Children are innocent, not guilty of any sin

[praise_yeshua]

We cannot know for sure why Eve OR Adam sinned,
we only can know that they did and obeyed satan instead of God.

You do greatly error not knowing the Scriptures.

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Notice. I said Eve was deceived. Notice the Scriptures above. Notice how Adam wasn't deceived.

Yes. The above is very nice...but it doesn't explain HOW.
You never address the HOW (or why).
You only address that we all sin.

Did you read the Scriptures I posted? If you did, I don't see how you didn't notice how they detail OTHERS teaching man to sin. Satan taught Eve how to sin.

Did your children listen to others instead of you? I bet they did. What did you do? Did you fulfill the demands of the law yourself in them?

PY....Adam knew God.
God gave to Adam a command.

Ah..... commands. Did you give commands to your children that they didn't follow? I wonder why they didn't follow.....

Might it be they were still in diapers? Still unable to communicate?

Do children know God? (in the biblical sense)
What commandment of God do you think children should know about since they don't even know about God??

Good....You're making my point for me.....

Again. What we teach them becomes their guide. Sinners teach children to sin. Your children hear your voice in the womb. They learn from you in the womb.

Also, the breath of God animates all children. That "animation" carries with it the unmistakable traits of Divinity....

Like.... "abba father"????

Why did your children pay attention to you at all? If what you say is true, then they wouldn't have anything to do with you.

 

[GodsGrace]

"Great post".... Geesh. Put your "pom poms" up.....

There is no meaningful difference between Substitutionary theory and Penal Substitutionary theory.

By all means, tell me how they're different. What caused the need for the "substitution"? If you say "the law", then you're teaching Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Here's the basic difference:
SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT THEORY:
Jesus died in our place to satisfy the justice of God.
Jesus fixed something that was broken.
We owed God a debt...Jesus paid it back. (instead of man-man could not atone for man's sins)

PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY:
The reformers, Luther and Calvin, modified the above theory (12th century by Anselm)
to teach that God's WRATH was satisfied (and not His jsutice).

As usual, reformed/calvinist teachings change the character of God and so I cannot agree with Jesus satisfying
THE WRATH of God but instead the JUSTICE of God.

This is a big difference in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of the other member.
You may not agree.

 

[GodsGrace]

You do greatly error not knowing the Scriptures.

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Oh for goodness sake PY
The serpent deceived Eve.
Her thoughts were led astray.
WHY????

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Notice. I said Eve was deceived. Notice the Scriptures above. Notice how Adam wasn't deceived.

Theology 101.
Next.

Did you read the Scriptures I posted? If you did, I don't see how you didn't notice how they detail OTHERS teaching man to sin. Satan taught Eve how to sin.

OK

Did your children listen to others instead of you? I bet they did. What did you do? Did you fulfill the demands of the law yourself in them?

PY....I'll discuss serious matter with you.
I don't care for analogies....
And I'm beginning to lose the thread here and I'm not going back.

This is about whether or not children are guilty of sinning.

This is about the sin nature AND WHEN IT KICKS IN.

I'm not going down any rabbit holes (no time, sorry).

Ah..... commands. Did you give commands to your children that they didn't follow? I wonder why they didn't follow.....

Might it be they were still in diapers? Still unable to communicate?

Does GOD give commands to those THAT CANNOT FOLLOW or COMMUNICATE WITH HIM?

Great point PY.
Thanks for agreeing with me.

Good....You're making my point for me.....

Again. What we teach them becomes their guide. Sinners teach children to sin. Your children hear your voice in the womb. They learn from you in the womb.

Analogy.
Not going there.

Also, the breath of God animates all children. That "animation" carries with it the unmistakable traits of Divinity....

Really?
So children hear the voice of God and are animated and still become violent with other children, are abusive to them, and cause harm.

So NOW what you're saying is that all children are saved?

Again...thanks for agreeing with me.

Like.... "abba father"????

Why did your children pay attention to you at all? If what you say is true, then they wouldn't have anything to do with you.

Analogy.
I'm not God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I know what concupiscense means PY.
I used to be Catholic and I'm involved with the CC and know their doctrine well.
It means lust and it means sexually.
But it's used for lust IN ANY SENSE.

Then why use the word concupiscence at all? You just properly defined the Greek source.

