Who is "not guilty?"
"all have sinned"
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by webdog, Jan 17, 2011.
Page 4 of 16
-
-
-
We're not talking saved persons here. It is assumed that they are no longer under condemnation. We're talking those who have not accepted Christ. I don't know that you are or are not "not guilty" in God's eye, for right now, I've not ascertained that you understand the gospel well enough to be assured that you are indeed anything more than "religious." I'm sure that will tick you off, but that is not my point. If you are going to argue that there are innocent people, then class yourself in that class, you probably don't understand the gospel as laid out in the Scriptures.
I continue to see this press from you and a few others to declare some people "innocent." Where are these innocent people who have never violated God's law? And, what do you do with Romans 5, where Paul says that death came by one man, Adam, and that "before" God's law (because people died before Moses)? -
If you maintain a fetus has violated God's law, please do tell which one....and the act of being conceived is not a violation of His law, nor are we guilty of Adam's sin and somehow mystically sinned along with Adam when he did.
Surely you do realize there is a difference between innocent and not guilty, right? I will not classify myself as innocent because, apparently unlike you, I know the difference between these terms.
Also, you do realize it is against board rules to question the salvation of another, right? That is deliberately violating God's law. -
I guess we should all submit a written testimony to you of our salvation experience and you can let us know if we've "ascertained...the gospel well enough" to be saved. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
While I completely understand what you are saying and I'm pretty sure that you are not questioning Webdog's salvation, I would encourage you to, perhaps, give a bit more of the benefit of the doubt in your postings.
I think what you are saying is that, based on one's postings (Webdog's in this instance) you can neither confirm or deny that his beliefs are in accordance with salvation. I think that's what you are saying and I think you are saying that because you, like the rest of us, only know Webdog from this forum.
So, friend, whether you can confirm or deny or whether you cannot confirm or deny, I would encourage you to give him, as well as others, the benefit of the doubt.
Blessings,
The Archangel -
Do you argue with the Bible?
It SAYS that we are born dead in our sin and trespasses.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
Eph 2:1-4 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Again, if you truly felt that babies were innocent enough to be saved, why not just send them to heaven immediately before they become "sinners."
You fail to understand what the Scriptures say about our sin and being born into sin, and I doubt that I will be the one who will convince you, seeing as how you already ignore the Bible, the Word of God. -
-
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
In both Abraham's charades of Sarah being his sister (once with Pharaoh and once with Abimelech) Sarah remained unadulterated, for lack of a better term.
Your thought line suggests that you think Abimelech "knew" Sarah (in the biblical way). He didn't. God saw to it that Abimelech did not violate Sarah (and, therefore, Abraham). So the reason that Abimelech was "innocent" in this case is that God intervened and kept him from violating Sarah and even threatened death to him and his people if he disregarded God's warning.
If you maintain that one must know God's law in order to violate it, then you have virtually no choice, logically, to affirm the heresy that those never having heard the gospel (ie. Native Americans, Indigenous peoples, etc.) will go to Heaven--even without hearing and believing the Gospel.
Frankly, volition has nothing to do with it. Take Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. We know from Romans that (A) Sin isn't counted where there is no law, (B) There was no law between Adam and Moses, (C) People died--even though they, technically, committed no sin and the wages of sin is death, and (D) God judged Sodom harshly for their sin, though there was no law.
So, no, knowledge and volition do not play a part in innocence or breaking God's law.
The Archangel -
What you seem to be saying is that since we reject the DoG's the way YOU see them, or rather the way Calvin and company sees them, then we must not even understand the Gospel at all, therefore implying that we aren't even saved. This comes across as arrogant. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Please be sure to give the benefit of the doubt--no matter how messed up someone's understanding of the Gospel is.
I don't think the thief on the cross had the understanding of the Gospel we were blessed to learn at SBTS. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't "with Jesus in paradise."
So, friend, please be careful to not let your passions or the benefit of your education get the better of you. Neither of those things should stop us from "Speaking the truth in love."
Blessings,
The Archangel -
Robert, I appreciate you taking up for Webdog, but you have your own battles to fight. But since you insist, let's start with one thing first...
The discussion isn't about DoG the way "I" see them (or anyone else for that matter). The QUESTION at hand has nothing to do with DoG, but rather with being born in sin. If you can't even get the question right why do you think that you'd have insight into my motivation for asking?
So, what do YOU say about being born in sin? Yes or no? -
-
Last time...I don't ignore the Bible, not believe the Bible, argue with the Bible, etc. I ignore your understanding. You are not on par with the Bible, so please don't pretend that you are. -
I have not looked into this a great deal, so I may modify this position in the future. -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
I would say infants that die are saved. I don't know how that happens; I can't point to any text; but I believe that God will do right. Now, of course, I don't want Him to do right as I see it. But, I believe it is right as He sees it to admit persons who die in infancy (abortion victims, etc.) to heaven.
This is an issue where we have to have faith in God, even though He doesn't make answers to this question clear to us.
Blessings,
The Archangel -
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Plus all children who die in infancy are counted among the elect. It's the JUST NATURE OF GOD.
Per Albert Mohler anyway
Page 4 of 16