pnattmbtc Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 God shows NO partiality. If babies in the new earth He wrote in the book of life, why would He not write names of all babies? That I think He really did can be gleaned from how Jesus Who represented the Father, described those who would make it to heaven: Matthew 18:2-3 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:13-14 13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. In the first instance, only one child was used to represent every other little child. In the second instance, the little children that disciples hindered to come near Him, Jesus used to represent all little children. I believe it is not "a cardinal error in Biblical hermeneutics" to conclude that Jesus was NOT excluding any little child in both instances. This would only a valid argument if all children are the same; that is, there is no such thing as a wicked child. But this is obviously false, hence this is an invalid argument. "Even a child is known by his actions, whether his deeds are pure and right." (Proverbs 20:11) Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 The error is, as I've explained a couple of times now, to use texts to create a doctrine when the author of the texts is not discussing the issue for which you are making the doctrine. Isaiah is not talking about babies having their names written in the book of life. All he said is he saw babies in the new earth, and from this you're concluding that every baby has its name written there. That's not valid logic. Samie: You seemed to have failed to notice that it was God Who spoke Isa 11:6-9. Again, He is the same God Who gave His Revelation to our Savior that only those written in the book of life can be in the new earth. He is the real Author in both instances. I don't think that the real Author of the texts I used is not discussing the issue. You're making an argument based on verbal inspiration? You're arguing the position that fundamentalists believe. As SDA's, we've never had this position in regards to inspiration. Even in this case, it would still be the same error of hermeneutics. The author in Isaiah 11 is not discussing names being written in the book of life. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
joeb Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 What a lame, nonsensical statement!!! It's laughable. The conclusion? Then YOU wouldn't be happy in heaven either seeing that you are bent-to-self and that you too do not love your neighbor as you love yourself! Christ never exhibited self-love and self-interests, can you say the same???? So, Robert, you are saying sanctification is a complete myth. You are saying God cannot change those who desire to have His character into harmony with His character. No matter how much someone desires to be like Christ you are saying it cannot happen. Thus, you are saying God has set forth impossible goals for His people. You are in essence calling Christ a liar when He tells us to be perfect just as our heavenly Father is perfect.. It's plain you believe in a once-saved-always-saved theology. Say the magic words and you're saved. It doesn't matter if a Christian wants to submit their will to God's will because they cannot do that. God cannot even make them desire that in your point of view. Christians will always have the devil's character in your theology. What a sad view of the power of God and of the Christian life. As far as you're concerned the Christian who desires to be like Christ is sentenced to a life of failure. Quote Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.Alexis de Tocqueville
Robert Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 This would only a valid argument if all children are the same; that is, there is no such thing as a wicked child. But this is obviously false, hence this is an invalid argument. "Even a child is known by his actions, whether his deeds are pure and right." (Proverbs 20:11) A child here must be defined as someone who as reached the age of accountability. Quote
Robert Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 You are in essence calling Christ a liar when He tells us to be perfect just as our heavenly Father is perfect.. Wow!?! First, you've missed the context of Matthew chapter 5. If you think Christ is telling believers to be perfect as God is perfect, you are definitely in the land of legalism. Quote
Robert Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 Wow!?! First, you've missed the context of Matthew chapter 5. If you think Christ is telling believers to be perfect as God is perfect, you are definitely in the land of legalism. Let me give some clues to who Christ is speaking to: Matt 5:1 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them, saying: Who is the "them"? The crowds and the disciples. Let's look where Christ ends his sermon, if you will: Matt 7:28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. So Jesus was speaking to Jews who had been raised and taught, by the teachers of the law, that if you wanted heaven you must obey the law. Now, would you like to look at the context between these two verses? Quote