And the meaning of concupiscense was begun in the NT with Paul.
I also know Augustine and I don't care for him...so we'll leave him out of this.
Perhaps you're upset with his understanding of Original Sin?

No. YOU are tainted by what you believe concupiscence teaches. There is a reason you used the word. Lust is not synonymous with concupiscence.

BTW... Augustine was Roman Catholic. All this fighting between Catholics and Protestants over the same men.......

That alone will tell you both are wrong. I don't fight over men. Now Christ.... I'll fight for Him.

So is lust a sin?
I'd like that 3 carat yellow diamond in the window.
But I'd have to sell my house to get it.
Is it a sin to like a 3 carat diamond?

That is a great question. It depends. I lust for my wife. Is that wrong? I get naked sometimes too. Mostly when I shower or take a bath, or change clothes. Is being naked "sin" when I do this?

You described a form of covetiness. You described a desire to have something beautiful. If that diamond is for sale, and you have the money, then I don't see anything wrong with your desire. Diamonds are good things. After all, heaven is full of them.

What do you want me to prove about Adam?

That Adam wasn't flesh.

I'll help you a little. Know that Christ became sin for us. That didn't start at Calvary. It started in the flesh He partook of in the womb. The seed of Mary. God became WEAK.... and SUFFERED in flesh for us.

Adam was weak..... from the beginning.

Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts.
These are:
IMMORTALITY
IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE
ABSENCE OF THE SIN NATURE

Adam wasn't immortal. Adam learned. He didn't have "all knowledge". Adam sinned. If "sin" equals "sin nature", then you argument is self defeating. I'll stop right here and wait......

 

[praise_yeshua]

Here's the basic difference:
SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT THEORY:
Jesus died in our place to satisfy the justice of God.
Jesus fixed something that was broken.
We owed God a debt...Jesus paid it back. (instead of man-man could not atone for man's sins)

PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY:
The reformers, Luther and Calvin, modified the above theory (12th century by Anselm)
to teach that God's WRATH was satisfied (and not His jsutice).

As usual, reformed/calvinist teachings change the character of God and so I cannot agree with Jesus satisfying
THE WRATH of God but instead the JUSTICE of God.

This is a big difference in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of the other member.
You may not agree.

There is no meaningful difference listed above. You simply "blame" Luther and Calvin. That is nothing more than an excuse.

The law demanded wrath. Death is wrath. Justice is wrath in death.

There is a reason I've been saying for some time now here around everyone that death itself involves wrath.

Again, there is no meaningful difference between what you believe (and most of the forum members) believe about the law and sin. You believe God's nature in "Justice" demands such from man and Christ in the Atonement.

If death alone provided Atonement, then man would satisfy the demands of God when he died. Have you ever wondered why you're going to still die after being the beneficiary of life Eternal?

 

[GodsGrace]

Then why use the word concupiscence at all? You just properly defined the Greek source.

UFFA!
Because I gave different words that are used to mean the same concept:
FLESH
SIN NATURE
CONCUPIESCENSE

No. YOU are tainted by what you believe concupiscence teaches. There is a reason you used the word. Lust is not synonymous with concupiscence.

Oh.....
Whatever you say.
BTW...YOU first used the word LUST, and rightly so.

BTW... Augustine was Roman Catholic. All this fighting between Catholics and Protestants over the same men.......

Don't know what you mean....not here for this.

That alone will tell you both are wrong. I don't fight over men. Now Christ.... I'll fight for Him.

Well, unfortunately...it's men that are running the churches.
Jesus went back up to heaven and left us down here to BUILD HIS CHURCH.

That is a great question. It depends. I lust for my wife. Is that wrong? I get naked sometimes too. Mostly when I shower or take a bath, or change clothes. Is being naked "sin" when I do this?

??

I asked you a specific question.
You reply with the above??
This is getting silly and I'm going to have to stop.

You described a form of covetiness. You described a desire to have something beautiful. If that diamond is for sale, and you have the money, then I don't see anything wrong with your desire. Diamonds are good things. After all, heaven is full of them.

Good. So lust, in itself, is not a sin.
It could BECOME a sin.

That Adam wasn't flesh.

I'll help you a little. Know that Christ became sin for us. That didn't start at Calvary. It started in the flesh He partook of in the womb. The seed of Mary. God became WEAK.... and SUFFERED in flesh for us.

