Ukulelemike

But where there is no law, or understanding of sin and punishment, there is no imputing of sin. All are fallen, but until sin is willingly committed, it is not imputed. That is exactly what Paul was saying in Rom 7.
 

You can say that as you like, but that is certainly adding to what scripture says. It says just what it says, we need not add man made philosophy to it. They are not elect in Christ, they are in innocence, where there is no law, and sin is not accounted.

You can say that as you like, but that is certainly adding to what scripture says. It says just what it says, we need not add man made philosophy to it. They are not elect in Christ, they are in innocence, where there is no law, and sin is not accounted.

You can say that as you like, but that is certainly adding to what scripture says. It says just what it says, we need not add man made philosophy to it. They are not elect in Christ, they are in innocence, where there is no law, and sin is not accounted.

Paul covers this issue quite competently and clearly, in Romans 7:
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."
The highlighted area seems quite clear to me: The only was someone, particularly a Jew, could be alive without the law, was if, for some reason, the law didn't apply to them. We know Paul grew up a Jew, so the law was his rule of life-how could he have once been alive without it? Only is, as a small child, he had no understanding of it, of right and wrong and sin and punishment. BUT, when the commandment came, when he reached an understanding of it, sin, which had always been [resent in him, but sleeping, of no effect without understanding, revived, gained power over him, and he spiritually died. See, he didn't know lust until he understood that the Law taught Thou shalt not covet.  Sin applies only when we understand right and wrong. 

Paul covers this issue quite competently and clearly, in Romans 7:
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."
The highlighted area seems quite clear to me: The only was someone, particularly a Jew, could be alive without the law, was if, for some reason, the law didn't apply to them. We know Paul grew up a Jew, so the law was his rule of life-how could he have once been alive without it? Only is, as a small child, he had no understanding of it, of right and wrong and sin and punishment. BUT, when the commandment came, when he reached an understanding of it, sin, which had always been [resent in him, but sleeping, of no effect without understanding, revived, gained power over him, and he spiritually died. See, he didn't know lust until he understood that the Law taught Thou shalt not covet.  Sin applies only when we understand right and wrong. 

Paul covers this issue quite competently and clearly, in Romans 7:
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."
The highlighted area seems quite clear to me: The only was someone, particularly a Jew, could be alive without the law, was if, for some reason, the law didn't apply to them. We know Paul grew up a Jew, so the law was his rule of life-how could he have once been alive without it? Only is, as a small child, he had no understanding of it, of right and wrong and sin and punishment. BUT, when the commandment came, when he reached an understanding of it, sin, which had always been [resent in him, but sleeping, of no effect without understanding, revived, gained power over him, and he spiritually died. See, he didn't know lust until he understood that the Law taught Thou shalt not covet.  Sin applies only when we understand right and wrong. 

Paul covers this issue quite competently and clearly, in Romans 7:
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."
The highlighted area seems quite clear to me: The only was someone, particularly a Jew, could be alive without the law, was if, for some reason, the law didn't apply to them. We know Paul grew up a Jew, so the law was his rule of life-how could he have once been alive without it? Only is, as a small child, he had no understanding of it, of right and wrong and sin and punishment. BUT, when the commandment came, when he reached an understanding of it, sin, which had always been [resent in him, but sleeping, of no effect without understanding, revived, gained power over him, and he spiritually died. See, he didn't know lust until he understood that the Law taught Thou shalt not covet.  Sin applies only when we understand right and wrong. 

In general I tend to agree, however, I believe the acceptable form was verbal transmission from father to son. It wasn't until Moses that it was officially written down in a book form (papary and ink) so that the new nation could have the record of their history as part of their covenant with God. 
Deuteronomy 32:7 KJV Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
Exodus 24:3-4,7-8 KJV And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. [4] And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. [7] And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. [8] And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

If we feel the need for the old spelling, why not call it Pesach?

Well, they're all using the same source material, and unless the other pastor is copyrighting all his material, (a terrible idea anyways), as long as the sermons are good and biblically sound, I don't know that it is a problem, ethically.
Now, if he is a full-time pastor, with plenty of time to prepare sermons, and he is being paid to do that, but all he does is use others' sermons, then maybe that ought to be taken up as to whether he is doing his job. But I doubt there are any pastors who haven't used other pastors' sermons before. Even Charles Spurgeon admitted to preaching Matthew Henry verbatim.

Well, they're all using the same source material, and unless the other pastor is copyrighting all his material, (a terrible idea anyways), as long as the sermons are good and biblically sound, I don't know that it is a problem, ethically.
Now, if he is a full-time pastor, with plenty of time to prepare sermons, and he is being paid to do that, but all he does is use others' sermons, then maybe that ought to be taken up as to whether he is doing his job. But I doubt there are any pastors who haven't used other pastors' sermons before. Even Charles Spurgeon admitted to preaching Matthew Henry verbatim.

You beat me to the punch!
Well, as Jim mentioned, the verse you quoted doesn't say what you said it said, or even mean the same thing. As well, no mention of the Spirit. Yes, the Spirit and the Father and Christ are one God, but three different administrations, three different persons and three different jobs. Hence why Jesus had to leave before the Spirit could come to them. All you did here was misquote a verse to give it a Calvinist spin. 

You beat me to the punch!
Well, as Jim mentioned, the verse you quoted doesn't say what you said it said, or even mean the same thing. As well, no mention of the Spirit. Yes, the Spirit and the Father and Christ are one God, but three different administrations, three different persons and three different jobs. Hence why Jesus had to leave before the Spirit could come to them. All you did here was misquote a verse to give it a Calvinist spin. 

