Did Adam reach age of responsibility before

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sorry Marcia, it appears it is Amy that is the intelligent person. :laugh:
Seriously, you both are! Hows that?

I am watching two grandchildren and trying to post in between. I will try to be more observant.:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Maria, what is repentance?

 

[Marcia]

Maria, what is repentance?

It's Marcia, not Maria. Please, never Maria. :tongue3:


Repentance is turning away from sin, rejecting sin for God's will.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: It's Marcia, not Maria. Please, never Maria.

Sorry Marcia.

Marcia: Repentance is turning away from sin, rejecting sin for God's will.

HP: How can one devoid of any relationship with God do that? I can only see one position for you to be consistent, and that is to say God has to first grant repentance to one to be saved, which in essence is the Calvinistic notion of the irresistible grace of God is it not? It is the notion that before this spiritually dead person can do anything right, God has to enable the sinner to respond. Am I close to what you believe?

 

[DHK]

It is the notion that before this spiritually dead person can do anything right, God has to enable the sinner to respond. Am I close to what you believe?

What does the Bible mean by "dead person."?

Ephesians 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, (ASV)

Were the Ephesians, to whom Paul is writing, dead corpses before the Holy Spirit made them alive?

 

[Marcia]

How can one devoid of any relationship with God do that? I can only see one position for you to be consistent, and that is to say God has to first grant repentance to one to be saved, which in essence is the Calvinistic notion of the irresistible grace of God is it not? It is the notion that before this spiritually dead person can do anything right, God has to enable the sinner to respond. Am I close to what you believe?

No, that is not my position. I have never stated a spiritually dead person cannot be drawn to Christ or cannot respond to the gospel.

They mystery of salvation is a mystery. It has to do with the nature of God, which is why there are endless arguments on the BB on this topic. God saves; He draws men to Jesus Christ; and we are told to believe or perish. I get very frustrated when people try to categorize me or ask me to choose a manmade category. There is no category in salvation.

I think repentance is part of salvation; as far as I recall, I saw that Jesus was the Savior, that I needed salvation, and I trusted Him. It all happened at the same time in one flash.

One does not need a relationship to repent. That's like saying one needs a relationship with God to have a relationship with Him.

Trying to dissect this is not, imo, something we can or should do. We cannot diagram salvation. The Calvinists and non-Calvinists are both right and they are both wrong.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: No, that is not my position. I have never stated a spiritually dead person cannot be drawn to Christ or cannot respond to the gospel.

HP: Did you just not say earlier that you never stated one was born dead? Now you say they are. Hold still so I can respond. If you say they can respond, all must have the natural abilities to do so, or God has to grant those abilities to just some. Which is it?

Are men born with the natural abilities to respond to God? How does a man that has never hear the gospel respond to something he knows nothing of?? Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Marcia: They mystery of salvation is a mystery. ....

HP: Is there a mystery to sin Marcia? Concerning salvation, we are first told to repent. There is no mystery to getting saved. Repent of your sins, believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, accept Him as your personal Savior, and hold out faithful with the Lord’s help until the end. Works every time.

Marcia: I think repentance is part of salvation; as far as I recall, I saw that Jesus was the Savior, that I needed salvation, and I trusted Him. It all happened at the same time in one flash.

HP: God calls on man first to repent. What happens at initial salvation is that we begin a walk with the Lord. If we are to make it in, that walk must remain intact until He calls us home.

Marcia: One does not need a relationship to repent. That's like saying one needs a relationship with God to have a relationship with Him.

HP: Your answer assumes there is only one type of relationship one can have with God. Satan has a relationship with God but certainly is not saved. Infants have a unique relationship with God and have no need of salvation as we know it, and would all end up in hell if they had to fulfill the stated requirements of salvation having been born as sinners as you imply.

Marcia: Trying to dissect this is not, imo, something we can or should do. We cannot diagram salvation. The Calvinists and non-Calvinists are both right and they are both wrong.

HP: We had better get a grip on the Biblical requirements for entering into and maintaining a firm hope to the end. Our eternal souls could well be at risk. Heb 3:6 “But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” 2Pe 1:10 “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for IF YE DO THESE THINGS, ye shall never fall:”

 

[Marcia]

HP: Did you just not say earlier that you never stated one was born dead? Now you say they are. Hold still so I can respond. If you say they can respond, all must have the natural abilities to do so, or God has to grant those abilities to just some. Which is it?

