All About GOD

All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others

Is sin genetic?

Dear brothers, sisters and friends,

please would you share your thoughts/beliefs regarding this question?

 

Views: 1087

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 30, 2011 at 9:35am

Hello brother Dean,

 

The lengthy article I placed above with my note was directed at Bible Talk (Desmond), but of course it is for all to read and comment on. The article was not intended to deal with why Jesus told us to flee from the appearance of evil. It deals with men's total depravity.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Blessings  

Permalink Reply by dean burrows on October 1, 2011 at 9:34pm

No confusion David. I believe scripture to be one discriptive text about the depravity of man. Yes and it clearly gives us the answers to overcome this depravity.

Thankyou Father for your sacrifice.

Oh Lord may we learn from Your example.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on October 1, 2011 at 10:21pm
Amen brother. Christ in us does overcome it = Hallelujah :)
Permalink Reply by Vincent Hayden on September 29, 2011 at 4:58pm

I have to look up the verse, but it says;

'My hands are full of gifts, I would gladly give them to you, but you turn away from me.'

Humans separated them selves from God (death), they can choose life which is Christ or stay dead.

Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on October 1, 2011 at 1:08pm

Hi David - will reply once I get a chance to read the article.

You're a great man of God, brother

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on October 1, 2011 at 3:48pm

Thank you for the kind words my brother and so are you my friend.

 

Is God in us and through us :)

Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on October 3, 2011 at 8:49am

Hi David,

brother I went through the article and read it with an open mind. I would like to submit an article for your consideration, which I also read with an open mind:

Total Depravity or Total Inability

by Terry W. Benton

Calvinism is commonly summarized and remembered by use of an acrostic formula using the word TULIP. The first letter stands for "Total Depravity" or "Total Spiritual Inability". Let me let a Calvinist explain what is meant by this term.

"Total depravity is a concept that everyone including the elect and non-elect is incapable of choosing God because he is sinful. In my opinion, Arminians, who reject this point, do not understand Romans 3:10-11 as it is written, THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS GOD; Romans 3:10-11"

They say that the reason none seek God is because they are incapacitated or unable to do so. That is why some prefer to call it total spiritual inability.

"(T) - Total Spiritual Inability (Sinners are unable to come to Christ unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them)"

This idea says we were totally unable to choose God and righteousness from birth, thus inborn with total depravity. But, if we are totally depraved from birth, then we were never able to be responsible before God, and therefore at no time were we ever alive spiritually and safe from sin and condemnation (Romans 7:9). But, if totally depraved from birth, then unable to be held accountable. None who are totally disabled are accountable. It cannot be the baby's fault that he is totally unable, and at no point in time as he grows to manhood can a totally incapacitated person ever be responsible to do what he has always been unable to do. Imagine how useless and silly it is to talk to a hammer and command the hammer to go build you a house and then warn the hammer that if it does not obey you, you will throw it into the fire. That is the scene with God trying to command people who never had ability to hear and obey and then acting like they can be moved by warnings.

While guilt is a necessary conclusion for all, the responsibility is within ability. In other words we are guilty because we do not seek God to understand, not because we can't do so. Total depravity says we don't even have the ability to seek God. If we can't do so, then we are not responsible to do so. Romans 3 does not speak of our inability, but of our guilt, and guilt implies that we did not use our ability to seek God, and therefore, we could not be anything but guilty before God. Furthermore, the passage says that we all have "gone out of the way" (which implies that there was a time when we were not "out of the way"). Total inability implies that we never had any ability and therefore were always out of the way.

This passage does not support the Calvinist doctrine: "God made men upright but they sought devices" (Ecclesiastes 7:29) (plural can't refer only to Adam). The verse talks about being upright (not totally depraved), but then tells what goes wrong with these upright men. They "sought" many devices. Watch this verse carefully. "This only have I found: God made mankind upright, (not totally depraved and totally unable to do upright things and be upright) but men have gone in search of many schemes." (It was not built into them. They went from an upright state to seeking schemes that were not already built into their totally depraved nature). (Ecclesiastes 7:29, NIV).

