jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 6, 2009 22:00:44 GMT -5
All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God this text was written almost 2000 years ago does it refer to people who exist now?
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Jan 7, 2009 1:07:28 GMT -5
Yes.
THis text refers to sinners . All have sinned
Only Jesus was pure enough to ascend to Zion. He alone had never sinned, that is why He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, He did not fell short of the glory of God. Jesus has accomplished , the Law , the prophets and the Psalm. Psalm 24 speaks of Jesus PSALM 24
3 Who may ascend the hill of the LORD ? Who may stand in his holy place? 4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to an idol or swear by what is false. 5 He will receive blessing from the LORD and vindication from God his Savior. 6 Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek your face, O God of Jacob. Selah 7 Lift up your heads, O you gates; be lifted up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. 8 Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle. 9 Lift up your heads, O you gates; lift them up, you ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in. 10 Who is he, this King of glory? The LORD Almighty— he is the King of glory. Selah
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Jan 7, 2009 6:40:30 GMT -5
only in Him , men are redeemed and can subsist, He is the beginning and the end.
Scriptures say that the Bride is spotless, without blame.
Love your enemies , pray for those who hate and kill you. Be perfect as your Father is perfect.
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 7, 2009 12:54:27 GMT -5
Debonn I agree the only problem is with those who claim original sin is not true how can you tell someone they have not sinned if they have had the capacity not too if this scripture applies to those who are not even living but will be born like you and I as the text was written before we were born.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Jan 7, 2009 13:38:12 GMT -5
Those who claim that original sin is not true (or have little consequence) are often the same who preach that man is able not to sin by his self-will, thus reducing to almost nothingness the need of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and the blood of Jesus.
The Cross is the final word of God for the 1st creation. For all have sinned.
Even the righteous of the O.T had to hear the Gospel by Jesus when He was in the lower regions of the Earth and they accept it, otherwise they would not have been delivered from Hades.
None can see the Kingdom of God , if not born again from above. That is what Jesus preached to Nicodemus who was not especially a 'sinner', although he was without knowing it
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 7, 2009 15:12:58 GMT -5
All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God this text was written almost 2000 years ago does it refer to people who exist now? The term "sinned" with the passed tense, referes to all from that time forward. It can not include infants, because they can not sin.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 7, 2009 15:20:50 GMT -5
Those who claim that original sin is not true (or have little consequence) are often the same who preach that man is able not to sin by his self-will, thus reducing to almost nothingness the need of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and the blood of Jesus. Wrong. Those who already sinned can not go to heaven by obeying the law for the rest of their life. The past sins must be taken care of, either by condemnation, or by forgiveness. However, anyone who excels in the possibility of never sinning, does not need atoned for, they do not need to be forgiven, and they do not need top be "regenerated" (born again), because they never lost their right standing with God in order to need regenerated.
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 7, 2009 15:43:59 GMT -5
Who says infants can not sin. If it refers to all from that time forward it would include those who are to be born. If u are born neutral and have the ability not to sin why then has every single person sinned. You were created with a heart of stone (generated) that is why in order to go to heaven your heart must be recreated (regenerated). Are u implying that someone can only sin until God gives them an awareness of sin ie. conscience if so when does God give it. Why is it everyone (person) who has had an awareness of sin committ sin if they did not have to Christ knew what sin was but yet did not sin.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Jan 7, 2009 16:11:49 GMT -5
Those who claim that original sin is not true (or have little consequence) are often the same who preach that man is able not to sin by his self-will, thus reducing to almost nothingness the need of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and the blood of Jesus. Wrong. Those who already sinned can not go to heaven by obeying the law for the rest of their life. The past sins must be taken care of, either by condemnation, or by forgiveness. However, anyone who excels in the possibility of never sinning, does not need atoned for, they do not need to be forgiven, and they do not need top be "regenerated" (born again), because they never lost their right standing with God in order to need regenerated. Scriptures are clear that all have sinned. And that all are dead, dead to God. 14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. [2 Cor 5]
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 7, 2009 17:25:17 GMT -5
Who says infants can not sin. Babies have no law or can not be put under law; sin is not imputed when there is no law & where no law is, there is no transgression (Romans 4:15, 5:13). It refers to all from that time backwards until the time written. The word "sinned" is indicative-verb, second Aorist (completed action in the past), Active, 3rd person, plural. IOW, "all have been sinning and are now at this moment, coming short of the glory of God. Irrelevant. Your car can go 150pmh. Why haven’t you driven that fast? Because it can't? Scripture, chapter & verse, please. No, I'm implying that sin comes when they are able to be accountable under law. Able to know to refuse the evil, and choose the good (Isa 7:15, Deu 1:39) Because they chose to have an affection for the sin more than to do right.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 7, 2009 17:29:02 GMT -5
Wrong. Those who already sinned can not go to heaven by obeying the law for the rest of their life. The past sins must be taken care of, either by condemnation, or by forgiveness. However, anyone who excels in the possibility of never sinning, does not need atoned for, they do not need to be forgiven, and they do not need top be "regenerated" (born again), because they never lost their right standing with God in order to need regenerated. Scriptures are clear that all have sinned. And that all are dead, dead to God. 14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. [2 Cor 5]This does not cancil out the posibility of sinnlessness. Sin is a choice, it is posible to never choose one option of two; this is a fact. If you say that it is imposible to never sin, then you are actualy saying that sin is not a choice. IF sin is not a choice, then whom ever commits sin is not responcible for doing that which is imposible to avoid. You also have God condemning for the inevitable.