Are men born with the natural abilities to respond to God? How does a man that has never hear the gospel respond to something he knows nothing of?? Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?



HP: Is there a mystery to sin Marcia? Concerning salvation, we are first told to repent. There is no mystery to getting saved. Repent of your sins, believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, accept Him as your personal Savior, and hold out faithful with the Lord’s help until the end. Works every time.



HP: God calls on man first to repent. What happens at initial salvation is that we begin a walk with the Lord. If we are to make it in, that walk must remain intact until He calls us home.


HP: Your answer assumes there is only one type of relationship one can have with God. Satan has a relationship with God but certainly is not saved. Infants have a unique relationship with God and have no need of salvation as we know it, and would all end up in hell if they had to fulfill the stated requirements of salvation having been born as sinners as you imply.



HP: We had better get a grip on the Biblical requirements for entering into and maintaining a firm hope to the end. Our eternal souls could well be at risk. Heb 3:6 “But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” 2Pe 1:10 “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for IF YE DO THESE THINGS, ye shall never fall:”

You are the one assuming that a spiritually dead person cannot respond. I never said that. That is your assumption. The Bible does tell unsaved people to respond and tells them to believe.

The issue of Hebrews is too complex to take on here but I studied this book last summer in seminary. There are many refutations to Hebrews stating that we lose our salvation. I have studied both sides and conclude Hebrews is not about a believer losing salvation.

The issue of losing salvation is not, as far as I know, part of this thread so start another thread if you want to discuss that.

Bottom line: Nothing you have ever said has shown me that any of my views are biblically wrong. I use the Bible for my views and go back again and again to the Bible. So far, you have not persuaded me. Time to leave the thread.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Again Marcia, thank you for your kind approach with this debate. If no one gets anything else out of what has been said, I hope they remember the way you handled yourself in a manner befitting a true believer in Christ! God bless you.

 

[billwald]

Problem is resolved by admitting that regeneration precedes conversion. Conversion is the human response to one's regeneration. The person who asks for forgiveness is regenerate only he doesn't know it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BillWald: Problem is resolved by admitting that regeneration precedes conversion. Conversion is the human response to one's regeneration. The person who asks for forgiveness is regenerate only he doesn't know it.

HP: That is certainly a logically consistent solution coming from the notion of Augustinian original sin. The only problem is that the premise of original sin is not Scriptural and it of necessity mandates the logical Calvinistic end of limited atonement, irresistible grace, and OSAS. Such a notion lies as the very core of the necessitated system Calvinism represents.

 

[DHK]

Problem is resolved by admitting that regeneration precedes conversion. Conversion is the human response to one's regeneration. The person who asks for forgiveness is regenerate only he doesn't know it.

We just went through this on another thread. Your posting the exact same thing here as you did there. It is pure Calvinism which only confuses everything worse. There is no split between regeneration and conversion, and it can't be demonstrated. Salvation (new birth) is by faith. It is all one, and it is a one-time event.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, although I agree with your conclusion, I see still see BillWald’s answer more logically consistent taking into account the notion of original sin. If in fact man is spiritually dead, something has to change that in order to enable a spiritually dead heart with the abilities to respond. I cannot tell you the amount of times I have heard Baptists say that a spiritually dead individual cannot respond to the gospel unless God firsts grants to them special abilities to respond, including the abilities to repent and beleive. That makes God initiating repentance and as such something God must do for man antecedent to anything man can or will do. I find that absolutely contrary to the Word of God and reason. Scripture commands man to repent now, not wait for God to do something to you first.

If God must enable man with special abilities to repent and believe, I see no way to logically avoid irresistible grace, a limited atonement, or perseverance of the saints thought of from a Calvinistic perspective.

Man is never pictured as some hopeless victim of their circumstances hopelessly unable to repent until God enables them with some special ability, but rather man is pictured as a willing rebel, with full natural capabilities necessary to carry out God’s command to repent and believe when they hear the gospel, if they will.

 

[DHK]

DHK, although I agree with your conclusion, I see still see BillWald’s answer more logically consistent taking into account the notion of original sin. If in fact man is spiritually dead, something has to change that in order to enable a spiritually dead heart with the abilities to respond. I cannot tell you the amount of times I have heard Baptists say that a spiritually dead individual cannot respond to the gospel unless God firsts grants to them special abilities to respond, including the abilities to repent and beleive.

