Why do people go to hell? For sinning? For being born children of the devil?

[Winman]

not sure you can compare A&E with us in the same manner you cannot compare Saul's conversion with ours. Completely unique.

And I don't think you can assume they were different, other than they were created, and that they lived in a perfect environment. But it is certain they were flesh and had the lusts of the flesh, Eve demonstrated the lust of the flesh when she saw the forbidden fruit would be good for food, she demonstrated the lust of the eyes when she saw it was beautiful to look upon, and she demonstrated the pride of life when she saw it was desired to make one wise. These are the very lusts described in scripture of the world.

define moral nature. The curse affected every part of creation from that point forward. Our dna, thought processes, material and immaterial were stained by sin.

Well, some seem to imply that Adam and Eve could not have an evil thought when they were created, but Eve surely considered eating the fruit to make herself wise before she actually sinned, knowing full well it had been forbidden her.

agreed.
we see it from very young children how it affects man. Selfishness is inherent in the flesh, something that happened as a result of the fall.

Men are at first selfish as a matter of survival. It is not sinful to be hungry and cry for food. A child will also cry for comfort or if it is cold, etc... again, this is necessary to survive. A child naturally learns to provide for his own flesh out of necessity to survive. This is not evil. However, once a child matures, he can be taught to deny his flesh. He can be taught not to take every cookie on the plate, but to share with his brothers or sisters. He can be taught not to take toys from his brothers or sisters. But it is perfectly natural to be selfish to a degree when we are first born, it is necessary for survival and no sin.

agreed.

agreed, being affected by the fall does not equate to guilt...but one doesn't have to be guilty to have a human nature affected by sin.

The scriptures clearly tell us that Jesus came in the flesh and had the nature of his brethren, the seed of Abraham. And Abraham was born after "the fall". Therefore, if men have a sinful nature, then so did Jesus. I completely reject this, I do not believe men are born with a sin nature, and neither was Jesus born with a sin nature. No, I believe Jesus was born flesh as we are and had the same natural lusts and desires we all have. The difference is, Jesus never obeyed these fleshly lusts when they would have caused him to sin against
God.

I do not like the term sin nature, it is not found in scripture. I believe men are flesh, and that Jesus came in the flesh. The flesh is not sinful, though the flesh lusts against the spirit. It is only when we actually transgress God's law that we become sinful and guilty before God.

 

[freeatlast]

It is not said that Jacob and Esau were without sin. It is said they had done neither good nor evil.

James 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

 

[TCGreek]

People choose sin and self over God.

 

[freeatlast]

People choose sin and self over God.

Yes :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[jbh28]

James 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

I'm sure neither one of them knew what to do good in the womb.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

And I don't think you can assume they were different, other than they were created, and that they lived in a perfect environment. But it is certain they were flesh and had the lusts of the flesh, Eve demonstrated the lust of the flesh when she saw the forbidden fruit would be good for food, she demonstrated the lust of the eyes when she saw it was beautiful to look upon, and she demonstrated the pride of life when she saw it was desired to make one wise. These are the very lusts described in scripture of the world.



Well, some seem to imply that Adam and Eve could not have an evil thought when they were created, but Eve surely considered eating the fruit to make herself wise before she actually sinned, knowing full well it had been forbidden her.



Men are at first selfish as a matter of survival. It is not sinful to be hungry and cry for food. A child will also cry for comfort or if it is cold, etc... again, this is necessary to survive. A child naturally learns to provide for his own flesh out of necessity to survive. This is not evil. However, once a child matures, he can be taught to deny his flesh. He can be taught not to take every cookie on the plate, but to share with his brothers or sisters. He can be taught not to take toys from his brothers or sisters. But it is perfectly natural to be selfish to a degree when we are first born, it is necessary for survival and no sin.



