Bible Defense

[Super 80]

Since an infant is incapable of committing any sin, I think it is safe to conclude that an infant is in no way separated from GOd.

This is different than what I am saying. If I take your statement to its logical conclusion, then at some point you're saying that we are with God. This is like what TWA dude is saying that we come into the world pure and free of sin.

That is not what theologians have drawn out of what Paul wrote in Romans 5:12. It is different than what the Bible teaches, because no where in the Old or New Testaments can I find the concept expressed that we are free of sin.

Like I said, it is human nature that we all came into the world being self-oriented. In the very essence of self, this is opposed to God since it is not God-oriented.

Now the only reason I'm taking the time to establish that we have this self-oriented nature as a consequence for Adam's sin, is because if you can say at some point some one, even if it is just one is free of sin in body and flesh, being born of man, and thus in the lineage of Adam, then there is no need for atonement.

That is, we could all insure our children go to heaven by killing them as they exit the womb as abhorrent as that may sound.

That my friend is the logical extension to the thought you have posited by saying we are not separated from God and need His Salvation or Redemption even as a newborn to with God.

Because if we cannot establish that sin is universal, then there is no need for some to seek God's grace. That is not what the Bible teaches.

 

[TonyC]

OK - - this is getting a bit confusing. I'm responding to a post you've made while you're editing the same post, then I have to re-read it to determine what has changed (I hope it was just the bold-print added). It's time I took a little break. Back to the Honey-Do list. See ya tomorrow.

 

[Super 80]

What mechanism has God given us to redeem the soul of a newborn child that is doomed to hell?

Since they have no knowledge of God, Jesus or the Law, they are judged apart from the Law. Since God judges the heart, and the sheep know their shepherd, there is an allowance for part of those to be redeemed in judgment.

Again, I do not know the heart, so for me to say all are saved or all are doomed is beyond my ability, so I allow that some may be saved or some may be doomed. The judgment is God's not mine.

RO 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[TonyC]

This is different than what I am saying. If I take your statement to its logical conclusion, then at some point you're saying that we are with God. This is like what TWA dude is saying that we come into the world pure and free of sin.

OK, call me a liar. I have to post once more before the Honey-Do list.

That is precisely what I am saying. An infant comes into this world purer than the wind-driven snow.

That is not what theologians have drawn out of what Paul wrote in Romans 5:12.

That is not what ALL theologians have drawn. The concept of Original Sin as I hear you espouse is not universally accepted. I disagree with that doctrine. See below.

That my friend is the logical extension to the thought you have posited by saying we are not separated from God and need His Salvation or Redemption even as a newborn to with God.

Because if we cannot establish that sin is universal, then there is no need for some to seek God's grace. That is not what the Bible teaches.

It is God's will that we all be saved. He has given us a mechanism for salvation. I have asked this question of you several times, now, but it has remained unanswered. IF an infant comes into this world separated from God, what mechanism has God provided for redeeming the infant's sin?

The only mechanism I find in the new Testament involves repentance, confession, - - obedience - - none of which an infant is capable of.

I return your plea for consistency. Where is the consistency in a God who desires that all be saved, yet leaves an infant in an impossible state?

 

[Super 80]

Eve apparently undersood the command to apply to them both, as she quoted the command to the serpent. I see no support for the idea that the command was not given to Eve, and that it did not therefore bind her.

It is a fine point, Eve does repeat the command that was given to Adam before she was made. We do not know if the command was repeated to her after her creation or if Adam let her know what the rules were.

The Hebrew is clear that only after Adam ate were their eyes opened as a sequence of events. She ate. She gave some to Adam. He ate. Then their eyes were opened.

Later when God questions Adam, the Hebrew is not as clear as we read in the English where He questions Adam about the command the He gave (you). The word you is not explicitly in the Hebrew so we are unsure if the command was meant only for Adam since that is the only one we know was actually given the command by God.

But as a matter of theology, Paul expresses sin as coming into the world through Adam, so I take the command to have been to him personally. After all, When Eve ate before she gave it to Adam, nothing happened.

Again it's a fine point and I bring it out only as something to reflect upon. The reader is free to decide for him or herself. The gist of the matter is that this rebellion from God's commands set up the fall from fellowship with God, and introduced a much different world for us with sin as a natural state of our being.

