Reversing the Curse

www.monergism.com ^ | Unknown | John Owens

[Paul C. Jesup]

I'd like to know who could claim they were "innocent" before God.

The unborn...

[nobdysfool]

So the Bible takes a 'guilty before proven innocent' stance towards people...

The Bible, which is God's Word, states the simple fact that all men are born sinners. As such, all men are guilty before God, and it's not a matter of "proving innocence", because both God and man knows man is guilty. Innocence was lost in the Garden of Eden, when Eve, then Adam, sinned. The whole human race fell when they sinned. God designed all living things to reproduce after their own kind, and before man had reproduced, man fell, and fallen man could only then produce fallen offspring.

I'm trying not to read too much into what you seem to be implying. The idea that God's Justice would follow the American Justice System's model of "innocent until proven guilty" is something I hadn't heard before. I'm not saying that you're saying that, just that I saw the idea in your words, and wondered if that's what you meant.

[Paul C. Jesup]

The Bible, which is God's Word, states the simple fact that all men are born sinners. As such, all men are guilty before God, and it's not a matter of "proving innocence", because both God and man knows man is guilty. Innocence was lost in the Garden of Eden, when Eve, then Adam, sinned.

Jesus died on the cross to fix that event.

[nobdysfool]

Jesus died on the cross to fix that event.

Are you saying then that all men are innocent before God? Looking around, I apparently am missing something, because the behavior of the vast majority of the human race is anything but innocent.

Please explain what you mean by your statements. I don't want to mis-characterize what you're saying.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Are you saying then that all men are innocent before God?

Are you saying all human are born damned?

There's the rub...

People like you preach how Jesus died for our sins, and I mean everyone's sins. Then you throw 'original sin' in our faces.

You cannot have it both ways. Either we are still under 'original sin' and Jesus died for nothing. Or Jesus died for our sins and we are no longer under 'original sin'.

I believe the latter.

[nobdysfool]

There's the rub... People like you preach how Jesus died for our sins, and I mean everyone's sins. Then you throw 'original sin' in our faces.

"People like me"....do I detect a note of animosity there?

Original sin is how we got where we are. It is the cause, if you will, of the sinful condition of the human race. However, people are judged for their own sins, not for Adam's sin. The real question, though, and one we have been dealing with throughout this thread, is the question of the extent and intent of the Atonement. You are stating that Jesus died for the sins of all men, without exception. If that is so, then why is there still remaining a Judgment? And why are some going to be cast into the Lake of Fire? If you haven't read the whole thread, please take the time to do so, because these questions have been dealt with in some detail and length here.

Tell me, are all men already saved on the basis of what Christ did?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Tell me, are all men already saved on the basis of what Christ did?

I am talking just 'original sin', please pay attention to what I type.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Tell me, are all men already saved on the basis of what Christ did?

I am talking just about 'original sin', please pay attention to what I type.

[nobdysfool]

I am talking just about 'original sin', please pay attention to what I type.

Forgive me if I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. What is the issue with original sin?

[HarleyD]

ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That includes the unborn as well. The question you find problematic is whether the unborn are saved. That is for our Lord Jesus to determine since judgment has been appointed to Him.

”People like you preach how Jesus died for our sins, and I mean everyone's sins. Then you throw 'original sin' in our faces. You cannot have it both ways. “

I think you’re correct in understanding this contradiction. People who believe Jesus died for “everyone’s sin” should not believe in original sin. Why would there be original sin and then Jesus having to die for us? But then that begs the question why is there sin at all? Why not just work your way to heaven?

People like nobdysfool or I (Calvinists) do not preach that Jesus died for everyone’s sins. The heart is corrupted be it man, woman or child. We are all sinners. We all fall short because we are sinners. God is sovereign. God chooses those who He wishes to save.

Many don’t like to hear that message however thinking they are just hokey-dokey and God wishes the best for them.

[Paul C. Jesup]

See post 205, my statement is very plain.

[Paul C. Jesup]

See post 205.

[HarleyD]

You obviously do not understand the concept of original sin. Otherwise you would not make the statement "we are no longer under original sin".

[nobdysfool]

All mankind is viewed by God as in one of two conditions: In Adam, or In Christ. Those who are in Adam are still in their sins, and are due the judgment for those sins. All who are in Christ have passed from death to life, have had all of their sins forgiven and blotted out, and are declared justified by God, and are clothed with the righteousness of Christ Himself.