Adam was weak..... from the beginning.



Adam wasn't immortal. Adam learned. He didn't have "all knowledge". Adam sinned. If "sin" equals "sin nature", then you argument is self defeating. I'll stop right here and wait......

Adam wasn't immortal?
Was he not supposed to live forever?
Did death not come due to HIM sinning?
PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL death....

Find out about the gifts Adam had that he lost.

 

[GodsGrace]

There is no meaningful difference listed above. You simply "blame" Luther and Calvin. That is nothing more than an excuse.

The law demanded wrath. Death is wrath. Justice is wrath in death.

There is a reason I've been saying for some time now here around everyone that death itself involves wrath.

Again, there is no meaningful difference between what you believe (and most of the forum members) believe about the law and sin. You believe God's nature in "Justice" demands such from man and Christ in the Atonement.

If death alone provided Atonement, then man would satisfy the demands of God when he died. Have you ever wondered why you're going to still die after being the beneficiary of life Eternal?

You don't understand why MAN cannot satisfy God's justice?
And you think the SATISFACITON THEORY and the PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY are the same??

Read up.
Start with
SEVEN THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT
STEPHEN D. MORRISON

It's good to know stuff before writing about it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Oh for goodness sake PY
The serpent deceived Eve.
Her thoughts were led astray.
WHY????

She wasn't complete. She was immature. She was innocent. She didn't know any better.

Better yet, why as Satan allowed there to start with?

PY....I'll discuss serious matter with you.
I don't care for analogies....
And I'm beginning to lose the thread here and I'm not going back.

Typical response. Tibas does this to me too. He acts like all of these discussions are not personal. When he starts losing the debate, then he always wants to use the same arguments that add up to I'm "getting personal".......

Well. Jesus dealt with problems head on. He called Peter "Satan". He got very personal. That is what is lacking today in society. The "internet" has allowed people to "be things they're not"..... Don't get me wrong. I don't think the internet is bad at all. Freedom demands such things.

God values freedom. Which is what happened to Adam. It is why Adam was tested. He failed.... However, Abel didn't. He passed. Paul "keep the faith".

This is about whether or not children are guilty of sinning.

You view of sin demands judgement. Don't get me wrong. Some do. Some don't.

This is about the sin nature AND WHEN IT KICKS IN.

Paul said that he sinned ignorantly in unbelief. He went so far as to that is why he obtained mercy...............

1Ti 1:13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

I keep point this out and it just keeps being ignored. I know why.....

Does GOD give commands to those THAT CANNOT FOLLOW or COMMUNICATE WITH HIM?

Sure does. Such are "mirrors" to our own inabilities and "ignorance in unbelief".

Great point PY.
Thanks for agreeing with me.

Analogy.
Not going there.

Ah, but you'll accept the "church fathers" when they agree with you. Analogies true to your/our own life is knowledge we gain from nature. It also shows our hypocrisy when we believe God will act a certain way differently than we will act.

It is called.... hypocrisy. We are all hypocritical to some degree or another.

Really?
So children hear the voice of God and are animated and still become violent with other children, are abusive to them, and cause harm.

I didn't specifically say "God's voice". I think I said "traits/characteristics". Have you ever watched a child share their food with another child they don't even know? They do what they're taught by us and what comes from the "breath of God" in life that comes from God.

So NOW what you're saying is that all children are saved?

Don't read anything into what I said. I have a nuanced position. I mentioned the most difficult verse in the Scriptures in another thread.

1Co 7:14 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.

Faith is generational. Unbelief is generational. I don't know exactly how to apply what is taught here.

Again...thanks for agreeing with me.

Analogy.
I'm not God.

Neither am I. I do learn from nature. I do learn from our experiences that mimic exactly what God experienced with Adam and Eve.

Our children don't listen to us. Our children desire independence. (which is very good). I want my children to be their own people. Which is what God wants from us.

It is man that sees God as a dictator. The Father let his son take his inheritance and waste it...... so he would learn what he said was true. So he would learn the futility of being without Him......

Reject whatever you want. I've had my say. That is all I expect. Feel free to respond or not.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You don't understand why MAN cannot satisfy God's justice?
And you think the SATISFACITON THEORY and the PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY are the same??