 

[Super 80]

I return your plea for consistency. Where is the consistency in a God who desires that all be saved, yet leaves an infant in an impossible state?

I find it incredulous that you cannot fathom that God has enough discernment and wisdom to know these circumstances forego the normal route to Salvation that is available to us as mature individuals.

It is very clear in the Bible from the Old Testament on, that God judges the heart. So in this case, even though the newborn is clearly not in a state of being with God, they can be reunited through God by His determination.

The state is not impossible because with God nothing is impossible.

 

[Super 80]

If it is preferrable to think of babies as being blameless since they can commit nothing, being absolutely helpless, then leads us to think of them as without sin as a doctrine of faith because we are caught in a catch-22 situation to solve the dichotomy of sin and being granted grace without expressing faith; then how does David's words here in the Psalms, written after his own indiscretion with Bathsheba match with that thought?

In other words, how can this be true and for you to still hold that babies are pure and free from sin?

PS 51:1 Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.

PS 51:2 Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.

PS 51:3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.

PS 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.

PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

PS 51:6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.

PS 51:7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

Yes I do look for consistency, and we must be consistent with God's Word.

 

[TurboS7]

Super 80 I am very much impressed.

 

[Timebuilder]

I return your plea for consistency. Where is the consistency in a God who desires that all be saved, yet leaves an infant in an impossible state?

I'll take a swing at that, Tony, if you don't mind.

While the Bible is the Word of God, it is not the TOTAL of information that could have been imparted to us. It is the part that God desires to impart to us. There are any number of topics that God could have addressed, but did not.

God most likely has a plan in place for literally every contingency, including babies and their judgement according to the "all have sinned" doctrine of Romans, 3:23.

As believers we can assume the aspects of God's character that we already know, including that He is consistent, even if we cannot find scripture to answer all of our questions.

 

[wms]

Ps 116:6 "The Lord preserveth the simple."

1 Corr 1:14 "else were your children unclean, but now they are holy." speaking of the young children of christians.

After the incident with Bath-Sheba and the loss of his son as a result, David mourned his son until he died after seven days, then rejoiced afterward knowing he would see him in heaven.

 

[Super 80]

The correct reference is 1CO 7:14. This section carries more nuances than a simple reading suggests.

Expositor's Bible Commentary
Rather (v. 14), the Christian partner should think of the truth that the Lord can use him as a godly, holy influence in such a mixed family relationship and in helping that family to be consecrated (set apart) to God. The word hagiazo ("to sanctify") does not refer to moral purity--Paul is certainly not teaching that the unbelieving partner is made morally pure. What the word emphasizes is a relationship to God, a claim of God on the person and family to be set apart for him (cf. Acts 20:32; 26:18). The perfect tense of the verb hegiastai stresses that, being in a Christian family, the unbeliever has already become and continues to be a part of a family unit upon which God has his claim and which he will use for his service. The same is true of children born in such a family. That God has laid his hand on the Christian means that God has laid his hand on the children, and set them apart for himself. They are holy (hagia, "set apart for God") and not "unclean"--that is, not spiritually separated from God, as was and is the case in unbelieving families. The Bible's teaching elsewhere about the Christian parent and his covenant children set apart for God is also relevant to this passage. Consider Genesis 17:1-14, where the children of God's people of the OT are included among God's covenant people, and Acts 2:38, 39, where it is emphasized that God's promise applies to the children of believers, whether of those who are "near," the Jews, or those "afar off," the Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:12, 13). Covenant children are to be counted a part of God's people and should be nurtured in the Christian faith and in the fear of the Lord (Eph 6:4).

 

[TurboS7]

Just went and listened to Josh McDowell tonight in person at Calvary Chapel. This thread is right on. He said that only about 10% of the averge Christians could defend the Bible.

 

[TonyC]

OK, Super80 and Timebuilder - - I gotta make this fast cuz' there's a jet with my name on it waitin' to fly boxes and letters to ONT.

OK, you say kids are sinful, separated from God, even in the womb. And you say if they die before they even understand they are sinners, they're judged by some level of judgment reserved for God only. Apart from the law, you say.

