Members John Young Posted June 24, 2016 Author Members Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said: The OP is attempting to teach the false doctrine of Plagiarism. While I certainly understand your concern that God does not create evil, but the problem is that our sin nature is passed on to us from Adam. "As in Adam all die", we are all born in Adam, in spiritual death, in sin. I understand it is hard to accept that God would allow us to be born with a sin nature, but he does. In Adam we all die but it does not say "in Adam we all sin". In Adam we all are born into a sin cursed world and will die physically. Spiritually we all die because of our own sin. Scripture says "for all have sinned". While we all have the capacity for sin and we will all sin, No scripture ever proclaimed that we were created with sin. It paints a clear picture that sin is completely our own fault and not a birth defect. We are all responsible for the sin, and the results of those sins that we do commit. Adam's sin condemned us all to exposure to sin and to corrupted bodies that die physical deaths, but our spiritual death is completely because of our souls free choice to sin. Romans 3:23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 5:12-13 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed [to the person] when there is no law. Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 1 Corinthians 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. I strongly oppose the doctrine being taught in the OP and it is not biblical, I think it is a knee jerk reaction to Calvinism. No its not a knee jerk reaction to Calvinism; nor is it teaching "Plagiarism". Those accusations in themselves reek of a knee jerk reaction towards Protestant thought and not true Baptist thought, sorry. Your statements assume that St. Augustine's theology and his understanding of Pelagius' theology was right (a one sided accusation). If many Baptist actually studied what Pelagius actually taught they might find they side more with him then Augustine. However, I'm not taking a "side". I personally do not consider them, the "Church Councils", and etc. to be my authority on what is heretical baptist doctrine or no, but it is your right, I suppose, to see scripture only in the "light" that they give. As Baptist it is not wrong to look beyond the theological framework of the reformers. I personally have come to believe that the reformers framework (while very good in some points) is simply cleaned up Roman Catholic doctrine which hampers deeper understanding of scripture. An old dirty rag full of holes that has been cleaned is still an old rag full of holes. The OP is simply compiling my, and others, understanding (heretofore taught in separate thoughts on scripture) into one basic outline. Each section has been taught openly in baptist circles in some manor when touching on certain scriptures without major issue but when put together may seem to go against the common reformation framework. However, I do not think It goes against actual scripture. Now I may have not gotten the details ironed out on paper and in my own mind yet but the general premise I think is sound scripturally. If the parts are taught scripturally then they aught to come together in some logical form scripturally. That's all I am trying to do with the OP.My goal is not to teach "false doctrine" but to learn exactly how the parts listed work together harmoniously in scripture. If a section does not work with actual scripture then I'll change it in light of better scriptural understanding but I'm not going to change on anyone's accusations of "teaching false doctrine" biased solely on one's theological framework imposed on top of scripture. If you want to lay aside the preconceived notions and contribute to scriptural edification then I would love it if we learn together and not in needless opposition. Basic points I'm presenting (and have covered scripturally in previous post) in regard to the OP: 1. God does not create sin (but he does allow it) + God creates all people personally. = God does not create man with sin but Man has the capacity (and is allowed by God) to sin. Therefor..... 2. Man is not conceived with sin + Man is born into a world cursed and corrupted by sin + Man's flesh is corrupted by Adam's sin and will die regardless of the Soul (Flesh is the avenue by which sin enters to tempt the soul) = All men will sin spiritually and all will die both physically and spiritually. Therefor.... 