Featured Spiritually dead, yet not guilty?

just a thought for ya Win.

His brother WAS in sin Win. He was selfish, jealous of his brothers attention. It is apparent his pride was hurt as he confronted his father for not praising him and parading him around as well. The only thing the elder son did not do was leave to do his own thing. Yet what we see from the elder brother and the Father is one of a distorted understanding regarding their relationship from the son's standpoint. The elder was looking at his relationship based on works when in fact it is based on grace.

 

Yes.. this shows quite plainly that the separation which we have is due in fact to our nature.

 

Hello Alan,

how are you....these verses are instructive on this issue.

I agree with your point in jn9...about clearly known and clear sin.

 

I am well, thank you. How are you doing?


Actually it proves my point.. here it is the ESV

This is regarding a person BRINGING a sacrifice for his sin. In order to do this one must know they have sinned and the very passage you quote first proves this very point. At the time they didn't know but now that they do, they are guilty and bear the burden of it.

The last one you quote is the same but in a general sense. It regards the congregation of Israel not a person.

Jesus was specific and stated quite plainly that if they did not know they are not guilty, but now that they do know.. they are guilty

 

wrong....

.......you are suggesting novelties....no one but you reads into the verses what you are doing

 

The context is establishing that ALL (inclusive), not just the Jews, are by nature children of wrath.

Also please show anywhere in any of my posts that I state the sin nature is the same as being a sinner. In fact my previous posts state EXPLICITLY the sin nature does not make one guilty. Just because we are by our very nature WILL have us to sin willingly, does not make us guilty because we will one day do it.
Lastly, it is our nature that is in opposition with God not 'just' our flesh.

 

Well I think......Hey Brother Allan! :smilewinkgrin:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

hehe.. Hello Brother JK ::1_grouphug::

 

Off topic... but - I leave for a couple of months and I swear none of the topics have changed, the people arguing them seem to still be in same arena, and none has moved much closer to ... well... much of anything :laugh:

 

Unbelievable the things he's attempting to teach. None of it is in the least bit Scriptural.

 

That would change it somewhat if accurate,,,, here are the other versions;

Barnes:
The presumptuous sinner, literally he who sinned "with a high hand," might or might not have committed such a crime as to incur punishment from the civil law: it was enough that he had with deliberate purpose rebelled against God (see Proverbs 2:13-15), and ipso facto was "cut off from among his people" and alienated from the divine covenant (see Leviticus 7:20; Exodus 31:14; compare Matthew 12:31; 1 John 5:16). But the other kind of sin, that for which the sin-offering was appointed, was of a more complicated nature. It appears to have included the entire range of "sins, negligences and ignorances" for which we are accustomed to ask forgiveness. sin-offerings were required not only when the conscience accused the offender of having yielded to temptation, but sometimes for what were breaches of the Law committed strictly in ignorance Leviticus 4:13, Leviticus 4:23, Leviticus 4:28; Leviticus 5:17, and sometimes on account of ceremonial pollution. They are thus to be regarded as protests against everything which is opposed to the holiness and purity of the divine Law. They were, in short, to be offered by the worshipper as a relief to the conscience whenever he felt the need of atonement.


Clarke...supports the view offered by the esv,,which you have put forth,

here is Gill;
if a soul should sin through ignorance; sin is from the soul, though committed by the body; it is the soul that sins, Ezekiel 18:4 it includes, as Aben Ezra observes, both Israelites and proselytes; who sinned through ignorance either of the law, that such things were forbidden, or of having committed them, they being done unobserved, and through inadvertency; or were forgotten that they were done, or were done through error and mistake; these sins are what the apostle calls the errors of the people, their strayings out of the way through ignorance and inadvertency, Hebrews 5:2 such sins as a man is overtaken with unawares, and is drawn into at once through temptation and the prevalence of corruption; these are the errors and secret faults which David distinguishes from presumptuous sins, Psalm 19:12,

Allan, i did not realize this section or sections were in question prior to this, thanks for the heads up....I will have to work on these passages.some more, thanks, for the offered correction:thumbs::thumbs:

 

We have be:wavey:en waiting for you to return ,and show us some direction:laugh: Some have learned and offered some good teaching, but many are fixed and have not moved too much:thumbs:

 

WD,
He switches back...after he has shown that we are now ONE new man in chapter2.....Gentiles are no longer alienanted....then he is addressing all men
WD.....re -read it without any distinction and see what you see then....

just read it about the issue at hand...not so much about jew/gentile differences

He is addressing gentiles...getting them up to speed so to speak...jews had the Ot...and should have known much of this would take place.