I don't know how many times I have asked you, Biwald, and (other Calvinists especially) to define dead, spiritually dead, etc. What is a "dead person.
When Paul, in Eph. 2:1 wrote to the Ephesian believers and said: you who were once dead...are now alive; did he mean that they were dead corpses and now had been resurrected from the dead. Has the resurrection already taken place? What does "dead" in the Bible mean? Once you answer that question, you can get past the rest.

 

[billwald]

At least I'm generally consistent. <G>

A spiritually dead person is one who has not yet realized that he is regenerate. <G> He can't understand it until the Holy Spirit makes it understandable to his spirit.

I agree that the concept of original sin, unless it only means that there had to be a first sin committed by a human, doesn't compute because God plainly teaches that the son is not punished for the father's sins. That is a completely different issue than the obvious truth that human nature is defective. The defect is inherited, not the guilt from Adam's sin. Maybe the concept should be called "original sin nature."

 

[DHK]

At least I'm generally consistent. <G>

A spiritually dead person is one who has not yet realized that he is regenerate.

WOW!!
According to you the entire world has been regenerated.
They just haven't realized it yet.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I define the dead state of our spirit as sinners and moral beings as being totally unwilling to sin, not totally unable to sin. We, as believers, are to be dead indeed unto sin. That does not mean we are unable to sin, but rather that we are to be totally unwilling to sin.

If we are moral beings the will must be free to choose. If the will in all sincerity cannot choose anything other than it does under the very same set of circumstances, the individual is no longer a moral being accountable to moral law.

 

[DHK]

I define the dead state of our spirit as sinners and moral beings as being totally unwilling to sin, not totally unable to sin. We, as believers, are to be dead indeed unto sin. That does not mean we are unable to sin, but rather that we are to be totally unwilling to sin.

If we are moral beings the will must be free to choose. If the will in all sincerity cannot choose anything other than it does under the very same set of circumstances, the individual is no longer a moral being accountable to moral law.

And that is why there is such confusion among Calvinism, as they take Scripture out of context and redefine texts.
The word "death" or "dead" always means "separation" in the Bible. You clearly have a wrong concept of death which greatly affects your theology.

What happens at the "Second Death?" It is eternal separation forever, a final sentencing of all the lost in the lake of fire.
What is physical death? It is the separation of the spirit from the body.
Scripture?
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--When the body is separated from the spirit death occurs. Death is separation.

Notice how it is sin that separates one from God.
Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Ephesians 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
--Thus there is spiritual death. Sin causes separation.
That separation, for the unsaved can cause eternal death or eternal separation.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--Death is separation from God for all eternity. The verse is a parallelism. It is a contrast between eternal life--a result of the free gift of God, and eternal death--a result of the wages of sin. Eternal "separation" (from God) is the death that is being spoken of here.
Death is always separation. With that in mind even though one has a sin nature, though he is depraved, he is not so totally depraved (as the Calvinists teach) that he is unable to choose--to receive or reject the claims of Christ. He is separated from Christ. He must make the decision to be reconciled to him. Being separated from God does not take away the ability to choose.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I must have been brain dead when I wrote that post. I wrote it after driving about 7 hours yesterday afternoon, and reading it this morning, in hindsight I should have just went to bed.

Let me redefine the word ‘dead’ as it relates to the sinner. (in most cases anyway) To be in a spiritually dead state as a sinner is to be totally unwilling to do right, not unable to do right. We as we as believers are to be dead indeed unto sin. That does not mean we are unable to sin, but rather totally unwilling to sin.

Again, I apologize for the mistaken first sentence in my last post.

DHK: And that is why there is such confusion among Calvinism, as they take Scripture out of context and redefine texts.
The word "death" or "dead" always means "separation" in the Bible. You clearly have a wrong concept of death which greatly affects your theology.

HP: DHK, who are you kidding? You know more believe that than a man in the moon. You adhere to OSAS, a doctrine that denies sin separates a believer God. You need to go back to the drawing board with that remark.

DHK: What happens at the "Second Death?" It is eternal separation forever, a final sentencing of all the lost in the lake of fire.

HP: The question was not about the ‘second’ death DHK. The word ’second’ clearly modifies the word death. I agree with you your definition of ‘second death.’

DHK: What is physical death? It is the separation of the spirit from the body.
Scripture?


James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--When the body is separated from the spirit death occurs. Death is separation.