But, also remember that if man was born totally depraved, then there can be no good feature in a child that we need to mimic, yet Jesus said we have to become as little children if we would enter the kingdom (Matthew 18:1ff). Why would God want us to mimic those totally depraved little brats?

If all people are totally and inherently depraved, then when God said "Hear O Israel", they couldn't hear or obey the command to obey. They were "totally unable" to hear and obey. In fact it is silly to command a hammer to do anything on its own or to even take a first step toward cooperating with another. If the Calvinist's doctrine of Total Inability and Total Depravity is true, then Israel could no more "Hear" than a hammer could hear and it would be just as silly for God to be talking to totally unable people as it would be for me to command a hammer to listen to me and obey me. Nor could God hold us accountable anymore than I can hold my hammer accountable for being lazy and always just lying around doing nothing, a total waste of existence. The scene that Calvinism creates is actually blasphemous to God. It makes Him look as ridiculous as a man talking to his hammer and then getting angry at it for not obeying commands.

Steve Rudd observed:

"If every newborn is "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil", then how do we account for the goodness of the "unregenerate" like Cornelius,Acts 10:1-4, 22, or anyone else today. How do we account for all the good things that non-Christians do? Then how can "evil men proceed from bad to worse" 1 Ti 3:13?"

Indeed! How can one move from "totally depraved" to worse than total? I would add that if we are all inborn with total inability and total depravity, how can there be a situation where Gentiles "do by nature the things contained in the Law"? (Romans 2:14). I guess they were pre-programmed and regenerated first, which leads us back to the question of how any man is really guilty at all. It looks like all the guilt falls on the ProgrammER, not the programmED. A computer can only do what it is programmed to do. If the programmER does not allow and give the computer the capability to do anything else, how foolish to destroy the computer for not doing what it couldn't do anyway.

Now, I fully anticipate that the Calvinist will say the issue of fairness was raised in Romans 9:20 and we have no right to question God's justice and fairness. Wait just a minute! This context is not about leaving the Jews programmed to reject God, but of God's right to choose between the fleshly seed of Abraham and the spiritual seed of Abraham. At the end of Paul's discussion he tells us that the reason many Jews were rejected and Gentiles accepted was "Because they did not seek it (righteousness) by faith" (Romans 9:32), putting the responsibility where it really belonged. The context is not showing that God has a right to be arbitrary about SALVATION, but that He had a right to reject Jews who did not believe in Jesus even though He promised to bless the seed of Abraham. God made the choice to reject the descendants of Abraham who did not seek righteousness by faith but as it were, by the works of the Law.

He had as much right to make that decision as He did to make the decision to select Jacob over Esau or Isaac over Ishmael. He affirms there is no unrighteousness with God. He was not arbitrarily making a decision to send Esau and Ishmael to Hell. It was not a decision about eternal destinies in their cases. It was a decision about which seed-line to use to bring the Savior into the world.

The decision to bless only believing Jews is not arbitrary, but well within the right of any just ruler to choose the avenue and conditions of blessing that he chooses. Was it unjust for God to not bless some of the descendants of Abraham? Not at all. He argues that they call still yet seek it by faith (Romans 9:33; 10:1-3,13,16; 11:20,23). So, though a Sovereign Lord may choose certain conditions for blessing without it being unjust, His conditions made some Jews think that God had not kept His promise to bless them if Christians were correct. They argued that they were Abraham's descendants, had the law and circumcision from God, and now Christians seem to be claiming that that counts for nothing, that God is only going to bless a few Jews and a lot of Gentiles. That appeared to make God unfair and unjust. So, Paul lays out the case for God having the right to have mercy on whom He wills and make the choices He made without really being unjust and totally arbitrary. He lays the blame squarely on the shoulders of the unbelieving Jews because their own Scriptures told them an unpopular "rock of offense" would be the one they would need to believe in order to not be put to shame (Romans 9:33;10:11). They stumbled anyway over that rock and their unbelief was what put them to shame. So, Paul argues that God was indeed just and He warned the Jews fairly of what would happen. If they failed to believe, it was fair of God to choose not to bless them. God never chose people to salvation or condemnation arbitrarily. If He did, that would indeed make God unjust.

