"all have sinned"

[glfredrick]

Where do those found not guilty go based on Scripture?

Who is "not guilty?"

 

[webdog]

Who is "not guilty?"

Those who haven't violated God's law, or those who have and have Christ's blood applied to them. I'm not guilty in God's eye.

 

[glfredrick]

Those who haven't violated God's law, or those who have and have Christ's blood applied to them. I'm not guilty in God's eye.

Who has not violated God's law?

We're not talking saved persons here. It is assumed that they are no longer under condemnation. We're talking those who have not accepted Christ. I don't know that you are or are not "not guilty" in God's eye, for right now, I've not ascertained that you understand the gospel well enough to be assured that you are indeed anything more than "religious." I'm sure that will tick you off, but that is not my point. If you are going to argue that there are innocent people, then class yourself in that class, you probably don't understand the gospel as laid out in the Scriptures.

I continue to see this press from you and a few others to declare some people "innocent." Where are these innocent people who have never violated God's law? And, what do you do with Romans 5, where Paul says that death came by one man, Adam, and that "before" God's law (because people died before Moses)?

 

[webdog]

Who has not violated God's law?

We're not talking saved persons here. It is assumed that they are no longer under condemnation. We're talking those who have not accepted Christ. I don't know that you are or are not "not guilty" in God's eye, for right now, I've not ascertained that you understand the gospel well enough to be assured that you are indeed anything more than "religious." I'm sure that will tick you off, but that is not my point. If you are going to argue that there are innocent people, then class yourself in that class, you probably don't understand the gospel as laid out in the Scriptures.

I continue to see this press from you and a few others to declare some people "innocent." Where are these innocent people who have never violated God's law? And, what do you do with Romans 5, where Paul says that death came by one man, Adam, and that "before" God's law (because people died before Moses)?

Who hasn't violated God's law? Those who are unable to. It takes a conscious decision or knowledge to violate God's law and be held accountable for it. In Genesis 20 Abimelech took Abraham's wife unknowingly and God viewed him as not guilty of taking a married man's wife even though he did just that. God even went as far as to say he was innocent and He kept Abimelech from sinning against Him. Now...when Abimelech realized the truth of what he had done, he admitted he sinned after the fact.

If you maintain a fetus has violated God's law, please do tell which one....and the act of being conceived is not a violation of His law, nor are we guilty of Adam's sin and somehow mystically sinned along with Adam when he did.

Surely you do realize there is a difference between innocent and not guilty, right? I will not classify myself as innocent because, apparently unlike you, I know the difference between these terms.

Also, you do realize it is against board rules to question the salvation of another, right? That is deliberately violating God's law.

 

[Robert Snow]

Who has not violated God's law?

We're not talking saved persons here. It is assumed that they are no longer under condemnation. We're talking those who have not accepted Christ. I don't know that you are or are not "not guilty" in God's eye, for right now, I've not ascertained that you understand the gospel well enough to be assured that you are indeed anything more than "religious."

Does your arrogance know any bounds?

I guess we should all submit a written testimony to you of our salvation experience and you can let us know if we've "ascertained...the gospel well enough" to be saved.

 

[The Archangel]

Who has not violated God's law?

We're not talking saved persons here. It is assumed that they are no longer under condemnation. We're talking those who have not accepted Christ. I don't know that you are or are not "not guilty" in God's eye, for right now, I've not ascertained that you understand the gospel well enough to be assured that you are indeed anything more than "religious." I'm sure that will tick you off, but that is not my point. If you are going to argue that there are innocent people, then class yourself in that class, you probably don't understand the gospel as laid out in the Scriptures.

I continue to see this press from you and a few others to declare some people "innocent." Where are these innocent people who have never violated God's law? And, what do you do with Romans 5, where Paul says that death came by one man, Adam, and that "before" God's law (because people died before Moses)?

gl,

While I completely understand what you are saying and I'm pretty sure that you are not questioning Webdog's salvation, I would encourage you to, perhaps, give a bit more of the benefit of the doubt in your postings.