3. Without the Saviour all Men will fall by sinning + Men's call for salvation = Restoration and Protection from falling. (with other benefits obviously but in particular regard to sin) Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. James 1:12-15 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, Edited June 24, 2016 by John Young Heir of Salvation and wretched 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted June 24, 2016 Members Share Posted June 24, 2016 Well, I have a sincere desire to continue in this discussion and "debate;" however, I have lacked the time of late to prepare my next posting. Please, be patient with me. Thank you. John Young 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Young Posted June 24, 2016 Author Members Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said: Well, I have a sincere desire to continue in this discussion and "debate;" however, I have lacked the time of late to prepare my next posting. Please, be patient with me. Thank you. I'm not really looking for "opponents" among my Christian brothers to "debate" the topic but I do appreciate the time and effort you and the others have graciously put into responding to the post. I know how busy many of you are, so I don't take your responses for granted. It certainly is helping me in my study on the topic. The latest post by brother Jordan as well has sparked a question in my mind to wander how much the opposition or support to the OP (or any bible topic for that matter) is based on an (unconscious?) loyalty to a theological perspective framework that we were taught [not necessarily saying such a thing is bad in itself], verses, to a heart study born of scripture. I would like to think mine it towards the latter but the former certainly has great influence. Edited June 24, 2016 by John Young wretched 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted June 24, 2016 Members Share Posted June 24, 2016 12 minutes ago, John Young said: I'm not really looking for "opponents" among my Christian brothers to "debate" the topic but I do appreciate the time and effort you and the others have graciously put into responding to the post. I know how busy many of you are, so i don't take your responses for granted. It certainly is helping me in my study on the topic. The latest post by brother Jordan as well has sparked a question in my mind to wander how much the opposition or support to the OP (or any bible topic for that matter) is based on an (unconscious?) loyalty to a theological perspective framework that we were taught, verses, to a heart study born of scripture. I would like to think mine it towards the latter but the former certainly has great influence. Brother Young, Just a quick response to your previous posting, if I may. I understand that you are not necessarily seeking for "opponents" among us to "debate" the topic. However, in my case you certainly have a form of "opponent," since I definitely disagree with so much of your premise and position. Concerning the matter of an "unconscious" bias -- If my bias truly is "unconscious," then by definition I would not likely recognize that I have such a bias. On the other hand, I can certainly assure you that I DO have a very conscious loyalty and bias toward the precise handling of Scriptural grammar and context. Furthermore, I believe that I can say without any hesitation that my disagreement with so much of your premise and position is based on that very conscious loyalty and bias toward the precision of doctrine in God's Holy Word. John Young 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Golgotha Posted June 24, 2016 Members Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, John Young said: Basic points I'm presenting (and have covered scripturally in previous post) in regard to the OP: 1. God does not create sin (but he does allow it) + God creates all people personally. = God does not create man with sin but Man has the capacity (and is allowed by God) to sin. Therefor..... 2. Man is not conceived with sin + Man is born into a world cursed and corrupted by sin + Man's flesh is corrupted by Adam's sin and will die regardless of the Soul (Flesh is the avenue by which sin enters to tempt the soul) = All men will sin spiritually and all will die both physically and spiritually. Therefor.... Although this verse supports your statement; Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. This one seems to testify sin as being a part of us before we were born even though we have not committed sin yet. Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Romans 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated Sin has to be a part of unborn babies if some die in the wombs even though none have done good or evil yet. I am sure the Father has revealed His Son to any of them that had perish in the womb that He knew would seek Him. Matthew 11:25-27 & John 3:18-21 Edited June 24, 2016 by Golgotha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Young Posted June 25, 2016 Author Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 15 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said: I can certainly assure you that I DO have a very conscious loyalty and bias toward the precise handling of Scriptural grammar and context. Furthermore, I believe that I can say without any hesitation that my disagreement with so much of your premise and position is based on that very conscious loyalty and bias toward the precision of doctrine in God's Holy Word. Amen! Regardless of any particular framework biases this is why I love the being a baptist so much. God's Word is above all and is where our loyalties ultimatly lye. My goal is not to oppose doctrine but to better understand my scriptures. If I'm wrong in a particular area or way off base I'm praying that the Holy Ghost will give me the proper perspective. Thank you brother! Pastor Scott Markle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Young Posted June 25, 2016 Author Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 15 hours ago, Golgotha