The scriptures clearly tell us that Jesus came in the flesh and had the nature of his brethren, the seed of Abraham. And Abraham was born after "the fall". Therefore, if men have a sinful nature, then so did Jesus. I completely reject this, I do not believe men are born with a sin nature, and neither was Jesus born with a sin nature. No, I believe Jesus was born flesh as we are and had the same natural lusts and desires we all have. The difference is, Jesus never obeyed these fleshly lusts when they would have caused him to sin against
God.

I do not like the term sin nature, it is not found in scripture. I believe men are flesh, and that Jesus came in the flesh. The flesh is not sinful, though the flesh lusts against the spirit. It is only when we actually transgress God's law that we become sinful and guilty before God.

This is so Scriptural, and yes, simple...that it rings too undeniably true....you EVEN understand the totallity of the fall. You (rightly) said:

Eve demonstrated the lust of the flesh when she saw the forbidden fruit would be good for food, she demonstrated the lust of the eyes when she saw it was beautiful to look upon, and she demonstrated the pride of life when she saw it was desired to make one wise. These are the very lusts described in scripture of the world.

The "Fall" was complete and total with this...you were no doubt refering to totallity of Scripture when you refer to.....

1Jo 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Jesus under-went these SAME temptations when Satan tempted him:

Satan tempted him with: "Bread" (Lust of flesh)

Lust of the Eyes: He "shewed" him all the kingdoms of the world

Pride of Life: "If Ye be the Son of God"...."cast yourself down....."...he was indeed tempted:

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

I know not whether Your "Theology" Winman, be of the perfect "form" that we on BB demand...but your simple submission of Scritpure is (with some caveats that I might supply)... impeccable. Those who lambast you do so NOT with Scripture...but with Theological assumptions. It is obvious to any who have no pre-suppositions. I actually have said "Theological pre-suppositions" and I do not always agree with you on all points...but you supply Scripture and without assumtion...I commend this.:thumbsup:

 

[Aaron]

Are you listening to yourself?

Yep.

If you have never sinned, then you are without sin.

Are you listening to yourself? By the same token can one be good having done no good?

Sin is transgression of the law, sin is not a physical or even spiritual quality like the color of your eyes or hair.

But the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14) so a transgression thereof is something eminently spiritual.

You cannot inherit sin, and sin is not contagious like a disease. Sin is an act, it is an act of disobedience or rebellion to God's laws. Sin is a choice.

Those are conclusions based on an incomplete and fragmentary reading of the Scriptures. The law is a judge. One's transgression does not make one a sinner any more than one's obedience makes one righteous. The law stands and brings to light the evidence that one is unrighteous, profane, and corrupt. It was given for that very reason (1 Tim. 1:8-11). It shows us that all are sinners. The law doesn't make them sinners. It's what they are.

All Paul is saying when he said that neither Jacob nor Esau had done any good or evil is that neither had done anything by which either could merit or by which either could be disqualified from a carnal birthright. Equal in the eyes of God and man, it was said that the elder shall serve the younger. And why would the elder serve the younger? God's purpose according to election.

 

[Winman]

Yep.

Are you listening to yourself? By the same token can one be good having done no good?

Correct, and if you read Romans 9:11 it also says that Jacob and Esau had done no good.

But the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14) so a transgression thereof is something eminently spiritual.

The law is spiritual, but the scriptures define sin as the transgression of the law.

1 Jhn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

A person has to actually commit sin to transgress the law. Jacob and Esau had done no wrong, they had not committed sin nor transgressed the law. They were not sinners at this point in their lives.

Those are conclusions based on an incomplete and fragmentary reading of the Scriptures. The law is a judge. One's transgression does not make one a sinner any more than one's obedience makes one righteous. The law stands and brings to light the evidence that one is unrighteous, profane, and corrupt. It was given for that very reason (1 Tim. 1:8-11). It shows us that all are sinners. The law doesn't make them sinners. It's what they are.