We may have more to say about this passage when we analyze the doctrine of Unconditional Election, the next link in the TULIP chain. Right now we are establishing that God did not pre-program the Jews to be unbelievers, which would indeed be unjust and unfair. If all of us were totally depraved and totally incapacitated due to no fault of our own, and God chooses to leave many incapacitated and blame them for it and send them to hell, then that is unjust. If God decided arbitrarily to give a few the capacity to believe and actually programmed them to believe, and then acted like He was "rewarding" them and blessing them with eternal bliss for the way He programmed them, then that would indeed be unfair and unjust. If the Judge of all the earth acts that way, then it would be just for a Judge to dismiss all juries, file some criminals by his desk, hand some walking papers out arbitrarily and sentence the rest to death on no basis other than the Judges' own "goodness". That is not right or justice at all.

If the reason Jesus was sinless was because God did not allow Him to inherit the totally depraved nature that would have totally disabled Him, then why does God hold others responsible and accountable for sin? God made us so that we could not walk upright, and then condemned us for doing what we had absolutely no control over. Why did He not give us the same advantage as Calvinists assert that He gave Jesus? This totally perverts justice. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? It is like sending mentally retarded folk to eternal fire for being born mentally retarded. If we inherited mental retardation from Adam's sin, then true justice would hold only Adam responsible. The rest of us could not help being totally incapacitated, and true justice will not condemn the innocent. Romans 3 says we have all "gone out of the way," which implies that we moved away from the state of innocence and uprightness that we were born with. So, even though we have all sinned, the guilt is ours for going out of the way and letting sin dominate and control our thoughts and actions. A drunkard sinned somewhere along the way by taking that first drink. He was totally responsible, but he never stopped and then it mastered him, and he became a slave to it. But, he was not born a slave to it. He was responsible for his own sins.

Now consider this doctrine and apply it to particular cases of conversion you see in the book of Acts. Here is the scene from a Calvinistic outlook. Let's start with the first case of conversion found in Acts 2. All were totally unable to listen to the Spirit speaking through Peter because all were inherently totally depraved and had "total spiritual inability." Yet, Peter preached and "they heard this" (Acts 2:37) and they cried "...what shall we do?" Have they already been "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit? If so, why did the Holy Spirit only regenerate 3,000 and not all? Is that just and fair?

Further, if the reason they had power to hear and ask "what shall we do?" is because of God's desire to only save a few, so He made only those few "hear" and seek, then the reason the others did not hear and seek is because God desired that most of them perish for no fault of their own, but solely on arbitrary grounds. That is not justice at all.

Further, this doctrine makes a liar out of God. Peter said of God that He "is not willing that any should perish" (II Peter 3:9-10). Yet, if He desired all to be saved and none to perish, then He would have given all the same ability to hear and seek. Yet, this same Peter is preaching to all the Jews because God is not willing that any should perish, and then God only regenerates 3,000 enough to allow them to "hear" and obey? The others had no ability given to them. That is not justice. It is injustice. All had been equally totally disabled, but only 3,000 were given ability to hear and obey.

Furthermore, no one was actually guilty, and no one was actually guilty of crucifying Jesus. Inborn total depravity can do no better or worse thantotal depravity dictates, and total inability means that the Jews were unable to do any better than crucifying Jesus.

But, if the reason the 3,000 heard and asked "what shall we do?" is because they were already "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit, then Peter's answer makes no sense. How can you "repent" (Acts 2:38) if you have already been regenerated? If "regeneration" has occurred already, and that regeneration is what gave them ability to "hear" Peter's spiritual message, then the "washing of regeneration" has already occurred (Titus 3:5) and the "renewing of the Holy Spirit" has already occurred. If they have already been washed and renewed by the Holy Spirit, then Peter should have answered the question this way, Acts 2:38 should read: "There isnothing for you to do. God has already done it all for you. You have already received the gift of the Holy Spirit".