All are in Adam at birth. It is those who have been called by the Father, drawn to Christ, and regenerated by the Father unto faith in Christ, who have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of God's own dear Son. All men are in one of those two conditions, and there is no straddling the divide between them.

Original sin is what makes all mankind sinful. But mankind (apart from those who are in Christ) are judged for their own sins, not Adam's. Adam's sin made them the way they are. But their sins are their own.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You two want it both ways, it doesn't work that way.

[nobdysfool]

DG: Allow me to explain my thinking here. We were discussing whether the wrath of God is incurred for ALL sin. Luke 23:34 sets forth ONE specific case in which one specific set of people would (apparently) “not be held accountable, due to Jesus' request,” for ONE specific set of sins, which had been committed at ONE specific time in history. DG: I make NO other claims or inferences. You agree that this singular incident was an “exception.” Thus, as an exception, it CANNOT “prove the rule.” That is because the issue at question was whether ALL, (as in EVERY one, without exception) I say again, ALL sin incurs the wrath of God. If we agree that there is ONE exception, then we cannot say that ALL sins incur the wrath. I am saying NOTHING other than THAT.

All sin does incur wrath. The question is, where is the wrath directed? As a Calvinist, I believe that Christ bore the wrath due for sin on Himself for those He came to redeem, and for them only. That redemption is not a "potential" redemption, contingent upon something other than God's own choice, but rather an actual redemption of specific individuals whom God chose from before the foundation of the world, according to His own good pleasure, and for His own Glory, with no regard for personal attributes or foreseen actions. Upon those who have not been so redeemed by God, His wrath falls on them justly and deservedly, for they have sinned. Those whom Jesus asked the Father to forgive for the specific act of crucifying Him were forgiven for those sins alone, but will still answer for their other sins, unless they were numbered among those whom Christ redeemed. His forgiveness of their specific acts of crucifying Him is pure Grace on His part, and we cannot go farther than what has been said about them in His Word.

All sin requires a response of God's wrath. Your conclusion that wrath is not meeted out for those sins of those individuals ignores the fact that for those who are redeemed the wrath was still applied, just not to them, but to Christ instead.

DG: This is an illustration of why you seem unable to understand. You made a perfectly reasonable statement. I responded with a perfectly reasonable question. Instead of answering, you write: NBF: Your definition of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit does not stand up to Jesus' precise definition of it. DG: It appears (to me) as if you believe that “Jesus' precise definition” consists ONLY of specific spoken words. If I am mistaken as to your belief, please tell me.

Jesus explained that the act of calling the Holy Spirit's working to be the work of Satan consituted an unforgiveable sin, i.e. a sin against the Holy Spirit, while indicating that blasphemy of the Father and the Son did not constitute an unforgiveable sin. Now, we understand that God is One, and The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equally and eternally ONE, but Jesus indicates that blaspheming the Holy Spirit in this specific way, calling His work the work of the devil, crosses a line that cannot be uncrossed. It is for that understanding that I object to your broader use of the term to include rejection of the Holy Spirit's work by sinful men prior to at least some of them being converted, because if their rejection of the Gospel constituted blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then they could never be saved, because even one unforgiven, uncovered sin would be enough to send them to the Lake of Fire, and eternal damnation. One sin is enough to do that. Your use of Hebrews 10 and 2 Peter 2 are dealing with other considerations, and not calling the work of the Holy Spirit the work of Satan. This sin is one of speaking, and while sin resides in the heart, it is the mouth which many times brings forth sin, and condemns the sinner. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, but it is the sin of speaking those specific words that seals the fate of the speaker, and it is an act of intentional and deliberate attribution. It is not an accidental thing.

DG: Although I did not advance any “definition,” it is my opinion that a rejection of the work of the work of the Holy Spirit which leaves the person in a state of unbelief does constitute “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.” I have given several scriptures which so indicate.

But unbelief is not an unforgiveable sin, DG. Otherwise, even an accidental hearing of the Gospel without a positive response would forever remove that person from EVER being saved. Many people have heard the Gospel numerous times before they actually received Christ and became His. Your belief would not, indeed cannot, allow for that. Hebrews 10 and 2 Peter 2 are speaking about people who are ostensibly already saved, not who have never been saved. Even that assumption is open to interpretation, but we won't go into that now. Suffice it to say that there is a difference between what is required of the saved and the unsaved.

How is it that this could be, since ONLY “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is the ONLY “unpardonable sin?” Because, these people have committed THAT sin: they have “insulted the Spirit of grace!” Does THAT not constitute Blasphemy?

