Bible Study ARE WE BORN WITH A SIN NATURE

[for_his_glory]

Went back and read that post, no. 159.
It seemed to me that you were saying we are imputed with Adam's sin....
which is the only way babies would go to hell if dying without being baptized.
I now understand that you do not believe Adam's sin is imputed to each one of us.


I know you're not of the reformed faith. I was stating what the reformed faith believes.
They believe babies could go to hell because God has already predetermined their salvation or lack thereof.


Of course.


As I said, we don't know how a child will grow up.
The child will have a better chance of remaining Christian if the upbringing has been loving, and a real Christian life has been demonstrated to them. But anything can happen and the upbringing will not guarantee success in the faith life.

Babies were not baptized for salvation UNTIL about the year 400 AD.
This is the year that Augustine of Hippo taught that babies were imputed with Adam's sin and so would go to hell if not baptized. This was not believed before then. The Early Fathers, that were taught by the Apostles, did NOT believe that babies should be baptized or risk hell. They DID baptize them but for different reasons.

I think that if you studied this doctrine you would better accept that there IS an age of accountability and why. I won't post any more verses since we all seem to only accept those that we agree with...IOW, how could a child go to hell if he has not committed any sins of his own?

I asked you if it's possible to state that you committed a sin IF you DID NOT KNOW it was a sin.
If you do not know you are sinning --- it is not a sin to you. In order to sin you must be aware of what you're doing and still decide to do it. THIS is disobeying God...you cannot disobey a rule you do not know exists. Romans 2:15 speaks to this.


The foreknowledge of Jesus extends from the O.T. to the N.T. in the sense that they were awaiting a Messiah.

But God, in Jesus, was not revealed until the incarnation.
Jesus makes God more clear to us than He had ever been before.


The N.T. was not totally written by the Apostles.
What is in the bible was decided by the Early Fathers.
The N.T. did not magically appear....
It's unfortunate that more Christians are not interested in church history.


This is why it's good to know what those taught by the Apostles believed.
Sometimes scripture may not be clear...but they knew what was being taught.

To say it another way:
How can a 4 year old accept Jesus as Savior?
He cannot.

At what age would you think that a child can know if he accepts Jesus as Savior or not?

And if you're right, what about handicapped children?
They sin.
They cannot know about Jesus.
Do they go to hell also?

They also are born with a sin nature,
but does God punish them for it?

Here's the thing I can not get past is why did God always destroy His enemies, including their children and sucklings.

You said the NT was not written totally by the Apostles. Can you explain then if you believe the NT is not transcribed from the letters they wrote to the churches, then where did these teachings come from?

I'm sorry, but the church fathers had the same teachings as we have today being the doctrines of Christ, even though some of them were directly taught by some of the Disciples, but yet taught the same things we are taught now by the Holy Spirit.

A four year old child can certainly accept Jesus as Savior as I have witnessed this many times how they express their love for Him. Saving faith comes by hearing the word of God and if they are taught of the love of Christ from the day they are born hopefully they will not depart from Him.

IMO the handicapped and babies would fall in the same category as they have a nature to sin after they are born like everyone else. But yet, no absolutes found in scripture as only one can assume or speculate so again it is not a yes and no answer if all babies go to heaven when they die. I could only hope they would, but yet how can we be absolutly sure they will.

 

[OzSpen]

You said the NT was not written totally by the Apostles. Can you explain then if you believe the NT is not transcribed from the letters they wrote to the churches, then where did these teachings come from?

FHG,

You get the answer in the first four verses of Luke's Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4 NIV).​

The 4 Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were not transcribed for churches. I can't see anywhere in the Book of Hebrews that it was addressed to a church.

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

FHG,

You get the answer in the first four verses of Luke's Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4 NIV).​

The 4 Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were not transcribed for churches. I can't see anywhere in the Book of Hebrews that it was addressed to a church.

Oz

Luke's writings were written more for a Gentile people rather than the Jews as in the book of Luke and Acts he writes to Theophilus in Koine Greek and a Gentile man of impotance in Antioch as no one really knows who he was for sure. Luke writes to him to make sure the things he was taught about Christ were true as Luke helped to spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. Luke, being a physician to Paul traveled with him throughout the Roman Empire.

Luke clearly states his purpose in verse one "to write unto thee in order, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed". Luke wanted to create an accurate chronological and comprehensive account of the unique life of Christ to strengthen the faith of the Gentile believers and stimulate saving faith among the non-believers. Luke also had another purpose in his writings and that was to show that Christ was not only divine, but also human. Luke portrays Christ in his fullest humanity by devoting more of his writing to Christ's feelings and humanity than any other Gospel. Luke chronologically: the introduction of the Son of man, the ministry of the Son of man, the rejection of the Son of man and the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Son of man.

