The Nature of Man

[DHK]

Would you agree that dead men have no wills and make no choices?

I have to ask these questions which are sorta like beating a dead horse, but I am trying to establish as a fact that they are indeed dead so they by chance they don’t just start getting up as we go along. If they're dead we want them to stay real still.

Of course they are dead.
The definition of death is not annihilation; but separation.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--When the body is separated from the spirit it is dead.
When one is separated from God, then they are dead.
A believer can be separated from God and be dead spiritually until he repents of his sin confesses it and his fellowship is restored (no effect on salvation)
An unbeliever is separated from God and is counted dead because of it. (Eph.2:1)
Once an unbeliever dies he will face separation for all eternity from God (eternal death) in a place called Hell, and then eventually will face the Great White Throne Judgement (The Second Death)

Death is separation.
If one is not saved he is dead.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: What other kinds of logs are there? Once you cut it down, it is not living any more. Yes, nature takes its course. And man's nature is sinful

.

HP: Who said anything about cutting down anything? That would suggest that they were alive once and then were killed. You have them logs born dead, right?

Now tell us just what this dead log can do and what it cannot do, and that from birth. By the way, isn't it a little crazy to believe that a dead log, dead from birth, has to wait till they are one year old to start sinning and acting dead? First off, I thought they were dead. You have them by a year doing something. What does the word 'dead' mean? We could use a good Bible dictionary and a GK lexicon to establish the meaning of these words. Just what I thought. This dead horse is begining to show a smidgen of life. I may have to beat it a little longer.

Could your child really started to sin at say six months or so? Come to think about it, how can he start to do anything if he is born dead that way? Are you certain he was born dead and are you certain about when he started to sin and as such held accountable?

 

[DHK]

.
Could your child really started to sin at say six months or so? Come to think about it, how can he start to do anything if he is born dead that way? Are you certain he was born dead and are you certain about when he started to sin and as such held accountable?

You are not even thinking straight.
Anyone who is physically alive does sin. Hitler never was alive spiritually. He was dead spiritually all of his life. But he certainly did sin, didn't he? Why are you confusing spiritual death with the ability to sin? The two don't go together. One sins with their mind (soul), and when unsaved it is their spirit that is separated from God.
But don't let that last statement confuse the simplicity of what it is to sin. It is not a complicated concept.

1John 3:4
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
--This applies to saved and unsaved alike, and it applied to my one year old as well.

 

[JSM17]

DHK Wrote:

A believer can be separated from God and be dead spiritually until he repents of his sin confesses it and his fellowship is restored (no effect on salvation)

If a believer can be seperated from God then how can he be saved while seperated?

Is there a chance that once he is seperated from God that he will not return, if so then what does that do to his salvation? Nothing?

If one is seperated from God, is this not falling?

To be dead spiritually is to be dead before God is it not?

Help me undertand your statement please.

 

[DHK]

DHK Wrote:


If a believer can be seperated from God then how can he be saved while seperated?

Is there a chance that once he is seperated from God that he will not return, if so then what does that do to his salvation? Nothing?

If one is seperated from God, is this not falling?

To be dead spiritually is to be dead before God is it not?

Help me undertand your statement please.

Psalms 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:
Sin separates the believer from God. Until the believer confesses his sin God will not even hear his prayers.

1John 1:9 was not written to unbelievers, but to believers:
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
--If we confess our sins, our separation from God will be restored. Our salvation was never lost.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: --This applies to saved and unsaved alike, and it applied to my one year old as well.

HP: I do not desire to be unkind, but this lacks any semblance of reason. My prayer is that you be kept as far away from any jury or trial involving a minor for certain. To consider moral guilt being attached to a one year old is absolutely preposterous. To judge as such would be moral wickedness. You show absolutely no ability to reason in the realm of morality concerning this matter.

 

[DHK]

HP: I do not desire to be unkind, but this lacks any semblance of reason. My prayer is that you be kept as far away from any jury or trial involving a minor for certain. To consider moral guilt being attached to a one year old is absolutely preposterous. To judge as such would be moral wickedness. You show absolutely no ability to reason in the realm of morality concerning this matter.

You are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is wrong.
You do not believe children are capable of doing wrong. Take up your argument not only with the Bible, which tells you that you are wrong, but with all the mothers that post on this board. They know from experience. Post your ideas in the General Women's Forum and see how far you get.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You do not believe children are capable of doing wrong.

HP: I have never stated that. My position is that infants and small children are not moral beings and cannot commit ‘moral’ wrong.

 

[DHK]

HP: I have never stated that. My position is that infants and small children are not moral beings and cannot commit ‘moral’ wrong.
I have small children and have worked with small children, no doubt with far more experience than you.
Your problem is you have no line to draw. Every child is different. I gave you an age--an age of my children where they did know right from wrong. You are shocked as if you cannot believe that at that age they could be "intelligent" enough to know right from wrong.
Well then, at what age? Two? Three? Twenty-five?
What age HP? You have put yourself in a trap since that "age" is variable.
Secondly the age a child knows right from wrong is not the same age a child can understand the gospel. One knows right from wrong far earlier than he understands the atonement. I know of many children that knew they were doing wrong at the age of one, but not one that understood the gospel at that age.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Your problem is you have no line to draw. Every child is different. I gave you an age--an age of my children where they did know right from wrong. You are shocked as if you cannot believe that at that age they could be "intelligent" enough to know right from wrong.

HP: This is not strictly a matter of intelligence DHK. It is understanding the intrinsic worth of a moral command. That only comes with age and years of training. You are not God and have no right to place moral guilt on your one year old. You have no specific age, even when you are dead wrong about your one year old. Certainly age does vary, but there is a somewhat consensus that it is either in the early to latter teen years. The Jews hold that it is between the ages of 12-13 with some (although inm a minority) believing it as high as 21. As I said, some never reach it in their entire lifetime. Whatever age it is positively varies and some may be much younger than 12 or 13. Just the same, to consider a one year old to understand the intrinsic value of a command is simply over the edge.