What you are not taking into account is the fact that we are talking about two different sets of people: the saved, and the unsaved. You have said that those who reject the Gospel and remain in unbelief have committed that sin, and then cite scriptures which speak of those who HAVE been enlightened, HAVE tasted the Heavenly Gift, who HAVE the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and THEN turn away. There is a difference here. Someone who has NEVER been saved, DOES NOT HAVE THE KNOWELDGE of Christ, HAS NOT TASTED THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and remain in their unbelief are not in the same condition. Many people know who Jesus Christ is, or is purported to be, intellectually. That is not the knowledge spoken of here. Many people have a general idea of what the Gospel is, because at least in America, much of its message is foundational for our society (not as much now as once was, sadly). But that knowledge, that awareness is not a saving awareness and knowledge, which only comes through the agency of the Holy Spirit regenerating the heart, opening the spiritual eyes and ears, and enabling a person to receive and believe on Christ. Knowledge of the head and knowledge of the heart are two different things.

And thank you for the formatting of your last post. It was much easier to read and follow.

[nobdysfool]

You two want it both ways, it doesn't work that way.

Well then, you're going to have to explain what you mean by that. I think we have been more than clear about our views. Now it's your turn.

[DoorGunner]

NBF: All sin does incur wrath.

NBF: All sin requires a response of God's wrath

DG: Well, I guess that explains it. You have been shown several verses, which apparently indicate that there have been exceptions, in the past. You have shown NO scripture which states, plainly or otherwise, that these two statements are true. And, yet, you write them as if they were established Biblical facts.

DG: The only reason I can think of is that they are necessary if one is to unquestioningly accept the concept that “…wrath was still applied, just not to them, but to Christ instead.” While that concept is somewhat similar to what the Bible says about redemption, I do not find it stated, in the Bible. Neither do I find it stated that God’s wrath is incurred by EVERY action that can be called “sin.”

DG: If I have missed these, and you know where they are, please let me know. If such verses, in fact, do not exist, then your first two paragraphs are merely tenets of your theology. You shouldn’t expect others to accept it, uncritically.
=======

NBF: I object to your broader use of the term to include rejection of the Holy Spirit's work by sinful men prior to at least some of them being converted, because if their rejection of the Gospel constituted blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then they could never be saved, because even one unforgiven, uncovered sin would be enough to send them to the Lake of Fire, and eternal damnation. One sin is enough to do that.

DG: That is a pretty strong statement of a theological tenet. Is there any scripture which clearly so states? If there are none, One must consider whether the sin in question (while not being forgiven) might NOT (in and of itself) automatically consign one to the lake of fire. Provided, that is, that one later repents of that sin, and is born again.
=============

NBF: But unbelief is not an unforgiveable sin, DG.

DG: I think it is not a “sin,” at all. I think it is a condition of the soul.

NBF: Otherwise, even an accidental hearing of the Gospel without a positive response would forever remove that person from EVER being saved.

DG: Furthermore, we were discussing resistance of the work of the Holy Spirit, NOT “unbelief.”
=================

NBF: What you are not taking into account is the fact that we are talking about two different sets of people: the saved, and the unsaved.

DG: OK.

You have said that those who reject the Gospel and remain in unbelief have committed that sin,

DG: Actually, I said those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit, within them, such that they remain in unbelief.

and then cite scriptures which speak of those who HAVE been enlightened, HAVE tasted the Heavenly Gift, who HAVE the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and THEN turn away. There is a difference here. Someone who has NEVER been saved, DOES NOT HAVE THE KNOWELDGE of Christ, HAS NOT TASTED THE HEAVENLY GIFT, and remain in their unbelief are not in the same condition
.
DG: Agreed. The condition of believers who fall away is “worse than the first:” (when they were yet in unbelief, and could, or might, stop resisting the Holy Spirit.

DG: Although I put forth the above quibble, I see that you have a point. I must consider this further.

DG

[nobdysfool]

DG: Well, I guess that explains it. You have been shown several verses, which apparently indicate that there have been exceptions, in the past. You have shown NO scripture which states, plainly or otherwise, that these two statements are true. And, yet, you write them as if they were established Biblical facts.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:19)

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (Eph 2:2)

Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things (fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, whoremongers, unclean persons, nor covetous men, who are idolaters) cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. (Eph 5:6)

For which things' sake (fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another) the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: (Col 3:6)

Parentheticals from surrounding verses in the passages

For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; (Heb 2:2-3)

DG, what is sin? Is it not disobedience to God? Is it not "missing the mark"? "Falling short of the glory of God"? These verses plainly show that the wrath of God DOES fall on those who sin. When Jesus bore sins on the Cross, He was subjected to the wrath of God against sin. Sin cannot stand in God's Presence, for He is Holy, and sin is unholy.

