Does anyone know of....

[Magenta]

the natural man is BORN with the moral ability

Romans 11:32

 

[Magenta]

Isaiah 5:20-21; Proverbs 26:12b
Thank you for the inspiration .

Here's another one from Isaiah, @Cameron ... this certainly applies to all who claim the natural man is "good."

 

[Lamar]

But God cannot lie, so he cannot contradict himself either. Therefore, "all" must be understood in the limited sense. There's not one verse in scripture that teaches that anyone, other than Jesus, perfectly obeyed God all the time. Your lame interpretation of 2Ki 22:2 presents numerous contradictions.

1. Scripture teaches that all men are sinners (Rom 3:23; Eccl 7:20; 1Ki 8:46; 2Chron 6:36; Job 15:14-16; Gal 3:9, 19,22; 1Jn 1:8-10). The only explicit exception to this truth in scripture is the man Jesus Christ.

2. Josiah's perfect obedience is compared to king David's, yet scripture teaches that David sinned grievously against God; therefore, it's not possible for David to have obeyed God's laws perfectly. He committed adultery with Bathsheba, ordered the murder of her husband Uriah to cover up his sin, and ordered a census of Israel which so greatly angered God that he brought a great plague upon Israel. Therefore, since David was not sin-free, then logically neither could Josiah have been. In order for Josiah to have been a perfect law-keeper, he would have had to been compared to the Son of David instead of David.

3. But if you insist that David and Josiah were not sinners but righteous men, then you still hit a brick wall with Eccl 7:20; Job 15:14-16, etc. Another contradiction.

4. Sin by definition is violation of the law. It is lawlessness (1Jn 3:4). Because king David was a sinner, this means he was not sin-free, he did not abstain from all sin perfectly. David, nothwithstanding his righteous life was nevertheless morally and spiritually imperfect, so logically Josiah could not be a perfect law-keeper since he's being compared to an imperfect human being. This is akin to comparing apples to cucumbers. It's totally illogical and contradictory to compare a supposed perfect moral-spiritual man (Josiah) to a known imperfect moral-spiritual man. Common sense should tell everyone this.

5. To be a sinner means one sins. One does what one is. It's a total contradiction in terms to say a sinner obeys God's laws perfectly. Only someone morally- spiritually perfect, faultless, flawless, without spot or blemish and without sin can keep God's law perfectly all the time. And Jesus Christ does not share his glorious spotlight or his glory with any mere sinful mortal.

As stated earlier, the biblical and logical way to understand the hyperbolic language in 2Ki 22:2, within the larger context of all scripture, and avoid all confusion, all inconsistencies and all contradictions is to understand the passage as saying that both kings substantially and essentially led godly, righteous lives -- but not faultless lives, not perfect lives, not flawless lives. For if any mere mortal could live a perfectly moral-spiritual life, that person would be as sinless as Jesus was.

The only people that would accept your nonsense are those who want mankind to be labeled as created morally and spiritually corrupt.

You are simply attacking a strawman of your own making. No one is using terms such as "sinless" or "morally perfect human beings" except you. We all know that King David and King Josiah committed sin, no one is denying this. You seem to just want to argue.

So take your strawman down

 

[PaulThomson]

Look up the definition of "essence".

Why. Where does "essence" occur in the Bible. You are eisegeting your philosophy into the text. Essence theologically comes from gnosticism.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › G...
Gnosticism

 

[PaulThomson]

Isaiah 5:20-21; Proverbs 26:12b
Thank you for the inspiration .

Here's another one from Isaiah, @Cameron ... this certainly applies to all who claim the natural man is "good."

Who here has claimed that the natural man is good? Straw man.

 

[PaulThomson]

Did the Son of David ever wander to the left or the right? A mere stumble = imperfection. Thanks for making my case that Josiah was an imperfect moral being.

Who hete has claimed that Josiah was morally perfect, Straw man wrestler.

 

[Rufus]

The only people that would accept your nonsense are those who want mankind to be labeled as created morally and spiritually corrupt.