But, "those that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). But, that is odd. They could not do otherwise than "gladly receive his words" since they have already been "regenerated" to do that very thing. Keep looking at this case of conversion and ask yourself if you can see any trace of the five points of Calvinism. Calvinism makes a total mess of the Bible, and they will tell us that the reason we cannot see it that way is because we have not been regenerated. When and if we get regenerated (which is totally out of our control and totally up to God, if this doctrine is correct) only then will we be able to see the Bible the Calvinists' way. But, that is much like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They say we cannot see things their way until we first get enlightened by WatchTower publications. The Mormons say that we can see it their way only if we pray to see it and receive Joseph Smith's records and revelations of God. Calvinism teaches that none of us can actually understand Peter's sermon until the Holy Spirit first does something to our totally enabled ears and heart and understanding. They call this "regeneration". But, their version of regeneration is totally arbitrary, which is totally unjust.

Conclusion

We reject the whole stack of cards of the TULIP doctrines because the very foundation of it is false. If man was made upright, then we were not born totally disabled and depraved. We have "gone out of the way", but we were not born out of the way. We bear responsibility only if we have ability. But, if we all have "ability", then there can be no "total" disability or total inability. If we are responsible for sin at all it would only be because we could have done better. Thus, the first point in the TULIP acrostic must be rejected as false. In our next article we will consider the next link in the chain: Unconditional Election.

 

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on October 3, 2011 at 12:54pm

My brother Desmond,

 

I thank you for the healthy exchanges and your willingness to seek the truth. Seeking the truth among many apparent ones is a gift of God, brought forth by the Spirit of Truth in us. I am very joyful to see you and many others here studying these important issues. When we are able to invest time in this type of doctrinal issues and still remain living a balance life that witnesses and abides in Christ through prayer, worship and bible study, then this is just one more vehicle of joy for us. Praise God my friend.

 

My desire is not to win arguments or show off the little I know and definitely is not to convert people to Calvinism or Arminianism since I am not either one. As most Christians, all I want to be known as, is a child of God, a born again believer. With that said my brother I will try to explain the discrepancies brother Terry Benton has in his article by quoting his article directly and with God’s help remain true to the brother’s work. In other words I will not add or subtract from Terry’s words, but I will do my best to keep them in the context I believe he meant them to be.

 

>>But, if we are totally depraved from birth, then we were never able to be responsible before God,

Total depravity does not mean that each person is as bad or as evil as they could be. It simply denotes that every area of a person has been affected by sin. Our brother Terry raises arguments against Total depravity and total inability that have been looked at, studied and debunked since the doctrine was penned down. What Terry is failing to recognize the adherents of total depravity are saying is the “Why” all people are condemned and have no ability to choose God. It is not because God has not granted the creature the ability to do so. In the contrary God has endowed the creature with the liberty to choose, but the inclination of the creature is not a neutral one, the creature is inclined to sin, because of the fall. There is nothing of eternal value in the creature of himself. Humanity will not come to Christ, They WILL NOT come to Christ to be saved, not because God is holding them back or because He has not giving them a WILL to do so, but simply because the creature will not choose to, because they love their sin too much. The creature then is morally responsible.

 

John 5:40 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

Men out of their own will, will never come to Christ for the right purposes and motives. Men love darkness and hate the light. They will seek religion to a peace a million demons, insecurities and fears within them, but not to die to self and life and live for Christ. Men may seek religions to seem more pious or to settle down their conscience, but not that they may bring God glory, but on the contrary, so others may think of them as better people for seeking God etc…

 

>>…and therefore at no time were we ever alive spiritually and safe from sin and condemnation (Romans 7:9). …While guilt is a necessary conclusion for all, the responsibility is within ability.

