A bit about Adam and Eve.

[Jarthur001]

More................

Using Covetousness as an Example

Paul takes the last of the Ten Commandments (see Romans 13:9) "You shall not covet," and uses it as his illustration. Why this one? I think the reason is that it is the clearest commandment dealing with the desires of our heart, as opposed to external behavior. The other commandments assume desires behind them – "you shall not steal" (the desire for something that's not yours); "you shall not commit adultery" (the desire for illicit sex); "you shall not murder" (the desire for revenge or money or the like), and so on. But "you shall not covet" is the clearest command relating directly to the desires of our heart.

The word "covet" in verse 7 (epithumēseis) means simply "desire" – it can be desires we should have (Hebrews 6:11) or desires we should not have. Covetousness is desire that we should not have – desire that shows we have lost our contentment in all that God is for us in Christ. Many desires reflect how valuable God is for us. And those are good. But some desires show that we have lost our satisfaction in God and what he is for us, and are yearning for other things to make up for the fact that God is not the treasure for us that he ought to be.

Now Paul says, "I would not have known coveting if the Law had not said, "you shall not covet." And thus I wouldn't know my sinful condition that produced this coveting if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

Now why is that? Does he mean that I am not coveting before I hear the law say, "You shall not covet"? No. You might think that from the words at the end of verse 8: "apart from the Law sin is dead." But we know from all of chapter 6 and things he said in chapter 2 and 5 that Paul does not mean there is no sin and no coveting before we hear the command not to covet (see Romans 5:13). I think what he means when he says, "apart from the Law sin is dead," is that sin is imperceptible as sin, before the law calls it sin by prohibiting it. It's there. It works. We experience it. But we don't see it as sin. It's dead in our minds as sin. We don't see our sinful condition. We don't see our desires as illegitimate – unless a law has come in to call us into question. So it's all dead to us as sin.

So how does the law help us know our covetousness and our sinful condition? It does something very profound.

It tells us that our own desires are not the measure of right and wrong. Our own desires are not the measure of what is good and bad. Our own desires are not the measure of what is true and false. The law comes in and says, there is a standard outside us and above us, namely God and his revealed will. God is the measure of right and wrong. God is the measure of what is good and bad. God is the measure of what is true and false.

God, not Our Desire, Is the Measure of Right and Wrong

That's what the law does. It tells us this. It contradicts the sovereignty, the deity, of my desires. Until the law comes, our desires are our law. We come into the world assuming that we ought to get what we want to have. Until the law comes, "want to" equals "ought to" – "desire" equals "deserve." This is very obvious in children, and they must learn that there is another law besides the law of their own desire.

This is what God's law does: it exposes the sinful condition beneath all our desires for what it is. It is independence from God, rebellion against God. At root, our sinful condition is the commitment to be our own god: I will be god to me. Or I will make sure the god I have is the kind of god who never vetoes my legislation. That is, I will be the final authority in my life. I will decide what is right and wrong for me, and what is good and bad for me, and what is true and false for me. And my desires will express my sovereignty, my autonomy, and – though we don't usually say it – my deity.

We need to know this about ourselves. I'm not picking on anybody here. Or any group of people. I am saying this is what it means to be fallen human beings. This is what we are dealing with in ourselves and in the world. This is why the church is the way it is and why the world is the way it is.

And our only hope is that the Holy Spirit of God would humble us, so that we can see the folly of trying to be our own god and treating our own desires as law: "If I want it I ought to have it." This is what we have to be delivered from. This is why we need a Great Physician. This is why Jesus came to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. This is why he died in our place and rose again and sends the Holy Spirit into the world and offers us forgiveness for rebellion, and justifies by faith in Jesus Christ.

'Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,

And to take Him at His Word;

Just to rest upon His promise,

And to know, "Thus says the Lord!"

Jesus, Jesus, how I trust Him!

How I've proved Him o'er and o'er

Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus!

O for grace to trust Him more!

 

[Rippon]

The only thing you CAN reject this with is the "doctrines of men," Ja. Doctrines like "total depravity," "sin nature," original sin," etc. NONE of which is found in scripture and ALL of which were fabricated to snare the unwitting.

Boy, what you need to do is to getchersef a B-I-B-L-E ! Kids sure say silly things!
The specific phrases are not in the Bible, but the concepts sure are -- just as much as the word Trinity which is also not found in the Bible.