Fine... if that's the case, tell me what good it does to teach others about Christ. If there's a standard by which we can be judged other than God's word, why mess people up with God's plan? Let the natives in the jungle be - - if they're good people, God will let them off the hook. Ignorance is bliss. They don't need the gospel plan of salvation unless you inform them that they need it.

Sinful nature. Sin. One of the two requires an informed decision. One of the two separates one from God. One of the two cannot be committed by a child, or an individual who is otherwise incompetent to discern good and evil.

 

[PilotBarbie]

Just went and listened to Josh McDowell tonight in person at Calvary Chapel. This thread is right on. He said that only about 10% of the averge Christians could defend the Bible.

Thank you TurboS7, Timebuilder & Super80 for believing and sharing the Word of God. You all do an excellent job of defending the Bible.

 

[Timebuilder]

If there's a standard by which we can be judged other than God's word, why mess people up with God's plan? Let the natives in the jungle be - - if they're good people, God will let them off the hook. Ignorance is bliss. They don't need the gospel plan of salvation unless you inform them that they need it.

The key word you mentioned are "God's plan." That's what he wants in play, not whatever method He may hold in reserve.

The Great Comission makes clear that His preference is that everyone be aware of the plan of salvation. Why? Perhaps the rewards are far greater than simply being "unaware."

Perhaps more poignant is His desire to have an active relationship with us, for His people to "know Him", rather than have us, His creation, living our lives without His fellowship.

Sinful nature. Sin. One of the two requires an informed decision. One of the two separates one from God. One of the two cannot be committed by a child, or an individual who is otherwise incompetent to discern good and evil.

The sinful nature of Man is shared by everyone. The other can certainly be comitted objectively by those who do not know of Him. There is a lot of theological discussion about these ideas, and you pose interesting questions. The bottom line, as it were, is the Bible's assertion that we are all sinners, and all need the savior. Everyone who does not know the plan should be told the plan so they can be saved instead of lost.

So, we focus our efforts to obey Matthew 28 toward those who can understand and let God handle those who cannot. Just as you mentioned, its His plan.

 

[Super 80]

Sinful nature. Sin. One of the two requires an informed decision. One of the two separates one from God. One of the two cannot be committed by a child, or an individual who is otherwise incompetent to discern good and evil.

I'm going to answer the second question first because it leads to the answer for the first objection.

You can think of sin as being inherited guilt in which we are wrong as a result of Adam’s sin, or an inherited corruption, in that we are all sinful by nature because of Adam’s Fall.

But the one thing about sin is that it is not just by our actions that we are sinful, such as killing or stealing, but in our attitudes, coveting lust, jealousy, anger, and selfishness as well (EX 20:17, MT 5:28, GAL 5:20).

In a way, Adam represented all of mankind. The Bible teaches that we all came from him, so in that respect each of us has a part in him in that we descended from him. If you are indignant of the idea of Adam representing us, then it equally follows that you would have to reject Jesus as standing in our stead representing each of us as He paid the price for our sin (RO 5:18).

Now if whether we are sinful by nature or inherit it, each of us carries it with us from the time we are conceived (RO 3:23). Being self-oriented (rather than selfish because not all selfish motives are bad) carries with it the characteristic of being against God’s nature. This is just as much of a sin as the attitudes of plotting evil, or coveting or wanton lust.

Children do not have to be taught how to do wrong (PS 51:5; 58:3). But we have to teach them what is right (DT 6:7, EPH 6:4). But we all have sin, no matter how young, or ignorant of the law, because sin existed before the Law was given (RO 5:13-14). So those that are apart from the Law are not excused from sin, and their physical death shows they are under the same penalty as all men are from the time of Adam.

Fine... if that's the case, tell me what good it does to teach others about Christ. If there's a standard by which we can be judged other than God's word, why mess people up with God's plan? Let the natives in the jungle be - - if they're good people, God will let them off the hook. Ignorance is bliss. They don't need the gospel plan of salvation unless you inform them that they need it.

If these people are ignorant of God, they are not worshipping God. And that is a sin too. They still have the possibility of redemption by God, but there is no treasure awaiting them by being in obedience of God’s commands. Literally without knowledge of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they have no ability to do what is good. And their nature as well is unwashed by the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, so some may remain in God’s good grace because their heart is inclined towards Him, but there is nothing they can do to please Him, because it is only through faith in Him and the One He sent that you can do that (HEB 11:4-6).