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 7, 2009 18:34:42 GMT -5
1.Why do you change the word of God the bible does not say all have been sinning rather all have sinned. 2.How do you know I have not driven my car 150mph if it has the ability too. 3.Romans 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 4.God has given his word -The law have those who have not read it any less accountable? 5.If u have the ability to not sin it is very relevent if u have or not.
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Jan 7, 2009 20:09:44 GMT -5
logic, you wrote:
May i ask you what you think Jesus meant when He told the story of the unrighteous man who had his whole huge debt forgiven, but then refused to forgive his neighbor who owed him a fraction? Jesus said that the wicked servant was thrown into a "prison" and that he would not come out until the uttermost farthing had been paid.
Do you think he could ever pay it?
God's judgment is actually a good thing for us, because when God's judgments are in the earth, then the people will learn righteousness (Is. 26:9). God's judgment for sin, in the Bible, was "temporary" for non-death penalty cases. When the debt was paid, the sinner was then free.
Peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 7, 2009 20:30:58 GMT -5
1.Why do you change the word of God the bible does not say all have been sinning rather all have sinned. That is the literal Greek. The indicative-verb, second Aorist (completed action in the past), Active, 3rd person, plural word for "sin means have been sinning.
indicative-verb = a verb that indicates second Aorist = completed action in the past Active = still doing it 3rd person = Them plural = more than one
2.How do you know I have not driven my car 150mph if it has the ability too.Analogy. Say that you haven't, does that mean you can't? If no one has ever driven 150pmh, does that mean that it is imposible?
3.Romans 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.No one has to be in the flesh.
4.God has given his word -The law have those who have not read it any less accountable?Those who can not be put under the law are not accountable.
5.If u have the ability to not sin it is very relevent if u have or not.I have an ability to eat liver & onions. I never have though. I have an ability to not drink coffee, I have drank coffee every day, since I can remember.
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 7, 2009 21:41:39 GMT -5
1Someone reading the text all have sinned today regardles of sinned or sinning denotes past tense however just because it it past tense does not mean that it does not hold to those who will come into exsistence or else they could just conclude they are perfect and have no need to be born again. 2.The question remains why has no one remained perfect if in fact they have ability too if you want to use the car anaolgy people all the time break records that seemed unbreakable. Do you think one day someone will in fact remain sinless while being aware of the law of God. 3.Where is your scripture supporting no one has to be in the flesh apart from Christ. 4.God can put any under the law as he so chooses. 5.What you eat has no real relevence to your soul but the soul that sins shall die therefore it is very relevent.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Jan 8, 2009 4:38:15 GMT -5
This does not cancil out the posibility of sinnlessness. Sin is a choice, it is posible to never choose one option of two; this is a fact. If you say that it is imposible to never sin, then you are actualy saying that sin is not a choice. IF sin is not a choice, then whom ever commits sin is not responcible for doing that which is imposible to avoid. You also have God condemning for the inevitable. Nope. I am not saying that sin is impossible to avoid, but that it is likely impossible for men to never sin. I agree with you that this does not cancel the possibility of never sinning for some individuals. We can reasonably believed that John the Baptist, Samuel , Enoch and a few others never displeased God. But they are more the exceptions that confirm the rule. The disciples asked the right question to Jesus , when they asked Him : WHO can be saved ? To which Jesus answered that what is impossible to men, it is possible to God. And that everything is possible for whom has believed. It is probably not the intention of the guys on this board , but the danger in teaching that it is possible for men (without Christ) to never sin, is on the fringe of preaching another Gospel producing many self-righteous.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 8, 2009 10:05:08 GMT -5