I'd like you to explain how Total Depravity is only a doctrine of man.How would this doctrine be a trap to snare the unwitting?! Wouldn't people naturally recoil when hearing about how bad folks really are? I would think a doctrine of man would elevate people to a status they do not deserve.People want to think more highly of themselves --they would want to believe they are really basically good.Teaching the sinfulness of mankind is not appealing to the multitudes. Teaching this is not snaring the unwitting.False teachers like to acquire adherents with itching ears.Nope. Teaching how sinful people really are is true and biblical. To say otherwise is foolish.

 

[skypair]

The specific phrases are not in the Bible, but the concepts sure are -- just as much as the word Trinity which is also not found in the Bible.

Might I suggest something to you? "Concepts are sure there" = "as discovered and given a name by MEN!" That's called "Isogesis," Ja!

I'd like you to explain how Total Depravity is only a doctrine of man.

Man is NOT totally depraved. Believe it or not (though most Calvies will admit this) men can do good works! And on top of that, their SPIRITS (minds, emotions, and wills) are not totally closed to the gospel. The "wind" of the Spirit might just come along (John 3) and convict them of "sin, of righteousness, and of judgment" (John 16:8) and they might be saved "whosoever" they are!!

How would this doctrine be a trap to snare the unwitting?! Wouldn't people naturally recoil when hearing about how bad folks really are? I would think a doctrine of man would elevate people to a status they do not deserve.

YES!! And yours elevates man to "elect" where he does not deserve it!! As long as they believe what you are saying, there is NO need to repent because they "understand spiritual things" (1Cor 2:14-15). They are ELECT!! So despite understanding that they are "bad," they say, "Well, I'm not all that bad, I guess. I can at least hear God."

People want to think more highly of themselves...

You mean like "I'm saved already??" Don't you see? People can believe they are sinners but are redeemed -- "elect" -- in spite of that?? Ask any man in prison "Are you bad?" The answer will be a resounding, "No." If there is any way out, man will believe it rather than believe God.

skypair

 

[Rippon]

Might I suggest something to you? "Concepts are sure there" = "as discovered and given a name by MEN!" That's called "Isogesis," Ja!

I am Rippon, not 'Ja'. And can't you call him by his handle, or 'James'? You are being evasive. The doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical concept, though that specific word is not in the text. Will you call that isogesis also?

Man is NOT totally depraved.

You keep spitting out things for which you have repeatedly been corrected. The term 'totally depraved' does not mean people are as sinful as it is possible to be. People are radically corrupted. The sin nature is pervasive in their beings.

Believe it or not (though most Calvies will admit this) men can do good works!

No, the unregenerate hate God ( even if some profess not to even think such a being exists). Anything that the world thinks is a good deed is sinful in God's eyes. Worldlings can be very kind and sweet. But what is their motive? They don't do nice things because they love God. The Lord deems someone's actions as good, or righteous if that person does it as to the Lord -- that it honors Him.Even plowing a field by a wicked person is a wicked act. It's certainly not as wicked as killing someone, but nonetheless, it is evil in God's eyes.
Come on, you know that our most righteous acts are considered to be vile and loathsome to God. How about the things we do which are not so righteous -- can that stand up to the scrutiny of God's Holy Eyes?

YES!! And yours elevates man to "elect" where he does not deserve it!! As long as they believe what you are saying, there is NO need to repent because they "understand spiritual things" (1Cor 2:14-15). They are ELECT!! So despite understanding that they are "bad," they say, "Well, I'm not all that bad, I guess. I can at least hear God."

No one deserves to be elected. Who said there is no need for repentance? Certainly not me.I just got through telling you how bad we really are. You don't like the doctrines of the Bible declaring our sinfulness -- and yet you claim that Calvinists think that 'we must not be that bad'.I shake my head in complete befuddlement over you SP. No one can hear God unless the Lord opens their eyes. There are no bragging rights at all here. But I am sure you'll repeat the same old false stuff over and over again-- it's your depraved self being manifested.Though you denounce the doctrine of total depravity -- you are a spokesman for the cause.

 

[Allan]

twas given, it would seen you are in denial.

You bet! What isn't truth is to be denied. You stated in post #11:

The age of accountability in the Bible is age 20

When asked if you could show 'bilbical support" you gave the verses from Exodus, Duet, and Numbers.

Now, let us review.
1. James says the 'age of accountability in the Bible is 20".
2. James then gives verses to validate via scripture the "age of accountabiblity" is 20.

3. I gave my refute of his assumption.

Now let us look at what James says:

I asked for age of accountability verses because the phase is a myth. AOA is always brought up but can never be supported other than with smoke and mirrors.

So which is it James? Is it a myth or is it real? You apparently aren't very sure of this subject.

If you have a AOA the verse I posted must be included.

