Jim Lincoln wrote: "Trump-Biden transition live updates: Judge tosses suit against VP seeking reversal of election"āš https://tinyurl.com/y9m744j3 Lurker, I would suggest you read all the above article. It'll also point out that Mitch McConnell and Senator Romney did not like this challenge either.
You've got a little longer to enjoy your fantasy of a Biden presidency so I'll not spoil it for you. Sleep on Jim.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I assume Biden will follow Obama's policies. I would suggest you read this. "...A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy."...
Just what one would expect from a homo POTUS and a tranny FLOTUS. You sure know how to pick em, Jim.
MS wrote: Hello all. Just wanted to give a quick update on our son who had Covid. He is on the way to recovery.PTLš. It was touch and go for a few days, but the Lord was merciful and is restoring him back to us. I want to thank all of you who prayed and left kind messages. Praying you all are well and that the New Year will draw us all closer to our great God and Savior, for He is worthy. Blessings to all.
Florian Geyer wrote: "The Quiet Christian writes We need to take back public education. But the alternative, removing their family from it, is a worthy step for any set of parents." I agree completely, except replace the words "take back" with "nuke from orbit".
Mike wrote: Dr. Stephen Hahn, the FDA commissioner says the Moderna vaccine āmay be effective in preventingā the disease. Wow. Doesnāt that vote of confidence make you want to run out right away and get it? Oh please, may I be a gunea pig? Approved for emergency use? What is the emergency?
Mike, You may already know but emergency use authorization allows a new therapeutic to bypasses all the long term safety studies. But to be approved for emergency use there must not be other therapeutics that actually work..... such as, oh, say, Hydroxychloroquine.
John Lee wrote: Does anyone care about her delusions? Anyone care that she is deceived? Is the forum merely a playground to you? It would be good if others were to begin a deprogramming effort to get her away from her false thinking. Your silence assists her to believe she is correct.
The bible speaks of a woman being subject to her HUSBAND.... not any and every man on the planet.
You can't reason from scripture and make your point so you seek to silence. Maybe that's because you don't know as much as you think you do.
John Lee wrote: "whilst a Pharisee; who, though he was born under the law.... John Gill Romans 7:9a
Where does the bible say Saul was born under the law? It doesn't. The only mention of Paul's birth is his new birth as one born out of due season. So from the git go Gill is building an argument on an assumption.
John, Gill is dead and doesn't make for a sparring partner. If you are unable or unwilling to defend what you believe from scripture that's fine. But don't expect me to argue with dead people.
As for your intent to change the subject once again and lay out your doctrine of original sin, as if that is the true lens through which we are to interpret Romans 7:9; do as you please but I will not be responding.
John Lee wrote: I'll let another John chip in here, Lurker.
"...but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9 John Gill
I agree with everything Gill wrote.
"he now saw himself a dead man, dead in sin, ***dead in law***"
But what Gill failed to wax eloquent about is the commandment. He said Paul saw himself "dead in law". Does that mean he came "under the law" when the commandment came? The term "under the law" is used 82 times in the NT so it must mean something. You tell me.
John Lee wrote: Well I did that once and you ignored it, Lurker.
I didn't ignore your argument. I just don't agree with it and presented what I believe is a scriptural argument. But that hasn't proved fruitful so maybe a different approach.
I'll preface by saying I get your position on the order of: 'There was never a time since Paul was taught the law at the feet of Gamliel that he was "without the law" because he had a personal and intimate knowledge of the law.'
Rom 6:14-15 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for **ye are not under the law,** but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because **we are not under the law,** but under grace? God forbid.
Here Paul teaches the Roman converts that "WE" (he includes himself) "are not under the law." So it's not about a personal and intimate knowledge of the law but whether he was "under the law". Why would he say that if a personal and intimate knowledge of the law is all that comes into his discourse and all we are to consider? Here's what you are overlooking:
Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Imputation of sin by the law. Paul (along with all the Jews) was brought "under the law" on Damascus Road.
Ladybug wrote: Follow the šµšµšµ -- "However it seems Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, doesnāt share the confidence of his own claims. On the day his company issued its press release on the proposed vaccine trials, he sold 62% of his stock in Pfizer, making millions profit in the deal. He made the sell order in a special option in August so it would not appear as āinsider sellingā, however he also timed it just after the US elections and the mainstream media illegitimately declared Joe Biden President-elect. BioNTech was only founded in 2008. BioNTech signed an agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in September, 2019, just before announcement in Wuhan China of the Novel Coronavirus and just before BioNTech made its stock market debut." From http://williamengdahl.com/englishNEO13Nov2020.php?fbclid=IwAR0sO5m0LvOYUa-AS-_Hay05Bx60sKodDsSh-VcoN2fMcRHKzAYHw42LEkM The virus is the means to push an unsafe, untested vaccine, as a result, lots of people get rich. Wakey wakey š
Isn't is interesting that just a few short years ago Bill Gates was saying the world was overpopulated and needed to be reduced to less that a billion people to be sustainable.