 

 Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

This is a serious mistake by brother Terry. No one needs to seek life, if they have life within their self. No human being has ever been alive spiritually, before being born again. Again this is a serious error and teaching, by those who believe that man has goodness apart from God. Yes, we all know that even evil people have the capacity to do good deeds, but all the works of men that do not proceed from faith are sin, as scripture teaches, for the motives of such are not to bring God glory, but to escape punishment or find favor with a god or God, instead of seeking to bring Him glory. All good things come from above. If brother Terry is saying that Romans 9: 9 is teaching that we were once alive, as not dead in our spirit, hence not dead in trespasses and sins, then the scriptures would have a genuine contradiction. No human being is alive before being born again.

 

9. For I was alive, etc. He means to intimate that there had been a time when sin was dead to him or in him. But he is not to be understood as though he had been without law at any time, but this word I was alive has a peculiar import; for it was the absence of the law that was the reason why he was alive; that is, why he being inflated with a conceit as to his own righteousness, claimed life to himself while he was yet dead. That the sentence may be more clear, state it thus, "When I was formerly without the law, I was alive." But I have said that this expression is emphatic; for by imagining himself great, he also laid claim to life. The meaning then is this, "When I sinned, having not the knowledge of the law, the sin, which I did not observe, was so laid to sleep, that it seemed to be dead; on the other hand, as I seemed not to myself to be a sinner, I was satisfied with myself, thinking that I had a life of mine own." But the death of sin is the life of man, and again the life of sin is the death of man.

 

It may be here asked, what time was that when through his ignorance of the law, or as he himself says, through the absence of it, he confidently laid claim to life. It is indeed certain, that he had been taught the doctrine of the law from his childhood; but it was the theology of the letter, which does not humble its disciples, for as he says elsewhere, the veil interposed so that the Jews could not see the light of life in the law; so also he himself, while he had his eyes veiled, being destitute of the Spirit of Christ, was satisfied with the outward mask of righteousness. Hence he represents the law as absent, though before his eyes, while it did not really impress him with the consciousness of God's judgment. Thus the eyes of hypocrites are covered with a veil, that they see not how much that command requires, in which we are forbidden to lust or covet.

 

But when the commandment came, etc. So now, on the other hand, he sets forth the law as coming when it began to be really understood. It then raised sin as it were from be dead; for it discovered to Paul how great depravity abounded in the recesses of his heart, and at the same time it slew him. We must ever remember that he speaks of that inebriating confidence in which hypocrites settle, while they flatter themselves, because they overlook their sins. Calvin

 

>>Total depravity says we don't even have the ability to seek God. If we can't do so, then we are not responsible to do so. Furthermore, the passage says that we all have "gone out of the way" (which implies that there was a time when we were not "out of the way"). 

Total depravity says we don’t even have the ability to seek God, not because we do not have the physical, intellectual or the liberty to do so, but because we will not come to Him to die to self and this life , when we love this life so much. Apart from a work of God in us, no man chooses to die to self or the life they love so much. Even when we are born again we struggle with it. There is no life in man apart from God. We are morally accountable for we choose death rather than life. All of us, there is not one, no, not even one that chooses life in Christ, which means to die to my carnal desires, no not one, apart from the work of God in a person’s life.

 

>>This passage does not support the Calvinist doctrine: "God made men upright but they sought devices" (Ecclesiastes 7:29) (plural can't refer only to Adam). The verse talks about being upright (not totally depraved), but then tells what goes wrong with these upright men.

 

For Terry to use Ecclesiastes 7:29 to support his argument is also a demonstration of his ignorance as to how the book of Ecclesiastes is widely known to be interpreted. Solomon was dealing with the futility of life "under the sun" (1:2, 14), without God in the picture. Life without God is meaningless. When we take God out of the equation, the world makes absolutely no sense. You are born, than you die and what happens in the "between time" doesn't change anything. To make matters worse, the world is a bad place. Life is often unjust. Good people suffer and bad people prosper. The writer changes his tune in Chapter 11 where he gives the other side of the coin, the importance of serving God throughout life (11:9 - 12:1, 13-14). The author shows that the meaning of life is not to be found in experiencing the things of this world. True meaning is found only in serving the Creator. So Ecclesiastes 7:29 is Solomon viewing life from a person that only has the senses to determine the meaning of it, hence it’s meaning cannot be use to support or deny a biblical doctrine other than the one immediately by context is being supported. Most theologians would agree that this verse is either a reference to Adam and Eve or a statement made by Solomon to explain the world from human inference only and not with heavenly enlightenment.