said: Although this verse supports your statement; Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. "ESTRANGED, participle passive Withdrawn; withheld; alienated." This whole Psalm is about the Wicked in heart. It is not about ALL children. Estranged means to be separated from. The wicked are estranged from God (their creator) at birth being taught to speak lies by their wicked parents and wicked society. Paul alludes to that when he advises the saved woman to stay with her lost husband for the sake of him and their children's souls. The evil quickly teach their children to rebellion and sin against God. They practically have no chance. Contextually this is about children born to the wicked. It is not about all people that are born. Its N.T. example is 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. This one seems to testify sin as being a part of us before we were born even though we have not committed sin yet. Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. As part of his prayer to God for sinning against Him with Bathsheba and Uriah. I believe he is referring to the environment of which he was born into. The "Iniquity" is what he learned and "shaped" him as a child and Sin in this verse is his mothers not his. It is not talking about before birth. 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Notice this verse is not about the sin but rather about physical death as the result of Adam's sin. It says nothing about Adam passing down sin by birth. The sin of man can affect the lives of others with out those others actually taking part in his sin. Romans 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated Election in this passage is not about picking which child is to be saved or lost but rather God selecting Jacob to receive the promised inheritance. Esau still had opportunity to be saved even if he did not receive his family's birth right. This is not a salvation verse but a promise verse. Jacob received the promise over his brother from God before he was born but still had to receive Him in Faith. Paul explained that just as with the promise, salvation does not come just to anybody, even if they are sons of Abraham by flesh, but rather to those who He chooses. He goes on to say that God chooses those who have faith regardless of the lineage. "Hated" here is used to show that he was not chosen for the promise. It does not denote sin, wickedness, or condemnation. Esau still had the same opportunity for salvation he just did not have the promise and therefor he and his descendants were treated differently in that regard. God chose to be with and make a Godly nation from Jacob and his descendants rather then Esau's. (see the book of Malachi) A simulare use of the word is presented by Christ when he said in Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. While those around us have the same opportunity for salvation we should love Christ (the Promised Seed) and HATE all other relatives! Not merely because they are all wicked but because we need to have LOVE in the Promised Seed, alone, over all others. Sin has to be a part of unborn babies if some die in the wombs even though none have done good or evil yet. I'm sorry but that is simply a false assumption placed on the verse. I do believe that all are born with the capacity to sin but not sin itself. I am sure the Father has revealed His Son to any of them that had perish in the womb that He knew would seek Him. Matthew 11:25-27 & John 3:18-21 I know many who argue for elect babies based on an alternate future for the child that existed only in the mind of God (if at all) but none could practically define such an idea with confidence. While I know that God knows what WILL come to pass, I'm not sure that salvation, based in alternate realities, that were never lived, is really a biblical thing. This line of thinking, to me, is not scriptural but merely using the elect of God doctrine for wistful thinking. If you or anyone knows scripture that actually supports this type of election I would like to discuss them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Heir of Salvation Posted June 25, 2016 Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, John Young said: No its not a knee jerk reaction to Calvinism; nor is it teaching "Plagiarism". Those accusations in themselves reek of a knee jerk reaction towards Protestant thought and not true Baptist thought, sorry. Your statements assume that St. Augustine's theology and his understanding of Pelagius' theology was right (a one sided accusation). If many Baptist actually studied what Pelagius actually taught they might find they side more with him then Augustine. YEEEUP! What you are saying is not "Pelagianism". Then again, Pelagius wasn't a "Pelagian" as the word is used so often, nor did he teach half of what he is accused of teaching. He's nothing more than a bogey-man. Baptists would do well to read his works for themselves. Don't trust anything either Augustine or Jerome said of him. They were dishonest to the core. Edited June 25, 2016 by Heir of Salvation John Young 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Young Posted June 25, 2016 Author Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 I understand the idea in the OP that "souls are not created with sin built in" is a controversial point of contention but before we continue on with that point.... Are there other points of contention that anyone sees in the OP that can be briefly pointed out, which I can consider while working on the one above? