A bit about Adam and Eve.

Boy, what you need to do is to getchersef a B-I-B-L-E ! Kids sure say silly things!
The specific phrases are not in the Bible, but the concepts sure are -- just as much as the word Trinity which is also not found in the Bible.

I'd like you to explain how Total Depravity is only a doctrine of man.How would this doctrine be a trap to snare the unwitting?! Wouldn't people naturally recoil when hearing about how bad folks really are? I would think a doctrine of man would elevate people to a status they do not deserve.People want to think more highly of themselves --they would want to believe they are really basically good.Teaching the sinfulness of mankind is not appealing to the multitudes. Teaching this is not snaring the unwitting.False teachers like to acquire adherents with itching ears.Nope. Teaching how sinful people really are is true and biblical. To say otherwise is foolish.

 

Might I suggest something to you? "Concepts are sure there" = "as discovered and given a name by MEN!" That's called "Isogesis," Ja!

Man is NOT totally depraved. Believe it or not (though most Calvies will admit this) men can do good works! And on top of that, their SPIRITS (minds, emotions, and wills) are not totally closed to the gospel. The "wind" of the Spirit might just come along (John 3) and convict them of "sin, of righteousness, and of judgment" (John 16:8) and they might be saved "whosoever" they are!!

YES!! And yours elevates man to "elect" where he does not deserve it!! As long as they believe what you are saying, there is NO need to repent because they "understand spiritual things" (1Cor 2:14-15). They are ELECT!! So despite understanding that they are "bad," they say, "Well, I'm not all that bad, I guess. I can at least hear God."

You mean like "I'm saved already??" Don't you see? People can believe they are sinners but are redeemed -- "elect" -- in spite of that?? Ask any man in prison "Are you bad?" The answer will be a resounding, "No." If there is any way out, man will believe it rather than believe God.

skypair

 

You bet! What isn't truth is to be denied. You stated in post #11:

When asked if you could show 'bilbical support" you gave the verses from Exodus, Duet, and Numbers.

Now, let us review.
1. James says the 'age of accountability in the Bible is 20".
2. James then gives verses to validate via scripture the "age of accountabiblity" is 20.

3. I gave my refute of his assumption.

Now let us look at what James says:

So which is it James? Is it a myth or is it real? You apparently aren't very sure of this subject.

Actually no, it doesn't. I have already shown why. But to further it some what, your passages do not address the knowledge of sin and when it is known and unknown.

There is one passage you quoted in Due 1:39 that says your "little ones" and "your children" who TODAY do not have the knowledge of good and evil. I wonder what it is called when the come to an age (or day) where they do understand... an age of accountability maybe??

No, it doesn't work out for you. And I can see why with your going back and forth like you have. Secondly there is no 'age' to be placed or set for the age of accountability. It is the age that the person comes to the knowledge of good and evil or an understanding not of right or wrong but sin and righteousness. Right and wrong are perceptions of good and evil but the definition is derived by those of authority who set the standard. Like fathers and mothers, another is civil governments, but the ultimate and only absolute is God. A child knows what is right and wrong in contrast to what his parents desire and is accountable once he understands so it is with God and the AOA. Thus the bible lays out the defintions for good (Only God is good = righteousness) and evil (= sin - those who follow after the "evil one"). Yes, I know very short discriptions but I know you grasp the intent and correlation made.

Again, congradulations on the grandchildren! :thumbs:

Yes, right and wrong in relation to what they know you desire. But they do not understand good and evil in relation to God. Thus the passage I gave earlier and illistrated in the passage you gave of Duet 1:39.

At least 'here' you admit the scriptures you gave have nothing to do with an "age of accountability" but I'm sure down a bit further you flip-flop again . I however gave one already and you also gave another that illistrates the same quite well.

See, there you go again back and forth like a Disney Land ride. I have already shown and established that what you gave is not an age of accountability but an age of service and that is why it has nothing to do with sin. When you start off incorrect you will end in the same manner.

Again we are not talking about social and religous ages of service but a time when one comes to the understanding of sin and righteousness. Thus if they are blind "they have no sin" but to state you see (or know) then "your sin remains". This does deal with sin, knowledge of it or lack there of, and being held accountable. Yours, as you have stated, do not.

Which was my point of contention regarding your posting of your 'biblical support' for the age of accountability. All that you posted is an age of service and that is why being married, having children, owning land, and sacrifices were given to show they were still held accountable. Therefore 20 was not an age of accountability but of full rights and service to and for social and religious duties.

Wrong once again. The bible nor those who teach the biblcal view AOA never state it is a specific age but 'an age' whereby a person comes to understand sin and righeousness in relation to God.

Your premise is based upon faulty logic. Who does not know that murder is wrong?? Even head hunter tribes who kill other people for food amongst themselves do not kill one another without just cause. It might be a messed up view but a view that still holds to the fundamental truth that murder is wrong, they just contend it is murder amoungst themselves. Or what about theft? Same thing, though some might presume that conquering a people gives you the right to lay claim to anothers stuff or family they still forbade theft amoungst themselves. So no, because man will come to that age on his own. We are to bring the truth that once they have come to that age they might hear and believe and be saved or reject that which we bring and be damned.

Both.

No it doesn't because it address their nature not when they come to understand nor does it address them knowing it IS sin only that they WILL sin.
As I said, they do sin but it is not imputed against them till they know it to be sin/evil.

 

He never adresses the concept that Paul "was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom 7:9 Now you either have Paul saying he was alive before he knew that law or you bring up the possibility that Paul lost his salvation each time he realized that he sinned.

skypair