pnattmbtc Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) A child here must be defined as someone who as reached the age of accountability. Why? The text says "even a child", where the word "even" suggests something special, here being the age. The word used is sometimes translated "babe". What in the context here would you lead you to suppose this must be a child older than the age of accountability? Do you think that a child before the age of accountability cannot be wicked? Or righteous? They all have the same character? Edited June 3, 2015 by pnattmbtc Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 It's plain you believe in a once-saved-always-saved theology. Say the magic words and you're saved. I don't think this is plain. You could stop saying the magic words (or believing the magic facts). Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Samie Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 God shows NO partiality. If babies in the new earth He wrote in the book of life, why would He not write names of all babies? That I think He really did can be gleaned from how Jesus Who represented the Father, described those who would make it to heaven: Matthew 18:2-3 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:13-14 13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. In the first instance, only one child was used to represent every other little child. In the second instance, the little children that disciples hindered to come near Him, Jesus used to represent all little children. I believe it is not "a cardinal error in Biblical hermeneutics" to conclude that Jesus was NOT excluding any little child in both instances. To my post above, you replied: This would only a valid argument if all children are the same; that is, there is no such thing as a wicked child. But this is obviously false, hence this is an invalid argument. "Even a child is known by his actions, whether his deeds are pure and right." (Proverbs 20:11) The word "child" in Proverbs 20:11 is from the Hebrew r[;n: na`ar which from Stong's <05288> refers to: 1) a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer 1a) boy, lad, youth 1b) servant, retainer. The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) translated r[;n: na`ar into neani,skoj (neaniskos) translated "young man" in these New Testament verses: Matt 19:20, 22; Mark 14:51; 16:5; Luke 7:14; Acts 2:17; 5:10; 23:18, 22; 1 John 2:13 In contrast, the word "child" in Matt 18:2 is from the Greek paidi,on (paidion). Strongs <3813> gives this meaning: 1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl 1a) infants 1b) children, little ones 1c) an infant 1c1) of a (male) child just recently born. The Septuagint in Deut 1:35 has paidi,on for KJV's "little ones" who know neither good nor evil, and translated from the Hebrew @j; (taph) for which Strong's <02945> gives this meaning: 1) children, little children, little ones. I think you have not proven my argument invalid. Again, Jesus was NOT excluding any little child in both instances in Matt 18: 2-3 & 19:13-14. Quote
Samie Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 You're making an argument based on verbal inspiration? You're arguing the position that fundamentalists believe. As SDA's, we've never had this position in regards to inspiration. Even in this case, it would still be the same error of hermeneutics. The author in Isaiah 11 is not discussing names being written in the book of life. I am making an argument based on what God said as recorded in Scriptures. God Himself spoke in Isa 11:6-9, the same God Who gave the Revelation to our Lord Jesus Christ. In Isaiah, God showed the effect. In Revelation, He provided the cause. For me, there is no error committed if I simply believed in what God Himself said. If for you, this is committing an error, I respect that. Quote
Robert Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Why? The text says "even a child", where the word "even" suggests something special, here being the age. The word used is sometimes translated "babe". What in the context here would you lead you to suppose this must be a child older than the age of accountability? Do you think that a child before the age of accountability cannot be wicked? Or righteous? They all have the same character? We are born bent-to-self. We are all born selfish and egocentric, but the law cannot legally charge the sinner unless there's a knowledge of the law. Hence "where there is no law neither is there any wrath." Christ has reversed our condemnation "in Adam" and legally justified us unto life. Edited June 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 To my post above, you replied: The word "child" in Proverbs 20:11 is from the Hebrew r[;n: na`ar which from Stong's <05288> refers to: 1) a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer 1a) boy, lad, youth 1b) servant, retainer. The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) translated r[;n: na`ar into neani,skoj (neaniskos) translated "young man" in these New Testament verses: Matt 19:20, 22; Mark 14:51; 16:5; Luke 7:14; Acts 2:17; 5:10; 23:18, 22; 1 John 2:13 In contrast, the word "child" in Matt 18:2 is from the Greek paidi,on (paidion). Strongs <3813> gives this meaning: 1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl 1a) infants 1b) children, little ones 1c) an infant 1c1) of a (male) child just recently born. The Septuagint in Deut 1:35 has paidi,on for KJV's "little ones" who know neither good nor evil, and translated from the Hebrew @j; (taph) for which Strong's <02945> gives this meaning: 1) children, little children, little ones. I think you have not proven my argument invalid. Again, Jesus was NOT excluding any little child in both instances in Matt 18: 2-3 & 19:13-14. I don't know what point you're trying to make here. The Hebrew word is also translated "babe", but regardless, the point I made was that your argument would only be valid if there were no difference between children. Not all children are alike. When Jesus said to be like little children because of such are the kingdom of God, what do you think He meant? Did He mean we show throw temper tantrums like little children do? Don't you think He had in mind *good* traits that these little ones have? But not all have these traits, which is the whole problem with the point of view you are espousing. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I am making an argument based on what God said as recorded in Scriptures. You are taking God out of context. He is not talking about names in the book of life. This is the bad hermeneutics. God Himself spoke in Isa 11:6-9, the same God Who gave the Revelation to our Lord Jesus Christ. In Isaiah, God showed the effect. In Revelation, He provided the cause. For me, there is no error committed if I simply believed in what God Himself said. But that's not what you're doing. You're believing something God hasn't said. God nowhere said that the names of everyone, or all babies, is written in the book of life. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 We are born bent-to-self. We are all born selfish and egocentric, but the law cannot legally charge the sinner unless there's a knowledge of the law. It's not an issue of law, but of character. The law testifies to what the character is, but the law isn't the problem, the character is. Hence "where there is no law neither is there any wrath." Christ has reversed our condemnation "in Adam" and legally justified us unto life. Below are the questions I asked. Do you think what you wrote is addressing these questions? If so, how? What in the context here would you lead you to suppose this must be a child older than the age of accountability? Do you think that a child before the age of accountability cannot be wicked? Or righteous? They all have the same character? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Samie Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I don't know what point you're trying to make here. The Hebrew word is also translated "babe" You used Prov 20:11 as your proof verse to prove your point that there are good and bad little children in rebutting my use of Matt 18:2-3 and 19:13-14. I showed you that the Hebrew word translated "child" in your proof verse means "young man" as understood by the Greek-speaking Hebrews who wrote the Septuagint. They translated r[;n: na`ar into neani,skoj (neaniskos). neani,skoj is different from paidi,on, the word they used in Deut 1:39 for little children who has no knowledge of good and evil; the same word Jesus used in Matt 18:2-3 & 19:13-14. You seem to be comparing apples with oranges. Hence your rebuttal can't hold water. Quote
Samie Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 You are taking God out of context. He is not talking about names in the book of life. This is the bad hermeneutics. But that's not what you're doing. You're believing something God hasn't said. God nowhere said that the names of everyone, or all babies, is written in the book of life. I didn't take God out of context. He said only those whose names are in the book of life can be in the new earth otherwise they'll be in the lake of fire. He said there will be babies in the new earth. From His statements, the inevitable conclusion would be, that the names of babies in the new earth must be in the book of life. I respect your position not to accept as God's statements His statements recorded in Isaiah and Revelation. Quote
Samie Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 But that's not what you're doing. You're believing something God hasn't said. God nowhere said that the names of everyone, or all babies, is written in the book of life. God wrote names of the babies in the new earth in the book of life. God does not show partiality. Hence, I believe names of all babies were written in the book of life. And all of us were born babies. You believe little children can either be good or bad, using Prov 20:11 as your proof verse. Hence you believe that the bad babies cannot be written in the book of life. But I have shown you that you were comparing apples with oranges in your use of Prov 20:11 to counter my use of Matt 18:2-3 and 19:13-14, because the Hebrew word r[;n: in Prov 20:11 is neani,skoj (young man) NOT paidi,on (little child) according to the Greek speaking Hebrew translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek Old Testament. Jesus used paidi,on NOT neani,skoj in Matt 18:2-3 & 19:13-14. Quote
Robert Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) The law testifies to what the character is, but the law isn't the problem, the character is. And because my and your character is faulty we are placed in death row. Hence we had to be delivered from under law legally. That's the gospel! Edited June 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
Robert Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 What in the context here would you lead you to suppose this must be a child older than the age of accountability? Here as in Proverbs? If so, Proverbs isn't the last word. You must read the rest of the Bible to get a clearer picture. Quote
Robert Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Do you also agree that your gospel argues against the possibility of obeying this command of Jesus as stated in John 13:34 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Here's where you err....The gospel is not about obeying the law, but what Christ did in our corporate humanity 2000 + years ago. Edited June 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 You used Prov 20:11 as your proof verse to prove your point that there are good and bad little children in rebutting my use of Matt 18:2-3 and 19:13-14. I showed you that the Hebrew word translated "child" in your proof verse means "young man" as understood by the Greek-speaking Hebrews who wrote the Septuagint. They translated r[;n: na`ar into neani,skoj (neaniskos). neani,skoj is different from paidi,on, the word they used in Deut 1:39 for little children who has no knowledge of good and evil; the same word Jesus used in Matt 18:2-3 & 19:13-14. You seem to be comparing apples with oranges. Hence your rebuttal can't hold water. The verse says even I didn't take God out of context. He said only those whose names are in the book of life can be in the new earth otherwise they'll be in the lake of fire. He said there will be babies in the new earth. From His statements, the inevitable conclusion would be, that the names of babies in the new earth must be in the book of life. I respect your position not to accept as God's statements His statements recorded in Isaiah and Revelation. 