The righteous and the unrighteous subjected together?

[praise_yeshua]

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Even the righteous are subjected together in death and in hope of the unrighteousness.

If you will abandon what you've been taught by flawed men, this will all fit together perfectly within the Scriptures. You've been ignoring the contradictions in what you believe for far too long.....

Innocent things/people... righteous people have been subjected together in hope that all men might know God.

 

[TibiasDad]

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Even the righteous are subjected together in death and in hope of the unrighteousness.

If you will abandon what you've been taught by flawed men, this will all fit together perfectly within the Scriptures. You've been ignoring the contradictions in what you believe for far too long.....

Innocent things/people... righteous people have been subjected together in hope that all men might know God.

“There are none righteous, no not one”!


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

“There are none righteous, no not one”!


Doug

Do you remember appealing to Eze 18? I told you then that you didn't know what you're talking about. Now we are right to the point of this very fact. Do you remember these words......

"The soul that sinneth it shall die...."

As a reminder.... they come from Eze 18.

Eze_18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Just to show your inconsistencies....... I'll ask one question......

Does this statement "The soul that sinneth, it shall die"......... disprove the Rapture?

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Or are you going to claim "context" of any type?

Hypocrite. First cast out the beam out of your own eyes.......

 

[TibiasDad]

Eze_18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ezekiel 18 has to do with outward sin. I am not condemned, in God’s eyes, for my father’s actions, but only for my own.
Neither am I commended for my father’s actions, but for my own.

This doesn’t counteract my quotation that “there are none righteous, no not one” for we are all judged to be unrighteous base on our own actions.

Does this statement "The soul that sinneth, it shall die"......... disprove the Rapture?

The two doctrines have nothing to do with each other. The question is nonsensical.


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ezekiel 18 has to do with outward sin. I am not condemned, in God’s eyes, for my father’s actions, but only for my own.
Neither am I commended for my father’s actions, but for my own.

This doesn’t counteract my quotation that “there are none righteous, no not one” for we are all judged to be unrighteous base on our own actions.

The two doctrines have nothing to do with each other. The question is nonsensical.


Doug

Yeah... right. It makes perfect sense.

Every heard of hyperbole? Ever heard of generalizations? The Scriptures are full of them. Yet, when it "fits your need", you forget this fact. You have applied "all have sinned" as an absolute knowing that it is surrounded by words establishing the "context" of said statement. You're not alone. All Calvinists and all Arminians do the exact same things. One minute a Calvinist will insist there is not context to "all" and the next minute the very same person will contradict himself. Here you are doing the same. It would do you good to have a few apologetic debates with learned men. It is so obvious that you're making self serving arguments to defend your mistakes. I go where the information leads me. I don't fabricate lies that I can't keep track of.....

I did the same thing you're doing. I took a statement within Ezekial 18:20 just like you did from Paul in Romans 3:23 and asked you a simple question of fact relative what you believe concerning the doctrine of the "Rapture".

Just admit your mistake and change. I did. We all make mistakes. It doesn't matter if you've done it for 50 years. Change.

 

[TibiasDad]

Every heard of hyperbole? Ever heard of generalizations? The Scriptures are full of them.

The question is not whether they exist, but whether any particular scripture is an example of one of them.

Yet, when it "fits your need", you forget this fact. You have applied "all have sinned" as an absolute knowing that it is surrounded by words establishing the "context" of said statement.

You have not established what those words are, nor how they specifically limit “all” and “none” to a non-absolute number.

No language in the context reduces the scope of “all” to less than everyone! I rely on the actual words used, and the syntax of the phrasing. That alone determines the meaning.

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

The question is not whether they exist, but whether any particular scripture is an example of one of them.

The "soul that sinneth shall die" when compared to

Rom_5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Is certainly contradictory given your position. You also exclude those in the "Rapture" in your application of Ezekial 18:20. Do I need to create a visual aid for you to see your flawed position?

You have not established what those words are, nor how they specifically limit “all” and “none” to a non-absolute number.

You do yourself. You apply "context" to exclude those in your doctrine of the Rapture from death.

No language in the context reduces the scope of “all” to less than everyone! I rely on the actual words used, and the syntax of the phrasing. That alone determines the meaning.

Doug

I remember hearing that when I was a child from Arminians. I've heard my entire life from Arminians. It is a preposterous statement devoid of factual application of the penmen of the Scriptures.

Now there is really only a couple of times in the Scriptures where "all" is applied contextually to all men of all generations without exception. The context demands it. However, we KNOW that all is often used in a manner that can not possibly apply to all human beings of all generations without exception.

 

[TibiasDad]

I remember hearing that when I was a child from Arminians. I've heard my entire life from Arminians. It is a preposterous statement devoid of factual application of the penmen of the Scriptures.

Now there is really only a couple of times in the Scriptures where "all" is applied contextually to all men of all generations without exception. The context demands it. However, we KNOW that all is often used in a manner that can not possibly apply to all human beings of all generations without exception.

Again, all this is merely your words. As usual you provide no exegetical evidence at all, no Greek language or syntax, only ad hom attacks against Wesleyans as a whole and me personally. Deal with the text itself, the language and syntax, everything else is irrelevant. Your avoidance of such is telling!


Doug