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Heir of Salvation Posted June 25, 2016 Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Heir of Salvation Posted June 25, 2016 Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 On 6/23/2016 at 3:46 PM, Jordan Kurecki said: The OP is attempting to teach the false doctrine of Pelagianism. While I certainly understand your concern that God does not create evil, but the problem is that our sin nature is passed on to us from Adam. "As in Adam all die", we are all born in Adam, in spiritual death, in sin. I understand it is hard to accept that God would allow us to be born with a sin nature, but he does. Jordan, can I respectfully submit to you that you have missed the point behind the Scripture you quote? As always, context is king and context shows us that "Spiritual Death" is nowhere in view. Moreover, if it was, than the passage would imply Universalism. The entire chapter is about bodily resurrection from the dead: I Cor 12: 15 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (If Spiritual Death is in view, than Universalism follows necessarily). Will "all" be made Spiritually alive again? I trow not! This passage is clearly speaking of PHYSICAL death and bodily resurrection from the dead only. It is inappropriate to use this passage to teach Original Sin or Original Guilt of some kind. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Every man will not be saved, but every man will be resurrected, even the damned: John 5: 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, vs. 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted June 25, 2016 Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) On 6/15/2016 at 3:20 AM, John Young said: I do appreciate your replies so far and I am considering them in response to the OP. The elect doctrine does change things up a bit and I would be interested in hearing more even if it may be conjecture. So are you saying that because God knew King David's child would eventually receive Him in faith, if the child had been permitted to live, then that child was already part of the elect and therefor was saved? (How could David know such a thing?) So in the converse if a child died in infancy that if he would have rejected faith, If God allowed him to live, then that child is not part of the elect and therefor goes to hell? Or Is it that all children who die before an opportunity to believe are already part of the elect? Brother Young, Previously in the discussion of this thread, you asked me the above questions. I wanted to assure you that I have not forgotten and that I am not deliberately neglecting. Answering this request would move me more centrally into the discussion on babies and eternal life (which is also Brother McWhorter's concern). In order to answer with my conjecturing on the subject, I believe that a bit of "doctrinal preface" concerning my position on other things is necessary. Therefore, things are moving more slowly in my response. I do request your patience (as I have already done, and as you have already granted). On the other hand, I do wish in this posting to provide a quick response -- I do NOT believe in the viewpoint that the Lord our God elects babies "based on an alternate future for the child that existed only in the mind of God." I would agree with you in the following: While I know that God knows what WILL come to pass, I'm not sure that salvation, based in alternate realities, that were never lived, is really a biblical thing. This line of thinking, to me, is not scriptural but merely using the elect of God doctrine for wistful thinking. Edited June 25, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle John Young 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Golgotha Posted June 25, 2016 Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 9 hours ago, John Young said: 1. God does not create sin (but he does allow it) + God creates all people personally. = God does not create man with sin but Man has the capacity (and is allowed by God) to sin.Therefor..... 9 hours ago, John Young said: 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Notice this verse is not about the sin but rather about physical death as the result of Adam's sin. It says nothing about Adam passing down sin by birth. The sin of man can affect the lives of others with out those others actually taking part in his sin. But since physical death comes by sin, then babies are conceived in sin in that they can die. 9 hours ago, John Young said: Contextually this is about children born to the wicked. It is not about all people that are born. Its N.T. example is 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Thanks for sharing that verse. Yes, there is hope for the unborn in a saved family, but I do point out that Paul is speaking & not the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. I believe this distribution that God has to every man or woman is that measure of faith & hope in Him. During Jesus's time on earth, He has healed per people's request for other people like the Roman centurion for his servant. So as the parents or single parent trust & hope in the Lord for the salvation of their children, & babies & thus even unborn babies, they can be assured by His words that faith & hope in Him to do this, He will do that. Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Psalm 33:18 Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.....21 For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name.22 Let thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we hope in thee. 9 hours ago, John Young said: Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. While those around us have the same opportunity for salvation we should love Christ (the Promised Seed) and HATE all other relatives! Not merely because they are all wicked but because we need to have LOVE in the Promised Seed, alone, over all others. Jesus wasn't talking about actually hating all other relatives while we live our lives down here. This was about loving Him more than others to leave our loved ones behind when the Bridegroom comes. That is the cost of discipleship. In Luke 14:15-24 Jesus spoke of those invited to come to the King's Supper, but some were making excuses not to come due to the cares of this life or a loved one. Jesus expounded on that in another place in Luke 14:25-33 where your verse 26 comes into view that we need His help to love Him more by leaving our loved ones behind into His hands. That is the cost of discipleship; Luke 14:26 was never about how we live as His disciple down on this earth, but how we are to live as His disciple in leaving this earth when the Bridegroom comes to attend the Marriage Supper. 1 John 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Romans 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. So we are to love one another; even our enemies, by His grace & by His help, while we live down here as His disciples, but it is upon leaving this earth at the pre trib rapture is when as His disciples, we need His help to leave our loved ones behind...yes, even saved believers that were found by Him as not abiding in Him as His disciples. It is no wonder why loving God first & foremost is the first commandment and loving others is to be always second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted June 27, 2016 Members Share Posted June 27, 2016 (edited) On 6/25/2016 at 2:25 AM, John Young said: I understand the idea in the OP that "souls are not created with sin built in" is a controversial point of contention but before we continue on with that point.... Are there other points of contention that anyone sees in the OP that can be briefly pointed out, which I can consider while working on the one above? On 6/3/2016 at 6:09 AM, John Young said: The reason no soul can be a sinner or child of the devil before birth is because the birthing process is wholly controlled by God and only God can create life, giving life and a spirit to every living creature. The devil has no ability to create any life nor can he control the physical birth process of the womb. (Psalm 104:30, John 1:4-5, 1:9, Acts 17:25) 1. As may be expected from our disagreement concerning the originating spiritual condition and position of the human soul, I also disagree with your above premise. I do indeed believe that the Lord God is wholly in control of the conceiving process, such that that each new, individual soul is directly created by God. However, I believe that the Lord God engages in this creation through the natural physical and spiritual order, such that Adam's sinfulness is indeed passed through the human father unto the children, physically, "soulishly," and spiritually. 2. I disagree with your understanding and usage of John 1:4-5. On 6/3/2016 at 6:09 AM, John Young said: Unfortunately, from the time of Adam all flesh has been corrupted by the sinful actions of people and is currently in a fallen state. The devil uses the lust of the flesh and the lust of a fallen world to tempt the soul to sin. 3. I disagree with your understanding and application of the term "flesh" in this context, as being applied unto the physical body and not unto a principle of selfishness within the human soul. On 6/3/2016 at 6:09 AM, John Young said: The devil uses the lust of the flesh and the lust of a fallen world to tempt the soul to sin. Therefore it is guaranteed that all souls will soon become bound to sin and quickly lose their innocents. Innocents is lost at the moment a child fully knows to do good but knowingly does wrong anyway. Herein I simply have a question -- From the perspective of your position, how quickly do those who are born into wicked homes lose their innocence? Is it within the first day, the first week, the first month, the first year, after several years, etc.? Furthermore, do you have any thought as to what the first sin of each might likely be, such as -- an action sin, a communication sin, or an attitude sin? (Note: I myself would contend that the first sin may include an action sin and/or a communication sin, but that it will certainly begin with an attitude sin. Furthermore, I would contend that the attitude sin will essentially be the attitude sin of selfishness.) On 6/3/2016 at 6:09 AM, John