 

>>But, also remember that if man was born totally depraved, then there can be no good feature in a child that we need to mimic, yet Jesus said we have to become as little children if we would enter the kingdom (Matthew 18:1ff). Why would God want us to mimic those totally depraved little brats? 

Stating that humanity is totally depraved does not mean that humans do not have virtues. Kids are known to speak the truth, because they are innocent, not free of sin or sinless, but due to their young age they are not yet malicious. Their motives can be said to be pure motives, thought they quickly learn and demonstrate the nature within them as they continue to grow. Again, total depravity does not mean that kids are as evil as they could be, but that all areas of them have been affected by sin.

 

>>If all people are totally and inherently depraved, then when God said "Hear O Israel", they couldn't hear or obey the command to obey. They were "totally unable" to hear and obey. In fact it is silly to command a hammer to do anything on its own or to even take a first step toward cooperating with another.

 

God’s command has within itself the enabling for those hearing to do and to choose. Let me explain. God tells a paralytic or a dead person to stand or to extend an arm that has been dead since birth. Well, that is absurd one must deduce from Terry’s application of logic. But God’s command to the dead person to rise or stand, and to the paralytic to extend the dead body part carries with it the ability to do so. God talks to a dying world daily through natural revelation (creation) and his servants’ lives and preaching, people hear for God has given them such ability, yet they will not come, because humanity is in enmity with god. Men love darkness and hate the light.

 

>>The scene that Calvinism creates is actually blasphemous to God. It makes Him look as ridiculous as a man talking to his hammer and then getting angry at it for not obeying commands.

 Illustrations fall short many times. It would be ridiculous for any of us to expect anything from a hammer, but not from a biological organism that has been given the capacity to respond to the calling or the command. However the creature is inclined to sin and loves its sin so much that none seek God, no, not even one.

 

>>"If every newborn is "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil", then how do we account for the goodness of the "unregenerate" like Cornelius,Acts 10:1-4, 22, or anyone else today. How do we account for all the good things that non-Christians do? Then how can "evil men proceed from bad to worse" 1 Ti 3:13?"

 

All newborns, humanity as a whole, is born with a fallen nature into a fallen world, with their inclination towards sin. Yet humans have been created intelligent, able to reason and with the ability to choose within the liberties granted them. One of those liberties is to seek God, but none seek God for the right reasons, for the sin that we love so much before we are born again has mankind blinded and enslaved to its self. Not by physical restriction, but due to the creatures ability to choose sin over evil and the crature always chooses sin over God. Hence making the creature fully morally accountable to its creator.

 

I will stop here for now and add a little more as time permits later beloved in Christ.

 

Blessings

Permalink Reply by Bible-Talk on October 5, 2011 at 12:50pm

Thanks David for your reply. I appreciate your diligence brother! I have read your response to the article by Terry Benton with interest and indeed an open mind.

 

I must say David that I still have reservations about thinking of babies/little children as being born spiritually dead ie not free of sin or they are not sinless.

 

I understand the inheritance of a sinful nature, but:

 

Isn't sin an ACT (Gal 5:19)/TRANSGRESSION (1John 3:4) of Gods law(s)? So if kids speak the truth because they are adjudged to be innocent and their motives are pure, CAN they COMMIT sin(s)? If they are not yet malicious are they capable of; "13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."? James 1:13-15

 

I see the little children that Jesus talked about (Matt 18:30) as sinless; how/why do we become like them to ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN? It's not about human virtues is it? Rather isn't it about spiritual purity in Gods eyes?

 

It sounds like the "total depravity" reasoning could be applied to humans post childhood?