The same Bill gates who now wants to "save" us all with a vaccine he has his fingers on.
John Lee wrote: I am wondering what you imagine 'sin' to be, that it has such power to inflict death on all who commit it. It sounds to me like you are leaving God out of the equation.
As has been typical with you for years, you continue to avoid clear biblical proofs and wander off aimlessly with incoherent analogies to say the bible doesn't mean what it says.
If you were serious about teaching me orthodoxy, you'd take the proofs I posted and explain exactly how they don't mean what they clearly say.
So, sorting through all your bluster, here is the answer to your question.
Sin must be imputed by God by the imposition of the law before it brings about the death of the soul. It's a supernatural act which defies the logic and reasoning of man. But it happened the instant Adam was driven from the garden; when Noah entered the ark; when Israel passed under the cloud and through the sea and when Paul was blinded on Damascus Road, to name a few examples.
So for you to say I'm leaving God out of the equation is ironic because it is you who is leaving God out. Because of the doctrines you've filled your head with that simply are not true, you are unable to see a supernatural work of God.
Rom 4:15 where no law is, there is no transgression.
John Lee wrote: Lurker, you are well on the way to proclaiming that blood has the power to speak, when we both know full well it is incapable of doing so, because of its very nature. And I agree, it is a good time to cease the attempt to have a sensible discussion on this subject. Your heterodoxy makes that virtually impossible.
You wrote: "You talk as if sin has the power to 'slay' people. It has no such power."
John, Your argument is with God, not me.
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
But in your mind, everything I argue for is heterodoxy so you are surely right to deny it regardless of what the bible says. That's your choice.
John Lee wrote: You talk as if sin has the power to 'slay' people. It has no such power.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 **Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.** But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
John, You say sin has no such power to slay which only leaves the law to slay. But Paul said "God forbid". So I'd suggest you make a decision of who/what you are going to believe...... your fallible reasoning or the infallible scripture.
I believe we're done here. I'm pleased to discuss most anything when the bible is the sole authority but when what the bible says is outright denied and doctrines of men are the sole authority and means of interpretation, I'm out.
Thanks for your thoughts. As I suspected, it has been an interesting discussion.
John Lee wrote: Romans 7:9 KJV For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
He once saw himself as alive to God (like nominal Christians do) but when enlightened by the Spirit he realised he was actually dead in sin.
John, Romans 7 has a lot of context that affects how this verse is interpreted and as we both know, there are a variety of interpretations that don't agree. So trying to interpret verse 7 absent the context of the chapter may be an exercise in futility.
That said, you seems to be settled with an interpretation that says Paul *thought* he was alive before the commandment came but was actually dead in sin. So let's look at some context.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
What I read is without the law sin was dead. When the commandment came sin awakened and that very same sin slew him. How could that be if he was already dead in sin?
John Lee wrote: Ah Lurker. No, we do not agree on that. Check out mine own interpretation of the text, which I posted earlier. Romans 7:9 KJV (9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
You have used two different terms: "physically alive" and "spiritually alive".
These are not biblical terms but of your own making. Further by insisting I give a biblical answer to your questions using only your terms pretty well shuts out what the bible may have to say that doesn't fit within your limited terms.
Now if you can offer a biblical warrant for the use of these two terms, say quote a couple examples or equivalents, and demonstrate that no other possible state of being alive exists in the bible, then we have something more to discuss.
And finally: "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
Obviously Paul's body didn't die so what's left? Whatever is left was alive before the commandment came. No other way to interpret it.
John Lee wrote: So, what I need is, in what sense was he spiritually alive? What does it mean to be spiritually alive? Can a man be spiritually alive yet not reconciled with God?
Your question is a good one and I've been thinking on it so I could give answer from scripture. I admit it's a tough one so we'll see.
We agree that Paul was not speaking of the life of his natural body but of his soul. We also agree that Paul was not indwelt by the HS before Damascus Road and most likely never until Ananias laid hands on him. So how could his soul be alive without the HS? Let's go back to the prophets:
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Shall is future tense. It doesn't say 'the soul that sinneth, it is dead.'
When in the future? When God imposes the Law of Moses on a day of the Lord so sin was imputed and all became guilty before God. This is what happened when Paul was blinded on Damascus Road; not only to Paul but to all the Jews. They were all confined in unbelief which clearly is a reference to the Law of Moses Paul spoke of in Rom 7:9.
It's not much to go on but I'll point out that the word 'alive' Paul used is the same word used in:
Rev 19:20 These both were cast alive G2198 into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.