is there REALLy per Bible An "Age of Accountibility?"

[Winman]

I am not sure this is correct. I believe it is the resurrection of the dead. In verse 35 Paul says, But some will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

That is two questions about two topics. The dead and what kind of body. In most cases I would venture to say the body that died has long turned to dust.

v-37 1st part And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, v-38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

The point I am trying to make is that the term "in Adam" is speaking of inheriting a corrupt physical body from Adam, not a sin nature. The entire topic of 1 Cor 15 deals with resurrection of our bodies.

I bet I've seen someone say "in Adam all have sinned" at least 20 times on this forum. That is not what the scriptures say. They say;

1 Cor 15:22 For IN ADAM ALL DIE, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Do you see the word "sin" or "sinned" in that verse? NO! And this is the one and only time in all of scripture that the term "in Adam" is used. Do a search and see for yourself.

So, folks take this little phrase used ONCE in scripture, pull it out of context and make it say what it does not say. In fact, if you read the chapter you see Paul is speaking of believers.

And we are told how we are raised up.

1 Cor 5:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

 

[percho]

The point I am trying to make is that the term "in Adam" is speaking of inheriting a corrupt physical body from Adam, not a sin nature. The entire topic of 1 Cor 15 deals with resurrection of our bodies.

I bet I've seen someone say "in Adam all have sinned" at least 20 times on this forum. That is not what the scriptures say. They say;

1 Cor 15:22 For IN ADAM ALL DIE, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Do you see the word "sin" or "sinned" in that verse? NO! And this is the one and only time in all of scripture that the term "in Adam" is used. Do a search and see for yourself.

So, folks take this little phrase used ONCE in scripture, pull it out of context and make it say what it does not say. In fact, if you read the chapter you see Paul is speaking of believers.

And we are told how we are raised up.

1 Cor 5:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

I agree with you there Adam's sin brought death to mankind. In that we are all in Adam. Even Christ in this concept is in Adam. He did not sin but he died for The first Adam was the figure of him to come meaning Christ.

 

[WITBOTL]

Questions

Hi Winman,

I'm trying to follow your argument and thinking and I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you saying that the effect passed on to us from the sin of Adam was only the curse of physical death? Are you saying that we are sinners only because we sin? What would you say is the relationship between ourselves as sinners and the sin of Adam? What about Romans 5:19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. To me this appears to say that Adams sin made us all sinners? Do you not believe that?

Also, do you believe there is a difference between the pre-fall Adam and a pre Accountability age child?

What is the source of a pre accountability age child's sin, when he sins but is not held to account for it? How is that sin judged by God, and is it judged differently than an unsaved man's sin, or a saved man's sin?

hope the questions make sense...

 

[Winman]

Hi Winman,

I'm trying to follow your argument and thinking and I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you saying that the effect passed on to us from the sin of Adam was only the curse of physical death? Are you saying that we are sinners only because we sin? What would you say is the relationship between ourselves as sinners and the sin of Adam? What about Romans 5:19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. To me this appears to say that Adams sin made us all sinners? Do you not believe that?

snip...

hope the questions make sense...

It's a great question. If Romans 5 is speaking of Adam's sin being imputed to us without cause, then you would also have to believe Christ's righteousness is also imputed to every person without cause.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment CAME UPON ALL MEN to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one the free gift CAME UPON ALL MEN unto justification of life.

If you believe this verse is saying Adam's sin was automatically imputed to us through no cause of our own, then you MUST believe the free gift of justification of life was also imputed to us through no cause of our own.

This would be universalism, which we know is not true.

So, you have to do something for both. You must sin to have the judgment come upon you, you must believe on Jesus to have the free gift of justification come upon you.

It is like this, we say that "many men were made communists because of Karl Marx". Are Marx's beliefs automatically imputed to people? No, but he introduced socialism.

Adam introduced sin, this sin has influenced other men to sin. He was created in a world without sin, we are born into a world full of sin.

 

[Winman]

Sorry, I can only type limited text on my phone.

It is like saying, "As by Joseph Smith many were made Mormons, so also were many made Muslims by Mohammed".

Do you understand what I am saying? It is not saying you are born a sinner because of Adam's sin, but we are made sinners by obeying the sin Adam introduced into the world, just as people become Mormons by following or obeying the doctrine Joseph Smith introduced into the world.

I hope you understand.

