Why do people ultimatively go to hell?

[jne1611]

Deuteronomy, chapter 1
39: Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

And in closing

I guess that applied to the Philistines children as well? The Amalekites?:thumbs:

 

[jne1611]

See ya.:sleep:

 

[Jarthur001]

At times, you just have to smile. This is one of those times.

 

[Brother Bob]

Aw, I been smiling all along.

 

[Jarthur001]

Aw, I been smiling all along.

Bob...i see you have carried over the Ecc.."wisdom".. idea to this thread. Maybe you think you are onto something BIG. What did you call it yesterday? Homerun?

Why don't you start a thread on this subject, so as not to hijack this thread and we will see how things go.


I'll wait for your post.

 

[Brother Bob]

I think we just need to let things settle a little James. We already have a thread going, no need to start another. I just quoted the scriptures James. Does that offend you. You know, my exegesis.

 

[Claudia_T]

Sinful Nature verses being a sinner

Well your just as confused if not worse than he is. What is a sinful nature you speak of then? That's a contradiction in itself!

Jesus Himself was born with the sinful human nature, yet He was without sin.

Rom:8:3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

Heb: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.

you cannot sin if you dont know what sin is... or have a conscience to violate

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


But in the case of Jesus He knew what sin was yet chose not to sin.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus Himself was born with the sinful human nature, yet He was without sin.

Jesus was born with a weakened human nature - weakened by 4000 years of sin eroding the strength of the human frame - but his nature was not 'full of sin" -- hence He did not have a "SinFUL nature".

Nothing in Him - desired sin. He had no sinful propensity and we clearly do - so we do have sinful natures - He did not.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: Christ pays our debt of sin – the actual torment DUE for the transgressions committed – paying for it IN our place. Substitutionary atonement. So that In Christ we have our debt paid.

HP: Absolutely preposterous to consider as you have stated it. Christ was one man. The penalty for sin was eternal separation from God for every man. Christ did not suffer ETERNAL SEPARATION from God even once. What He did do was to make an atonement, NOT a literal payment, that God saw as a reasonable and acceptable satisfaction made on the account of the laws demands, that He accepted in lieu of the exacting penalty of eternal separation from Himself on behalf of those that would obey the gospel message and fulfill its stated conditions of repentace and faith.

Now see that was helpful. We uncover a key difference - I believe in substitutionary atonement and you do not. You believe in atonement that is not substitutionary.

The debt of sin requires the suffering of Rev 14:10 "TORMENTED day and night IN the presence of the Lamb AND of His Holy Ones"

The result of that torment is as Matt 10 describes it - utter "DESTRUCTION of BOTH Body AND soul in fiery hell"

A destruction that is total and complete - hence eternal -

As mortals we can not survive payment of that debt - so in the end we are eternally destroyed. Christ DID survive the accumulated payment of the debt of all mankind owed for all the sins of all time.

HP said
Where do you get that there is a specific amount of torment due?

Please see Luke 12:47-49 where the payment of those who KNEW much and went to hell is "great" but the payment of those who "Knew little" or "Did not know" is less.

Please see my quotes of Matt 18 showing "debt owed" and "forgiveness revoked" -- and "payment exacted".

Please see my quotes of Col 2 "Our CERTIFICAT OF DEBT" was nailed to the cross "CONSISTING of decrees against us" the debt of sin owed.

Please see the reference to Isaiah 53 Where Christ takes "the stroke" for us - "To WHOM the STROKE was DUE".

Luke 12
47 ""And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
49 ""I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jne1611:

Are you disclaiming your sin nature present with you at this time? If so your in worse shape than you could imagine.
And to deny that infants posses sin is to deny Scripture.
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

HP: Sure I have a sin nature present within me, even though Scripture does not use that term. That sin nature is not something I was born with, but something I acquired through sinful habits ‘from my youth up.’ The problem is that every time some of you read the word ‘nature’ you automatically place upon that word the notion of original sin, when in fact nothing could be farther from the truth.

The ‘nature’ we acquire from being human is our physical, which is born clearly depraved. At the time of our birth we are not sinful or holy, but are born with a soul able to choose between selfishness or benevolence. Sure we have a proclivity to sin, but we also are born with an influence to right choices as well. God has not abandoned man and His Spirit strives with all men via conscience granting to them spiritual discernment that IF yielded to would guide them in righteousness. We know that in our dispensation, ALL men have willingly chosen to rebel and do selfishly in spite of the Spirit’s influence. That is not a sign of being unable to respond to respond in obedience to the Spirit, but rather is a sign of being totally unwilling to respond to His influences upon our hearts and minds.

The verse you mentioned is a most abused passage, and that if one will but look at the entire chapter will quickly see that no such dogma of original sin was meant or implied. First, the author was a Jew, and the Jew’s had no place in their doctrines for any such notion as original sin. Original sin was completely foreign to the Jew. Secondly if one will pay close attention, the author is making a contrast in this chapter between two groups of individuals, the wicked and the righteous. There is not the least shred of evidence that the author intended in any way to paint a picture of everyone that is born to be depicted by the verse you placed into question, any more than he would have made the following verse in the same chapter to indicate his desire upon all babies born.

Ps 58:6 ¶ Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.

Let me ask you, is David desiring to smash in the teeth of every baby born into this world? You must be kidding.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: Infants do not have sin. Where there is no Law there is no transgression. They have a body that because of Adam's sin it must die. They have to know sin before they can sin. Where is the scriptue that children sin at. Jesus picked up a little child and said "such IS the Kingdom", not going to be but "IS".

