means to Redemption. Or do you think Adam's sin was a mistake, a mere experiment for sort-of-omnipotent god, and this god had to revert to plan B? If you can't go by scripture, seeing as how you have to invent your own narrative for the Gospel, go by simple logic: God is First Cause, or he is not God. God is Omniscient. Even by your estimation —that is, even if he only knew the future— if everything that is, is a result of his creating, and he knew that those things would happen, then he INTENDED that they happen, for the sake of Redemption and his Glory. "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:3

No God did not have to Look ahead He looks at the disposition of the boys while still in their mother.

God would be outside of time, so the God at the end of time knows historically everything that happened and history can not change since it is what happened. God relayed back to himself at the beginning of time all that historically happened and cannot be changed, but we are in time make that history for God, Who also is in our time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It has to do with the definition of Godly type Love, which books have been written on. Godly type Love is not instinctive type love since that would make it robotic

Home-made doctrine. The Bible doesn't say so. Sophistry; based on human reasoning and not on scripture.

What kind of argument is it to mention that books have been written on it? So what? I've quit going to Christian bookstore because having to wade through the volume of drivel being written. Argumentum ad populum is no help.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Our part is thus to trust (believe) in God's Love.

Your argument is fallacious. Coincidence is not causation. The belief is a result of God's grace, not a way to produce or invoke God's grace.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Adam and Eve sinned with the “nature” they had and only one way to sin, so why does man’s nature have to change in order for all mature adults after Adam to sin, since they now with knowledge have tons of ways to sin.

The question is not why does man's nature have to change in order for all mature adults after Adam to sin. The Bible explicitly says it has been corrupted, and bound by sin, at enmity with God. THUS we know that man is sinful in all he does, no matter how good or how well he chooses, until God raises him from that death of sinfulness, to life in Christ.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Read post 85.

Read Post 123

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is offering to all mature adults forgiveness/charity, so accept, yet most refuse.

True that! But there is no implication that 'accepting it' causes the charity/forgiveness. Accepting in faith is not the cause of salvific faith. We believe because God has done it in us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have to look and study the details. God in scripture and through Christ as an example defines "justice" which He also follows. The "who are you" is an imaginary man (gentile Christian) debating God in very pure diatribe style.

Which makes Paul's point that we have no ability to understand the things of God, apart from the Spirit of God in us. There is no such thing as an unbeliever that understands his need. He may feel need, but he doesn't understand it, and unless the Spirit of God regenerates him, he will not understand it. He cannot. He doesn't even know what he should be "accepting", until that work by the Spirit is already done in him. 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Read my post 85.

Read post 123

 

[4N6expert]

Based on the original question, sinners in hell leave hell when God cast hell in the lake of fire.

Truth relies not on anyone's theological views. Truth is truth. Ask yourself, "Am I willing to risk being wrong?" If you who do not believe and you are correct, what do we have to lose? Nothing. If you take the risk and God's truth stands, what do you have to lose? Everything.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Based on the original question, sinners in hell leave hell when God cast hell in the lake of fire.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with the premise or just saying that the question assumes that they do leave hell. If you are saying that you know that they leave hell when hell is cast into the lake of fire, what is your basis for saying so. Or, for that matter, if you are not, what is your basis for saying the question depends on that moment?

Truth relies not on anyone's theological views. Truth is truth. Ask yourself, "Am I willing to risk being wrong?" If you who do not believe and you are correct, what do we have to lose? Nothing. If you take the risk and God's truth stands, what do you have to lose? Everything.

Explain this. Agreed the truth has no relation to anything else. It is what it is. But what is the rest of this about? —"...you who do not believe" —do not believe what? "...If you take [what] risk"? What are you referring to, there?

 

[bling]

Home-made doctrine. The Bible doesn't say so. Sophistry; based on human reasoning and not on scripture.

What kind of argument is it to mention that books have been written on it? So what? I've quit going to Christian bookstore because having to wade through the volume of drivel being written. Argumentum ad populum is no help.

Godly type Love is throughout scripture. It can be defined by everything Christ said and did, so there is not quick description.

 

[bling]

Not even to produce—what was it?—"humble acceptance" worthy of grace nor activity of free will, worthy of grace. Salvation of those undeserving to whom God has chosen from the foundation of the world to show mercy, does not hinge on their decision, but on God's mercy. "...children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." John 1:13 sounds remarkably like Romans 9:16, doesn't it? "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."

And no, your analysis in post 85 does not explain it away. In fact, in context, the facts within the things you bring up (the Jew-Gentile matter, and Paul's use of diatribe rhetoric) only reinforce this fact of Salvation entirely "by grace through faith, and that not of yourself..." (And, no, I didn't say your use of those facts, but just the facts.)

Again, accepting the charitable gift does not make a person worthy of the gift.

 

[bling]

Christians love God more than we love humans.

OK, but are we not to hate our families and Love them at the same time?

 

[bling]

Which makes Paul's point that we have no ability to understand the things of God, apart from the Spirit of God in us. There is no such thing as an unbeliever that understands his need. He may feel need, but he doesn't understand it, and unless the Spirit of God regenerates him, he will not understand it. He cannot. He doesn't even know what he should be "accepting", until that work by the Spirit is already done in him. 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

I am not saying sinful man understands, I am saying sinful man is selfish (sinful), so for purely sinful (selfish) reasons man can be willing (as you say understands his need) to accept pure undeserved charity as charity in hopes (trust/faith) his enemy (God) is charitable.

 

[bling]

True that! But there is no implication that 'accepting it' causes the charity/forgiveness. Accepting in faith is not the cause of salvific faith. We believe because God has done it in us.

The charity (being forgiven by God is already there, but forgiveness does not take place until the person humbly accepts it.
I am not saying sinful man understands, I am saying sinful man is selfish (sinful), so for purely sinful (selfish) reasons man can be willing (as you say understands his need) to accept pure undeserved charity as charity in hopes (trust/faith) his enemy (God) is charitable.