I think what you are saying is that, based on one's postings (Webdog's in this instance) you can neither confirm or deny that his beliefs are in accordance with salvation. I think that's what you are saying and I think you are saying that because you, like the rest of us, only know Webdog from this forum.

So, friend, whether you can confirm or deny or whether you cannot confirm or deny, I would encourage you to give him, as well as others, the benefit of the doubt.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[glfredrick]

Who hasn't violated God's law? Those who are unable to. It takes a conscious decision or knowledge to violate God's law and be held accountable for it. In Genesis 20 Abimelech took Abraham's wife unknowingly and God viewed him as not guilty of taking a married man's wife even though he did just that. God even went as far as to say he was innocent and He kept Abimelech from sinning against Him. Now...when Abimelech realized the truth of what he had done, he admitted he sinned after the fact.

If you maintain a fetus has violated God's law, please do tell which one....and the act of being conceived is not a violation of His law, nor are we guilty of Adam's sin and somehow mystically sinned along with Adam when he did.

Surely you do realize there is a difference between innocent and not guilty, right? I will not classify myself as innocent because, apparently unlike you, I know the difference between these terms.

Also, you do realize it is against board rules to question the salvation of another, right? That is deliberately violating God's law.

I'm not saying anything positive or negative regarding your salvation, but rather wondering if you understand the gospel.

Do you argue with the Bible?

It SAYS that we are born dead in our sin and trespasses.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Eph 2:1-4 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.


Again, if you truly felt that babies were innocent enough to be saved, why not just send them to heaven immediately before they become "sinners."

You fail to understand what the Scriptures say about our sin and being born into sin, and I doubt that I will be the one who will convince you, seeing as how you already ignore the Bible, the Word of God.

 

[glfredrick]

gl,

While I completely understand what you are saying and I'm pretty sure that you are not questioning Webdog's salvation, I would encourage you to, perhaps, give a bit more of the benefit of the doubt in your postings.

I think what you are saying is that, based on one's postings (Webdog's in this instance) you can neither confirm or deny that his beliefs are in accordance with salvation. I think that's what you are saying and I think you are saying that because you, like the rest of us, only know Webdog from this forum.

So, friend, whether you can confirm or deny or whether you cannot confirm or deny, I would encourage you to give him, as well as others, the benefit of the doubt.

Blessings,

The Archangel

That is precisely what I am saying... I cannot confirm nor deny webdog's salvation based on his posts. What I've seen since being on the board confirms to me that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel, and that could make salvation an issue.

 

[glfredrick]

Does your arrogance know any bounds?

I guess we should all submit a written testimony to you of our salvation experience and you can let us know if we've "ascertained...the gospel well enough" to be saved.

Why is asking the most important question of all time an affront and arrogant? I'm not setting up my own salvation testimony as any example. I am simply proceeding like I might with any person who, upon inquiry could not explain the gospel according to the Bible. i cannot judge another man's heart. That is God's business.

 

[The Archangel]

Who hasn't violated God's law? Those who are unable to. It takes a conscious decision or knowledge to violate God's law and be held accountable for it. In Genesis 20 Abimelech took Abraham's wife unknowingly and God viewed him as not guilty of taking a married man's wife even though he did just that. God even went as far as to say he was innocent and He kept Abimelech from sinning against Him. Now...when Abimelech realized the truth of what he had done, he admitted he sinned after the fact.

This is incorrect.

In both Abraham's charades of Sarah being his sister (once with Pharaoh and once with Abimelech) Sarah remained unadulterated, for lack of a better term.

Your thought line suggests that you think Abimelech "knew" Sarah (in the biblical way). He didn't. God saw to it that Abimelech did not violate Sarah (and, therefore, Abraham). So the reason that Abimelech was "innocent" in this case is that God intervened and kept him from violating Sarah and even threatened death to him and his people if he disregarded God's warning.

If you maintain a fetus has violated God's law, please do tell which one....and the act of being conceived is not a violation of His law, nor are we guilty of Adam's sin and somehow mystically sinned along with Adam when he did.

