Psalms 51:5

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RAdam: That which is not of faith is sin. If foolishness isn't sin, why does it need to be corrected? Proverbs said that foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

HP: The passage you quote here applies to moral agents alone, i.e., those capable of sinning. We correct a child so as to train them up in such a way that WHEN they reach the age of accountability and stand morally accountable they might be accustomed to doing good, and that by habit hopefully.

RAdam: Have you never observed that one doesn't have to teach a child to be bad, but rather it takes much effort, much patience, much longsuffering to teach that child to be good?

HP: Which proves only that all men have a proclivity to sin. I have raised several children of my own. I have found that some take far more teaching than others. Some are compliant and loving and others are far more selfish. Some seem to go from an obedient childhood straight into a loving relationship with God as teens and adults, while others seemingly have to try every bit of sinister bait the enemy of their souls places in their pathway. (Such was I as a young adult, sorry to say and may God continue to have mercy upon me) I could go into far more graphic illustration and examples but wisdom tells me it is best to refrain in this setting.

Hallelujah! I have found Him
Whom my soul so long has craved!
Jesus satisfies my longings
Thru His blood I now am saved!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utaEWRX15Eg

( To all my dear Church of Christ fellow believers, please forgive me for this link:smilewinkgrin: )

 

[RAdam]

The age of accountability is a man made idea, not biblical teaching.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RAdam: The age of accountability is a man made idea, not biblical teaching.

HP: Scripture clearly teaches an age of accountability. The fact that it presents children innocent and of such is the kingdom of heaven proves beyond a shadow of a doubt their innocence. The Jews as well as all reasonable men have always felt the same way, holding to an age of accountability. God has granted men with a thing called wisdom, intelligence and reason that testifies clearly that such an age exists. Our law are based on justice and reason and clearly take into account such an age. The only ones that would even consider denying such a self evident truth are Calvinistic theologians, trying in vain to garner support for the failed notion of original sin. The dogma makes a mockery out of reason and paints a horrible blight on the Holy and Just character of God. It is complete and utter absurdity to disallow the existence of such an age.

Go ahead RAdam, call it whatever you so desire, but deny that it exists and you remain absurd in the light of both Scripture and reasonable men, both believers and non-believers alike. Two plus two equals four and it is not taught in Scripture either. It makes as much sense to deny that as it does to deny the existence of an age of accountability.

What was that you commented on concerning foolishness being sin? In the case of denying an age of accountability being denied by men classifying themselves as theologians, I may be inclined to agree with you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You are in sorry shape.

HP: Have you been talking to my wife or doctor lately? :laugh:

Sure beats the heretic and blasphemy notions. "Sorry shape" almost makes me think you are starting to warm up a bit. Thank you!!:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Just call me the eternal optimist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JSM17]

RAdam Can you show us all the passage that says that Christ came in the "SINFUL FLESH"?
And just out of curiosity could you explain in what the phrase "Sinful Flesh" means since you believe that Christ came in the likeness of?

 

[JSM17]

If Christ did come in the likeness of the "Sinful Flesh" and therefore did not sin then it was still choice. I guess it goes back to the "Sin because your a sinner" or "Sinner because you sinned". We would understand Christ to be neither. He can identify with us in all things, yet because of the original sin doctrine, Christ cannot identify with being born sinful. How does one born perfect and pure identify with one is supposedly born full of sin?

Psalm 51:5 does not teach that David was born sinful, neither does it teach that any man was born sinful.

 

[annsni]

I'm pretty sure I've asked this before but I'll ask again.

If we're not born sinners and we don't have a sin nature, why do we sin? There should be ONE person in all of history who was sinless besides Christ because after all, we have no bent towards sin because our natures are not sinful, right?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: I'm pretty sure I've asked this before but I'll ask again.

If we're not born sinners and we don't have a sin nature, why do we sin? There should be ONE person in all of history who was sinless besides Christ because after all, we have no bent towards sin because our natures are not sinful, right?

HP: When God created a human being with creative powers, i.e. the ability to be ‘the cause’ of its formed intents, there is a mystery that surrounds any such creation granted such freedom. Of a truth, there is a mystery of iniquity. We can say it was this or that that influences one to sin, but that does not answer the 'why.' Can you even start to think outside of the realm of necessity? Are you even able to conceive of a free moral agen? If not punishments and rewards are an absolute cruel or absurd joke. If man is bound to necessity and is going to be punished for failure to do something even God cannot do, i.e., act in opposition to necessity, you might as well start punishing rocks for failure to go to work.

Isn’t it funny that at every turn we apply logic to man concerning freedom and just punishments or rewards, but the we seem to lose all sense of logic and what morality entails when it comes to sin. Why if I was that lazy bum on the couch, I would point directly at the theological system of necessity you seem bent on espousing, and tell you that I cannot do anything other than what I am doing, i.e. being a couch potato. Listen real carefully. THE MAN REFUSING TO WORK HAS CHOSEN BY HIS OWN FREE WILL NOT TO WORK JUST AS A SINNER COOSES NOT TBEY GOD. All free moral agents have been granted creative powers by God that they can use for selfishness or benevolence. We do not live in a world of necessity, neither to sin nor to be a coach potato. When you tell me why that man has decided to be a coach potato I will tell you why men have sinned.

Let me tell you Ann, man sounds just as silly to God when we ask ‘why one sins’ as I would by asking why that man is a coach potato in America. There is no reason why one ‘has’ to be a coach potato, and neither is there any reason why one has to sin. If one ‘had to be a coach potato and in reality had no choice in the matter, we would pity such a one, but who in their right mind would blame one that of necessity could not have chosen differently????