 

[WITBOTL]

Winman,

thank you, I think I do understand what you are saying concerning Rom. 5. Also, thanks for replying via your phone, had to move from my ipad (where I was reading) to my computer to type... I wouldn't want to do this on my phone!

I think I understand what you are saying in relation to the condemnation of sin falling upon us through acts of sin as the gift of grace through the act of faith. (Do I have that correct?) Still, I am trying understand how you see the curse of Adam affecting us (aside from the death of the body) In other words without the sin of Adam would sin by us be possible? What in the sin of Adam makes sin possible in us?

I understand that you are arguing against a sin nature and what I am trying to understand is that if acts of sin do not arise in us from our nature then from whence do sins come? Is their source external to us?

James 1:15 says the source of sin is our lust. I think this lust in us is our very sin nature which was passed to us by the sin of Adam. If I understand you correctly I think you are saying that this lust in us is a neutral aspect of our nature which has nothing to do with the sin of Adam. If I am representing you correctly then did Adam possess this lust before the fall?

I do appreciate this and especially since you are typing on your phone! Though we differ, I really do want to understand how you see these things.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

thank you, I think I do understand what you are saying concerning Rom. 5. Also, thanks for replying via your phone, had to move from my ipad (where I was reading) to my computer to type... I wouldn't want to do this on my phone!

I think I understand what you are saying in relation to the condemnation of sin falling upon us through acts of sin as the gift of grace through the act of faith. (Do I have that correct?) Still, I am trying understand how you see the curse of Adam affecting us (aside from the death of the body) In other words without the sin of Adam would sin by us be possible? What in the sin of Adam makes sin possible in us?

I understand that you are arguing against a sin nature and what I am trying to understand is that if acts of sin do not arise in us from our nature then from whence do sins come? Is their source external to us?

James 1:15 says the source of sin is our lust.

I believe the answer is simple, FREE WILL.

You don't have to be born with a sin nature to sin. Adam and Eve were created "very good" in a perfect world, and yet they could sin and did. Satan was created perfect (Eze 28:15) and yet he could sin, as well as the angels that followed in his rebellion.

So, you do not have to have a sin nature to sin, only free will.

The scriptures say we are flesh with lusts and desires. Jesus said the flesh is weak, which I believe means easily tempted.

Now, if Adam and Eve could be easily tempted in a perfect world, how much more are we tempted being born in a world of sin? This is what Adam introduced.

Still, we have no excuse and are responsible for our actions.

And this is what the Jews believed David was saying when he said he was born in iniquity, he was speaking of being born into a sinful world. I agree.

 

[WITBOTL]

But, what is it that compels our free will in the direction of sin? Do we not then also have the ability to not sin because of free will? If that is the case then why is the bible unequivocal to the fact that "All have sinned" Why has NNE ever achieved perfection by virtue of free will alone? In other words what is governing our will?

 

[Allan]

But, what is it that compels our free will in the direction of sin? Do we not then also have the ability to not sin because of free will? If that is the case then why is the bible unequivocal to the fact that "All have sinned" Why has NNE ever achieved perfection by virtue of free will alone? In other words what is governing our will?

Better question:
Why is it that we must teach our children to do right?

I don't know of any parent must teach they child to wrong.

I have 5 so I have a pretty good amount personal knowledge on this. :laugh:

While some might not agree with the guilt of sin aspect, there is no denying the scriptural concept that all men are born with a sin nature. If we are born no sin nature the problem that rises is how come all men are bent toward sin, why do they not continue in innocence since they do not have compulsion TO sin?

Remember without a sin nature no man will have the desire TO sin and therefore would remain without sin as in order to sin, one must willfully determine to go against that which they know is right.

 

[Winman]

Better question:
Why is it that we must teach our children to do right?

I don't know of any parent must teach they child to wrong.

I have 5 so I have a pretty good amount personal knowledge on this. :laugh:

While some might not agree with the guilt of sin aspect, there is no denying the scriptural concept that all men are born with a sin nature. If we are born no sin nature the problem that rises is how come all men are bent toward sin, why do they not continue in innocence since they do not have compulsion TO sin?

Remember without a sin nature no man will have the desire TO sin and therefore would remain without sin as in order to sin, one must willfully determine to go against that which they know is right.

This is not really so (I have 8 children). Children do many right things naturally, they are loving, forgiving, hold no bias or predjudice, honest...