DG: The only reason I can think of is that they are necessary if one is to unquestioningly accept the concept that “…wrath was still applied, just not to them, but to Christ instead.” While that concept is somewhat similar to what the Bible says about redemption, I do not find it stated, in the Bible. Neither do I find it stated that God’s wrath is incurred by EVERY action that can be called “sin.”

I find it curious that you apparently believe that some sins do not merit punishment, do not merit God's displeasure and wrath. What sins would those be? Your example of those for whom Christ asked forgiveness for while He was on the Cross, do you not see that He bore the punishment for those sins Himself? He didn't just ask God to forget those sins, as though they could just evaporate. Jesus bore the punishment for the sins of His crucifiers right in front of them! Jesus asked that those sins be not laid to their charge. Those sins required God's wrath if any sins ever did! Jesus bore the punishment due for the sins He bore on the Cross. That is foundational to Christianity, for without the Cross there is no redemption, and without the Resurrection from the Dead to seal the redemption, Christianity is a lie.

NBF: I object to your broader use of the term to include rejection of the Holy Spirit's work by sinful men prior to at least some of them being converted, because if their rejection of the Gospel constituted blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then they could never be saved, because even one unforgiven, uncovered sin would be enough to send them to the Lake of Fire, and eternal damnation. One sin is enough to do that.

DG: That is a pretty strong statement of a theological tenet. Is there any scripture which clearly so states? If there are none, One must consider whether the sin in question (while not being forgiven) might NOT (in and of itself) automatically consign one to the lake of fire. Provided, that is, that one later repents of that sin, and is born again.

Adam had one command, and in disobeying that command, incurred the judgment of God. One sin is all it takes, DG. One sin, committed by an otherwise perfect man, makes him a fallen man, and subject to God's wrath for sin. If Jesus had committed even one sin, His death could only have been for Himself, to pay for that sin.

Those who are born again, who have repented of their sins and have been joined to Christ, have passed from the death due for their sins into life in Christ. Jesus bore the punishment due for their sins, freeing them from the death sentence that is required for sin. Repentance doesn't just make the sins disappear. Christ took the punishment in their stead. That atonement was, and is, a penal, substitutionary atonement. Jesus substituted Himself for those whose sins He bore on the Cross. The punishment, the wrath due for sins is not dissipated by asking forgiveness, it is transferred to Christ, or more correctly, was transferred to Christ.

DG: I think it (unbelief) is not a “sin,” at all. I think it is a condition of the soul.

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)

Seems pretty clear to me. Unbelief is the opposite of belief, which is the verb describing faith. There is a tenet of logic which states that "A cannot be not-A", where "A" is anything you want to call it, a concept, a thing, a person, and "not-A" is its opposite. Faith cannot be both faith and "not-faith". Belief cannot be both belief and unbelief. Paul states that whatever is not of faith is sin, so it can be seen that unbelief must be a sin, because it is not belief, which is the verb form of the noun, faith.

Unbelief can be a description of the condituion of the soul, but at its root is the opposite of faith, which is unbelief, and is a sin. Therefore, the soul which is in a state of unbelief is also and because of that unbelief, in a state of sin, and in danger of the wrath of God.

DG: Actually, I said those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit, within them, such that they remain in unbelief.

No, you said that those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit within them have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. You indicated that you believed that to reject the work of the Holy Spirit in one's life constituted blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, under the broader view that you hold of that sin. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency and impossibility of such a view.

Thank you for taking the time to examine our exchange and clarify things. And, again, for the formatting of your post, which is much easier to follow and absorb.

[DoorGunner]

DG: You have posted some good verses. Let’s look at the context:

NBF: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:19)

DG:

Romans 5

   ¹⁸So then as through ^(AJ)one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one ^(AK)act of righteousness there resulted ^(AL) justification of life to all men.

   ¹⁹For as through the one man's disobedience ^(AM)the many ^(AN)were made sinners, even so through ^(AO)the obedience of the One ^(AP) the many will be made righteous.