Actually no, it doesn't. I have already shown why. But to further it some what, your passages do not address the knowledge of sin and when it is known and unknown.

There is one passage you quoted in Due 1:39 that says your "little ones" and "your children" who TODAY do not have the knowledge of good and evil. I wonder what it is called when the come to an age (or day) where they do understand... an age of accountability maybe??

Mankind sins before the age of 20. Mankind sins before the age of 12. No matter what age you place on AOA it does not work out for ya.

No, it doesn't work out for you. And I can see why with your going back and forth like you have. Secondly there is no 'age' to be placed or set for the age of accountability. It is the age that the person comes to the knowledge of good and evil or an understanding not of right or wrong but sin and righteousness. Right and wrong are perceptions of good and evil but the definition is derived by those of authority who set the standard. Like fathers and mothers, another is civil governments, but the ultimate and only absolute is God. A child knows what is right and wrong in contrast to what his parents desire and is accountable once he understands so it is with God and the AOA. Thus the bible lays out the defintions for good (Only God is good = righteousness) and evil (= sin - those who follow after the "evil one"). Yes, I know very short discriptions but I know you grasp the intent and correlation made.

As of last Dec. I am now a grand father.

Again, congradulations on the grandchildren! :thumbs:

They look before she touched showed me she understood right and wrong.

Yes, right and wrong in relation to what they know you desire. But they do not understand good and evil in relation to God. Thus the passage I gave earlier and illistrated in the passage you gave of Duet 1:39.

There is also no Bible verse to back your view.

At least 'here' you admit the scriptures you gave have nothing to do with an "age of accountability" but I'm sure down a bit further you flip-flop again . I however gave one already and you also gave another that illistrates the same quite well.

I picked this passage because it does show accountablility and it is based on age but it has nothing to do with sin now does it?

See, there you go again back and forth like a Disney Land ride. I have already shown and established that what you gave is not an age of accountability but an age of service and that is why it has nothing to do with sin. When you start off incorrect you will end in the same manner.

Verses like this is what you get when talking about AOA, but they do not address sin. So if you or any other point to verse like this of a younger age, you must also take this verse that deals with a law of a nation and not sin. I agree it does not prove it.

Again we are not talking about social and religous ages of service but a time when one comes to the understanding of sin and righteousness. Thus if they are blind "they have no sin" but to state you see (or know) then "your sin remains". This does deal with sin, knowledge of it or lack there of, and being held accountable. Yours, as you have stated, do not.

Its much like our age of 18. Its when we become responsible to part of the law of a nation. It has nothing to do with sin.


Which was part of a law of a nation and has nothing to do with sin


Which was part of a law of a nation and has nothing to do with sin


Which was part of a law of a nation and has nothing to do with sin

Which was part of a law of a nation and has nothing to do with sin

Which was my point of contention regarding your posting of your 'biblical support' for the age of accountability. All that you posted is an age of service and that is why being married, having children, owning land, and sacrifices were given to show they were still held accountable. Therefore 20 was not an age of accountability but of full rights and service to and for social and religious duties.

My point should be understood by now. AOA as many teach it as to SIN is not backed in the Bible. The only thing you will find is verse like I posted, which can be said to be AOA passages, and in away they are, but it has nothing to do with sin. Other then Deu 1 which says....

Wrong once again. The bible nor those who teach the biblcal view AOA never state it is a specific age but 'an age' whereby a person comes to understand sin and righeousness in relation to God.

If a person murders and does not know it is a sin, then its not a sin? Is this what you think the passage is saying? If this is the case, would it not be better for mankind if we did not tell them of God and the Bible so they would not sin?

Your premise is based upon faulty logic. Who does not know that murder is wrong?? Even head hunter tribes who kill other people for food amongst themselves do not kill one another without just cause. It might be a messed up view but a view that still holds to the fundamental truth that murder is wrong, they just contend it is murder amoungst themselves. Or what about theft? Same thing, though some might presume that conquering a people gives you the right to lay claim to anothers stuff or family they still forbade theft amoungst themselves. So no, because man will come to that age on his own. We are to bring the truth that once they have come to that age they might hear and believe and be saved or reject that which we bring and be damned.

I know a man that is hooked on porn, but sees nothing wrong with it, for it hurts no one. I told him lusting was a sin and he had never heard that before. Was it a sin to him just as the moment I told him it was a sin, or was it a sin the day before and he just did not know it?

Both.

9 Who can say, "I have made my heart pure;
I am clean from my sin"?

10 Unequal weights and unequal measures
are both alike an abomination to the LORD.

11Even a child makes himself known by his acts,
by whether his conduct is pure and upright.