There is no answer as to the ‘why’ men sin Ann, but we do know that no man was born in a necessitated state of sin. Sin is only sin as it applies to the formed intents of free moral agents, agents that could do something other than what they do under the very same set of circumstances without regard to punishments or rewards. The thought of punishing one for any necessitated state is nothing short of wicked absurd. We need to start thinking right about morals and religion again.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

On the issue of men that 'might' not have sinned, I would say that Enoch and Elijah are indeed reasonable suspects. Scripture is clear, none in our dispensation have lived such a life without sin.

 

[annsni]

On the issue of men that 'might' not have sinned, I would say that Enoch and Elijah are indeed reasonable suspects. Scripture is clear, none in our dispensation have lived such a life without sin.

If Enoch and Elijah didn't sin, then God lies, does He not. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" has no qualifiers in there.

Once again I ask: If men have the ability to not sin, then where is the atleast one man who has never sinned other than Jesus Christ? You would think in the billions of people that one would not sin if we didn't have a sinful nature, wouldn't you? You compare it to a couch potato and I can show you atleast 6 people in my own family who are not couch potatoes and I can show you many more - many who do not even own a TV.

IF we can choose to not sin, where is the person who has chosen to do so?

There is none because we are all sinners. That's why.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: If Enoch and Elijah didn't sin, then God lies, does He not. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" has no qualifiers in there.

HP: No, God does not sin and He does not lie. There is absolutely nothing in the statement “For all have sinned and came short of the glory of God” that would not allow for some exceptions. How many times have I heard others mention that the word ‘all’ can often be referring to 'all in a subset of individuals?’ The passage you quote is from the NT and clearly can be understood as to say all in our dispensation.

I cannot tell you that Enoch and Elijah did not sin, but Scriptures states that death passed upon ‘all men’ and Enoch and Elijah were men you know, and they, according to Scripture, did not see death.

So rather than to ask you if God is a liar, let me ask you, do you believe Scripture? Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated THAT HE SHOULD NOT SEE DEATH; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

 

[DHK]

HP: Scripture clearly teaches an age of accountability. The fact that it presents children innocent and of such is the kingdom of heaven proves beyond a shadow of a doubt their innocence.

Show me where the Bible presents children as innocent.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Doesn't sound innocent to me.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

We have been around a few times on that passage. I want to know something DHK. Who are the righteous spoken of in that Psalm? Did David desire for God to smash the teeth of infants? Would that not be a rather hard thing to do? When was the last time you saw the righteous rejoicing at the destruction of infants? Do you think protesters outside of abortion clinics are there to rejoice over the death and destruction of the innocent lives butchered at the hands of an abortionist's knife? You are exhibiting the moral savvy of a Neanderthal if you believe for a minute David would rejoice at seeing the teeth of innocent babies smashed in their mouths, if that was even possible. Your theology is blinding your ability to discern the truth DHK, and it is beyond absurdity on this point.

 

[annsni]

HP: No, God does not sin and He does not lie. There is absolutely nothing in the statement “For all have sinned and came short of the glory of God” that would not allow for some exceptions. How many times have I heard others mention that the word ‘all’ can often be referring to 'all in a subset of individuals?’ The passage you quote is from the NT and clearly can be understood as to say all in our dispensation.

Well, then why are there no sinless people in history?

I cannot tell you that Enoch and Elijah did not sin, but Scriptures states that death passed upon ‘all men’ and Enoch and Elijah were men you know, and they, according to Scripture, did not see death.

So rather than to ask you if God is a liar, let me ask you, do you believe Scripture? Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated THAT HE SHOULD NOT SEE DEATH; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

I do not see support that Enoch never died. I see that he was translated that he should not see death at that time, but since it is appointed for man once to die and then the judgement and death passed to all men, and all men have sinned, we need to see the whole of Scripture. Men die. Men sin. All men sin. None are righteous. None seek after God. I think the whole of scripture is very clear.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: Well, then why are there no sinless people in history?

HP: I will tell you once again with a Scriptural response: ” because all have sinned.”

Ann: I do not see support that Enoch never died.

HP: Neither can a blind man see Ann. I gave you the plain Word of God, you quoted it and then said in essence you do not believe it. In not believing you have accepted a lie.

 

[RAdam]

Well then, how about this one? Ecclesiastes 7:20 - For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

That seems pretty clear to me.

 

[RAdam]

The only reason Enoch did not see death is because God intervened. Had God not done that, he would have seen death.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

RAdam: For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

That seems pretty clear to me.

HP: All is vanity as well, right? Wrong. The confused individual that wrote that book did not have a lot of things correct. I can tell you that it certainly was not God’s observation, for God did see righteousness exhibited on the earth in more than one man. One in specific God called perfect and upright, a man that feared God and eskewed evil.

 

[DHK]

We have been around a few times on that passage. I want to know something DHK. Who are the righteous spoken of in that Psalm?

Some small children came to Jesus. Are you going to tell me that you know for certain that these children were all from righteous people. Rather they were probably children from Pharisees and unbelievers; children of the unrighteous. You have set forth a Hyper-Calvinistic premise (which now you seem to believe) that according to this Scripture all the infants of unrighteous people will go to Hell. All along this is what you have been inferring. I never knew this was your belief system. It only strengthens your belief in original sin.