=============================

NBF: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (Eph 2:2)

Ephesians 2

   ¹And you were ^(A)dead in your trespasses and sins,

   ²in which you ^(B)formerly walked according to the course of ^(C)this world, according to ^(D)the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in ^(E)the sons of disobedience.

   ³Among them we too all ^(F)formerly lived in ^(G)the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were ^(H)by nature ^(I)children of wrath, ^(J)even as the rest.


Romans 2

   ¹²For all who have sinned ^(W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

   ¹³for it is ^(X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

   ¹⁴For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do ^(Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

   ¹⁵in that they show ^(Z)the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

   ¹⁶on the day when, ^(AA)according to my gospel, ^(AB)God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

 Acts 10

  ³⁵but ^(AT)in every nation the man who ^(AU)fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

Acts 17:

²⁶and ^(E)He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having ^(F)determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

   ²⁷that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, ^(G)though He is not far from each one of us;

=================

NBF: Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things (fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, whoremongers, unclean persons, nor covetous men, who are idolaters) cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. (Eph 5:6)

Ephesians 5

  ⁵For this you know with certainty, that ^(K) no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom ^(L)of Christ and God.

   ^6(M)Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things ^(N)the wrath of God comes upon ^(O)the sons of disobedience.

   ^11(W)Do not participate in the unfruitful ^(X) deeds of ^(Y)darkness, but instead even ^(Z)expose them;

   ¹²for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.

==============================

NBF: For which things' sake (fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another) the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: (Col 3:6)

Colossians 3

   ^5(G)Therefore consider ^(H)the members of your earthly body as dead to ^(I) immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.

   ⁶For it is because of these things that ^(J) the wrath of God will come ^[a]upon the sons of disobedience,

   ⁷and ^(K)in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.

   ⁸But now you also, ^(L)put them all aside: ^(M) anger, wrath, malice, slander, and ^(N)abusive speech from your mouth.

   ^9(O) Do not lie to one another, since you ^(P)laid aside the old self with its evil practices

====================

NBF: For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; (Heb 2:2-3)

Hebrews 2

   ¹For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that ^(A)we do not drift away from it.

   ²For if the word ^(B)spoken through ^(C)angels proved unalterable, and ^(D)every transgression and disobedience received a just ^(E)penalty,


Deuteronomy 17:2-6

   ²"^(A)If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant,

   ³and has gone and ^(B) served other gods and worshiped them, ^(C)or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, ^(D)which I have not commanded,

     ⁵then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and ^(E)you shall stone them to death.


The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

 Strong's Number:   3405

 Browse Lexicon 

Original Word	Word Origin
misqapodosia	from (3406)
Transliterated Word	TDNT Entry
Misthapodosia	4:695,599
Phonetic Spelling	Parts of Speech
mis-thap-od-os-ee'-ah	Noun Feminine

 Definition

1. payment of wages due, recompence

 

 NAS Word Usage - Total: 3

penalty 1, reward 2

NAS Verse Count

Greek Word: Misqapodosiva
Transliterated Word: misthapodosia
Book to Display: Hebrews
Verse Count: 3

---

Heb 2:2	For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense,
Heb 10:35	Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
Heb 11:26	considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

 Strong's Number:   1738

 Browse Lexicon 

Original Word	Word Origin
endikoß	from (1722) and (1349)
Transliterated Word	TDNT Entry
Endikos	None
Phonetic Spelling	Parts of Speech
en'-dee-kos	Adjective

 Definition

1. according to right, righteous, just

 

 NAS Word Usage - Total: 2

just 2

NAS Verse Count

Greek Word: E[ndikoß
Transliterated Word: endikos
Book to Display: Romans
Verse Count: 1

---

Ro 3:8

And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.

---

NAS Verse Count

Greek Word: E[ndikoß
Transliterated Word: endikos
Book to Display: Hebrews
Verse Count: 1

---

Heb 2:2

For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense,

===================================



NBF: And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)

Romans 14

   ¹Now ^(A)accept the one who is ^(B) weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.

   ^2(C)One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is ^(D) weak eats vegetables only.

   ⁸for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore ^(M)whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

….determine this--^(V) not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

   ¹⁴I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that ^(W)nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who ^(X)thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

   ^20(AI)Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food ^(AJ)All things indeed are clean, but ^(AK) they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.

   ^21(AL)It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

   ²²The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who ^{(AM) does} not condemn himself in what he approves.

   ²³But ^{(AN) he} who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
=============

These scriptures are what I am planning to use in my response to your post. I will complete as able.

DG