This does not cancil out the posibility of sinnlessness. Sin is a choice, it is posible to never choose one option of two; this is a fact. If you say that it is imposible to never sin, then you are actualy saying that sin is not a choice. IF sin is not a choice, then whom ever commits sin is not responcible for doing that which is imposible to avoid. You also have God condemning for the inevitable. Nope. I am not saying that sin is impossible to avoid, but that it is likely impossible for men to never sin. I agree with you that this does not cancel the possibility of never sinning for some individuals. We can reasonably believed that John the Baptist, Samuel , Enoch and a few others never displeased God. But they are more the exceptions that confirm the rule. The disciples asked the right question to Jesus , when they asked Him : WHO can be saved ? To which Jesus answered that what is impossible to men, it is possible to God. And that everything is possible for whom has believed. I am glad we agree. I would not say that it is likely impossible for men to never sin, but improbable. It is eazier for those younger to never sin than those who, over a life time of corrupting their personality to never sin, even after they are saved.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 8, 2009 11:02:45 GMT -5
1. Someone reading the text all have sinned today regardless of sinned or sinning denotes past tense however just because it is past tense does not mean that it does not hold to those who will come into existence or else they could just conclude they are perfect and have no need to be born again. True, but I was only showing the true Greek interpretation.
2. The question remains why has no one remained perfect if in fact they have ability too; Because they always choose put their affections on other things to sin. People always say that Adam was the best candidate for the job to stay sinless, why didn't he? Same reason for us as it is for Adam; pride of life, lust of the eyes, & lust of the flesh.
2.1 if you want to use the car analogy people all the time break records that seemed unbreakable. Do you think one day someone will in fact remain sinless while being aware of the law of God Yes, their might have been some already; like Enoch, maybe Job, & maybe even John the baptizer.
3. Where is your scripture supporting no one has to be in the flesh apart from Christ. Rom 8:13 For if you live after the flesh, you shall die: but if you through the Spirit do put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live. Dieing is either a penalty or a circumstance of living after the flesh, depending on what kind of death is being spoken of here. Those who are not saved are not unable to put to death the deeds of the body. If they were unable, then they would not be guilty for not doing it. There can be no guilt in respect to inability.
This verse is saying that mankind has a duty not to live after the flesh. If one must by necessity live by the flesh, Paul wouldn't tell us this.
4.God can put any under the law as he so chooses. Not those who died to the law. Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5.What you eat has no real relevance to your soul but the soul that sins shall die therefore it is very relevant.
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Jan 8, 2009 13:41:47 GMT -5
4.God can put any under the law as he so chooses. Jsides - this seems to make God out to very arbitrary. Would God violate his own sense of justice? You, like many Calvinist, seem to imply God governs as a result of his "might" and not what is right and good. Would you then be OK with a President or Ruler that went around making such arbitrary judgements - such as throwing people into prison or to death, just because of his position or authority or that he felt like it (ie. Hitler, Stalin, etc) Might does not make right. Right makes Right. God must and does abide according to his own moral laws and him violating it just out of arbitrariness would be a gross misconduct of his character and natrual attributes.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 8, 2009 16:00:21 GMT -5
"All have sinned" does not apply to infants in the womb according to Romans 9:11.
Infants in the womb are sinless because:
1. They have not made any choices yet 2. They do not have moral knowledge yet
Moral knowledge + moral choices = moral character You cannot have moral character without choices and knowledge. You cannot make moral choices without having moral knowledge.
Therefore "all have sinned" applies to everyone who has reached the age of accountability. "All have sinned" applies to those who have moral knowledge and have made moral choices.
"Sin" is the choice to violate known law. Infants haven't made choices, neither do they know the law, therefore "all have sinned" does not apply to infants.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 8, 2009 16:27:12 GMT -5
In other words, "all have sinned" means everyone who is capable of sinning. "All have sinned" means everyone who has moral knowledge and has made moral choices.
"All have sinned" are those who:
1. Exist 2. Know right from wrong 3. Have chosen to do wrong
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 9, 2009 15:32:44 GMT -5
God governs as a result of him being good and right and as such governs out of all his attributes.