HP: An excellent post with great Scriptural references. There is not a more perfect picture of innocence found in the entire world than that of a baby.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: They are born with a nature because of Adam that they have to die. Some call it a sinful nature, I guess it is they are born with the appointment of death already upon them and outwardly they begin to perish the day they are born.

HP: Another excellent post. Sure we have an appointment to die as physical descendants of Adam. That is a far cry from accounting sin to their account for something they have had no participation in.

Sin is heinous. Sin is willful rebellion. Sin is rightfully punishable. It is beyond all comprehension of justice to picture a Holy and Just God condemning innocent babies due to no fault of their own. That is simply absurd, and the notion that God somehow atones for them, or that they are in need of an atonement for sin is not found in Scripture period. “Sin is denoted in Scripture, “from their youth up” on several occasions. We have all “gone astray.”

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jne1611: A forked tongue? Why there you go again Bob, doing what Armenians do best. Putting God on a human level! I did not take them to the bath tub and drown them like God in the flood either. Does that make me better than God?

​

HP: I have never heard a more insensitive, uncalled for remark concerning a Holy, Just, Compassionate God than this. Are you sure you do nor desire to strike it from the record before you stand before Him in judgment? I for one sure would.

Calling Bob and Arminian is about as far from the truth as could possibly be. If you don’t know by now that Arminians believe that babies are born sinful, I have little hope for you. They do not believe that God holds them accountable for this inherited sin, and I am waiting for one to show me such a passage in Scripture.

Oh well, at least they impute no guilt to the innocents on behalf of this so-called ‘inherited sin nature.’ Why in the world they call it sin is beyond me…………………… and Scripture and reason as well.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Claudia T: Jesus Himself was born with the sinful human nature, yet He was without sin.

HP: Now that is a giant leap into the fog of dogmatic conclusions. Would you have possibly one Scripture that states that any man is born with a sinful human nature?

And if so, what about the girls? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Now see that was helpful. We uncover a key difference - I believe in substitutionary atonement and you do not. You believe in atonement that is not substitutionary.

HP: What? I in fact do believe in a substitutionary atonement. The problem between us in not that at all, but rather in whether or not the payment was literal, or if in fact is was not a satisfaction made to the law of God in lieu of a literal payment.

You say it was a literal payment of an exacting penalty, and yet cannot set forth one Scripture that even comes close to stating that is a fact. You just beg the question and assume it without proof, posting the same Scriptures over and over that do not establish your point in the least.

Oh well, Scripture posted will not return to him void.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Nothing in Him - desired sin. He had no sinful propensity and we clearly do - so we do have sinful natures - He did not.

HP: That is simply impossible to conceive; no desire to sin yet tempted, or no proclivity to sin yet tempted.

Does the Scripture in James, explaining the process of sin and how we are tempted, not apply to the man, Christ Jesus as well? If not, I will give you the floor to explain to us how He was “tempted in points ‘LIKE AS WE ARE.’

Remember the case of the sinless Eve. She had no ‘sin nature’ as you believe we all do, yet she was tempted, and in fact fell. Did this sinless women(before the fall) have a desire to sin? If she being sinless could have such a desire, why could Christ not have had like desires as well, yet without sin?

You confuse desire with sin Bob. You MUST have desire present for sin to be even remotely possible, and if sin is not remotely possible, Christ could not have been tempted as we are, let alone IN ALL POINTS.

 

[BobRyan]

Adam had no desire to sin - no propensity to sin - but he had the distinct possibiliyt of sin - even without a human nature weakened by 4000 years of degredation.

Lucifer had no desire to sin - no propensity to sin - but he had the distinct possibility of sin - even without any defects in his angelic nature.

Christ had no desire to sin - no propensity (inclination) to sin - but he did have the distinct possibility of sin -- and so he could be tempted. He also had the weakened human nature after the fall so one might argue that Satan "should" have had a field day with Him. Yet He relied on the faith connection with His Father and was victorious -- showing us "how it is to be done". As 1John 2 points out - in that sense He became our example.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Remember the case of the sinless Eve. She had no ‘sin nature’ as you believe we all do, yet she was tempted, and in fact fell. Did this sinless women(before the fall) have a desire to sin?

No - she did not desire it - naturally - out of her nature - she freely CHOSE it! Satan had to package sin and sell it to her - her first reaction to the idea was "what a horrible idea we would be dead in an instant!"

Satan had to work on the sales pitch to her.

ALL sinless beings have that same problem because they ALL have free will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: No - she did not desire it - naturally - out of her nature - she freely CHOSE it! Satan had to package sin and sell it to her - her first reaction to the idea was "what a horrible idea we would be dead in an instant!"

Satan had to work on the sales pitch to her.

ALL sinless beings have that same problem because they ALL have free will.

HP: I must have missed the reference you are referring to. What book did you get it from? Scripture paints a very different scenario Bob. Listen carefully. “Ge 3:6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Adam had no desire to sin - no propensity to sin - but he had the distinct possibiliyt of sin - even without a human nature weakened by 4000 years of degredation.

HP: If there is no desire, nothing to attract or draw, sin is impossible to conceive of. Often, sin is not something that appears horrible, but is nothing more that choosing a good or wholesome natural desire, but for purely selfish reasons. Desire in and of itself is not sinful or righteous. Desire is often nothing more than the product of our God-given sensibilities. Sin is when we choose to fulfill those desires in a way prohibited by God’s law of benevolence and obedience.

The same goes for our natures today. We may indeed may face more propensities to sin than Adam did due to physical depravity, but it is not until we yield our will in a manner that God states we are not to yield it that such propensities become sin. Sin is a moral judgment pronounced by God upon an act of our wills, not anything imputed to us by our nature or mere desire of the propensities of the flesh.