DHK: You have put yourself in a trap since that "age" is variable.

HP: God is the one that knows for every individual. The trap is what you place yourself into by claiming to know only that which belongs to God to know. Certainly the age of accountability would somewhat seem to coincide with the age reasonable judges would deem it reasonable to classify one as morally responsible ar as an adult in a court of law. To consider a one year old as accountable would be beyond any pale of reason to be certain.

DHK: Secondly the age a child knows right from wrong is not the same age a child can understand the gospel. One knows right from wrong far earlier than he understands the atonement. I know of many children that knew they were doing wrong at the age of one,

HP: The age of accountability has nothing necessarily to do with ‘right from wrong.’ Right from wrong can be a moral issue and it may not, again depending on whether or not the individual understands the intrinsic value of a command apart from rewards or punishments.

A basic concept of the age of accountability would be as follows: The age when one understands the intrinsic nature of a command apart from rewards of punishments. This would completely exclude small children that are merely responding according to rewards or punishments when it comes to commands.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The age of accountability idea is a way to soothe the minds of people who have lost infants. If you could go to heaven by being too young to be accountable, is that not a SECOND WAY to heaven? Isn't the infant still tainted by original sin? Quite a nice little trap we have contructed there, isn't it?

 

[webdog]

The age of accountability idea is a way to soothe the minds of people who have lost infants. If you could go to heaven by being too young to be accountable, is that not a SECOND WAY to heaven? Isn't the infant still tainted by original sin? Quite a nice little trap we have contructed there, isn't it?

You start with the false premise that infants are lost, and go down hill from there.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

You start with the false premise that infants are lost, and go down hill from there.

So again, if they are not lost, then there you have a second way to heaven...die very young.

And then there's that pesky sin nature.

 

[webdog]

So again, if they are not lost, then there you have a second way to heaven...die very young.

And then there's that pesky sin nature.

Your second false premise is that augustinian original sin is a fact, and not a theory...and infants are guilty.

 

[Gup20]

DHK,

Was my response to you unworthy of your time? I certainly put time and effort into composing it, and am curious as to what you think of my responses.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
DHK: Yes, all mankind deserves hell, including infants. It is only because of the mercy and grace of God that any of us will make it into heaven--infants included.

Gup20: It may surprise you, but I do agree with you. But I have only a sliver of scriptural basis for doing so and it's so tenuous, I had really hoped someone here would be able to deliver concrete evidence from scripture.

HP: I wonder how you are doing in finding evidence? How would you support the idea that all infants deserve hell as GHK has stated is true?

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Was my response to you unworthy of your time? I certainly put time and effort into composing it, and am curious as to what you think of my responses.

No, it was just very long, lengthy, and I haven't got around to it yet.

 

[Gup20]

Your second false premise is that augustinian original sin is a fact, and not a theory...and infants are guilty.

Webdog, consider your stance on the innocence of infants carefully.

The Bible does say that all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

Consider Jesus Christ. He was killed. He rose from the dead because he - unlike anyone else in history - had no sin. Therefore death couldn't hold him. Consider his hands and side - they contained the markings of the cross. Why? Because Jesus did not recieve a new body, his old one had not committed sin, and didn't deserve death, therefore he had his old body in his resurrection.

We, on the other hand, get new bodies when we participate in the resurrection because (rom 8) our sin is condemned to die in our bodies while are spirits are alive in Christ because of our faith.

If what you say is true... if infants were "innocent" or "righteous" then they would be resurrected in their original bodies, would they not? If they knew no sin, they would not remain dead, but would rise just as Jesus Christ did. The law of sin and death woudln't affect them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gup20: Webdog, consider your stance on the innocence of infants carefully.

The Bible does say that all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

HP: One would do well to recognize the innocence Jesus saw in children. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that children are sinners or that they are sinful or that they are not innocent. “
Mt 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Not one definition of sin would in any way imply children are guilty of sin, and every definition would suggest the exact opposite. If that is not true, show us one definition of sin that would or could include infants.

 

[webdog]

Webdog, consider your stance on the innocence of infants carefully

.Believe me, I have.

The Bible does say that all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

Actually, it says all have sinned...please tell me what sin a human that is conceived has committed. Have sinned is past tense...everyone that can will sin, and has. Did their cells fail to divide properly according to the law?

Consider Jesus Christ. He was killed. He rose from the dead because he - unlike anyone else in history - had no sin. Therefore death couldn't hold him.

He rose again because He defeated sin and because He is God. Scripture states He became sin for us...how do you reconcile that with your view?

Consider his hands and side - they contained the markings of the cross. Why? Because Jesus did not recieve a new body, his old one had not committed sin, and didn't deserve death, therefore he had his old body in his resurrection.

Agreed, but will add even He was subject to the curse being fully 100% man.

We, on the other hand, get new bodies when we participate in the resurrection because (rom 8) our sin is condemned to die in our bodies while are spirits are alive in Christ because of our faith.

Wrong. Our old bodies will be resurrected like Christ's was. The Bible tells us our bodies will be as His is. Same body, but restored...like Christ.

If what you say is true... if infants were "innocent" or "righteous" then they would be resurrected in their original bodies, would they not?

Non sequitur based on faulty presuppositions. The answer is no, they will be resurrected in their resurrected bodies.

If they knew no sin, they would not remain dead, but would rise just as Jesus Christ did. The law of sin and death woudln't affect them.

You are half correct. They know no sin, and will rise in the resurrection along with the rest of those justified...but the curse has been passed on to even them, that it is appointed once to die.