So while we have the assurance that every tribe, nation people and language will be in Heaven, these ignorant people are not good. God will punish men for their sin (EX 32:34, PS 89:32). Unbelievers are literally in a state of bondage to sin, being their nature (JN 8:34-6). Now if you had the power to free them would you?

This is the Good News of Jesus Christ. We are flesh and blood and our spirit is sinful by nature if not already tainted by sin as I tried to explain before. And flesh and blood cannot inherit Heaven (1CO 15:50). When we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are born again, and our souls have the indwelling Holy Spirit (RO 15:16, 1CO 6:19, EPH 1:13, T!T 3:5). We are justified by Christ, and so now can store up treasure in Heaven by doing those things that are pleasing to God.

Would you deny that to those that haven't heard of Jesus?

 

[wms]

Just went and listened to Josh McDowell tonight in person at Calvary Chapel. This thread is right on. He said that only about 10% of the averge Christians could defend the Bible.

Maybe because only about 10% of people who say they are Christians are really saved. Many people say they gave all their cares to Christ, or they put their lives in Christ's hands. But few have given their souls to Christ. Those who are truly saved are equipped by the Spirit to represent the one who presents them sinless to God, and they live lives that reflect the life of Christ in them. Few who profess have actually repented and looked to the cross and see Jesus dying for them personally. Few have actually thanked God personally. Hell is full of people who say they love Jesus and live a "christian life". But there is not one person in hell who has been forgiven of their sins, and not one person in heaven who hasn't.

The correct reference is 1CO 7:14.

That's what I meant. I was in a hurry to get to the airport because I had just got called for a trip. I enjoyed the comments you shared on it. This verse is comfort to us Christians with small children.

Sinful nature. Sin. One of the two requires an informed decision. One of the two separates one from God. One of the two cannot be committed by a child, or an individual who is otherwise incompetent to discern good and evil.

True. But if they were able, or as soon as they are able as the case may be, they will. Man is born into sin and sin is inherent. We not sinners because we've sinned, we sin because we're sinners. Sin in our lives is the evedience of what we are.

It could only be said of Jesus what was written of Him in Psalms 53:10, "Upon you I was cast from birth, You have been my God from my mother's womb". For the rest of us Romans 3:23 is the best description, " For all have sinned." All others have looked away from God. It's our inward desire to look away from God that makes us sinners. It was Adam and Eve looking away from God that led to their sin, and that has been passed to us all.

 

[flying4life]

