A bit about Adam and Eve.

Some kind of scriptural support of your view would be nice as well. What you posted earlier has nothing to do with an 'age of accountability' and you know it. Secondly my post implies there is not specific age regarding 'accountablility' since it differs with each person.

The Ex 30:14-16 passage you give in first excludes all women, children, and old men (over 60). Secondly this is actually tax for the temple. Thirdly it is an unofficail way to number the strength of Isreal because an actual census was forbidden.

What you gave can be referred to as an 'age of service' whereby those reaching this age they can serve most anywhere.

It is the age of taxation as shown above. It is the age in which a man was to enlist for war (if there was one or for the army - Num 1:3) . It was the age when Levite priests could enter service (1 Chr. 23: 24, 27; Ex 3:8), but their were also other ages at which a Levite could minister such as 25 and 30 (Num. 4: 3; Num. 8: 23-26)

Yet one could get married before the age of 20 (typically for men the age of 13 and women 12). They could have children before the age of 20. They were resposible for their wife and children (even the vows they made) before the age of 20. They owned land and worked before the age of 20. There were many things that they could do before the age of 20 in which they were resposible or accountable including sacrifices and offerings made on the behalf of them and or their family as well. But there were certain social and religious functions they could not do till the age of 20.

It is not an 'age of accountability' but an better seen as an 'age of service'.

Nowhere does scripture even allude to the age of 20 as being an age of accountability.

No, that is what you are saying.

The passage is clearly stating that if you do not know of sin (blind) then sin is not imputed against you (you have no sin). But if you know what is sin then that sin is imputed against you (thus it 'remains'). This isn't saying you have no sin since the later part of the verse states "your sin remains", but that the sin is not imputed against you till you know of it.

 

Again I disagree. What we believe is based on what you know and have chosen to agree with. ALWAYS!!!!

No, I wasn't.

Knowledge, whether through study or experience is simply information (or a collection of data or facts) that we have at the very least a basic understanding of regardless of whether we recieve it in the positive or negitive sense. This has been and is still my contention.

Knowledge of itself does not determine that or what a person believes but what one chooses to agree with regarding the knowledge they possess is what one is said to believe. example: evolution and creationism. I have knowledge regarding both but it is my choice of which knowledge I will agree with that afixes my belief to a certain designation or view. The more knowledge we have of a thing give us better information or data to evaluate it as truth or not to each person. Thus 'I believe' based upon what I have choosen to be true regarding the knowledge that I currently possess and act or think accordingly.

I still had to take the information from another source and decide to agree with it or not in order for me to use 'that' to justify other things I agree with as truth. Belief is a choice

I thought this is what your thread is about ??

 

Define sin nature for me. Thanks in advance.

I believe that a child is born without sin ... that is they have never sinned and will not sin until they reach the age where intellectually they know right from wrong and willfully do wrong.

Now being human born without sin they have the potential to live sinless lives ... but none of us ever do that. Also, being human they have the potential to sin, and we all manage to do that.

I believe most on the board believe that Jesus was both totally human and totally God. But he never sinned. If someone believe that Christ could neve sin, then that means they do not believe he was human.

Blessings to all.

 

Please explain why not. Thanks in advance. :thumbs:

 

It is simply a potentical that will always be unfulfilled by we humans. If there is no sin at birth, and I believe there is not, then the potential is there. But, alas, we humans do sin ... and by the word sin I mean we are not always perfect as God is perfect. There is always potential until that potential is negated. I guess it is a philosophical topic to discuss and not a practical one.

Here is an analogy, knowing that all analogies always have weak points:

I come up to bat for the first time in a game. I have the potential to hit a home run, but do not. So, that potential is unfilled. I also have the potential to strike out and if I do strike out I have fulfilled that potential.

 

Thank your responce however that doesn't answer my question.

Why is it that no human has ever not sinned if it is a potential possiblity.

If we use your batting analogy, then at some point in time someone would hit a home run. That is just a fact and it is verifiable. But no person since fall of man (born of man and woman) has ever not sinned and that is verifiable as well.

I believe however,that it is a practical topic because of it's scriptural support and verifiable proofs and therefore not just a philosophical notion.

 

Well, that is a good question and I am sure there are many with ready answers and there are others with questions. And it is a question I have not given a lot of though to or mulled over very much. But, let's see ...........