But yes, they do wrong as well. But this is simply because they are obeying their natural desires. A small child will eat all the cookies on a plate and not share, simply because they enjoy the sweet taste, but also, they have no concept of sharing. We have to teach them that. This is why we do not throw little children in jail, because they have no knowledge between good and evil. So, you really cannot say they are evil. They are innocent.

And we see this in the scriptures, such as Deut 1:39.

If Adam and Eve would not have been warned not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but did so simply because the fruit looked good to eat, they would have committed no sin.

And we teach children to do wrong all the time, have you ever heard a child use profanity? They didn't invent that, they learned it from their parents or siblings.

 

[Allan]

But yes, they do wrong as well. But this is simply because they are obeying their natural desires. A small child will eat all the cookies on a plate and not share, simply because they enjoy the sweet taste, but also, they have no concept of sharing.

You try to 'sweeten' up you point but in the end you can not and did not deny the very premise of my point. They don't understand the concept of that which is good - sharing, and their desire is self-centered. That is point! Their sin nature is what bends their thoughts and heart toward sinful actions, even if they don't yet understand what they are. They are not yet culpable but they do them just the same.

We have to teach them that. This is why we do not throw little children in jail, because they have no knowledge between good and evil. So, you really cannot say they are evil. They are innocent.

No, not innocent. They are not yet culpable. To be innocent means they have done nothing wrong. They HAVE done wrong but not yet culpable.

And we see this in the scriptures, such as Deut 1:39.

Out of context. The point of that passage is that those children did not know what the group had chosen to do was wrong or right because they did not know what God desired. Though they followed along - doing the same thing as the others - they were not culpable. There is a difference.

If Adam and Eve would not have been warned not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but did so simply because the fruit looked good to eat, they would have committed no sin.

Yes. but knowing full well the heart of God, they choose to rebel and WERE culpable for their sin.

Children sin, because they are bent toward sin due to their sin nature.
Your view posits that a person could live a sinless life, primarily since they have NO yearnings or desire to sin as they are not stained nor tainted in any way, which of course is not correct.

 

[Aaron]

That God will "overlook" assigning to people personal responsibility for their sins until they are aware of their sinful status before Him?

that He has applied the atoning work of the Cross to cover them, up until they realise need to be saved by a saviour?

or is it just a good idea, no real Biblical proof?

No. If infants are conceived "covered by grace," which is no where even hinted at in the Scriptures, then they're covered by grace their entire lives.

Infants are saved just as everyone else, by grace through faith, and faith is not a carnal operation as noncalvinists are forced to assert, it is an operation of the spirit.

The testimony of the Scriptures is that we are conceived in sin (not grace), and the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

 

[Skandelon]

faith is not a carnal operation as noncalvinists are forced to assert, it is an operation of the spirit.

Incorrect. Non-Calvinists are not forced to assert that faith is a carnal operation.

We also believe faith is a gift of God and results from a work of the Holy Spirit. We just differ as to the efficacious nature of that work.

 

[JesusFan]

Incorrect. Non-Calvinists are not forced to assert that faith is a carnal operation.

We also believe faith is a gift of God and results from a work of the Holy Spirit. We just differ as to the efficacious nature of that work.

Would you see it as being the difference between "specific" election by God unto eternal life in Christ, that its the individual God has predestined to receive his grace and be saved Cals
Election is in a general sense, that the Lord has chosen to elect the plan of Gospel, that the Cross provided "sufficient" grace to apply to all who will choose to receive Christ, and they are predetined once into the "plan?"

 

[Skandelon]

Would you see it as being the difference between "specific" election by God unto eternal life in Christ, that its the individual God has predestined to receive his grace and be saved Cals Election is in a general sense, that the Lord has chosen to elect the plan of Gospel, that the Cross provided "sufficient" grace to apply to all who will choose to receive Christ, and they are predetined once into the "plan?"

I'm sorry, I read that sentence three times and I am not sure what your question is. Can you restate it for me. Sorry, I haven't had my coffee yet!

 

[JesusFan]

I'm sorry, I read that sentence three times and I am not sure what your question is. Can you restate it for me. Sorry, I haven't had my coffee yet!

Cals tend to see it as that God "individually" elects people unto salvation, that His grace is applied towards His chosen people, the "elect"
Arms tend to see a "corporate election", as that the Plan is elected, andd that whoever wills to receive Jesus starts predestination after receiving Christ...
So cals see elected before the fact, arms after the fact of receiving jesus as the Lord and Christ...