Read up.
Start with
SEVEN THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT
STEPHEN D. MORRISON

It's good to know stuff before writing about it.

Why should I read anything from Stephen D Morrison. Is Stephen Morrison going to stand with you in judgement? Are you going to tell God that Stephen speaks for you?

I know them well. I was debating the topic @bible.org in the late 90s. Don't try to pretend I don't know the subject.

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I don't see "justice" listed there..... Lets see what you know about this verse.....

It is good thing you haven't received justice. It find it troubling that you're demanding justice.

I know I've made you angry. I make everyone angry. At times, anger is good. It is a great motivator. God gets angry but it isn't what you think it is.....God's anger comes from hopelessness in those He loves.

 

[praise_yeshua]

UFFA!
Because I gave different words that are used to mean the same concept:
FLESH
SIN NATURE
CONCUPIESCENSE

Men speak in their own language. Have you ever heard the phrase "coined a term"? CONCUPIESCENCE came from Augustine.

The word "lust" didn't need Augustine. Study languages. You wouldn't even know God with the words of men. Those same words can deceive. Which is what Satan did with Eve. Satan spoke differently than God. Men do this all the time.

CONCUPIESCENCE is a doctrine. It is not an accurate description of lust.

Oh.....
Whatever you say.
BTW...YOU first used the word LUST, and rightly so.

I know. I already knew to use it instead of CONCUPIESCENCE. This isn't my first rodeo....... or like "Sam" would say. "Been there, got the T-Shirt".

Well, unfortunately...it's men that are running the churches.
Jesus went back up to heaven and left us down here to BUILD HIS CHURCH.

Yep. Men will be judged for it. Authority doesn't mean you're right when you're wrong. Which is why I follow right.

I asked you a specific question.
You reply with the above??
This is getting silly and I'm going to have to stop..

You asked if lust is sin. I gave you an answer. I lust for my wife. That isn't sin. Lust is provoked by nakedness. I thought you might would "fill in the blanks". If I give you all the answers, they will not be your answers. You must reason properly and you're not. I'm challenging you at every level. I'm laying a foundation of understanding that you have never heard before. That is why you're having issues with it. You're ignorant of such things. Just like Paul was ignorant in unbelief.

Good. So lust, in itself, is not a sin.
It could BECOME a sin.

So who was there for Adam to lust over? You must realize that many things have changed since Adam. Not just because of Adam. It is because of other people.

Adam wasn't immortal?
Was he not supposed to live forever?
Did death not come due to HIM sinning?
PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL death....

Find out about the gifts Adam had that he lost.

I know what you believe. You don't know everything I believe. I have the advantage here and you don't realize it. Just how do you teach someone that has already made their mind up? You express unwavering faith in what you believe. You should. It is called sincerity.

However, you are sincerely wrong. If you want to know, then this isn't going to be pleasant for you. It will hurt. I know. It still hurts me. To think I was so foolish to be where you're at. I was, I believed what I was taught.

Adam was taken from dust. The life he had in the flesh was never immortal. He had to eat of the true of life. Remember the narrative?

So... how do you establish that Adam was immortal. There is no immortality except in Jesus Christ.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Adam never had this. Which is why I've said to you from the beginning that Adam was created incomplete. He was a work in progress. He needed Eve.

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Freedom to both learn and experience. Adam didn't know everything.

What we shall be in Christ..... isn't a return to what Adam was before he supposedly "fell". It is much more. Much greater. Adam was a seed. A living seed in the Garden.

 

[TedT]

Many reasons. Neglect, murder and etc.....

The real question really isn't about children...... it is about what is death?

Suffering and death are the wages for sin. In fact, sin is what gives birth to death - it is NOT a mere consequence of life. Life does NOT give birth to death, sin does, James 1:15.

So if infants are innocent of the guilt of sin they should never suffer and die ! but they do die!! Since we can't pretend they don't die, must we pretend death is NOT caused by sinfulness?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Suffering and death are the wages for sin. In fact, sin is what gives birth to death - it is NOT a mere consequence of life. Life does NOT give birth to death, sin does, James 1:14.

So if infants are innocent of the guilt of sin they should never suffer and die ! but they do die!! Since we can't pretend they don't die, must we pretend death is NOT caused by sinfulness?