Humans, as far as I know, are the only creatures, animals, whatever you want to call us, are the only ones who have the mental capability to know the difference between right and wrong. That is, as far as I know, they are the only being capable of initiating and completing an action knowing it is wrong. And one of the first rules of nature, if not the first one, is self-preservation and/or self-atisfaction, all of us put ourself ahead of others and often this is sin .... sin being defined as falling short of the perfection of God. Why is this a sin, putting ourself first? Because there are times when putting ourself first harms another person in some way or another. The harm may be from stealing something that belongs to that person. It may be as simple as hurting their feelings. But we all do it, and thus we all sin.

Do we inherit this attribute? I am not sure. It is an interesting idea and one to debate, but I do not see it as particularly important topic. I am sure there are others who disagree with me here.

 

I think it would depend on the topic though it is one of the central ideas in most systematic theologies.

 

Never having been a semarian I probably will show much ignorance here. But that is all right. :laugh: I can see this topic would have to be addressed in the building of a system of theology ... if that is what systematic theology means.

I say to me it is unimportant in that I feel my primary task as a Christian is living the Christ-like life today and in showing Christ in my life to those I meet regardless of who they are. I guess I lean toward the practical in that regard, but being practical is also very much a part of the culture I grew up in in the Shenandoah Valley, of VA.

Almost forgot, how do you see the verses in the Bible that talk about life beginning with the first breath in the context of this thread?

 

It didn't give them knowledge. They had knowledge but only of "good." They received knowledge of "evil" when they disobeyed.

skypair

 

Actually, i tried to jump back to history and asked an ancient man and he said that he's afraid of lightning so much, because he thought that lightning comes from God when He's angry, so in the end actually he's afraid of God.

The other day, I came to a mordern man and he said that with his knowledge he's afraid of nothing, he made joke on the ancient man that how stupid he was to be afraied of lightning. And he believes in nothing but himself because anything considered to be not "scientific" must be superstitious and shall be ignored. And judging from his knowledge of good and evil, he said that, "your God is too cruel to even send people to hell, He's not a good God". "It's not scientific anyway...you know, I am a busy man and have no time to chat with you about your God." he continued to rant about things like that, in a judging position and even to judge God.


Sometimes I think to myself, are we capable of handling our knowledge or not?

The modern man shouts again, "Nuke them, nuke them". Now I shout back at him, "Hey, don't you understand that you ate too much from the Tree of Knowledge that you failed to find the Tree of Life, this way, you are going to die your second death".

Aparantly, he has no clue what I am talking about, no matter how knowledgable he thinks he is.

 

I worked with a fellow years ago who often said, 'Just as the dinosaur over specialized in size and became extinct man has over specialized in gray matter and this will lead to his extinction. And, the insects will not miss us at all.

 

I think that I have to agree with him. raying:

 

jArthur,

Its not sin until we are accountable: "Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom 7:7-9

So at the point at which you realize that your sinful acts are trespasses against God, you then are guilty and accountable under the law. AoA is NOT a specific age. That girls mature earlier than boys demonstrates this on a different level.

skypair

 

See, there's your problem, Ja. You basically want to say that Adam was not "good" when God created him -- but God said he was. And apparently you want to say he didn't know "good" -- had to get that from the tree as well -- despite his intimate relationship with God!

Then you want to say that infants today "know evil" and are sinners from the womb.

You seem to have no grasp that the KNOWLEDGE of sin/evil -- either in Adam or in us -- changes our spiritual lives eternally like Ezek 18:20 says: "The soul that sinneth, it shall surely die." You want to say that Paul was dead when he actually stated that he was "alive without [knowing] the law once" for we "know not sin but by the law." Rom 7:7-9

The only thing you CAN reject this with is the "doctrines of men," Ja. Doctrines like "total depravity," "sin nature," original sin," etc. NONE of which is found in scripture and ALL of which were fabricated to snare the unwitting.

Because you don't give man credit that maybe he will choose one day to do right and not only wrong all his existence. If that little grandaughter came to the table, looked at you, looked at the object, and left, she would have demonstrated for you the knowledge of good and evil and of repentance to your will. Indeed, that is what you hope will happen when she knows what sin is, right?

skypair