Well guys and Gals, I'll tell ya there's a ton of information here. I didn't even go through it all. I have a lot of questions!! Unfortunately I don't know what to believe anymore. My intellectual mind is having a hard time answering the child like questions.
I grew up being taught the Bible. I had some hard times and came back to it as a late teen. I was "Born Again", but I don't think so anymore. Whenever I had questions of faith I was always told that if I was given the entire answer there would be no need for faith. Also that if it just sounds right and truthful in your heart, you need to believe, but everything I've been taught about Christianity was to not go on feelings or your heart because of your "sin nature".
I'll try to just go to the Bible questions and not make this a rambling thread. I don't know that Jesus is the Christ. I want him to be.... and I'm afraid that when you want something bad enough you'll find ways to see what you want to. For instance, why didn't Jesus write anything himself. Instead of it being God inspired, why isn't it written by him? He came down here to show us how to live and what was right and good..right?
He was on our planet roughly 30 years and he had his ministry for about 3 years. Why don't we have anything on paper from him personally? Many analogies about humans and God are made using parent and child. My question using God as a parental figure is; Why doesn't God give us all the same starting point with the good book and rules and regulations? As a parent you don't have your neighbor tell your kids what's right or wrong. As a kid(Me), you're not my parent, how do I know that what you're telling me is parent inspired and not population control? I know the argument against it too. It's like the burning stove, you don't need your parent to tell you you'll get hurt if you touch it, anyone could, but when my eternal soul is on the line, I'd like to hear it directly from the one who has the ultimate fate of it. Why can't God personally lay it out for me? He did it with Adam and Eve. I am worried about Jesus trying to become self proclaimed. Why did he refernce the Old Testament and say he needed a donkey because it says he must ride into town on one, so someone fetch him one? In the actual bible it sounds like he's reading the prophicies and trying to make them come true.
I'm a doubting Thomas and I'm angry at God for not allowing me to be one of the followers of God to see first hand. I know, they doubted too. However, how awesome is it to be the actual doubting Thomas? Where is my Jesus coming to me asking me to put my fingers though his hands and feet?
I'll tell you I don't even know if I want a reply to this. I can't even believe I'm putting this out there.
The one thing I've learned is that we as people are so young in knowledge. Just in the last couple of hundred years we've excellerated so far beyond what our ancestors ever knew about this planet or universe. Think about it, up until Columbus, the world was flat. We think how naive, but how do we know we're not naive about religion.
God just always seems to be the answer to the unanswerable. I want the hope to be there because I want to believe in something so loving and peaceful and so far above the idiocy of our human race. We do live in a wicked world, but what's so funny is most of our hatefulness is done in the name of God. Wars, Ethnic cleansings, 9-11!! Everything about human nature in the Bible is true. We suck. We lie, kill, covet, disrespect each other, but just because the Bible says that, doesn't mean everything in it is true. I know how bad off we are and I'm not writing a book about it.
I say all of these things in the humblest of manners. I know there are lot's of arguments on this thread about how it came to be. I think that will be one for the ages, but I wonder if in another 2 or 3 hundred years if they'll look back on us and think how naive. Anyway, thanks for reading, plenty of you have great faith and that's awesome, I wish you the best in strivng to be Christ like. As unachievable as it is, the theories of goodness are great.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Where is my Jesus coming to me asking me to put my fingers though his hands and feet?

It's my understanding that a desire for this kind of proof makes you unworthy. A friend of mine once accused me of waiting for what he called the blinding flash. "Stop waiting for some big sign from God," he said. "It doesn't work that way."

I guess that means that those of us who find ourselves unable to suspend rationality are doomed. (Maybe we should try standing too close to the grill next time we have a barbecue. You know, so we can get used to it...)

 

[Super 80]

I was "Born Again", but I don't think so anymore. Whenever I had questions of faith I was always told that if I was given the entire answer there would be no need for faith. Also that if it just sounds right and truthful in your heart, you need to believe, but everything I've been taught about Christianity was to not go on feelings or your heart because of your "sin nature".

Let me answer this small part of what you said, because it's something we all struggle with. Can you lose your salvation?

ISA 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
he gently leads those that have young.

JN 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

The principle here is that you are also one of the ones. You are not stronger than God. If you spoke with your mouth and believed in your heart that Jesus is Lord, then you are saved (RO 10:9).

The image in Isaiah has the lamb which is the believer held up high and God's arms folded, interlocking the legs of the young lamb next to His heart. Hand is also a figurative word which conveys power. God's power is such that no one can take you away from him.

Your lack of faith is not a barrier to God. Just as Thomas whom you liken yourself to is an example to us that those that doubt still have a place with God. Being angry at God does not diminish your salvation, but it does disrupt your fellowship with the Spirit. I can't really address your heart issue in this medium, that's where Christian fellowship, discipleship, and worship at a Church of your choosing will help you to grow stronger in faith.

I'll try to answer some of your points today as they relate to the Bible, and maybe I can give you some intellectual reasons to lay doubt aside.

 

[Timebuilder]

Where is my Jesus coming to me asking me to put my fingers though his hands and feet?

The short answer is, it isn't a part of His plan to get people to believe in Him based on some sort of proof. Think about it: this was an exchange between Jesus and a man who had known Him as flesh, one who had seen most of the miraculous healings, seen a few fish and some bread feed thousands of people, and calm a stromy sea. After all Thomas had already seen, he still couldn't fathom that the resurrection had actually happened!

Now why in the world would the Lord see fit to do this proof for you and I, since we have centiries of study, a complete scripture, and fulfilled prophecy? What is He doing instead of a visit to show you His wounds?

John 14:2 says "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."

This is why the Holy Spirit is with us now to minister to us. There are plans unfolding, work being accomplished, and preparations being made.

Rather than repost some of my writing on this I'll just mention that faith is the operative requirement for us in this "church age". Go back and look at what Chirst said to Thomas after He was recognized.