Young said: At the time of visitation each soul (both innocent and disobedient) will have a chance to receive salvation unto the perfecting of the soul, and the quickening and sealing of their sprit in the new birth (making them a son of God) by the Holy Spirit. (Isaiah 55, Luke 19:9, John 3, 2 Corinthians 6:2) Herein I have another question -- Does your first parenthetical in this statement, "(both innocent and disobedient)," indicate your belief that some may encounter the offer of eternal salvation and eternal life even before they have committed their first act of sinful disobedience against God? If it does indicate this, from what would they need to be saved? On 6/3/2016 at 6:09 AM, John Young said: If any reject God at the visitation then they will be dammed because of their decision to choose their own lustful life over that of receiving God’s quickening. If they in full knowledge continually reject God’s will and His salvation and continue down the path of destruction they can, by giving themselves wholly over to sin and cutting themselves off wholly from God’s call, become “children of the devil” (doing the devils spiritual work) and “Sons of Belial” (wholly worthless to God). Both unable to be redeemed, in this life or the next. These “children” will not just sin like the “children of disobedience” but will actively work against the cause of Christ; many even claiming to be Christians and seeking positions in God’s church, yet in full knowledge of their wickedness are content to live in and make excuse for sin and working against the righteous authorities who seek to help them. (Deuteronomy 13:12-18, Judges 19-20, 1 Samuel 2:12, 10:26-27, 2 Samuel 20:1, 1 Kings 21, 2 Chronicles 13:7, John 8:43-45, Romans 1, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, Hebrews 2:1-3, 2 Peter 2, 1 John 3, Jude 1) 4. I disagree with your division of the two descriptions, "children of disobedience" and "children of wrath," from the description, "children of the devil." I believe that all three of these descriptions are Biblically equivalent with one another in their application unto sinful individuals. On 6/3/2016 at 6:09 AM, John Young said: The innocent will go to heaven (albeit perhaps in an incomplete state) because they have not yet sinned and the devil has nothing of to accuse them. At the end of life those that have done pure good will be raise to life and those who have rebelled by sin cast into hell. All have come short in the process of life on their own so need to be placed in Christ who, thru his redeeming works, uncorrupted and good state will, wholly cleans from sin all who have faith in Him. (Daniel 12:1-3, John 5:24-25, John 6:47, Romans 3:23, Romans 6:1-12, Romans 8:1-4 Hebrews 4:1, Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 John 1:9, 3:9) Herein I have yet another question -- According to your position, upon whose "pure good" righteousness will the "innocent" be granted access unto heaven? If your answer is upon Christ's righteousness, then I would further ask -- At what time and by what means will Christ's perfect righteousness be imputed unto the account of the "innocent" individuals? On 6/4/2016 at 5:43 AM, John Young said: Typically we approach the progression from the start of fallen physical man but that view often leaves much unsaid and ignores many facts about how God starts each life and what God himself says and does for each one of us. The common view pretty much makes God the creator of sinners but I believe the biblical view as summed up in Ecclesiastes 7:29 "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." 5. Although you did not actually present this in your original article, you have presented it a number of times throughout the thread discussion as a support for a foundational premise of your original article. Therefore, I express my disagreement with your understanding and application of Ecclesiastes 7:29. In fact, I even believe that your understanding and application of Ecclesiastes 7:29 creates a self-contradiction within your own system of belief (specifically in relation to your understanding application of Romans 3:10). Edited June 27, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted June 27, 2016 Members Share Posted June 27, 2016 (edited) On 6/17/2016 at 2:34 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said: I believe thus far that I am discerning four different positions in this thread concerning the originating condition of human individuals. (Note: If I am wrong on one of these, I would ask the contributor unto which I have applied the position to correct me and thus also to correct the "public record." 