Okay...... lets "flush this out".....

Unless a grain of wheat fall to the ground, it abides alone.....

Joh 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Joh 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

We view death from the wrong perspective.

Adam was never designed to live forever. Show me where Adam was designed to live forever when he was taken from dirt and ashes?

To combat this thought, man made theology has fabricated this "fleshly death" and "spiritual death" false dichotomy that exists. Adam was never immortal until he was "born again". He was "born twice".

 

[TedT]

He definitely doesn't understanding the doctrine of culpability.

The doctrine of culpability is a legal concept that refers to a person's blameworthiness for a crime. It also refers to the mental state that must be proven for a defendant to be found guilty. The one who sins is the one who dies, not his progeniture.

Being found guilty of the crime of sinfulness by the righteous Judge is proven by receiving the wages for sin, death. Sin is a sentence for a crime, not a mere consequence of being given a life.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The doctrine of culpability is a legal concept that refers to a person's blameworthiness for a crime. It also refers to the mental state that must be proven for a defendant to be found guilty. The one who sins is the one who dies, not his progeniture.

Being found guilty of the crime of sinfulness by the righteous Judge is proven by receiving the wages for sin, death. Sin is a sentence for a crime, not a mere consequence of being given a life.

Okay..... define culpability from God's law???? Don't reference man made arguments concerning it. We can get to this but show me where the law defines culpability.

Culpability is actually, first, a theological reference. It has no context apart from God.

 

[GodsGrace]

She wasn't complete. She was immature. She was innocent. She didn't know any better.

So if EVE was incomplete and innocent...
can we say that children are incomplete and innocent?

Better yet, why as Satan allowed there to start with?

This is one of the unanswerable questions.
Like I said...we shouldn't go beyond what scripture teaches.
We could have AN OPINION...but it will be ONLY an opinion.

Typical response. Tibas does this to me too. He acts like all of these discussions are not personal. When he starts losing the debate, then he always wants to use the same arguments that add up to I'm "getting personal".......

I didn't say you were getting personal...you weren't.
I said I don't care for analogies....they don't work well...
We speak about God in an anthropological way...but it's not a good idea.
Man is too different from God.
His ways are not our ways.

Well. Jesus dealt with problems head on. He called Peter "Satan". He got very personal. That is what is lacking today in society. The "internet" has allowed people to "be things they're not"..... Don't get me wrong. I don't think the internet is bad at all. Freedom demands such things.

We're having a discussion...
when I realize we won't be agreeing on something...
and the same points are being repeated...
I usually stop. Unless it's a salvific issue.
Now, I KNOW children cannot sin....
so basically I'm here trying to convince you....
but I know that I won't, so I will stop eventually.
It would be nice if you understood this flesh, sin nature that Christianity teaches,
but if you don't care to believe it,,,that's fine too. It's just a doctrine and will not save anyone.

God values freedom. Which is what happened to Adam. It is why Adam was tested. He failed.... However, Abel didn't. He passed. Paul "keep the faith".

Agreed.

You view of sin demands judgement. Don't get me wrong. Some do. Some don't.

ALL SIN DEMANDS JUSTICE.
Did I say differently?

But a person has TO KNOW that they're sinning in order for that sin to be assigned to them.

Paul said that he sinned ignorantly in unbelief. He went so far as to that is why he obtained mercy...............

Right. And so will children...because they sin ignorantly and God is merciful.

1Ti 1:13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

I keep point this out and it just keeps being ignored. I know why.....

You're getting off topic again...and I can't follow along.

Sure does. Such are "mirrors" to our own inabilities and "ignorance in unbelief".



Ah, but you'll accept the "church fathers" when they agree with you.

I post the ECFs because they were taught by the Apostles.
I usually agree with them because I've been reading what they say...
it agrees with scripture and has cleared up some topics for me.
If you can't trust those the Apostles taught....who can you trust?
Your local pastor?
A priest?
YouTube?
Your church down the street that might be teaching we could get saved AFTER death? (yes, those exist).
No thanks. I'll trust the ECFs every time WHEN THEY AGREE ON A DOCTRINE.

Analogies true to your/our own life is knowledge we gain from nature. It also shows our hypocrisy when we believe God will act a certain way differently than we will act.