 

I would agree with you except the father did not correct the son, but actually verified what the elder son said to be true. First, he called him "Son", so this is not a lost person. Second, he said "thou art EVER with me". This son had always been with God and would always be with God.

Who could this possibly be? And who are the 99 righteous persons Jesus said need no repentance? The only persons I can think of would be infants and small children not guilty of sin.

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; )

Had Esau and Jacob transgressed against God when they were in their mother's womb? NO. And if they had died at this point, they would have never transgressed God's commandments.

There have been literally billions of children who have died before birth, or died in early infancy. I believe this could be the 99 righteous persons who need no repentance.

That said, Paul also said Esau and Jacob had done no good. They had no righteousness, and therefore are still dependant to have righteousness imputed to them.

Well, you will say they had no faith, so righteousness could not be imputed to them. I don't know if this is true. Jesus said little children had faith.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Jesus picked up a little child and set him in the midst of the disciples, so this must have been a very young child, maybe 3-5 years old. But Jesus said this child "believes in me". We may not understand it, but perhaps infants and little children do have faith.

I know my view is unorthodox, that does not concern me at all, I want to know what scriptures say and teach, not men.

The only persons I can see who could be righteous and not need repentance are little infants and children who died before they reached the age of accountability.

I believe Paul shows that men are spiritually alive until they know and understand the law, at this point they become accountable and spritually die when they willingly and knowingly break God's commandments.

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.

Sin has no power without the law. A man has to know and understand the law before sin has dominion over him.

Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Paul did not say he "mistakenly believed" he was alive once, that is adding to scripture what it does not say. Paul simply and directly said he was "alive without the law once".

When could this be? The law was around 1500 years before Paul was born. The only time Paul could have been without law was when he was a child and did not know good from evil yet.

Isa 7: 16 Forbefore the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Isaiah here speaks of a time when a child does not yet know to refuse evil and choose good.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

God himself speaks of children who had no knowledge between good and evil. God did not punish these children, they were allowed to enter the promised land. All the parents who understood between good and evil died in the wilderness.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter said believers were as sheep going astray, but are now RETURNED to Jesus. How can you return to Jesus if you were born separated from God?

When I put all of these many scriptures together I believe the scriptures teach that children are not accounted as sinners, and are not separated from God. But the moment a child understands good from evil and willingly sins against God they spiritually die and become separated from God.

This would explain the 99 just persons who need no repentance, and the elder son who never transgressed against his father.

This is what I believe the scriptures show.

 

One can not be spiritually dead w/o condemnation. If one is spiritually dead, they are guilty. Furthermore, one can not be spiritually dead, and NOT a sinner. That is biblically impossible.


As far as for Adam, he died spiritually(plus the sentence of death was placed upon him and all flesh), and yet, God communicated with him. Cain was spiritually dead, and yet God spoke to him. The rich man in hell was spiritually dead(of course), and he spoke with Father Abraham. All of these were under condemnation, were under guilt, and seperated from God(spiritual death), and yet they understood everything that God said.

 

I reiterate, our faith no more 'applies' the blood of Christ than the faith of the firstborn applied the blood of the passover lamb. We absolutely do not 'will' the blood of Christ to work for us. Period. The faith of the Hebrews had zilch to do with their redemption from the house of bondage, but their faith had everything to do with entering into the promised land of milk and honey, i.e. the BENEFITS of that redemption. And you're the one inserting/forcing eternal consequences into the passage.

As usual (I see you haven't changed any either) you have the cart before the horse, you have cause and effect reversed:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3

Those that receive Him, those that come to Christ, have already been born from above, God has already wrought within them, i.e. the blood of Christ has already been applied.

 

Yes, and THAT is the reason the Jews of His day weren't able to come to Christ while he was here on earth. They were being temporarily blinded in their rebellion, but "the Gentiles will listen." (Acts 28:28)

Its not because its a fallen condition from birth for every person, as Calvinism suggests and the passage you quoted above proves that. Why harden and blind a people who were born totally hard and blinded?

Meaning they were not of the remnant from Israel set aside to bring the message of redemption to the world. They were being hardened in their rebellion. There is another fold of sheep which will be brought in through faith in their message.

As to the passages you requested: Read through this thread, as they were listed there...