Romans 1:16 actually says: Romans 1:16 (KJV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
And as for which gospel, it is the gospel of Christ, not any man as evidenced by that very scripture.
If you give a scripture reference, at least quote it correctly for what it says, not what you want it to say.

Scripture, please. I see the Spirit gives men the power to preach the gospel, but I am not seeing what you claim.

Scripture, please. I see the Spirit gives men the power to preach the gospel, but I am not seeing what you claim.

According to scripture, what is the job of the Holy Spirit? He indwells and seals the believer, and brings to the mind of the believer all things of which the Lord has said. He speaks through the believer the things of God, teaches us what to say, empowers the believer to do the work of Christ, gives the words of God to holy men. But nowhere, that I have seen in scripture, is the Holy Ghost given to draw men to Christ-that work is done through the word of God, the drawing of Jesus Christ from the cross, and the preaching of the gospel. 
Again, which I have written numerous times, it is JESUS, who is the Light, and who lights all men that come into the world, (John 1:9); it is Jesus who said he would draw all men unto Him when He was lifted up, (on the cross), (John 12:32, 33). It is the hearing of the word of God that brings faith, (Rom 10:7), and the knowledge of salvation by the gospel, (Rom 1:16). 
The Spirit has a job, but it is not to draw the lost. The Spirit's duty is to the saved. Jesus gives light, the word gives faith, Jesus draws all men, the gospel imparts the knowledge of God's grace unto salvation, but the Spirit is given to the saved. 

No, I don't understand it because it is gibberish and makes no sense. I believe the Bible and what it says. I understand types and pictures, even allegory, but this is none of those, you have simply pulled together a bunch of things from scripture and wrested them into your own idea of what they mean. It is vain babblings with no profit to them, and t is time to put it to bed.
 
I am closing this thread, as it has become vain and worthless. 
 

And that changes nothing at all of what I said. Christ has done His part: Died to pay for the sin of the world; Lightens every man that comes into the world; draws all men to Him from the cross. What more does anyone need from Him? The Lord also gave us His word.  Then, we who hear and respond and are saved speak the gospel to those we are able to speak it to, and faith comes HOW? Faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the WORD OF GOD.  

So, all men have the light of Christ, the drawing of Christ, the word of God, and the gospel. Just because most will choose to reject it, doesn't mean God is in any way responsible to do anything more, as He has already done more than we deserve. Jesus already said that the gate is narrow and the way is straight, and few there would be that find it-that's because most will reject and choose the broad way that leads to destruction. 
So I am not seeing your issue here. Our fallen nature doesn't preclude our ability to choose to receive the gift of salvation.

Amen brother!!!

And that changes nothing at all of what I said. Christ has done His part: Died to pay for the sin of the world; Lightens every man that comes into the world; draws all men to Him from the cross. What more does anyone need from Him? The Lord also gave us His word.  Then, we who hear and respond and are saved speak the gospel to those we are able to speak it to, and faith comes HOW? Faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the WORD OF GOD.  

So, all men have the light of Christ, the drawing of Christ, the word of God, and the gospel. Just because most will choose to reject it, doesn't mean God is in any way responsible to do anything more, as He has already done more than we deserve. Jesus already said that the gate is narrow and the way is straight, and few there would be that find it-that's because most will reject and choose the broad way that leads to destruction. 
So I am not seeing your issue here. Our fallen nature doesn't preclude our ability to choose to receive the gift of salvation.

And that changes nothing at all of what I said. Christ has done His part: Died to pay for the sin of the world; Lightens every man that comes into the world; draws all men to Him from the cross. What more does anyone need from Him? The Lord also gave us His word.  Then, we who hear and respond and are saved speak the gospel to those we are able to speak it to, and faith comes HOW? Faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the WORD OF GOD.  

So, all men have the light of Christ, the drawing of Christ, the word of God, and the gospel. Just because most will choose to reject it, doesn't mean God is in any way responsible to do anything more, as He has already done more than we deserve. Jesus already said that the gate is narrow and the way is straight, and few there would be that find it-that's because most will reject and choose the broad way that leads to destruction. 
So I am not seeing your issue here. Our fallen nature doesn't preclude our ability to choose to receive the gift of salvation.

And that changes nothing at all of what I said. Christ has done His part: Died to pay for the sin of the world; Lightens every man that comes into the world; draws all men to Him from the cross. What more does anyone need from Him? The Lord also gave us His word.  Then, we who hear and respond and are saved speak the gospel to those we are able to speak it to, and faith comes HOW? Faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the WORD OF GOD.  

So, all men have the light of Christ, the drawing of Christ, the word of God, and the gospel. Just because most will choose to reject it, doesn't mean God is in any way responsible to do anything more, as He has already done more than we deserve. Jesus already said that the gate is narrow and the way is straight, and few there would be that find it-that's because most will reject and choose the broad way that leads to destruction. 
So I am not seeing your issue here. Our fallen nature doesn't preclude our ability to choose to receive the gift of salvation.

No, I don't understand it because it is gibberish and makes no sense. I believe the Bible and what it says. I understand types and pictures, even allegory, but this is none of those, you have simply pulled together a bunch of things from scripture and wrested them into your own idea of what they mean. It is vain babblings with no profit to them, and t is time to put it to bed.
 
I am closing this thread, as it has become vain and worthless.