What? This is absurd. Committing sin indeed makes one a sinner, and doing righteousness makes one righteous. Jesus was righteous because he committed no sin. But he was also righteous because he did righteous works.

And you do not understand the word corrupt. The word corrupt means to go bad, to spoil, to become tainted, etc... The word corrupt always means to go from a good state to a bad state. Look up the word in any dictionary.

All Paul is saying when he said that neither Jacob nor Esau had done any good or evil is that neither had done anything by which either could merit or by which either could be disqualified from a carnal birthright. Equal in the eyes of God and man, it was said that the elder shall serve the younger. And why would the elder serve the younger? God's purpose according to election.

I agree completely that Paul is saying God's election is not based on a man's merit, whether he has done good or bad. Nevertheless, Paul directly tells us that Jacob and Esau had done no evil.

Paul does say that election is based on God's calling. These are those who obey by faith when God calls (Mat 22). God in his foreknowledge knew Jacob would have faith and desire the promises given to his father Isaac, Esau despised his birthright and sold it for pottage.

Esau had the birthright, he came out first. He sold his birthright to Jacob. This is clear in scripture. But he had no faith, no regard for the promises given his father Isaac.

You have been taught the Federal Headship Theory, that all men participated with Adam in his sin, but many theologians disagree with this theory.

B. It contradicts Scripture, in making the first result of Adam's sin to be God's regarding and treating the race as sinners. The Scripture, on the contrary, declares that Adam's offence constituted us sinners ( Rom. 5: 19). We are not sinners simply because God regards and treats us as such, but God regards us as sinners because we are sinners. Death is said to have "passed unto all men," not because all were regarded and treated as sinners, but "because all sinned" (Rom. 5 : 12).

For a full exegesis of the passage Rom. 5 :12-19, see note to the discussion of the Theory of Adam's Natural Headship, pages 331-333.

C. It impugns the justice of God by implying:

(a) That God holds men responsible for the violation of a covenant which they had no part in establishing. The assumed covenant is only a sovereign decree; the assumed justice, only arbitrary will.

We not only never authorized Adam to make such a covenant, but there Is no evidence that he ever made one at all. It Is not even certain that Adam knew he should have posterity. In the case of the Imputation of our sins to Christ, Christ covenanted voluntarily to bear them, and Joined himself to our nature that he might bear them. In the case of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, we first become one with Christ, and upon the ground of our union with him are Justified. But upon the federal theory, we are condemned upon the ground of a covenant which we neither instituted, nor participated in, nor assented to.

(6) That upon the basis of this covenant God accounts men as sinners who are not sinners. But Qod judges according to truth. His condemnations do not proceed upon a basis of legal fiction. He can regard as responsible for Adam's transgression only those who in some real sense have been concerned, and have had part, in that transgression.

See Baird, Elohim Revealed, 544—" Here is a sin, which is no crime, but a mere condition of being regarded and treated as sinners; and a guilt, which Is devoid of sinfulness, and which does not imply moral demerit or turpitude " — that Is, a sin which is no sin, and a guilt which is no guilt. Why might not God as justly reckon Adam's sin to the account of the fullen angels, and punish them for it? Dorner, System Doct., 2:351; 3:53, 54—" Hollaz held that God treats men in accordance with what he foresaw all would do, If they were in Adam's place" (acientia media and imputatlo metaphyirtca). Birks, Difficulties of Belief, 141—" Immediate imputation is as unjust as imputatin metaphyirtca, i.e., God's condemning us for what he knew we would have done in Adam's place. On such a theory there is no need of a trial at all. God might condemn half the race at once to hell without probation, on the ground that they would ultimately sin and come thither at any rate." Justification can be gratuitous, but not condemnation. "Like the social-compact theory of government, the covenant-theory of sin is a mere legal fiction. It explains, only to belittle. The theory of New England theology, which attributes to mere sovereignty God's making us sinners in consequence of Adam's sin, is more reasonable than the federal theory" (Fisher).