 

[Super 80]

It's my understanding that a desire for this kind of proof makes you unworthy.

Doubting does not make you unworthy.

Expositor's Dictionary:What is the antidote to the wavering faith the NT calls doubt? In Ro 4 Paul points to Abraham and describes the patriarch as being fully aware of his own advanced age and of Sarah's having gone far beyond menopause. The fact is clear: no child can possibly be conceived by these two. Yet God appears to them and promises that Abraham will father a multitude. Paul says of him, "Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead--since he was about a hundred years old-- and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God . . ., being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised" (Ro 4:19-21).

We need only to realize that whatever our circumstances, the overriding fact is the reality of God. He has power to do what he has promised. When we commit ourselves to the Lord and acknowledge him as the ultimate reality, we find an assurance that quiets every doubt and frees us to live obedient lives.

A friend of mine once accused me of waiting for what he called the blinding flash. "Stop waiting for some big sign from God," he said. "It doesn't work that way."

There will be a BIG sign, and many will come to believe.

REV 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth--to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7 He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

 

[Typhoon1244]

There will be a BIG sign...

Yes, there will be. And it won't come via angels or brimstone or seven-headed monsters. It will come as the greatest scientific discovery in the history of man. A total understanding of everything in us and around us.

That's what I believe.

 

[TurboS7]

Flying for Life- You have a bunch of very good questions. I can't answer them all, no one can. One thing I do know if that you seek the truth then the truth will set you free.We can argue and explain all we want but there is nothing like the power of the Word of God. You asked why Jesus didn't write the Bible Himself?he did. Men wrote the Bible who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. God consist of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are three yet they are one. The Holy Spirit wrote the scriptures and since God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one-God/Jesus did write the scriptures. The anwer to a bunch of your questions are in the Gospel of John. I would encourage you to go for a long walk, find a place where you won't be disturbed . Get a Bible, what version or translation really doesn't matter, just get one that you are comfortable reading. I don't know what kind of flying you do but this would be something great to do on a nice layover. BTW every hotel room has a Bible in it thanks to the Gideons. Back to the subject, read the Gospel of John. John one of the diciples was the author, but note the way it was written, when you read it suddenly it occurs that John may have wrote it physically but the Author in not John. Work your way through the Gospel, by the time you get to the end of Chapter 3 most of your questions will be answered. By the time you get to the end of the Book everything will fall into place. Next I would encourage you to afterwards go see the movie The Passion directed by Mel Gibson. It is just a movie but I understand it protrays what happened for us on the cross in an awesome way. ( will be out sometime in Feb)Pay real close attention to what happened on the cross in the Gospel of John. Think about it. If you are not saved the Holy Spirit wil convict you, if you are saved the Holy Spirit will teach you. Requardless if you are truly searching you will have your answers by the time you finish reading and studying that book. The Gospel of John.

 

[Super 80]

That's what I believe.

And the basis of your faith is man. So as God has sent angels before, I have every reason to believe this angel will fulfill Jesus' prophecy that the Gospel will be taught in all the world.

P.S. Your reference to the seven heads of the beast is a little off. The seven heads represent a line of Kings over time. Each is a different rendition of Satan in man. Five have been one is and one will be but only for a short time. This is an example of an observer true point of view. Here the observer is the eternal God looking at all of history without the constraint of our linear one dimension of time where we are trapped in the ever present present, seeing only where we are with 20/20 hindsight and backing into the future like a man in a row boat going forward.

Your understanding on matters of the Bible tends to be lacking for want of knowledge of what you speak.

 

[Super 80]

I don't know that Jesus is the Christ. I want him to be.... and I'm afraid that when you want something bad enough you'll find ways to see what you want to. For instance, why didn't Jesus write anything himself. Instead of it being God inspired, why isn't it written by him? He came down here to show us how to live and what was right and good..right?
He was on our planet roughly 30 years and he had his ministry for about 3 years. Why don't we have anything on paper from him personally?

Jesus taught directly. His example was the Father. As Scripture is God-breathed, Jesus gave us the indwelling Holy Spirit to write the Scripture of the New Testament. In the Tanach, God uses the Prophets to speak for Him. They wrote down their visions and utterances, but God never handed them a scroll of His Words. In the same way, Jesus spoke directly to the world, but did not write His Words.

