If sin is not imputed without the law, how can some claim that babies and children die because Adam's sin is imputed to them?

[PaulThomson]

It's @PaulThomson who wants to know if sin is still possible after we are clothed with the imperishable. I don't know why.

I'm actually looking forward to not sinning anymore as much as you are!

Actually, I'm the one who does not need to "know" if sin is possible after we are clothed with the imperishable. because I believe the power of the cross to reconcile sinners is eternal, and will continue to be efficacious after the resurrection and on into eternity. .

It is you and others like you who need to "know" that you cannot sin after the resurrection, because you seem to imagine there is an expiry date on the efficacy of the cross, so that if you do happen to fall short of perfect obedience in the next ages, you will have np remedy for your mark-missing.

I am very much looking forward to having the potential of not sinning any more.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

how is death destroyed if what causes death is not prevented?

When mortal beings no longer exist....

 

[PaulThomson]

Our new nature, at this moment, and for all time CANNOT sin. Our new creation in Christ CANNOT sin.

While alive and on this earth we have a choice. Live through our flesh or live through the new nature.

This is why there is such debate and confusion. The meat of the word is ALWAYS for the believer who KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS eternal security. NEVER perishing. No, absolutely no, not ever coming into condemnation.

The Milk~~Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. PERIOD. NEVER perish. NO condemnation.

The meat~~Learning how to be filled and walk in the Spirit(our new creation.)

If we mix the milk and the meat~~ We are always confused. Filled with doubt. Salvation will be subjective. Human good(evil) WILL take over the believer.

1Jo 3:9
Everyone (Πᾶς ὁ) having been born (γεγεννημένος, perfect participle) out of the God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) sin (ἁμαρτίαν) is not keeping on doing (οὐ ποιεῖ, present indicative active); because (ὅτι) that which characterises the seed of Him (σπέρμα αὐτοῦ, anarthrous σπέρμα) in him ( ἐν αὐτῷ) is remaining (μένει, present indicative active): and he is not able ( καὶ οὐ δύναται, present deponent) to keep on sinning (ἁμαρτάνειν, present infinitive), because ( ὅτι ) out of the God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) he has been born (γεγέννηται , perfect passive)

The person who has been born of God does not keep on sinning incessantly, because the Holy Spirit's character present in the seed is abiding in the one who has been born out of God. Therefore that person cannot incessantly sin, because he has been born out of God and the Holy Spirit works to shepherd Him away from sin, and succeeds in doing so much of the time. However, there are times whenm the sheep wilfully wanders from the Shepherds leading, so that intermittent sinning is possible.

 

[PaulThomson]

how is death destroyed if what causes death is not prevented?

has anyone ever heard of 'the war to end all wars' and has anyone ever heard of a war that happened after that one?

this is Mssr. Thompson's idea of eternal gory.
a failed war to end all wars.

imo, that's pretty much tantamount to hopelessness.

who forgets history, is doomed to repeat it.

Emotional rhetoric does not amount to a logical reasoned case. If I wanted to engage with rhetoricians, I could join political forum.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Jesus after His resurrection told His disciples to touch His body to know He was not just spiritual, and said,
"A spirit does not have flesh and bone, as you see me having."

A spirit does not have mass either, since anything with mass is physical matter.

 

[PaulThomson]

it is both plainly Biblically illiterate of you, and entirely disingenuous, to pretend that the scripture does not inexorably link sin and death.

i do not think you are so stupid not to realize this is true. whether you actually believe scripture or not, you obviously have read enough of it not to insult all of us with this line of argument.

So, regardless of you saying you have scripture to support your assertion, we can see that you have no scripture saying what you so confidently assert,

Having scriptures linking two concepts A and B, does not equate to having scriptures that show A always causes B, and B never causes A.

 

[PaulThomson]

A spirit does not have mass either, since anything with mass is physical matter.

Roman Catholics don't have spirits?

 

[PaulThomson]

how is death destroyed if what causes death is not prevented?

How is a cancer destroyed in my mothers body, if what causes it is still being consumed by my mother and others in the world?

How can ISIS be destroyed, and yet a revival of ISIS still be possible?

 

[PaulThomson]

you are well known here to preach the ignorance of God ((a.k.a. open theism)). you are in fact, the resident champion of the 'ignorant God' hypothesis.

recognition of fact is neither a straw man nor any other logical fallacy. it's simple situational awareness and speaks to the motivation of your position.

but pretending now you do not believe what you have previously professed and sought to convince others of, is political expedience, and a manufactured distraction from your own thread topic -- because perhaps you have no answer to the points i'm bringing?

if you believe it, stick to it. if you don't, do not pretend you never have.

I have not mentioned ignorance in regard to God anywhere on this forum. You are straw-manning and well-poisoning, because you can't reason logically to make your own case persuasively.

I have given examples that contradict your definition,
Explain to us why, your definition of omniscience ("The state of knowing everything"), does not mean that God needs to know that 1 cm. is longer than 1 km.

Give me one example of omniscience which does not fit my superior definition -
Omniscience : "The state of knowing everything that is true."

 

[PaulThomson]

we have an actual context; you don't have a reason to make up one other than avoiding it:

View attachment 274774View attachment 274775


so which came first, sin or death?

what does scripture say?

Romans 5 says that -
In Adam's case, sin came first.
But in His descendants' cases, the death sentence came first.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Actually, I'm the one who does not need to "know" if sin is possible after we are clothed with the imperishable. because I believe the power of the cross to reconcile sinners is eternal, and will continue to be efficacious after the resurrection and on into eternity. .

