Featured We don't WANT "Free-Will"

yes,,,:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Babies do commit sins, but since they do not know the ramifications, or consequences of their sins, God doesn't hold that against them, IMHHO.



Let me correct this a little. Toddlers commit sins, and God doesn't place a charge against them. Babies have sin dwelling in their flesh, and this alone, could cause them to die. Death is the consequence of sin, correct? Then what causes a baby, still it it's mother's womb, to die? The sin in the flesh that was passed down from Adam. The only way anyone dies spiritually is by knowingly and willingly sinning. To know to do good, and doing it not, is sin.

 

I don't know if I agree with this Willis, Adam and Eve had to eat before they sinned, and if you have to eat, then you can physically die.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

What did God mean when he said that if Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life they would live forever? I think the answer might be shown in Revelation.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

It seems the tree of life has some sort of healing power. It is speculation on my part, but if Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life, perhaps they would not have ever grown old. Their body would be constantly regenerated or healed.

It seems that in heaven we will still need to eat on a regular basis, but that we will not age.

I do agree that corruption has spread over the entire universe and therefore babies are subject to death. I don't know if this is sin however, animals have no sin and they die, as well as plants. Even non-living things grow old and corrupt. There will be no such corruption in the new world.

 

Again, you insult me without cause. You may disagree with my interpretation, that does not make me "wierd" or "crazy". Where have I insulted you?

In the story of the prodigal son, the elder son NEVER left the father and went out in sin. The father said the elder son was EVER with him. It is our sin that separates us from God.

Isa 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.

Note that God said it is our personal sins that separate us from God, not the sin of Adam.

The father indeed confirmed the elder son had never sinned, he was not said to have been lost like his brother, he was not said to have ever been "dead" like his brother, and the father said the elder son was EVER with him.

And I am not concerned with being "orthodox". In Calvin's time it was orthodox to believe in baptismal regeneration. Lots of error has been considered orthodox.

 

Apparently two years of banishment hasn't changed him any.

 

From the point of view of Heaven or earth?

 

Thank God.

 

Adam lacked something before the fall that Jesus did not who did not sin the knowledge of good and evil.

We have the knowledge of good and evil.

With that we all know Paul's famous words


Romans 7:
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[Or my flesh] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

 

I'm with Amy on this one... I have no idea what you are talking about, Winman. Sorry. I've been studying theology my entire life and have never heard anything like that...

 

Well, yes and no. He overlooked sin for a time according to the passages I referenced. I agree that he will judge sin. Their accounts were credited with righteousness for the same reason ours are. God is gracious enough to accept a mustard seed size of faith. Their revelation may not have been as specific or 'special' as ours, but it was sufficient for their level of response...and thus responsibility.

 

I specifically requested you NOT to try and confound this issue. How would any of US have a point of view from Heaven? Scripture certainly doesn't tell us that it is EVER not good to believe God exists, from ANY view point, so I don't see how this question has any relevance whatsoever. It appears you are dodging the matter. Maybe I'm wrong and you can explain why you'd ask such a thing. Here it is again:

 

Aaron,

Since you obviously won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to a fellow Calvinist:

Before anything else, we must first specify what kind of good works Total Depravity is talking about regarding what men are incapable of doing so. Of course we all know that a sinner can obey traffic laws, he can give alms to the needy, kiss and say 'I love you' to his mom, donate blood to the Red Cross, etc. These works are good in the sense that they were done to benefit others, and that is good. But the main question we must consider is if "God sees those works as meritorious and acceptable in His sight." The good works we are talking about here, therefore, is not merely what men see and commonly accept as good works, but what God accepts as works pleasing to His sight. After all, Total Depravity never say that sinners are as sinful as they could be, but rather they are completely affected by sin.​

Do you see how he makes the distinction between that which is GOOD (in accordance with the law) and that which is "meritorious," (deserving of divine favor). You have yet to do this very simple thing which has caused this dilemma. You are confounding an otherwise very simple distinction.

 

IOW, they are good from the point of view of earth, but evil from the point of view of Heaven.

 

Do you mean from the point of view of Heaven or earth?

 

Both...answer the questions for both. Tell us how it is not good to believe God exists from either view point. In doing so, you too will finally acknowledge the distinction I've been attempting to draw for the last 20 pages. There is a difference in meritorious (deserving favor) and moral (in accordance with the rules). You are forced to blur the lines because to acknowledge this simple and very common distinction undermines your premise and validates ours.

FAITH IS NOT MERITORIOUS! WE ARE NOT SAVE BY GRACE THROUGH MERIT. And as long as you argue that faith is a work (effectually produced or not) you will contradict this truth. You have continually ignored the question about whether or not you believe men are saved by Grace through works, which is what you must affirm if you believe faith is meritorious.

 

Not at all. Theft and murder are wrong, but on earth one is a greater evil than the other, and merits a more severe punishment according to the law of God.

However, from the point of view of Heaven, theft and murder are irrelevant. What is relevant is the root of the transgression, a corrupt and vile heart. Whatever springs from that heart, whether according to the outward appearance is good or evil, is in essence corrupt and rejected.

 

Then it isn't good, because to be good is to have intrinsic worth. Your distinctions, and those by the well-meaning Calvinists you quote are illusory.

It seems you've answered your own question.