Jesus did teach us how to live. The lessons are recorded for us to read. Furthermore, we have the God-breathed Scripture of the Epistles in how these lessons were put into practice with the Apostles.

I think one of the wonderful stories of illumination was the Centurion that proclaimed the central tenet of the Christian faith. Seeing how Jesus died he came to proclaim Jesus was the Son of God (MK 15:39). He did not die like a crucified man; He did not go out like a dwindling candle where the flame goes out as wax is used up over 24-36 hours. That is how men die on the cross. Jesus raised up on the nails and said in a loud voice; "It is finished!" commended His Spirit to God, and gave up His life.

Likewise, the accounts of those who saw are recorded in the Gospels and the book of Acts. Peter says these were not events they heard of, they saw them (2PE 1:16).

Jesus quoted the Law and said the witness of two is valid (JN 8:14-18). Jesus said the Father was His other witness, as shown in the miracles Jesus performed that no man could ever do by himself. Writing His own Words makes it a witness of one.

 

[Typhoon1244]

And the basis of your faith is man.

Yes, but so is yours...assuming your faith is based on the Bible.

 

[Timebuilder]

Yes, but so is yours...assuming your faith is based on the Bible.

Since you framed your statement on basing one's faith on the Bible, your assertion that such a faith is based on Man is not factually correct.

According to the Bible, in 2Timothy, 3:16-17-

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

So, according to the Bible, the faith is based on God, not any work of Man. Men were only tools used by God to commit His Word.

 

[TonyC]

I'm going to answer the second question first because it leads to the answer for the first objection.

You can think of sin as being inherited guilt in which we are wrong as a result of Adam’s sin, or an inherited corruption, in that we are all sinful by nature because of Adam’s Fall.

Perhaps YOU can think of sin as being inherited GUILT as a result of Adam's sin, but I cannot. To sin is literally to err, to miss the mark. This cannot be inherited. We have discussed at length, and I believe agree that others suffer consequences when we sin. However, they do not share the guilt for MY sin.

But the one thing about sin is that it is not just by our actions that we are sinful, such as killing or stealing, but in our attitudes, coveting lust, jealousy, anger, and selfishness as well (EX 20:17, MT 5:28, GAL 5:20).

I agree. We also sin when we know to do right, and do it not. (James 4:17)

In a way, Adam represented all of mankind. The Bible teaches that we all came from him, so in that respect each of us has a part in him in that we descended from him. If you are indignant of the idea of Adam representing us, then it equally follows that you would have to reject Jesus as standing in our stead representing each of us as He paid the price for our sin (RO 5:18).

Romans 5:12-21 gives a great description of sin and salvation, and how both were brought to us by one man. Sin by Adam, and Salvation by Jesus Christ. You can try to read into it with prejudice that We all bear the guilt of Adam's sin, but it never says that.

v12 "Through one man sin entered the world ..." Not "through one man all men inherited the guilt of that one man's sin."

v12 Cont "and death through sin" - - we all suffer that consequence - - CONSEQUENCE, not guilt

v12 cont. "and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." not "because one man sinned" It also does not say that death spread to all men because we all have the sin of that one man.

v14 "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam" If we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, how could we be described this way, that is, NOT according to the likenes of Adam's sin?

v15 "if by the one man's offense many died" - - they suffered the consequence, it doesn't say, nor does it require that they bore the same guilt.

v17 "by the one man's offense death reigned" - - death, yes. Guilt, no.

v18 "through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation" - - judgment, yes condemnation, yes guilt, no

v19 "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" sinners, yes guilty of Adam's sin, no

Now if whether we are sinful by nature or inherit it, each of us carries it with us from the time we are conceived (RO 3:23). Being self-oriented (rather than selfish because not all selfish motives are bad) carries with it the characteristic of being against God’s nature. This is just as much of a sin as the attitudes of plotting evil, or coveting or wanton lust.