The church being the body of Christ, not four walls or denominations/non-denominations, are where two or more are gathered together in the name of Jesus where He is in the midst of them, Matthew 18:20.

 

[GodsGrace]

Here's the thing I can not get past is why did God always destroy His enemies, including their children and sucklings.

I've stated on this site what I learned about the O.T. and with which I agree.
I've come to terms with the O.T.
I think we all need to do this or our entire belief paradigm becomes jeopardized.
Some reason could be thought up about why God would kill children....I find any reason to be unacceptable.

You said the NT was not written totally by the Apostles. Can you explain then if you believe the NT is not transcribed from the letters they wrote to the churches, then where did these teachings come from?

Was Mark an Apostle?
Was Luke an Apostle?
Are we sure Hebrews was written by Paul?
How about Matthew?
We can be sure John wrote his letters and we can be sure
that Paul wrote most of the Pauline letters...but are we sure
Paul wrote all of them?
They don't contradict, so whatever you believe is fine...but we know for sure
we do not have the original manuscripts. This means very little since what was written
in the N.T. is true ....

The teachings come from JESUS
then the APOSTLES
then the APOSTOLIC FATHERS
then the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
and this brings us to 325AD...some theologians will go as far as 600 AD,,,but I can't accept that.

The Early Church Fathers gathered all the writings and put together the New Testament and made it into the book we know today. Letters were circulated and copied many times over....no fax, no copy machines...letters had to be written by hand....and many times over.

This is why I like to read what the Early Fathers believed when I have a doubt about something.
They might not have agreed on every detail....but they were the true Christians and those that died for their faith.

I find it amazing that they were able to keep Christianity growing in the midst of such harsh and deadly persecution by the Roman Empire and by the Jews themselves, who eventually banished the "Christians" from their midst.

I'm sorry, but the church fathers had the same teachings as we have today being the doctrines of Christ, even though some of them were directly taught by some of the Disciples, but yet taught the same things we are taught now by the Holy Spirit.

The Early Fathers were not taught as we are today.
Today there are many different ideas circulating the church...
In those days the truth was taught...this truth started to become secularized by the church of that time...which is why I don't like to go beyond 325. The earlier the writing, the better the teaching...even though an effort was made to retain the original teachings of the Apostles.

A four year old child can certainly accept Jesus as Savior as I have witnessed this many times how they express their love for Him. Saving faith comes by hearing the word of God and if they are taught of the love of Christ from the day they are born hopefully they will not depart from Him.

IMO the handicapped and babies would fall in the same category as they have a nature to sin after they are born like everyone else. But yet, no absolutes found in scripture as only one can assume or speculate so again it is not a yes and no answer if all babies go to heaven when they die. I could only hope they would, but yet how can we be absolutly sure they will.

I'll leave you with this:
A four year old cannot sin because he does not know what sin is.
He has the sin nature but is not responsible for it.
God only holds us responsible for sins we commit knowingly.

A 4 year old that accepts Jesus must do so again several times in their life....
Every time they grow more mature and understand better, the belief has to
be accepted again.

We can be sure babies go to heaven because God is a just God....
He gives to each of us what we deserve.
A 6 year old that lies does not deserve hell.
A 6 year old does not comprehend God or the any doctrine...they only know their instinct.

The early fathers (theologians) believed children were loved by God and wanted them to be a part of the Christian family...which is why they were baptized. NOT FOR SALVATION.

Augustine, in the 400's changed this doctrine,,,and declared a MAN-MADE doctrine about
original sin which the church adapted at that time (too much to get into) and IF HE was right,,,then, yes, babies would go to hell UNLESS they were baptized. This was because Augustine believed that we are IMPUTED with Adam's sin.

If you believe we are imputed with Adam's sin, then your belief could be correct.
If you DO NOT believe we are imputed with Adam's sin,,,then you might want to rethink
the culpability children have in sinning toward God....

Missing the mark....
WHAT MARK.....they're not aware of any mark.

 

[for_his_glory]

I've stated on this site what I learned about the O.T. and with which I agree.
I've come to terms with the O.T.
I think we all need to do this or our entire belief paradigm becomes jeopardized.
Some reason could be thought up about why God would kill children....I find any reason to be unacceptable.