While a baby (fetus meaning "baby" in Latin) hasn't knowingly broken a law of God, that baby, like David, is still conceived in sin (Psalm 51) meaning that there is sin-guilt in a baby...because of Adam.

If you maintain that one must know God's law in order to violate it, then you have virtually no choice, logically, to affirm the heresy that those never having heard the gospel (ie. Native Americans, Indigenous peoples, etc.) will go to Heaven--even without hearing and believing the Gospel.

Frankly, volition has nothing to do with it. Take Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. We know from Romans that (A) Sin isn't counted where there is no law, (B) There was no law between Adam and Moses, (C) People died--even though they, technically, committed no sin and the wages of sin is death, and (D) God judged Sodom harshly for their sin, though there was no law.

So, no, knowledge and volition do not play a part in innocence or breaking God's law.

Surely you do realize there is a difference between innocent and not guilty, right? I will not classify myself as innocent because, apparently unlike you, I know the difference between these terms.

And you wonder why people say what they do to you. You simply cannot stick to the facts without attacking someone. That is your M.O. and it is very unfortunate.

Also, you do realize it is against board rules to question the salvation of another, right? That is deliberately violating God's law.

I don't think he was questioning your salvation. However, I did write a post to him that you should see.

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

i cannot judge another man's heart. That is God's business.

Quit acting like you can then.

What you seem to be saying is that since we reject the DoG's the way YOU see them, or rather the way Calvin and company sees them, then we must not even understand the Gospel at all, therefore implying that we aren't even saved. This comes across as arrogant.

 

[The Archangel]

That is precisely what I am saying... I cannot confirm nor deny webdog's salvation based on his posts. What I've seen since being on the board confirms to me that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel, and that could make salvation an issue.

I thought that's what you were saying. However, I would encourage you not question his salvation in any way. While I don't think you did, while I don't think you think you did, he sees it that way and others may as well.

Please be sure to give the benefit of the doubt--no matter how messed up someone's understanding of the Gospel is.

I don't think the thief on the cross had the understanding of the Gospel we were blessed to learn at SBTS. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't "with Jesus in paradise."

So, friend, please be careful to not let your passions or the benefit of your education get the better of you. Neither of those things should stop us from "Speaking the truth in love."

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[glfredrick]

Quit acting like you can then.

What you seem to be saying is that since we reject the DoG's the way YOU see them, or rather the way Calvin and company sees them, then we must not even understand the Gospel at all, therefore implying that we aren't even saved. This comes across as arrogant.

Robert, I appreciate you taking up for Webdog, but you have your own battles to fight. But since you insist, let's start with one thing first...

The discussion isn't about DoG the way "I" see them (or anyone else for that matter). The QUESTION at hand has nothing to do with DoG, but rather with being born in sin. If you can't even get the question right why do you think that you'd have insight into my motivation for asking?

So, what do YOU say about being born in sin? Yes or no?

 

[webdog]

Your thought line suggests that you think Abimelech "knew" Sarah (in the biblical way). He didn't. God saw to it that Abimelech did not violate Sarah (and, therefore, Abraham). So the reason that Abimelech was "innocent" in this case is that God intervened and kept him from violating Sarah and even threatened death to him and his people if he disregarded God's warning.

I'm not saying he knew her at all. The very act of taking his wife with the intent to "know" her is a sin as is evidenced by Abraham having to pray for Abimelech. What did Christ say about lust?

While a baby (fetus meaning "baby" in Latin) hasn't knowingly broken a law of God, that baby, like David, is still conceived in sin (Psalm 51) meaning that there is sin-guilt in a baby...because of Adam.

You added guilt to that, it is not there. Being conceived in sin, and being conceived a sinner are not the same thing.

If you maintain that one must know God's law in order to violate it, then you have virtually no choice, logically, to affirm the heresy that those never having heard the gospel (ie. Native Americans, Indigenous peoples, etc.) will go to Heaven--even without hearing and believing the Gospel.