You are simply attacking a strawman of your own making. No one is using terms such as "sinless" or "morally perfect human beings" except you. We all know that King David and King Josiah committed sin, no one is denying this. You seem to just want to argue.

So take your strawman down

So, in your universe someone who keeps God's laws perfectly, as you and Neh6 have claimed, are morally imperfect human beings? What would Josiah have had to do to become a morally perfect human being? And what would the Son of David have had to do become a morally perfect human being, since his ancient ancestor Josiah wasn't morally perfect even though he Josiah kept the law of God as perfectly as Jesus did?

The only one creating straw men around here is YOU! I have never implied or explicitly stated that God created mankind as "morally and spiritually corrupt". I know how to read my bible. God created this world and man "very good" (Gen 1:31; Eccl 7:29). How this for a novel idea: Instead of blaming God or the devil for the condition of this world and mankind, we lay the blame squarely on Adam's shoulders where it belongs, since he's the federal head of the human race -- not God!? After all, he knew he was guilty and doubled-down on his initial sin by lying to God. It didn't take long for him to get settled into the sin groove.

 

[Rufus]

Who here has claimed that the natural man is good? Straw man.

You mean he's EVIL?

 

[PaulThomson]

Did the Son of David ever wander to the left or the right? A mere stumble = imperfection. Thanks for making my case that Josiah was an imperfect moral being.

Did David stumble to the left or rigjt and stay there. The Hebrew of Is. 22:2 days he and Josiah did not stay there. That's what the Bible means by walking in all the way of David. Following his steps by repenting of sins and not remaining in them.

 

[PaulThomson]

You mean he's EVIL?

He becomes corrupted WHEN he sins. He becomes partially evil and therefore is no longer very good. But he is still capable of doing good, but after he falls into sin, he struggles and often fails to perform the good he wills to do. He cannot keep on doing good all the time. But he can avoid doing evil all the time.

 

[Rufus]

Who hete has claimed that Josiah was morally perfect, Straw man wrestler.

How could someone who kept God's law perfectly all his life not be morally perfect? Since you, evidently, don't think perfect law-keeping doesn't qualify one as being morally perfect, then what does?

 

[Rufus]

He becomes corrupted WHEN he sins. He becomes partially evil and therefore is no longer very good. But he is still capable of doing good, but after he falls into sin, he struggles and often fails to perform the good he wills to do. He cannot keep on doing good all the time. But he can avoid doing evil all the time.

Chapter and verse to prove it.

 

[Rufus]

Did David stumble to the left or rigjt and stay there. The Hebrew of Is. 22:2 days he and Josiah did not stay there. That's what the Bible means by walking in all the way of David. Following his steps by repenting of sins and not remaining in them.

Well...at least you understand that much...or do you? If what you say is true, then neither David or Josiah obeyed God's law perfectly, right?

 

[rogerg]

But only by the HEARING OF FAITH are you able to KNOW that the promises are YOURS.

The phrase "hearing of faith" can mean to gain a true understanding of scripture through faith as you seem to indicate, but it can also pertain to the hearing of the essence of faith in order to gain knowledge of what it achieved and whose faith achieved it, in particular, through the faith of Christ.

 

[HeIsHere]

90% of what the religious communities call "Faith" isn't FAITH at all - just intellectual assent. The Biblical definition is Heb 11:1, specifically FAITH has "Substance". "Belief" has no "substance" at all. FAITH is an EVIDENCE of the existence of what you don't see - yet. "Belief" is an "evidence" of nothing at all.

When God spoke to Abram about leaving everything, and going to a place He'd show him, THAT WAS THE HEARING OF FAITH.

When the Holy SPirit tells you in a manner you can understand to DO SOMETHING (pray for somebody, help somebody, give somebody money-etc., speak healing over somebody )- that's the "Hearing of faith". When the Holy Spirit CONVICTS YOU OF YOUR SIN, and lets you know about approaching judgement, that's the "hearing of faith".