Was Mark an Apostle?
Was Luke an Apostle?
Are we sure Hebrews was written by Paul?
How about Matthew?
We can be sure John wrote his letters and we can be sure
that Paul wrote most of the Pauline letters...but are we sure
Paul wrote all of them?
They don't contradict, so whatever you believe is fine...but we know for sure
we do not have the original manuscripts. This means very little since what was written
in the N.T. is true ....

The teachings come from JESUS
then the APOSTLES
then the APOSTOLIC FATHERS
then the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
and this brings us to 325AD...some theologians will go as far as 600 AD,,,but I can't accept that.

The Early Church Fathers gathered all the writings and put together the New Testament and made it into the book we know today. Letters were circulated and copied many times over....no fax, no copy machines...letters had to be written by hand....and many times over.

This is why I like to read what the Early Fathers believed when I have a doubt about something.
They might not have agreed on every detail....but they were the true Christians and those that died for their faith.

I find it amazing that they were able to keep Christianity growing in the midst of such harsh and deadly persecution by the Roman Empire and by the Jews themselves, who eventually banished the "Christians" from their midst.


The Early Fathers were not taught as we are today.
Today there are many different ideas circulating the church...
In those days the truth was taught...this truth started to become secularized by the church of that time...which is why I don't like to go beyond 325. The earlier the writing, the better the teaching...even though an effort was made to retain the original teachings of the Apostles.


I'll leave you with this:
A four year old cannot sin because he does not know what sin is.
He has the sin nature but is not responsible for it.
God only holds us responsible for sins we commit knowingly.

A 4 year old that accepts Jesus must do so again several times in their life....
Every time they grow more mature and understand better, the belief has to
be accepted again.

We can be sure babies go to heaven because God is a just God....
He gives to each of us what we deserve.
A 6 year old that lies does not deserve hell.
A 6 year old does not comprehend God or the any doctrine...they only know their instinct.

The early fathers (theologians) believed children were loved by God and wanted them to be a part of the Christian family...which is why they were baptized. NOT FOR SALVATION.

Augustine, in the 400's changed this doctrine,,,and declared a MAN-MADE doctrine about
original sin which the church adapted at that time (too much to get into) and IF HE was right,,,then, yes, babies would go to hell UNLESS they were baptized. This was because Augustine believed that we are IMPUTED with Adam's sin.

If you believe we are imputed with Adam's sin, then your belief could be correct.
If you DO NOT believe we are imputed with Adam's sin,,,then you might want to rethink
the culpability children have in sinning toward God....

Missing the mark....
WHAT MARK.....they're not aware of any mark.

We agree in parts and disagree with other parts so I guess we will just have to leave it there until someone can show me an absolute in scripture.

God bless you sis

 

[OzSpen]

Luke's writings were written more for a Gentile people rather than the Jews as in the book of Luke and Acts he writes to Theophilus in Koine Greek and a Gentile man of impotance in Antioch as no one really knows who he was for sure. Luke writes to him to make sure the things he was taught about Christ were true as Luke helped to spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. Luke, being a physician to Paul traveled with him throughout the Roman Empire.

Luke clearly states his purpose in verse one "to write unto thee in order, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed". Luke wanted to create an accurate chronological and comprehensive account of the unique life of Christ to strengthen the faith of the Gentile believers and stimulate saving faith among the non-believers. Luke also had another purpose in his writings and that was to show that Christ was not only divine, but also human. Luke portrays Christ in his fullest humanity by devoting more of his writing to Christ's feelings and humanity than any other Gospel. Luke chronologically: the introduction of the Son of man, the ministry of the Son of man, the rejection of the Son of man and the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Son of man.

The church being the body of Christ, not four walls or denominations/non-denominations, are where two or more are gathered together in the name of Jesus where He is in the midst of them, Matthew 18:20.

FHG,

I was responding to your statement:

You said the NT was not written totally by the Apostles. Can you explain then if you believe the NT is not transcribed from the letters they wrote to the churches, then where did these teachings come from?

Luke tells us exactly how he gathered his information about Jesus to write his Gospel. The ethnic background of Luke makes no difference to how he gathered information about the historical Jesus.

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

FHG,

I was responding to your statement:



Luke tells us exactly how he gathered his information about Jesus to write his Gospel. The ethnic background of Luke makes no difference to how he gathered information about the historical Jesus.

Oz

The question was directed to wondering and I just wanted to know her answer, which she has already given and I responded to that.

I already knew where Luke got his info as it is very clear in the first four verses, but thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

Luke 8:14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Thorns can be considered all people that are worldly. Only 25% of people are true Christians, that bear fruit according to the parable.