No comment PY.
We're not God. We will NOT respond as God responds.

It is called.... hypocrisy. We are all hypocritical to some degree or another.

OK. You're probably right.

I didn't specifically say "God's voice". I think I said "traits/characteristics". Have you ever watched a child share their food with another child they don't even know? They do what they're taught by us and what comes from the "breath of God" in life that comes from God.

So then you're saying that WE are responsible for a child being saved or lost!
So if we teach them correctly and they do everything right...they go to heaven if they die.
Instead if we teach them wrongly and they die they go to hell.
This is AGAINST scripture which states that we are each responsible for our own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20
20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

Don't read anything into what I said. I have a nuanced position. I mentioned the most difficult verse in the Scriptures in another thread.

1Co 7:14 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.

Faith is generational. Unbelief is generational. I don't know exactly how to apply what is taught here.

OK. So if the parents are believers....then the child will also be a believer?
And what would that have to do with my posts stating that THE SINNER will be responsible FOR THE SIN...
and a child CANNOT BE A SINNER because he does NOT KNOW what a sin is.
He is innocent and incomplete as you yourself have stated that a person could be.

Neither am I. I do learn from nature. I do learn from our experiences that mimic exactly what God experienced with Adam and Eve.

Our children don't listen to us. Our children desire independence. (which is very good). I want my children to be their own people. Which is what God wants from us.

It is man that sees God as a dictator. The Father let his son take his inheritance and waste it...... so he would learn what he said was true. So he would learn the futility of being without Him......

Reject whatever you want. I've had my say. That is all I expect. Feel free to respond or not.

OK. So let's end it here because we're just going around in circles.

 

[TedT]

Children that die prior to reaching full moral accountability go to heaven.

Then, if GOD wants all to be saved as HE has written of HIMself, then why does HE not just kill all children before their time of moral accountability? Why only some? What is wrong with me and thee that we were passed over for membership in the get to heaven early club with no chance of going to hell?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Then, if GOD wants all to be saved as HE has written of HIMself, then why does HE not just kill all children before their time of moral accountability? Why only some? What is wrong with me and thee that we were passed over for membership in the get to heaven early club with no chance of going to hell?

Because Adam is culpable in his offspring. So are you. So am I.

1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

 

[GodsGrace]

Men speak in their own language. Have you ever heard the phrase "coined a term"? CONCUPIESCENCE came from Augustine.

The word "lust" didn't need Augustine. Study languages. You wouldn't even know God with the words of men. Those same words can deceive. Which is what Satan did with Eve. Satan spoke differently than God. Men do this all the time.

I speak 3 languages PY. So I don't think I'll be studying languages anymore.
And, like I said, I don't care where the word comes from...it's here...we use it.
Even Wikepedia knows what it means....

Concupiscence is an ardent longing, typically one that is sensual.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> In Christianity, concupiscence is the tendency of humans to sin.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-Malloy2005-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-Coleman2007-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>

There are nine occurrences of concupiscence in the Douay-Rheims Bible<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a> and three occurrences in the King James Bible.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence#cite_note-5"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a>

Sensuality​

[edit]
Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century described two divisions of "sensuality". The concupiscible describes pursuit, avoidance, and instincts. The irascible describes competition, aggression, defense, and instincts.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence

CONCUPIESCENCE is a doctrine. It is not an accurate description of lust.

Who said it was? Lust is within the doctrine.
The doctrine has to do with Original Sin.
But I've already stated that I don't care for Augustine and will not discuss him here.

I know. I already knew to use it instead of CONCUPIESCENCE. This isn't my first rodeo....... or like "Sam" would say. "Been there, got the T-Shirt".



Yep. Men will be judged for it. Authority doesn't mean you're right when you're wrong. Which is why I follow right.



You asked if lust is sin. I gave you an answer. I lust for my wife. That isn't sin. Lust is provoked by nakedness. I thought you might would "fill in the blanks". If I give you all the answers, they will not be your answers. You must reason properly and you're not. I'm challenging you at every level. I'm laying a foundation of understanding that you have never heard before. That is why you're having issues with it. You're ignorant of such things. Just like Paul was ignorant in unbelief.



So who was there for Adam to lust over? You must realize that many things have changed since Adam. Not just because of Adam. It is because of other people.