 

With much appreciation and love in the Lord,

Desmond

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by dean burrows on October 5, 2011 at 2:23pm

Would have to agree with you Desmond.  God created man. Create man in his image. Gave man the breath of life.  It was the taking of the tree of knowledge that turned man.  Now as we grow in knowledge we develop desires we develop attitudes and once again I am drawn to the fact that The Father judges by the heart. This says something to me about the condition of man. And boy am I happy The Father does judge by the heart goes I khow I was having some  good times that shouldn't have been happening. Thankyou Father!!!!

 

Permalink Reply by Vincent Hayden on October 5, 2011 at 2:29pm

There are some things that bother me...

God hardens the heart of pharaoh.

He gives men over to delusion.

I think the delusion part really means that God withdraws his protection and allows the unclean spirits to affect people - maybe as a way of showing them what lies at the end of the road they're on.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on October 6, 2011 at 2:02pm

You are welcome bro Desmond,

 

Human depravity is applicabel to all of humanity from time of conception on.

 

Do all children belong to God?

This is what we know:

Psalms 51:5
5 Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Romans 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

The above verses teach us that we are born in sin.

Numbers 14:28-32 (New International Version)
28 So tell them, 'As surely as I live, declares the LORD, I will do to you the very things I heard you say: 29 In this desert your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. 30 Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun. 31 As for your children that you said would be taken as plunder, I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected. 32 But you—your bodies will fall in this desert.

These verses indicate to many in the family that there is an age of accountability. Not sure if I agree with that. I don’t see the text establishing such a thing, but we do not have a lot of information about the topic.

We also know that:

2 Samuel 12:22
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell [whether] GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

David said he would join his child again. Was David going to hell or heave? David was going to heaven and expected to meet with his child there, but this one verse is not something we can base an entire doctrine on, so let’s look further.


1 Corinthians 7:14
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

The children are called holy. They are called holy due to their parents being believers, but this is not teaching us that they are born again, saved. It is simply saying that God honors the family member that believes in Him by separating their immediate family for His purposes. I am not sure this verse has anything to do with a child being able to go to heaven if he dies, but is an interesting one.

Mark 10:13
13. And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].
14 But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put [his] hands upon them, and blessed them.

 This shows that Christ receives not only those who are moved by the holy desire and faith, but that all  can freely approach him, even those who are not yet of age to know how much they need his grace.

Jesus agenda was full. He was a beautiful man to behold and the apostles didn’t think He had time for such common activities. They saw him as a great teacher who didn’t have time for such time wasting activities, but Jesus would not be denied the beauty of life. We learn, that when we judge Christ according to human perceptions or feelings of our flesh, we are unfair judges; for we then deprive him of his peculiar excellencies. The disciples thought they were honoring him but they were mistaken.

 

Ok so with the above verses in mind what can we conclude? We are all born sinners because we are descendants of Adam and hence God’s justice is not tainted if He killed all the children in the flood and they go to hell. But “I think” God can kill the children as He is passing judgment on the adults justly and still chose to save/allow those children who only had sin due to the inheritance of Adam to enter heaven. At least I would like to think that. God is the giver of life, and thus has the right to take life as well. Yeah, God knows what He's doing. Even if half a billion children perished in the flood, God knows the moral status of each. In eternity, God's scales of justice (not ours) will be balanced, for children as well as adults.

I don’t really know what happens to children, but would like to believe they go to heaven.

 

Paul tells us: “not to be children in understanding, but in malice, (1 Corinthians 14:20.)” Children are not malicious up to certain age, which age varies with each individual, but they are born with a sinful nature, which will manifest immediately. Babies try to manipulate parents with their cries and they quickly exhibit selfishness ect… A baby will cry out “mine” faster than mommy or daddy.  Humanity is condemned from birth according to scripture. God is just and we can rest in such knowledge.  

 

Thank you for the godly exchange.

 

Blessings

RSS

The Good News

Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate

Click here to learn more.

© 2024   Created by AllAboutGOD.com.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!