ECT Which understanding lends itself to your theology?

[Cross Reference]

Please resist the stubborn refusal to at least clean up your posting methodology for the convenience of all you hope may come along to read the discussion. Why burden the reader with sorting out all the formatting issues versus simply availing yourself of the features the software for posting here supports? This is an odd entrenchment of yours.

I replied to your query about the passage from Genesis in which I assume you hoped to find warrant about some goodness remaining in man (Romanist prevenient grace...sigh) that would give man the ability to somehow join with God in his rebirth.

I translated the Hebrew correctly and very literally. I am confident I am not alone in my translation. That is the start of interpretation. I referred you to the preceding context of the passage in question. That is also part of interpretation. I offered up how the context supports the translation and the subsequent grammar involved. You, however, point to popular translations of the passage and claim you have met the interpretive burden. You have not. Had you immersed yourself in the thoughts of others that have come before you, inspired by the same Spirit you have indwelling you, you would find that all is not as simple as you make it. In fact, at least one of those posted translations of yours has men profaning the Lord, which in itself presents two competing interpretations of what "profane" means.

Yours is a desperate attempt to import more freight into passages that the passages cannot bear. You need to look elsewhere for prevenient grace being supported by Holy Writ. Look as you will, but I am confident you will find no evidence therein.

AMR

Thank you, AMR. I truly hope and pray everyone on this forum has a chance to read what I asked of you and your ever so kind and very informative replies, understanding [bane] with which I thankfully have no affinity __ nor need for it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you, AMR...

You are welcome.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

You are welcome.

AMR

I don't believe that from you, either. However, I am beginning to be persuaded by our short discourses, that reprobation without remedy might be something of a variable condition. It is interesting and might be the answer to the cemented into place, irrational thinking. Again, thank you.

 

[Cross Reference]

If I understand AMR as he wishes to be understood, he is forced to believe the opinion that babies are born reprobate which would negate any idea they receive something from God, if baptised.

 

[Tambora]

Hebrews 2.14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.





I would rather suggest that death was but the last of the tyrants to fall.

1 Corinthians 15:26 KJV
(26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

[Cross Reference]

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5 (ESV)

One interpretation has it as first being by water, physical birth, from the womb, followed by the second birth from above by the choosing of Christ Jesus or the other that has it being by water baptism that implies simultaneous regeneration? Which understanding are you compelled to believe as scriptural. Can you give your reasons?

So which one must be correct to sustain your opinion of your doctrine?