It is you and others like you who need to "know" that you cannot sin after the resurrection, because you seem to imagine there is an expiry date on the efficacy of the cross, so that if you do happen to fall short of perfect obedience in the next ages, you will have np remedy for your mark-missing.

I am very much looking forward to having the potential of not sinning any more.

Note to Everyone - @PaulThomson is the only person asking this. Proof? He asks it in post #244

Which scripture says that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages. Do you know of any?

So there! Now everyone else knows that you're lying right now.

 

[PaulThomson]

Note to Everyone - @PaulThomson is the only person asking this. Proof? He asks it in post #244

PaulThomson said:
Actually, I'm the one who does not need to "know" if sin is possible after we are clothed with the imperishable. because I believe the power of the cross to reconcile sinners is eternal, and will continue to be efficacious after the resurrection and on into eternity. .

It is you and others like you who need to "know" that you cannot sin after the resurrection, because you seem to imagine there is an expiry date on the efficacy of the cross, so that if you do happen to fall short of perfect obedience in the next ages, you will have np remedy for your mark-missing.

I am very much looking forward to having the potential of not sinning any more.

PaulThomson said:
Which scripture says that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages. Do you know of any?
So there! Now everyone else knows that you're lying right now.

You are displaying an appalling lack of critical thinking and logic.

Asking someone for scripture that support their claim to know that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages, is not the same thing as" needing to know" that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

You are displaying an appalling lack of critical thinking and logic.

Asking someone for scripture that support their claim to know that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages, is not the same thing as" needing to know" that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages.

You at this point are just trying to save face for asking such a stupid question.

You didn't just ask the question once, but you kept asking it in different ways in subsequent posts. You wouldn't drop the subject!

You on #247
=====
PaulThomson said:
Which scripture says that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages. Do you know of any?

So, nothing so far ,saying sin is not possible after the resurrection.
=====

You on #259
=====
Jesus knows every detail of the past and present. Does that mean we will too? Jesus is supremely powerful to do whatever He wills. Does that mean we will be too? How do you decide which divine perfections we will have, and which divine perfections we will only be growing more competent in?
=====

You on #265
=====
If you can be like Christ now, and growing in Christlike character now, while still being capable of sin now, what makes it necessary for us to be incapable of sin in the age to come in order for us to continue growing toward the perfection that is Christ's. then?
=====

Yup, this is ALL YOU.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Roman Catholics don't have spirits?

Touché, but the word "mass" is monosemous when taken in context.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

why do elephants die?

Old age. They don't have souls. So what's your point?

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Amen.
I've browsed certain Christian communities wherein the topic of "original sin" is discussed.
Some there insist the unborn,miscarried,aborted,are sinners. As are newborns.
One post I remember distinctly. The member not only insisted those innocent are sinners because of their sin but,if they die in the womb or after birth they go straight to Hell.

Because they deserve to! As do all sinners.

I also remember praying right then and there, after asking if they had children (no), that God make them sterile.

So that no child would be born to one who would make their lives Hell right here on Earth.

God's people are referred to often enough as sheep and lambs. Make no mistake,there are psychopaths amid the flock too .

Those old Catholic teachings took a terrible hold. People don't even realize that is where this whole idea came from. A money making scheme for the church by way of selling "indulgences". Then they would tell parents their children were in hells flames. What wouldn't you pay to free your child of torture? It's a sick, cruel lie from the pit of hell itself.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Old age. They don't have souls. So what's your point?

The LORD only numbered the days of man upon the earth, so that those which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, to teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.

7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?
10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.
Job 12:7-10

It is the flesh without the spirit that is dead, not the spirit without the flesh.

 

[PaulThomson]

You at this point are just trying to save face for asking such a stupid question.

You didn't just ask the question once, but you kept asking it in different ways in subsequent posts. You wouldn't drop the subject!

You on #247
=====
PaulThomson said:
Which scripture says that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages. Do you know of any?

So, nothing so far ,saying sin is not possible after the resurrection.
=====

You on #259
=====
Jesus knows every detail of the past and present. Does that mean we will too? Jesus is supremely powerful to do whatever He wills. Does that mean we will be too? How do you decide which divine perfections we will have, and which divine perfections we will only be growing more competent in?
=====

You on #265
=====
If you can be like Christ now, and growing in Christlike character now, while still being capable of sin now, what makes it necessary for us to be incapable of sin in the age to come in order for us to continue growing toward the perfection that is Christ's. then?
=====

Yup, this is ALL YOU.

My same answer applies again.

PaulThomson said:
You are displaying an appalling lack of critical thinking and logic.

Asking someone for scripture that support their claim to know that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages, is not the same thing as" needing to know" that there can or will be no sin possible in the coming ages.

 

[PaulThomson]

Touché, but the word "mass" is monosemous when taken in context.

Thank you for teaching me a new word.
"Monosemous" means having or exhibiting only one meaning, or being unambiguous. It's the opposite of "polysemous," which refers to having multiple meanings.

 

[bluejean_bible]

So you are claiming that, for God to be truly omniscient, God must know that one millimeter is longer than one kilometer, and that electricity can be efficiently conducted by insulation material..

Read what God tells us. He knows all things from beginning to end. He is the Alpha and Omega.

Believe in God. Don't believe he is all powerful, within all his creation,all knowing,and,as he says,all things conform to his will and plan.

Clearly, God's idea of "All", does not confirm to that of some of ours.