There is no one righteous, not even one ( Romans 3:10)
Myself and every other Calvinist if you want to call names claims Gods justice demands punishment of sin not because he is mighty which he is but because they are sinful prespilot.
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Jan 9, 2009 21:57:27 GMT -5
God governs as a result of him being good and right and as such governs out of all his attributes. There is no one righteous, not even one ( Romans 3:10) Myself and every other Calvinist if you want to call names claims Gods justice demands punishment of sin not because he is mighty which he is but because they are sinful prespilot. Jsides, my point had nothing to do with God being just, but what allows or causes him to be just. I agree sinners deserve Hell, but you need to ask yourself WHY they deserve hell. You seem to imply that man deserves Hell for just being born. How absurd!! What is sinful about being born?
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 11, 2009 16:59:39 GMT -5
People deserve hell because they are sinful that simple. What causes God to be just is he infinitly Holy. Unless God himself imputes his rightouesness to you you will go to a fire burning hell forever. His goodness is not infused but rather imputed based on his mercy alone. What God starts he always finishes.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 11, 2009 21:03:19 GMT -5
People deserve hell because they are sinful that simple. What causes God to be just is he infinitly Holy. Unless God himself imputes his rightouesness to you you will go to a fire burning hell forever. His goodness is not infused but rather imputed based on his mercy alone. What God starts he always finishes. jsides, I don't think there is any argument against sinful people deserving hell. The contention, which you still haven't dealt with, is why or how or even when people become sinners. The Biblical answers are they are tempted and use their free will wrongly, and they become sinners when they reach the state of accountability. If you are going to say God is Holy, then there must then be a standard of what is "Holy" and what is "unholy". I believe that God has that perfect standard within Him. It is not an arbitrary thing where God can just do whatever He wants and whatever He does is Holy. For example, IF God were to lie, He wouldn't be Holy. There is a standard by which God holds Himself to and by which we can know whether He is Holy or not. What do you mean by "imputed"? If you mean "transferred", then you are wrong for that is not what the Greek word translated as "imputed" means. Impute simply means "count as" or "consider as". God will consider a sinner righteous or count a sinner as righteous if the right conditions are met: 1) A blood atonement by a sinless, perfect person (only Jesus can fulfill this condition and He has) 2) A sinner decides to stop sinning 3) A sinner trusts in the one who made the blood atonement As far as your last statement, "What God starts he always finishes", I suppose that is referring to "Perseverance of the Saints"? What Bible verses do you have to back that up? I agree that IF monergism were correct (which it isn't), that one would never lose their salvation, but the Bible teaches Synergism. Therefore salvation can be forfeited after it is accepted. One CAN depart from the faith, fall away or be cut off. This is what the Bibles teaches. Here's a few verses regarding that issue (just for starters): John 15:1-6, 1 Corinthians 10:1-12, Hebrews 3:7-4:1
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 12, 2009 11:07:41 GMT -5
Revk we simply disagree and I do not think we are going to convince each other as Im sure we have both studied and poured over the scriptures. If you have not had enough proof the acrostic tulip is biblical there are hundreds if not thousands of books scripturally supporting Calvinism. The biggest problem really on both sides of the issue is one person gives a verse in support of there position then the other ignores it or gives it a entirely new meaning.If you like I will give u my commentary on any verse u like that way you can at least know my position and why I believe it.
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Jan 13, 2009 12:33:16 GMT -5
An "old" saint once informed me that a more proper interpretation of 'fallen short' was "lack:, as in, we all lack the glory of God.
Since, I have thought often of how that would affect the meaning.
Salvation is a process that includes justification, sanctification and glorification.
Most, it seems, get stuck in the "justification" part. They always preach justification by faith, but seem to neglect obedience and sanctification. Others get stuck in the sanctification part....maybe not realizing what is yet to come, in our glorification, in glorified bodies.
But, one thing does seem plausible. With our glorification, comes the distinct possibility of not sinning!
peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Jan 13, 2009 14:03:05 GMT -5
I agree it is true that if we are Christians we have received Christ in us , the hope of glory [Col 1:27] and as we have received Him , we have to walk in Him [Col 2:6] God's will , while we are still in this body is sanctification [1 Thess 4:3] Glorification is only when we will be with the Lord, when we will have our new bodies [1 Cor 15 :50-58] Those who have sanctification will also have glorification in the other body.
|
|