Featured Human State at birth?

But you see they pasrable as you want to say conveys the oldest son as gaining the inheritence, you made that clear when you said that would mean the Pharisees did, now you say it ends before he dies spiritually, but if it is meant to convey what you show then it's stopping would not convey he received any inheritence either. The Spiritual conotation of the whole parable by the way it is 3 parables in one if you look so it all has to be looked at as one.

Luke 15: 3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

So you must interpret the whole parable. Not just parts of it.

 

You agreeing with me may not be a good thing ya know? :laugh: :wavey:

 

They had access to the tree of life, though. They were permitted to eat from any of the trees BUT the tree of knowledge.

 

The parable simplified. 2 sons, 1 wants to do things his way, sins, and comes back. The eldest never left the father...the focus is on the younger. Had the older son left later, same consequence would have happened to him.

Again, as has been missed, this is one of three similar parables in the chapter. The other two were not dealing with the pharissees. The focus of the parables did not shift until chapter 16.

 

We all make the scriptures say what we want them to say. The thief on the cross did not ascend anywhere. Even though I do believe where it is spoken of as such paradise would be considered up instead of down.

Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus Acts 2:24 For David is not ascended into the heavens:

Not David's spirit.
Not David's soul.
Not David's body.

Just David is not ascended into the heavens. David today March 8 2012 is not ascended into the heavens. David is both dead (his soul is left in Hades) and buried (the earthly house of his tabernacle has been dissolved).

 

That is true, however they never did and God kicked them out of the paradise of God and locked the door so that they could not eat thereof. Why because of the plan. The slain Lamb. What was the purpose of him being slain? Who was God out to get? What is the last enemy?

 

That is the third part of the parable what about the first part and second.

Here is the parable.
1st part shows Christ the shepherd coming as the good shepherd to seek and save the lost.
2nd part shows God the Holy Spirit illuminating the way so the lost soul can be found.
3rd part shows how once the soul realizes their lost state they come to the Father who loving receives them as His lost repentant son.

None of the parable has to do with one having Spiritual life and losing it but with how each part of the Godhead works in mans salvation. Christ was showing that self-righteousness gets one nowhere but left in the wilderness and in their pride and prejudice.

 

In the third parable the Father has two sons. A son is a son, and can never "not be a son." Spiritually speaking when we are born into God's family we cannot be "unborn" or lose our salvation. When the "prodigal" son went astray, as most Christians do at some point in their life, he came to his senses and said "I will return to my Father." He was satisfied to be just as one of his servants. But his father rejoiced. He said, "This my son, was once dead and now is alive." Once a son always a son. He was dead only in the sense in that he was separated from his father. Death in the Bible means separation. This something often overlooked. Death does not mean lifelessness. It is simply separation. When he came back that death (or separation from his father) was restored into a right relationship because the son had repented. The repentance was not a repentance to salvation; he already was his son, but a repentance of his sin. He now was once again restored to his rightful position as a son. But don't think that the next day, after the feast he wouldn't be scot free. He would face all the responsibilities of life, and the work that was due him.

The emphasis then turns on the elder son who was like a Pharisee. He seemingly had never repented but only had worn that outer cloak of self-righteousness. He was not happy and unwilling to rejoice when his younger brother came home. Within him there was a root of bitterness. Though a son, there was something wrong with his spiritual life.

 

removed by revmwc

 

The emphasis of this whole parable is the 3 personalities of the Godhead. 1 Parable and God the trinity is shown in the way they deal with mankind.
1st the Son seen as Shepherd
2nd Holy Spirit seen as Light illuminater revealer
3rd Father accepting the sinner with Loving open arms.
That is what Christ was showing us in this parable. It is not three parables but one parable with theree parts.

 

My belief is that babies and very young children are "safe" until they reach the mental capacity to realize their need for the Saviour, which varies with each individual. It depends on a person's mental ability and other factors.

 

Reply to Revmwc;

No I do not think scripture says a child that dies goes to heaven. What about all the OT children that died and none went to heaven??

I think the child that died and what David was saying, is he too would physically die and "join" the child in the grave. Paradise and Heaven (i.e. the abode of God) are the same place. The grave can refer to either the location in the earth where the body decays, or the abode where the spirits of the dead abide. Neither place is heaven.

 

I see someone cited Acts 2:24(9) and claimed it said David had not gone to heaven. Completely incorrect. Jesus was physcially raised, and David was not, his body remains to this day in the grave. However, David's spirit is now in heaven, as he is specifically listed as an OT saint who obtained approval through faith, Hebrews 11:32. He was made perfect, i.e. placed spiritually in Christ, and therefore is present with the Lord in heaven right now.

 

That is not so. Paul clearly taught that Esau and Jacob had done no evil while in their mother's womb.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

It is also important to note that they had done no good either.

If Esau and Jacob had died in the womb could they be sinners? NO. Therefore they are spiritually alive, they are not separated by sin from the Father.

I believe this is the elder son in Luke 15 who said he never transgressed at any time his father's commandments. Who else could say this but a child?