HP: This discussion is not about ‘physical’ death either. Again the word ‘physical’ modifies the word death. I agree that death is a separation from the body, and that in a final sense as we know it now without being changed, but that is not the death we are discussing.

DHK: Notice how it is sin that separates one from God.

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

HP: Would to God you would believe those words and preached in that manner. But no! You tell us that no sin in a believers life can or will separate you from God.’ You must forget that I know you DHK. This is not our first discussion.

DHK: Ephesians 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
--Thus there is spiritual death. Sin causes separation.
That separation, for the unsaved can cause eternal death or eternal separation.

HP: 'Can cause' and 'does cause' are two completely different matters. I would agree with your statement here with the clear modification utilizing the word ‘can.’

DHK: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

--Death is separation from God for all eternity.

HP: Wonder no more about the confusion DHK. Your statement here, by itself is indeed confusion. If you would have introduced the word ‘can’ into this sentence, fine and well, but since you did not it is a half truth or less at best. First you did not specify what death you are talking about. This discussion was about the word ‘death as it applies a sinner on this earth being ‘dead’ in their trespasses and sins, or at least that is how I understood your original question. Sin in anyones life in this world does not necessitate a final separation and death from God. It well may, but it well may not, depending on the subsequent opportunities and choices of the one doing the sinning.

DHK: The verse is a parallelism. It is a contrast between eternal life--a result of the free gift of God, and eternal death--a result of the wages of sin. Eternal "separation" (from God) is the death that is being spoken of here.

HP: Again DHK, it DEPENDS on the choices and opportunities one makes and has. It certainly ‘CAN’ be, but we both should agree it does not have to be. It is warning us of the possibility, not the ‘absolute’ eventuality of sin now in our lives.

DHK: Death is always separation. With that in mind even though one has a sin nature, though he is depraved, he is not so totally depraved (as the Calvinists teach) that he is unable to choose--to receive or reject the claims of Christ. He is separated from Christ. He must make the decision to be reconciled to him. Being separated from God does not take away the ability to choose.

HP: DHK, while I am in agreement with your statement here to a large degree, you need to clarify your position. I agree that death is always ‘separation’ but you have failed to define ‘separation.’ There are different kinds of separation, some limited and some permanent. Your comment of ‘death always brings separation’ begs the question of ‘what do you mean by the term separation.’

Does that separation involve the absence of the ability to choose anything other than sin, the acceptace of Jesus Christ excluded? If so, you have done nothing in reality to separate yourself from the Calvinistic notion of total depravity other than to accept it in one breath to reject it in another. You are in essence accepting the underlying teaching of Calvinism, i.e., “the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ” i.e., when the smoke clears from your explanation of your beliefs. That is precisely one clear import of the Calvinistic notion of total depravity. I see absolutely no substantial change in the end of your argument and that of the Calvinist. The end result is the same. Neither the Calvinist nor yourself place the cause of separation from God in the proper place, but rather confuse the 'rejection of the cure for sin' with the 'cause of sin ' that causes the separation in the first place.

When you say we are born as sinners, you have placed the ‘cause’ of our sins outside of the will of man in precisely the same manner as a Calvinist and as such induce the same inability to do anything other than to sin (again the acceptance of the gospel message excluded) in spite of your rhetoric to the contrary. Until you come to a place that you are willing to place the ‘cause of sin’ in the will of the sinner itself and not in the nature he is born in, and acknowledge that the damning sin in anyone’s life is not the rejection of Jesus Christ but the sins for which they personally have committed that require the blood of Christ as a cure for their sins, do not be surprised by the logical connection others place on your beliefs to those of ones you might desire to distance yourself from. When you accept the premise of the Calvinist “original sin” and you accept the logical ends of that belief, two of which are ‘the damning sin being the rejection of Jesus Christ’ and OSAS, do not be surprised others see your explanations that occur in between as less than helpful to distance yourself from such a system of thought.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What does it matter in reality if one says man can do nothing apart from sin, being born dead in his sins, other than to accept the gospel if he hears it? Where does it ever state that all, in a universal sense, have the opportunity to hear the gospel? What about infants just for starters? The notion that some inject concerning infants, that the grace of God simply covers for their sins, is not found or supported by Scripture period.

The contention that all have the oportunity to hear and respond to the gospel, one supported on this list by Bob Ryan and possibly others, is simply unsupported by reason or Scripture. Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

My question to DHK is, do you accept the unscriptural position of Bob Ryan that all have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel?