Extreme positions would be beliefs like "Christians can't drink alcohol" or "In order to be a Christian you must attend Church Sunday morning, evening and Wednesday evening".
Then there's the "You can't eat pork" or "You must be circumsized".
Extreme positions are strongly held beliefs that are either misunderstandings or traditions of Men.
ahhhh...I see.
What if we break mans law? Are we sinning if we break the govornment laws? The Bible says we should keep them to glorify God, correct? Am I being extream by sticking to that as a command of God?
Hmm so drug abuse (alchohol) is ok for Christians?
Is that your way of saying that cats, rats, dogs and bats were cleansed at the cross for food and if we are not chewing our pets we should be ashamed of our extreme views?
Are you sure you have not taken an extreme view here?
DHK your example and conclusion are correct - however the point above about this being a case of salvation EVEN without knowingly accepting Christ as savior remains.
It means that God views the circumstances of the sinner and holds them accountable for actions they are capable of making.
In the case of the infant - it is incapable of choosing and is not sent to hell for "failure to choose".
BUT IT STILL NEEDS a Savior - one who died for "OUR Sins and NOT for OUR SINS only but for the sins of the whole world".
In this case the child is in need of redemption because - like Mary and every other fallen child of Adam was born with a sinful nature. A nature in rebellion against God.
Do wineskins hold fermented wine?
Here is a hint given to us by Jesus:
Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
It seems to me that Jesus' wine was fermented wine, at least the old wine was fermented.
Which wine is better?
Luke 5:39And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”
Then we have Jesus' first miracle
They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
If this was the best wine, then we know that Jesus created old wine, in other words fermented wine.
Then we have this from Matthew 11:19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”
If Jesus was called a drunkard, surely the wine that he drank was fermented wine.
Was Jesus a dope adict?
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
and
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. 13For 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, 15since 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.)
I believe it is understood that Paul is talking about adults, not babies.
I did not mean to offend the noble drunkards when I mentioned thing about drug abuse vs drug addicts.
However - in Matt 11 the insults about being a drunkard are tossed around by the same folks that denied the virgin birth and claimed that Christ was the child of a woman who was not pure.
If we take "every insult" they toss at Christ and claim that they are in fact "true" we "become them".
The problem is that Jesus admits that he drank.
Did Jesus admit that his mother was not a virgin?
What about the other verses quoted?
Do you really believe that Old Wine was not fermented?
You seem to be arguing a different point.
I agree that when one is old enough to know right from wrong that rebellious actions are sin.
What I am getting at is the extra-biblical concept of 'age of accountability'.
What I'm describing and the 'age of accountability' theory, when push comes to shove ends up in the same place.
Jesus never said he was a drunkard. He never said that he got drunk.
In Acts 2 the apostles are accused of being drunk and the response is "it is not the right time of day for them to be drunk".
That did not mean they were drunks - but those who wish to latch on to that idea may be using it as the confession that they daily got drunk in the streets - but only in the afternoon.
All of Adam's children need a savior because of the Romans 3 problem of the sinful nature. BY NATURE we desire evil and do not pursue good.
That is the nature we are born with.
So infants and adults "need" as savior - and we have a Savior.
But SIN
is transgression of God's Commands. Rebellion against God and His Word. His Word "defines" what is right and so it defines also what is not right.
I never said he did.
I simply said he agreed that he drank alcohol.
I do not believe Romans 3 deals with children.
It seems to me that any time the New Testament speaks of sin, it never addresses children.
Yes, there is the instruction for children to obey parents, but children are not pointed out as sinners.
Here is a statement about "mankind" -- are infants part of "mankind"?
If so - then they are subject to death -- and "This" is why. And they are also under sin - and "this is why", and they are also subject to salvation in Christ and "this is why".
How would I know what sin is? I am sin. I need no defined commandment to realise that; but if I did not, then clearly that defined commandment will show me the truth, that I am sin.
The other day I drove behind an old skedonk - no example of what a car should look like. But it had a sticker on which read: "What would Jesus do?"
What would Jesus have done if provoked to anger? Kill? No!
What would Jesus have done if with friends enjoyed his meal - refused his drink because it was alcoholic?
No further questions.