I know what you believe. You don't know everything I believe. I have the advantage here and you don't realize it. Just how do you teach someone that has already made their mind up? You express unwavering faith in what you believe. You should. It is called sincerity.

However, you are sincerely wrong. If you want to know, then this isn't going to be pleasant for you. It will hurt. I know. It still hurts me. To think I was so foolish to be where you're at. I was, I believed what I was taught.

Adam was taken from dust. The life he had in the flesh was never immortal. He had to eat of the true of life. Remember the narrative?

So... how do you establish that Adam was immortal. There is no immortality except in Jesus Christ.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Adam never had this. Which is why I've said to you from the beginning that Adam was created incomplete. He was a work in progress. He needed Eve.

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Freedom to both learn and experience. Adam didn't know everything.

What we shall be in Christ..... isn't a return to what Adam was before he supposedly "fell". It is much more. Much greater. Adam was a seed. A living seed in the Garden.

I read everything. I don't agree on all.
But this is way off the topic I'm here to address.

 

[TedT]

I can't respond to Daniel because, as I've stated, I'm not well-versed in eschatology.

take your best understanding of closed up and sealed till the time of the end. in Daniel 12: 9 And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. as you are led by the Spirit you follow. No understanding of eschatology needed, just a rightly dividing of scripture.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So if EVE was incomplete and innocent...
can we say that children are incomplete and innocent?

This is one of the unanswerable questions.
Like I said...we shouldn't go beyond what scripture teaches.
We could have AN OPINION...but it will be ONLY an opinion.

I didn't say you were getting personal...you weren't.
I said I don't care for analogies....they don't work well...
We speak about God in an anthropological way...but it's not a good idea.
Man is too different from God.
His ways are not our ways.

We're having a discussion...
when I realize we won't be agreeing on something...
and the same points are being repeated...
I usually stop. Unless it's a salvific issue.
Now, I KNOW children cannot sin....
so basically I'm here trying to convince you....
but I know that I won't, so I will stop eventually.
It would be nice if you understood this flesh, sin nature that Christianity teaches,
but if you don't care to believe it,,,that's fine too. It's just a doctrine and will not save anyone.

Agreed.

ALL SIN DEMANDS JUSTICE.
Did I say differently?

But a person has TO KNOW that they're sinning in order for that sin to be assigned to them.

Right. And so will children...because they sin ignorantly and God is merciful.

You're getting off topic again...and I can't follow along.

I post the ECFs because they were taught by the Apostles.
I usually agree with them because I've been reading what they say...
it agrees with scripture and has cleared up some topics for me.
If you can't trust those the Apostles taught....who can you trust?
Your local pastor?
A priest?
YouTube?
Your church down the street that might be teaching we could get saved AFTER death? (yes, those exist).
No thanks. I'll trust the ECFs every time WHEN THEY AGREE ON A DOCTRINE.

No comment PY.
We're not God. We will NOT respond as God responds.


OK. You're probably right.

So then you're saying that WE are responsible for a child being saved or lost!
So if we teach them correctly and they do everything right...they go to heaven if they die.
Instead if we teach them wrongly and they die they go to hell.
This is AGAINST scripture which states that we are each responsible for our own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20
20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.



OK. So if the parents are believers....then the child will also be a believer?
And what would that have to do with my posts stating that THE SINNER will be responsible FOR THE SIN...
and a child CANNOT BE A SINNER because he does NOT KNOW what a sin is.
He is innocent and incomplete as you yourself have stated that a person could be.

OK. So let's end it here because we're just going around in circles.

I'll just briefly say a couple of things and leave you alone. I do appreciate the conversation.

There are just a few areas you're seeing this from the wrong perspective. Sometimes it takes "time and experience" for God to break out conclusion through living.

We live the Gospel. That is our purpose. Abraham lived the Gospel.

My children know ME. My wife does. My extended family does and those who I interact with throughout my life. To those, we live the Gospel. I don't pretend I'm not anything more than weak flesh. Weak like Adam in succumbing to his limitations. If you want to know ME.... ask them. See what they tell you.

Do you remember when God said that Abraham "patiently endured"........

Heb 6:15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
Heb 6:16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
Heb 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Think about the experience of endurance?

We don't really care about much of anything that we haven't learned ourselves.