1.You did take what was written out of context. The context of Isa. 11 has nothing to do with names written in the book of life. 2.You're being inaccurate in what you wrote. You say, "He said only those whose names are in the book of life can be in the new earth otherwise they'll be in the lake of fire." Nowhere did God say exactly this. You're making an inference based on other texts. If you're going to make an agrument based on the fact that God spoke certain words, you need to be exact in quoting the words that were said. If you're going to make an argument based on inference, you should be clear as to what was actually said, and what it is you are inferring. 3.You write that the names of babies in the new earth must be in the book of life. You've been arguing that every baby's name is written in the book of life. To complete your argument, you're missing the step that all babies are in the new earth. That is, you are arguing:i)Only those whose names are written in the book of life can be in the new earth.ii)There will be babies in the new earth.iii)Therefore the names of babies in the new earth are written in the book of life. If this argument is accepted, then if you could show that all babies will be in the near earth, you'd have a valid argument. Can you produce a text which says that all babies will be in the new earth? 4.You remember earlier when I spoke of you're setting yourself up as an infallible interpreter of Scripture, and you said, "where am I doing this?" Statements such as, "I respect your position not to accept as God's statements His statements recorded in Isaiah and Revelation" in an example of your doing this. If you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture, then you speak for God, and when I disagree with you, I'm disagreeing with God, in which case you would be kind in respecting my position to disagree with you/God. However, if you are not infallible, then more circumspect would be something like, "I respect your position not to agree with my interpretations." Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 To my post above, you replied: The word "child" in Proverbs 20:11 is from the Hebrew r[;n: na`ar which from Stong's <05288> refers to: 1) a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer 1a) boy, lad, youth 1b) servant, retainer. The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) translated r[;n: na`ar into neani,skoj (neaniskos) translated "young man" in these New Testament verses: Matt 19:20, 22; Mark 14:51; 16:5; Luke 7:14; Acts 2:17; 5:10; 23:18, 22; 1 John 2:13 In contrast, the word "child" in Matt 18:2 is from the Greek paidi,on (paidion). Strongs <3813> gives this meaning: 1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl 1a) infants 1b) children, little ones 1c) an infant 1c1) of a (male) child just recently born. The Septuagint in Deut 1:35 has paidi,on for KJV's "little ones" who know neither good nor evil, and translated from the Hebrew @j; (taph) for which Strong's <02945> gives this meaning: 1) children, little children, little ones. I think you have not proven my argument invalid. Again, Jesus was NOT excluding any little child in both instances in Matt 18: 2-3 & 19:13-14. I didn't attempt to prove little children can either be good or bad. I asked you in another post if you dispute this, but I don't recall your responding to that question. I haven't attempted to prove this, as it didn't strike me as something which should need proof, as we all, by experience, know and have met both good and bad children. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 And because my and your character is faulty we are placed in death row. Hence we had to be delivered from under law legally. That's the gospel! That's like a tiny sliver of the Gospel. The gospel is that God so loved you that He gave His Son to die the most cruel of deaths, willing to renounce His eternal life to secure yours. The gospel is that God is just like His Son, and the cruels lies of the enemy have been disproven. The Gospel is that the powers of darkness have been defeated, and we are fighting against a fallen foe. All of these are more prominent both in important and in representation (i.e., many more texts are devoted to these themes) than any legal question. You wrote because our character is faulty we are placed in death row. This way of putting it makes it sound as if it were a legal problem. Our problem is real. If we hate God and the principles of His government, we must repent (involving a change of mind), be converted, so that we love God, His Son, and everything about Him. This is in no way a problem that doing anything having to do only with the law can fix. The problem is us. *We* need to be fixed. 8thdaypriest 1 Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Me:What in the context here would you lead you to suppose this must be a child older than the age of accountability? Robert:Here as in Proverbs? If so, Proverbs isn't the last word. You must read the rest of the Bible to get a clearer picture. This looks a bit circular. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
LifeHiscost Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 And because my and your character is faulty we are placed in death row. Hence we had to be delivered from under law legally. That's the gospel! I stood before the judge of the universe and was pronounced guilty, with the penalty for my crimes to be death when Jesus stepped up to the bar and told the Authority that He would pay that penalty in my place, with His own blood if I would accept it. That offer was accepted as full payment plus adding clothing me with His righteousness that I would be able to live in His domain, unashamed with no spot or wrinkle left. Such is the gospel of Jesus Christ. God is Love! Jesus saves! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
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.