1. Brother Young -- Human individuals at the level of the soul do NOT come into this world already possessing a sin nature, already "dead in trespasses and sins," already bound under sin's mastery, and already condemned before God; but they are directly created by God with a spiritually neutral soul, thus being in a position of spiritual innocence before God AND being in a condition of spiritual innocence in the soul. On 6/22/2016 at 7:06 AM, John Young said: The parts in blue, at this time, I think that I can fully agree with. The difficulty is when we use the word "spiritual". Its an aspect and term which encompasses much more then the human spirit alone and I am still studying how it factors into the separate parts. I can state that God gives an human spirit and creates an new innocent living soul within a body of flesh with it. Additionally, John 1 describes Christ as already being the life and light "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world", even if they do not yet receive or comprehend Him as such. However, I am not sure as to what extent that spirit and God interact with the soul or wither or not that new soul has a "spiritual" state just yet. The soul is living and the human spirit gives life to the body but that same spirit/soul is not quickened "spiritually" until the soul receives Christ. My position is ---- God creates living souls, with instructions written within themselves, but without sin and without righteousness of their own, into a spiritually sin cursed and physically corrupted world, and allows them to develop one way or the other. Not yet guilty but not yet quickened either. If their bodies die before the soul comes to Knowledge of Good and Evil, then the souls return back to God along with the spirit God used to create the soul. As far as what God does with innocent souls which have not developed into Sons, I'm not sure. But I know they will be with Him and that the Saved will be with them again. For the past week or so, I have desired to prepare and post a “doctrinal preface” concerning my position on the relationship between the soul, the spirit, and the body in the human individual. Lack of time has prevented me from doing so until now. Yet considering Brother Young’s quoted posting above, I believe that it is quite appropriate to present that “doctrinal preface” now. I believe that the each human individual consists of three primary elements – (1) the soul, (2) the spirit, and (3) the body. (See 1 Thessalonians 4:23; Hebrews 4:12) Concerning the soul, I believe that the soul of the human individual is to be defined as the essential personhood of that individual. (See Genesis 2:7; Matthew 10:28) Furthermore, I believe that the human soul is not at all a physical element, but is the intangible person of the inner man. (See Isaiah 31:3; Luke 24:39) Finally, I believe that the human soul can be sub-divided into various intertwined parts, including the heart for motivation and priority, the mind for thoughts and plans, the emotion for feelings and attitudes, the will for decisions and determination, the conscience for accusing or excusing, and the “flesh” as the principle of selfishness within. (Note: I also believe that the term “soul” is often employed in Scripture, not for the intangible inner-man of the individual, but for the whole physical person of the individual in this world, not as a reference strictly unto the physical body, but as a reference unto the whole physical person as motivated by the inner-man soul.) Concerning the spirit, I believe that the spirit of the human individual is that which God has given unto the human soul in order that he or she might have spiritual fellowship with God. Because the Lord our God is a spirit by nature, we must worship Him and walk with Him “in spirit and in truth.” (See John 4:23-24). Furthermore, I believe that the human spirit is also an intangible part of the human individual, and that it is so closely united with the human soul that it requires the precise sharpness of God’s Holy Word to divide the two into separate parts. (See Hebrews 4:12) Finally, I believe that the human spirit is indeed “the candle of the Lord” within the human individual, which searches out and influences all the inward parts of the human soul (inner man). (See Proverbs 20:27) However, I believe that from conception every human spirit comes into this world, not with spiritual light and life, but being spiritually darkened and dead “in trespasses and sins.” (See Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19) As such, I believe that the work of regeneration is that divine work wherein God, by the power of Jesus Christ’s resurrection-life through the administration of the Holy Spirit, destroys our old spirit by uniting it in Christ’s death and creates a new spirit within us that is after His own likeness “in righteousness and true holiness.” (See Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26; John 3:5-6; Romans 6:3-11; Ephesians 2:1-10; 4:24) (Note: I also believe that the term “spirit” is often employed in Scripture, not for the intangible spirit of the individual, but for the characteristic attitude of the individual.) Concerning the body, I believe that the body of the human individual is that which God has given unto the human soul in order that he or she might interact with the physical world, which was created for the benefit of humanity. Furthermore, I believe that the human body can be sub-divided into various and sundry parts, including the brain, bones, internal organs, skin, eyes, ears, mouth, nose, arms, legs, hands, feet, etc. (Note: I believe that the term “flesh” is sometimes employed in Scripture strictly for the physical body of the individual, and that it is employed at other times for the principle of selfishness within the soul of the individual.) Edited June 27, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.