(c) That, after accounting men to be sinners who are not sinners, God makes them sinners by immediately creating each human soul with a corrupt nature such as will correspond to his decree. This is not only to assume a false view of the origin of the soul, but also to make God directly the author of sin. Imputation of sin cannot precede and account for corruption; on the contrary, corruption must precede and account for imputation.

By God's act we became depraved, as a penal consequence of Adam's act imputed to us solely as peecatum alienum. Dabney, Theology, 342, says the theory regards the soul as originally pure until Imputation. See Hodge on Rom. 5 :13; Syst. Theol., 2 :208, 210; Thornwell, Theology, 1: 348-349; Chalmers, Institutes, 1: 485, 487. The federal theory "makes sin in us to be the penalty of another's sin, instead of being the penalty of our own sin, as on the Augustinian scheme, which regards depravity in us as the punishment of our own sin in Adam It holds to a sin which does not bring eternal punishment, but for which we are legally responsible as truly as Adam." It only remains to say that Dr. Hodge always persistently refused to admit the one added element which might have made bis view less arbitrary and mechanical, namely, the traducian theory of the origin of the soul. He was a creationist, and to the end maintained that God Immediately created the soul, and created it depraved. For objections to the Federal Theory, see Fisher, Discussions, 401 «q.; Bib. Sac, 20: 455-462, 577; New Englander, 1868 : 551-603; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 305-334, 435-450; Julius Mttller, Doct. Sin, 2 : 336; Dabney, Theology, 341-351.

As you can see, MANY theologians have serious problems with the Federal Headship Theory, particularly because it is UNJUST.

 

[Amy.G]

Paul does say that election is based on God's calling. These are those who obey by faith when God calls (Mat 22). God in his foreknowledge knew Jacob would have faith and desire the promises given to his father Isaac, Esau despised his birthright and sold it for pottage.

Esau had the birthright, he came out first. He sold his birthright to Jacob. This is clear in scripture. But he had no faith, no regard for the promises given his father Isaac.

And Jacob was a liar and a deceiver, convincing his father that he was actually Esau in order to obtain the blessing that wasn't his.

So both brothers were equally bad. Proving that God does not elect based on any goodness found in ourselves (such as faith), but on His purposes only.

 

[Iconoclast]

And Jacob was a liar and a deceiver, convincing his father that he was actually Esau in order to obtain the blessing that wasn't his.

So both brothers were equally bad. Proving that God does not elect based on any goodness found in ourselves (such as faith), but on His purposes only.

:applause::applause::thumbsup::applause:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Wow...a thread where I can disagree and agree with everyone to an extent...at the same time! :laugh:

I disagree with Michael Wren's implied second chance.
I disagree with the Augustinians original sin and imputation of guilt.
I disagree with Winman in not having a sin nature (may be semantics as I believe this is part of post fall human nature).
I disagree with HOS in regards the lost will hate heaven (story of Lazarus and rich man)

What I'm sure I agree with...sinners who have no faith in Christ perish (John 3:18)

If you're not careful, you'll end up like me.

 

[Winman]

And Jacob was a liar and a deceiver, convincing his father that he was actually Esau in order to obtain the blessing that wasn't his.

So both brothers were equally bad. Proving that God does not elect based on any goodness found in ourselves (such as faith), but on His purposes only.

Wow, you do not understand faith at all. Having faith in another is not goodness in ourselves, but recognizing the good in another.

You could be a mass murderer, a compulsive liar, and the biggest thief in town and still have faith in another person.

Jacob was indeed a liar, perhaps far more dishonest than his brother Esau, but Jacob believed the promises made by God to his father Isaac and desired to have these blessings. Esau did not.

Faith in Jesus is not saying we are good. If you think that you are greatly confused. Faith in Jesus is recognizing we are sinners and utterly unable or unworthy to save ourselves, but believing Jesus truly was the Son of God who was sinless and died for our sins and rose again to save us.

Luk 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

You are really letting Calvinism confuse you.

 

[Aaron]

Committing sin indeed makes one a sinner, and doing righteousness makes one righteous. Jesus was righteous because he committed no sin. But he was also righteous because he did righteous works.

Acts of sin or acts of righteousness are fruits only. If one bears grapes, it is because he is a grape vine, and if one bears thorns, it is because he is a thistle.

If one sins, it is because he is corrupt. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. That's what Jesus said, and I agree.

 

[Aaron]

And Jacob was a liar and a deceiver, convincing his father that he was actually Esau in order to obtain the blessing that wasn't his.

So both brothers were equally bad. Proving that God does not elect based on any goodness found in ourselves (such as faith), but on His purposes only.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[freeatlast]

I'm sure neither one of them knew what to do good in the womb.

That is the point. They knew neither good or evil and had not sinned.

 

[Amy.G]

Jacob was indeed a liar, perhaps far more dishonest than his brother Esau, but Jacob believed the promises made by God to his father Isaac and desired to have these blessings. Esau did not.

Actually it was Jacob's mother that told him to deceive Isaac. Jacob was a mama's boy and did what she said. That was one messed up dysfunctional family. You are still trying to make Jacob more righteous than Esau. They were both equally wicked sinners.

 

[webdog]

And Jacob was a liar and a deceiver, convincing his father that he was actually Esau in order to obtain the blessing that wasn't his.

So both brothers were equally bad. Proving that God does not elect based on any goodness found in ourselves (such as faith), but on His purposes only.

Scripture where having faith is equated to having "goodness within ourselves"? Non sequitur.

 

[Cypress]

Wow, you do not understand faith at all. Having faith in another is not goodness in ourselves, but recognizing the good in another.

You could be a mass murderer, a compulsive liar, and the biggest thief in town and still have faith in another person.

Jacob was indeed a liar, perhaps far more dishonest than his brother Esau, but Jacob believed the promises made by God to his father Isaac and desired to have these blessings. Esau did not.

Faith in Jesus is not saying we are good. If you think that you are greatly confused. Faith in Jesus is recognizing we are sinners and utterly unable or unworthy to save ourselves, but believing Jesus truly was the Son of God who was sinless and died for our sins and rose again to save us.

Luk 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said(unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

You are really letting Calvinism confuse you.

Wonderful points Winman. I was going to post similar, but you corrected the error about faith quite clearly. Hard for me to see how this error gets a foothold. In the simplest form, we see the object of our faith (Christ) as being special, not faith. Faith being something everyone exhibits. In addition to the object of their faith, they see the faith they exercise (are given)as being special.

 

[webdog]

Actually it was Jacob's mother that told him to deceive Isaac. Jacob was a mama's boy and did what she said. That was one messed up dysfunctional family. You are still trying to make Jacob more righteous than Esau. They were both equally wicked sinners.

How is winman doing that? Jacobs deeds didn't make him righteous, his faith did. You are implying his election made him righteous? I'm surprised you are embracing the very strawmen you used to refute.

 

[freeatlast]

Wow, you do not understand faith at all. Having faith in another is not goodness in ourselves, but recognizing the good in another.

You could be a mass murderer, a compulsive liar, and the biggest thief in town and still have faith in another person.

Jacob was indeed a liar, perhaps far more dishonest than his brother Esau, but Jacob believed the promises made by God to his father Isaac and desired to have these blessings. Esau did not.

Faith in Jesus is not saying we are good. If you think that you are greatly confused. Faith in Jesus is recognizing we are sinners and utterly unable or unworthy to save ourselves, but believing Jesus truly was the Son of God who was sinless and died for our sins and rose again to save us.

Luk 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

You are really letting Calvinism confuse you.

No, faith is turning to the One Who we claim to trust, and follow all He says. It is not simply believing something that is true about the person. Many will do that and end up hearing "I never knew you."