Is the Rejection of Christ 'the' Damning Sin?

[annsni]

HP: Long on Augustinian theory and short on evidence from the Word of God and reason. Psalms 51 and 58 are as far from proof or evidence of original sin as the East is from the West.

What keeps the mind closed to the reality and acceptance of truth? In this case the voluntary adherence to the presupposition of original sin and the acceptance of the false notion of Augustine that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. It represents a most important failure to properly distinguish between the sensibilities and the will and as such a crucial mistake in the understanding of morality.

See, the thing is that I don't see one bit of support for children being born sinless and in a perfect relationship with Christ.

 

[billwald]

>He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God

>NNE EVER notices the import of this verse. Namely, that the the state of being condemned must be a temporary condition.

If "he that believeth not is condemned already" then every one of us humans must have been condemned at one time because we didn't believe before we believed. Some of us humans believed and had our condemnation reversed. At least for some humans, condemnation must be a temporary condition.

 

[zrs6v4]

>He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God

>NNE EVER notices the import of this verse. Namely, that the the state of being condemned must be a temporary condition.

If "he that believeth not is condemned already" then every one of us humans must have been condemned at one time because we didn't believe before we believed. Some of us humans believed and had our condemnation reversed. At least for some humans, condemnation must be a temporary condition.

yes a state of unbelief = condemnation

 

[zrs6v4]

I had a thought. if the penalty of sin is death including physical, then why do babies die?

Hell is a whole different issue that the bible is silent on other than Davids comment about him seeing his baby again.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Children sustain to God an unknown relationship, yet ‘of such are the kingdom of heaven’ according to Christ. They certainly are not moral beings in infancy or even young childhood, and as such have no reason to be saved. They are simply innocent. If you think you need further Scriptural proof, you might need to simply attend a nursery and use some common sense. They are the absolute picture of innocence Ann. The truth is so plain to believe otherwise is to cavil at the ability to entertain any cognizant thought. To try and show supportive evidence is not only fruitless, but absurd.

I would go so far as to say that all reasonable persons believe in the innocence of infants. I cannot help but consider that fact as a self evident truth that needs no supportive evidence to believe in its veracity. Only a misguided theologian with an agenda and an Augustinian presupposition to bolster would even consider questioning a truth so evident. One would be better off fighting windmills than to question whether or not infants are morally innocent.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thanks for the explanation Bill. I believe I follow you there.

 

[billwald]

From a previous post:

>We can only teach what is written.

WE can't know anything that people 2000 years ago didn't know? Or we can know but are forbidden to teach?

I can't teach but can only observe that some people who study these things say that 60% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted. "Spontaneously" means what? Aborted by an unknown cause? Is not the cause known to God?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: We can only teach what is written

HP: If you are a zombie, programmed computer, or a merely regurgitating selective dogma,.... maybe.

Of a truth God has not limited truth to ‘what is written’ by any means. God has granted to men first truths of reason, matters of fact, truths of immutable justice, a conscience, etc. that if one fails to properly consider those God given tools, error is certainly to follow regardless what one believes is ‘written.’

Noah was a preacher of righteousness long before the written word, was he not?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I believe one of the most important posts on the topic of this thread was post #5 by Tom Butler. Great questions Tom. :thumbsup:

 

[Tom Butler]

To get back to the OP, I'm recalling my childhood before I was saved. Although I was not saved at age seven, I loved to go to church, I loved the pastor, I loved my teachers, I really enjoyed the worship services, and I loved to hear preaching (although I was not always paying attention).

I knew Jesus loved me because everybody said so, and we even sang about it. And we all loved Jesus, my friends and I.

So, in no way was I rejecting Jesus. I know now that I was not resisting his call, for he had not yet called me. The Holy Spirit had not yet convicted me, nor had he opened my eyes my sinfulness.

I was lost, but I didn't have a clue as to what it meant, and I'm not even sure I knew I was lost. Until, that is, that April Sunday, when he convicted me, illumined me and called me to repentance and faith. Only on that day did I understand my sin, my rebelliousness, and the consequences.

I happened very quickly, for God saved me shortly after the Holy Spirit started doing a number on me, at age nine.

Had I died before that day, would I have stood condemned before God? Yes. But not for rejecting Jesus.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RevMitchell: Trying to complicate the gospel with all these unknowable doctrines of men that are not delineated in scripture is nothing more than man trying to puff himself up with knowledge.

HP: Am I correct then in assuming you believe that every church or Pastor that preaches or implies that the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ or the underlying foundational doctrine of that belief, i.e., original sin, is in actuality trying to teach unknowable doctrines and as such trying to puff himself up with knowledge?

 

[Tom Butler]

I believe one of the most important posts on the topic of this thread was post #5 by Tom Butler. Great questions Tom. :thumbsup:

Thank you, brother, you are too kind.

I think we have to distinguish between unbelief and rejection. To reject means we have been exposed to the truth and rejected it. That's not the same as not believing the truth because we don't know what it is.

For instance, up to the point of their conversions, Cornelius and Lydia had not rejected Christ. They both were fervent worshipers of God. One could say that neither was in a state of unbelief in the sense that they were active unbelievers. Yet both were unsaved and needed the gospel.