False dichotomy as God's law is written on the hearts already of all men.

And you wonder why people say what they do to you. You simply cannot stick to the facts without attacking someone. That is your M.O. and it is very unfortunate.

Give me a break. This is a tame response to one questioning my knowledge of the Gospel and attack on my salvation. Do you see a difference in being found not guilty and being innocent?

I don't think he was questioning your salvation. However, I did write a post to him that you should see.

How can you not see that as an attack?!? I did see the post, but what was there to respond to if there was no harm intended?

 

[webdog]

I'm not saying anything positive or negative regarding your salvation, but rather wondering if you understand the gospel.

If I don't understand the Gospel, how can I be saved? You completely contradict yourself in your answers.

Do you argue with the Bible?

No, I argue your understanding of the Bible.

It SAYS that we are born dead in our sin and trespasses.

Surely you have Scripture that says this since the ones you posted did NOT say this. How can one be born in THEIR trespasses and sins?!? What the Bible DOES say is that WE are dead in OUR trespasses and sins. What it DOESN'T say is WE are dead in ADAMS.

Again, if you truly felt that babies were innocent enough to be saved, why not just send them to heaven immediately before they become "sinners."

...and right back around to not understanding innocent as opposed to not guilty :BangHead:

You fail to understand what the Scriptures say about our sin and being born into sin, and I doubt that I will be the one who will convince you, seeing as how you already ignore the Bible, the Word of God.

I disagree, I believe your understanding (or lack of) our personal accountability in regards to sin is in great error. Do you also hold to baptizing infants since they go hand in hand you know. What I won't do is question your salvation as you have mine.

Last time...I don't ignore the Bible, not believe the Bible, argue with the Bible, etc. I ignore your understanding. You are not on par with the Bible, so please don't pretend that you are.

 

[Robert Snow]

So, what do YOU say about being born in sin? Yes or no?

I would say that we are born as sinners, but we are not held accountable until we realize that we are sinning (reach the age of accountability). Otherwise, infants and those who are mentally retarded would have no hope of heaven.

I have not looked into this a great deal, so I may modify this position in the future.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would say that we are born as sinners, but we are not held accountable until we realize that we are sinning (reach the age of accountability). Otherwise, infants and those who are mentally retarded would have no hope of heaven.

I have not looked into this a great deal, so I may modify this position in the future.

So what about infants that die Glfred.....are they rewarded with heaven.....yes or no.

 

[The Archangel]

So what about infants that die Glfred.....are they rewarded with heaven.....yes or no.

OK, I'm not Glfred...but I'd like to weigh in.

I would say infants that die are saved. I don't know how that happens; I can't point to any text; but I believe that God will do right. Now, of course, I don't want Him to do right as I see it. But, I believe it is right as He sees it to admit persons who die in infancy (abortion victims, etc.) to heaven.

This is an issue where we have to have faith in God, even though He doesn't make answers to this question clear to us.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

OK, I'm not Glfred...but I'd like to weigh in.

I would say infants that die are saved. I don't know how that happens; I can't point to any text; but I believe that God will do right. Now, of course, I don't want Him to do right as I see it. But, I believe it is right as He sees it to admit persons who die in infancy (abortion victims, etc.) to heaven.

This is an issue where we have to have faith in God, even though He doesn't make answers to this question clear to us.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Why do you believe it's right for God to save infants?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OK, I'm not Glfred...but I'd like to weigh in.

I would say infants that die are saved. I don't know how that happens; I can't point to any text; but I believe that God will do right. Now, of course, I don't want Him to do right as I see it. But, I believe it is right as He sees it to admit persons who die in infancy (abortion victims, etc.) to heaven.

This is an issue where we have to have faith in God, even though He doesn't make answers to this question clear to us.

Blessings,

The Archangel

No your not & your much younger Genesis 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all earth do right?

Plus all children who die in infancy are counted among the elect. It's the JUST NATURE OF GOD.

Per Albert Mohler anyway