BTW...this passage that deals with sin also addesses age groups. maybe AOA??

Does this count?

No it doesn't because it address their nature not when they come to understand nor does it address them knowing it IS sin only that they WILL sin.
As I said, they do sin but it is not imputed against them till they know it to be sin/evil.

 

[Jarthur001]

Allan,

I simply posted way ahead of what would come up in the end, and you missed the point.

Let me be clear.

I do not believe in AOA as the freewillers call it. You shold know this since you also know I'm a Calvinist.

The Bible does not support the AOA.

When someone else brought up AOA...moved to show the ONLY age found in the Bible that supports AOA...and that is 20.

It is clear that I do not believe 20 is the age, but if one believes AOA this is the only age that is supported in the Bible. I showed this.

I asked for other verse to support other ages....none has been given so far. Not by you nor by anyone.

I used the passage Due 1:39 for this is used by many that believe in AOA.

I used this 1st before any one used it to show it is talking about age 19 and below when it say "little ones" as shown in Numbers.

******************


Lets cut to it Allan. I do not believe in AOA.

Do you? If so, give Bible support.

*****************

As I said, they do sin but it is not imputed against them till they know it to be sin/evil.

Yes I know what you said, and I still disagree. The Bible is clear on this.

According to Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12-21 the one sin of Adam was imputed to mankind to the extent that "death reigned". Man was born guilty for sin was imputed to all.

All were condemned in Adam (v. 18) and all have been made sinners (v. 19).

It is because of Adam’s sin that one is born with a depraved nature and under God’s condemnation (Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:3).

Did Christ need to sin before OUR sin was imputed to Him on the Cross? No, i'm sure you agree.

We need not sin for Adams sin to be imputed to us.

**************************

Now please lets get back to the OP.

Why did God not want man to know of good and evil?


The reason I asked is it I feel it comes down to mans will, which is a bad thing.

 

[skypair]

The doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical concept, though that specific word is not in the text. Will you call that isogesis also?

Sure! To give a manmade name to a biblical concept would be isogesis -- interpretting scripture as best we understand it.

But the Bible does not support interpretting our nature as "total depravity." For instance, Jesus said anyone who gives a cup of water to a child "will in no wise lose his reward." "Reward" for an "random act of kindness" by a "whosoever?" And that is not "good" in God's eyes?

And where does scripture say that sinners, the lost, cannot "hear" God?? Certainly not Rom 1:19-20. And actually, the true makeup of every man --- having soul and spirit --- would have him be "brain dead" before he could no longer hear or perceive God.

Where does scripture tell us man is dead before committing sin knowingly. Certainly not in Ezek 18:20 nor Rom 7:9.

The term 'totally depraved' does not mean people are as sinful as it is possible to be.

Then we ought to take the word "totally" out of the phrase and model, right? Because when you say that God is "totally sovereign," you do mean that His sovereignty is over EVERYTHING, do you not? Or is that model flawed, too?

No one deserves to be elected.

"Deserve" was a bad word. "Elect" is a title denoting positional status and applies to believers. How did they get to be "believers" before the foundation of the earth? How did they get to have positional statue before the foundation of the earth if that is, indeed, from whence they were "elected?" Is this not, rather, an issue of "forekowledge" rather than of "predetermination?" Sure it is!

You don't like the doctrines of the Bible declaring our sinfulness

You got me wrong there. What I don't like and don't agree with is Calvinism's "total depravity" model that mischaracterizes 1) the the triune nature of man, 2) sin nature, 3) the natural man as equivalent to dead Lazarus insofar as hearing the gospel, and 4) regeneration as coming before belief rather than after. It is just so "sold out" to a theological paradigm that was built by men of limited understanding of scripture.

No one can hear God unless the Lord opens their eyes.

I know you didn't mean to say this but it was a nice diversion. :laugh: "Hear" by "opening their EYES?"

Seriously, like I said, the soul may be dead" but the spirit (intellect, emotions, and will) are very much alive. Mostly they are focused on the natural world where God can also communicate with us (Rom 1:19-20) but often we "hear" the "wind" of the Spirit (John 3) without knowing "whence it cometh or where it goeth" (IOW, you CAN hear those who are "born of the Spirit" as the preach the gospel even though you can't tell where they come from or where they are going).

skypair

 

[skypair]

Sky, that is just poor understanding of the text. There is a lot to add but I'm busy now, so I'll just post Piper...

He never adresses the concept that Paul "was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom 7:9 Now you either have Paul saying he was alive before he knew that law or you bring up the possibility that Paul lost his salvation each time he realized that he sinned.

skypair