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

The elder son said he had never at any time transgressed his father's commandment. Who else but a child who has never sinned could say this? The father did not correct or rebuke the elder son, he said he was "ever with me". Who could say this except a child who had died and had never been separated from the Father?

Notice the father told the elder that his younger brother had been "dead" and "lost" which implies the elder son had never been dead or lost.

Put this together with Paul in Rom 7:9 where he said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died.
I believe Paul is speaking of being alive when he was a child, but when he matured and understood right from wrong, the commandment he thought would bring life convicted him of sin and slew him.

Rom 7:9 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.

Folks are so used to Augustine's false doctrine that they cannot understand scripture like this. If a person sees we are born upright as Ecc 7:29 says, and then later goes astray in sin and becomes lost as the prodigal, then all these scriptures make perfect sense.

 

Pitchback

Completely off topic insult, repeating the idea that my views are based on pride rather than scripture. Dispargement is the hallmark of false teachers.

Any time an opponent starts carping about how something is said, they are evading the issue.

I addressed where I did not accept the Augustine view, but you repeat it, knowing now that it is a false charge. Webdog, your commitment to truth is showing.

Folks Webdog is pretending he thinks I support Augustine views. Pure twaddle based on hopefully on ignorance.

 

Reply to Jon-Marc

Beliefs that are based on what seems fair, rather than on what scripture teaches hinder the ministry of Christ. We all hold mistaken views. According to many on this forum, me most of all.

Bible study is useful and profitable for learning sound doctrine, not based on what seems right in our own eyes, but on what is taught in scripture.

Questions for you to consider:

1. Does being made a sinner through the transgression of the one apply when the person sins for the first time or when conceived. I say conceived. Many disagree but offer no scriptural basis. Romans 5:18.

2. Does being condemned already, John 3:18 fit with your view, or does it say anyone who does not believe is condemned?

3. Scripture teaches that God is concerned about the little ones who do not know their right hand from their left. Jonah 4:11. Romans 9:11 teaches that babies have not yet done anything good or bad. Thus scripture teaches that God would not punish little ones for misdeeds they have not done. But does support for a lack of punishment provide support for being born again and thus entering heaven? I say no, and again, many think I am twisting scripture.

I believe in truth and sticking with what scripture actual says as opposed to claiming stuff as doctrine because scripture does not address it.

Speculation is the mother of false doctrine.

 

So by your theory Adam and Eve could have died in the garden and split hell wide open because they had never believed on Christ.

Babies are in innocence until they know good from evil, that is when Adam and Eve became accountable when they knew good and evil. Had they never eaten from that tree they would have been safe.

 

When a little child dies, it goes to heaven. Now I believe until Jesus rose and sprinkled his blood on the mercy seat in heaven that all "saved" people did go to wait in Abraham's bosom. And this is where I believe all the children during the flood went.

But I can see Webdog's view, there is scripture that says the spirit returns to God who gave it in the OT.

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Whether you believe OT saints went directly to heaven, or went to wait in Abraham's bosom, this verse presents a terrific problem to Total Depravity. This verse says our spirit was given to us by God. If you believe we are conceived depraved, then you must believe God gave us a depraved spirit.

However, if you believe Ecc 7:29 that says God made men upright, then there is no problem at all.

I believe that in a sense it was merciful for God to command children to be killed. If these children had grown, they would have been taught to worship false gods and idols by their parents, they would have indulged in their parent's wickedness and been lost. But dying in infancy they were saved.

It is also shown when the children of Israel's enemies were not slain, that these children grew up and followed in their parent's footsteps (worshipping false idols, sacrificing children, sexual sins, etc...) and caused problems for Israel later.

Num 33:55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

Exo 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.

Deut 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

So, God having children slain does not prove they were sinners. It was their parents that were wicked sinners. But if left to live they would turn away Israel to serve false gods and commit terrible sins.

The little children of these wicked sinners were as innocent as any little children and would be saved.

We can see right here in the United States that people will revert to the religion of their ancestors. When African Americans were brought to America as slaves they were taught Christianity. But we have seen in the last 50 years that many African Americans have converted to Islam, because that is what their fathers believed.

This I believe is why God often had children killed. In reality it is merciful, because they die saved instead of growing up and following their parent's false religion and being lost.

 

Every knows this verse was placed in the bible to combat Evolution. God made man walk upright not bent over as the evolution claim :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Your logic is still weak Winman.

Both societies were wicked.

The pre-flood people as well as the Ninivites.

I have never said that babies are depraved sinners. They are sinners by nature.
It is my belief that they are held guiltless until they of their own volition commit sin.

A baby rattlesnake out of the egg is fully equiped with a killer nature and the neccessary equipment to kill but is not guilty of killing anything until it does what rattlesnakes do according to that nature and equipment it received from its parents.

When our parents sinned in Eden they brought the whole human race under the pronouncement of sin and death which pronouncement effect passed though the entire human race in a timeless moment though you and I (for instance) had not yet actually sinned.

Yes God created Adam and Eve upright, but to repeat, they changed all that and brought the entire human race under the principle of sin and death which is proved every day, over and over and over, etc... without exception.

HankD