I don't quite understand the "self-oriented" concept you introduced when you described your pastor's comments about children. I've had a little experience with infants, and am a little puzzled by your "accusation." When a baby comes into this world, he wants nothing other than to eat, sleep, and be comfortable. If he's crying because he's hungry, I don't consider him to be "self-oriented" any more than Any of us are when we are hungry. Is it a sin to be hungry? If the baby is sleepy and is being kept from sleeping, I don't think badly of my "self-oriented" baby that is crying because of his pain and discomfort. And when the baby is crying because the burn of urine on his skin is painful, it never enters my mind to fear his condition with the Lord because of his "self-oriented" cry. None of these hardly qualifies as SIN - - erring, missing the mark. A baby crying for his mother's milk can hardly be compared to a man guilty of wanton lust.

Children do not have to be taught how to do wrong (PS 51:5; 58:3). But we have to teach them what is right (DT 6:7, EPH 6:4). But we all have sin, no matter how young, or ignorant of the law, because sin existed before the Law was given (RO 5:13-14). So those that are apart from the Law are not excused from sin, and their physical death shows they are under the same penalty as all men are from the time of Adam.

They do not have to be taught to DO wrong, I agree. They have to be taught that it IS wrong, and what IS right, in order for them to differentiate. Until then, they cannot be held accountable. Until they know what God's will IS, they cannot possibly know to ERR, or miss the mark.

If these people are ignorant of God, they are not worshipping God. And that is a sin too. They still have the possibility of redemption by God, but there is no treasure awaiting them by being in obedience of God’s commands. Literally without knowledge of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they have no ability to do what is good.

I bring up this issue because you seem so content to dismiss the case of the infant or young child as being judged by God apart from the law. I don't buy that there is a special case for the infant, nor a special case for the jungle native. There is but one plan for salvation, and it was preached by Peter to the men and women in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. It requires action, obedience, mental activity - - a decision - - and an infant can do none of those. In my estimation, an infant is incapable of sin, and so cannot sin, and therefore is not separated from God. Once the child grows to appreciate not just good and bad, but the consequences of sin, and God's will for us to serve him, THEN when he disobeys God - - THAT is sin, and THAT sin separates HIM from God. All along, from conception on, he is subject to death - - the punishment brought to the world by Adam's sin - - but he never assumes the GUILT for Adam's sin.

This is the Good News of Jesus Christ. We are flesh and blood and our spirit is sinful by nature if not already tainted by sin as I tried to explain before. And flesh and blood cannot inherit Heaven (1CO 15:50). When we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are born again, and our souls have the indwelling Holy Spirit (RO 15:16, 1CO 6:19, EPH 1:13, T!T 3:5). We are justified by Christ, and so now can store up treasure in Heaven by doing those things that are pleasing to God.

Would you deny that to those that haven't heard of Jesus?

That doesn't sound much like what Peter told the audience in Jerusalem in Acts 2. But I digress. It appears that we could carry on a multitude of threads concerning doctrinal differences, and that would be a meaty one.

Romans 3:23 (NKJV) "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Substitute the definition of sin: "for all have erred and fall short of the glory of God"

or "for all have missed the mark and fall short of the glory of God"

The Greek: hamartanô It's a verb, not a label. When you miss the mark, you don't share in the prize.


EDITED only for spelling error - - I HATE it when I let those slip by!

 

[TonyC]

I'll take a swing at that, Tony, if you don't mind.

While the Bible is the Word of God, it is not the TOTAL of information that could have been imparted to us. It is the part that God desires to impart to us. There are any number of topics that God could have addressed, but did not.

God most likely has a plan in place for literally every contingency, including babies and their judgement according to the "all have sinned" doctrine of Romans, 3:23.

As believers we can assume the aspects of God's character that we already know, including that He is consistent, even if we cannot find scripture to answer all of our questions.

I was going to respond to this earlier, but I see that while I was away you responded to yourself.

According to the Bible, in 2Timothy, 3:16-17-

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

God has given us the entire plan of salvation - - we hear His word, we repent of our sins, turning away from a lifestyle of sin, we confess Christ before men, we obey Him in baptism, and we walk faithfully until death.

We are indeed THOUROUGHLY equipped - - COMPLETELY equipped. He hasn't left any of the important parts out of the Bible so we have to defer to some mystery of salvation. It's all there.

Not only is an infant incapable of offending God, and is therefore not in need of salvation, he is incapable of doing the things that would be required for salvation.