Biblically (Rom 10:17) reveals how FAITH comes - by hearing God's WORD TO YOU. READING the Word is one thing but now and again God will "Make the word come alive TO YOU - that's the "Hearing of faith.

Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, etc. are NOT FAITHS - they're just "Theological systems"/Church corporations.

Suffice it so say that it is God who gives eternal life to anybody and everybody who simply and only believes in Jesus Christ for it.

It is a aberration to insist God must provide individual revelation prior to belief in order to trust Christ for the gift.

God's invitation to be saved through the gospel is a sincere and legitimate offer only if any and every person can believe it.
If people are unable to believe than the offer is not legitimate.

If God must regenerate people before they can believe the gospel, then the invitation is not really to all people, but only to those already born again. But this is contrary to biblical statements that the gospel is for all
(John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19-20; 1 Tim. 2:3-6; 1 John 2:2).

 

[Rufus]

Suffice it so say that it is God who gives eternal life to anybody and everybody who simply and only believes in Jesus Christ for it.

It is a aberration to insist God must provide individual revelation prior to belief in order to trust Christ for the gift.

God's invitation to be saved through the gospel is a sincere and legitimate offer only if any and every person can believe it.
If people are unable to believe than the offer is not legitimate.

If God must regenerate people before they can believe the gospel, then the invitation is not really to all people, but only to those already born again. But this is contrary to biblical statements that the gospel is for all
(John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19-20; 1 Tim. 2:3-6; 1 John 2:2).

Of course, the outward call of the invitation is real. Man's ability to heed the outward call of the gospel has nothing to do with his ability to obey to the call, anymore than God making the Covenant of Law with Israel, with it demands for perfect obedience, had to do with Israel's spiritual inability to obey perfectly. God does not lower his impeccable and holy standards to accommodate man's spiritually broken condition. Man was created to perform his duty toward God (Eccl 12:13) and to glorify God in all that he does (1Cor 10:31; Rev 14:7), which he could have at the beginning but since the Fall no man can any longer do so...apart from divine intervention.

And your fallacious reasoning contradicts Jesus' Great Banquet Parable:

Luke 14:16-24
16 Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'

18 "But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.'

19 "Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.'

20 "Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.'

21 "The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

22 "'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

23 "Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'"
NIV

And the Gr. term anagkazo v. 23 is strong term that denotes compel, constrain, necessitate.

Nor should you miss what v. 21 says, "and BRING IN the poor, the crippled..." This text also doesn't say "invite the poor, the crippled, etc.
The Gr. term eisago (Strong's 1521) literally means to bring in (-to), (+was to) lead into.

At the end of the day, it is as Jesus said, "Many are called (invited by the outer call of the gospel), but few are [freely and sovereignly] chosen by God".

How else could the helpless and powerless be saved...unless God literally rescued them?

You should consider setting aside your finite, profane reasoning powers for being your final authority for understanding scripture and replace those powers instead with the Word of God so that the Word can transform and renew your mind.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Suffice it so say that it is God who gives eternal life to anybody and everybody who simply and only believes in Jesus Christ for it.

It is a aberration to insist God must provide individual revelation prior to belief in order to trust Christ for the gift.

The Bible disagrees - ROm 10:176, Eph 2:8,9. FAITH i the result of GOD'S WORD TO YOU.

God's invitation to be saved through the gospel is a sincere and legitimate offer only if any and every person can believe it.

If people are unable to believe than the offer is not legitimate.

John 6:44 if you're not CALLED, you're not coming.

If God must regenerate people before they can believe the gospel, then the invitation is not really to all people, but only to those already born again.

There's that "Calvinist buzz word" (regenerate) again!!!! handle john 6:44

 

[Rufus]

"If God must regenerate people before they can believe the gospel, then the invitation is not really to all people, but only to those already born again. "

Whoever wrote this must have a perfect 1.000 invitation acceptance score and never turned down or declined any invitation ever for any reason. That's impressive. Or what would give anyone the idea that an invitation isn't genuine even if the person inviting suspects the recipient thereof may well not accept?