Do I understand all this? No. I do understand that there is a relationship between faith in Christ and our salvation. But I think we have to be careful and try to be precise in the language we use, lest we confuse rather than clarify.

 

[David Michael Harris]

It has been said by some that man is born unable to make a proper moral decision being born with original sin. Others seeking to distance themselves from the logical implications of that doctrine, try to inject the notion that all men are granted one and one ability, only. i.e., the ability to accept or reject Jesus Christ. For that choice and that choice alone is man said to be accountable to God. This resulting doctrine in both cases is the notion that the damning sin is nothing more or less than the rejection of Jesus Christ.

The question remains, is that a Scriptural position to take? Do the Scriptures teach that the damning sin is in fact the rejection of Jesus Christ?

My thoughts on this, is what's the difference with rejecting Christ and those who die never hearing the Gospel. Do all go to the lake of fire? What about babies and infants etc killed in war or abortion etc etc?

Or is God more gracious than we can ever know.

Can God save if He wishes regardless of response. His good pleasure and will.

How efficacious is the blood of Christ?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DMH: Can God save if He wishes regardless of response. His good pleasure and will.

HP: God has told us clearly that He will not save apart from man fulfilling the conditions He has set forth to be saved. Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 

[steaver]

HP: If you are a zombie, programmed computer, or a merely regurgitating selective dogma,.... maybe.

Of a truth God has not limited truth to ‘what is written’ by any means. God has granted to men first truths of reason, matters of fact, truths of immutable justice, a conscience, etc. that if one fails to properly consider those God given tools, error is certainly to follow regardless what one believes is ‘written.’

Noah was a preacher of righteousness long before the written word, was he not?

I believe these debates on this board are focused on Christain held doctrines and how they hold up verses the Scriptures (or 'what has been written').

So as I said, we can only teach what has been written (as a matter of fact). "Teach" would be "teach Christian doctrine as fact". "What has been written" would be what has been written in the scriptures for us Christians to know.

My appologies for not being more clear, I thought given the context of these debates this would have been understood.

God Bless! :jesus:

 

[steaver]

From a previous post:

>We can only teach what is written.

WE can't know anything that people 2000 years ago didn't know? Or we can know but are forbidden to teach?

Again, the context is biblical truths concerning salvation and other Christian doctrines.

I can't teach but can only observe that some people who study these things say that 60% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted. "Spontaneously" means what? Aborted by an unknown cause? Is not the cause known to God

The cause of these abortions would be the curse of sin.

:godisgood:

 

[steaver]

See, the thing is that I don't see one bit of support for children being born sinless and in a perfect relationship with Christ.

You don't see any support for it because there isn't any :thumbsup:

All are born with the curse of sin and in need of God's salvation.

Rom 5:12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


It's been said before, Set two toddlers down together and give just one an ice cream cone, the one with the cone will not share and the one without will try to steal it.

The sin in children can be observed. Some try to say that if they don't understand their sin then they are not guilty of sin. Adam did not understand or know "good and evil" when he "sinned".

 

[steaver]

Children sustain to God an unknown relationship, yet ‘of such are the kingdom of heaven’ according to Christ. They certainly are not moral beings in infancy or even young childhood, and as such have no reason to be saved. They are simply innocent. If you think you need further Scriptural proof, you might need to simply attend a nursery and use some common sense. They are the absolute picture of innocence Ann. The truth is so plain to believe otherwise is to cavil at the ability to entertain any cognizant thought. To try and show supportive evidence is not only fruitless, but absurd.

I would go so far as to say that all reasonable persons believe in the innocence of infants. I cannot help but consider that fact as a self evident truth that needs no supportive evidence to believe in its veracity. Only a misguided theologian with an agenda and an Augustinian presupposition to bolster would even consider questioning a truth so evident. One would be better off fighting windmills than to question whether or not infants are morally innocent.

You are misapplying the scripture of the children. It states "of such", the scripture is clearly teaching how anyone must accept Jesus, that is "as a little child", by faith.

Infants may be morally innocent in the fact that they have not committed any sin. But this does not change the fact that they are born, even concieved with the curse of sin and thus must have the blood of Christ applied to them for salvation. How God does this or if God does this is not revealed to us in the scriptures. I for one simply trust God knows what He is doing.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The gospel according to Scripture: Rom 5:12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The gospel according to Steaver as I understand him: Wherefore, by one man sin entered the world and all sinned in Adam, so original sin passed upon and made all men sinners because Adam is the father of all men.

For some strange reason I like the way Romans reads.:thumbsup:

Feel free Steaver to do the gospel according to HP.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: and thus must have the blood of Christ applied to them for salvation. How God does this or if God does this is not revealed to us in the scriptures

HP: Why not be completely candid about it? Nowhere do the Scriptures state they need salvation, so why speculate where Scripture is silent, UNLESS there is other evidence God has provided to us that would establish the point, say via first truths of reason, matters of fact, or truth of immutable justice. Hmmmmmm. Now that is a thought to consider.