| Re: |
I'm not sure what to think. Clearly sin was imputed prior to Moses, for Adam died because of sin, was cast out and curses were laid upon the land and all mankind after him. Was there then no law or was it just not defined for clarity as it was when given to Moses? Adam defied a command that was equally given by God and is God's Word not law as much as the Law is God's Word?
Impute means "To ascribe; to attribute fault to; to set to the account of; to charge to one as the author, responsible originator, or possessor."
Wasn't Adam considered responsible? Isn't Paul essentially saying there was in fact always law, unwritten maybe but evident (in Adam's case far more evident as it was directly given and clearly punished with immediate consequence) as it is in the passage from Romans 1?
mak28: I hope I am not digressing too much from the initial question, but here goes anyway.
The coming of the old testament law was not the beginning of the definition of sin, nor was it the first time that man was held accountable for sin. The scripture says that sin is not imputed where there is no law. There was a time, in the city in which I live, when Joplin was a late 1800's mining town. It was a rough place back then. Prostitution was, at one time, legal in Joplin in that there were no laws against it. It was still sin. It was still wrong. But you would not be arrested and punished for the act. Now it is illegal and it will be imputed to you if you are caught.
The consequences of sin, death, reigned over all of Adam's race because of Adam's sin. God judged the world with a world-wide flood because of sin.
The Old Testament law was not God's complete holy standard. It was holy. It was righteous. It was of God and it was God's standard, but it was not the complete holy standard of God. It was only a shadow. It is not like God had an epiphany and said, "I think I will come up with what I call right and wrong and call it the law." Rather, He said, "Because of the great transgression of man, because of the abundance of the sin of man's heart, I will institute the law." He did it to restrain sin until Christ should come. He did it to show man that God's holy standard was something man could never live up to. It served as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
But God's holy standard is so far beyond what any of us can or could ever reach by our own efforts. The carnal man is enmity against God. So we now have a way provided by which we can be born again in the spirit. We now have the law of God written on our hearts and are governed by the Holy Spirit rather than by a carnal ordinance. The carnal ordinance was nailed to the cross.
Scripture is pretty clear about what happened to the people who lived before the flood, and it seems that they had a final chance to accept or reject Christ. For Rob Bell to use the verses in 1 Peter to do away with Hell is to take that scripture WAY out of context and to twist scripture. I am not sure what happened to people who lived pre-law. I am not sure what exactly happens to those who were post law and pre-Christ. One thing I do know is that God is just and righteous and whatever He does will be right and just. I just do not see plainly from scripture what happens to these groups. But we do know that Paul, in Romans, is clear that they will be without excuse.
| 2012/6/22 16:08||Profile|
| Re: |
Quote: Allow me to be stupid for a moment (which I am sure most of you already think I am). But I see that he is aware because of the results, a stern warning or a slap.
But that does not mean that I am aware that I am breaking God's law.
I think this Age of Accountability comes from what Paul said about children coming under the protection of their parents until they reach an age where they can be responsible or think on their own, it's possible that someone drew straws to find out what age that should be.
I remember years ago an old farmer had lost his young son through a horrible Hay Baler accident. For years he hated God for taking his son. Dad was buying his farm and Dad being a young believer at the time heard the story from this man and how he didn't believe in God because he was told his child wasn't saved and now is in hell.
This bothered my father and he took to the scriptures to find out if he could somehow bring comfort to this old man. He found the story about David and Bathsheba's son the first one that died. I am going to quote from another site that bears this same thing and my fathers words. When this was told to the old farmer the man was relieved, and began to weep.
"King David gave us an important proof in his life and actions. Because of an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, she had given birth to a son. God, in judgment on David, told David that his son would die. David fasted and pleaded with God for the life of the son. David's servants were so worried about him, that they feared to tell him when the child died. Yet, when David discovered the fact, he washed, changed his clothes, and sat down to eat. When the servants expressed their surprise, he responded, "While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:22-23
). David knew God and knew he would be with Him. But he also knew that he would see his son there. This is an encouragement to every parent who has lost a child."
Taken from this source: http://www.learnthebible.org/the-age-of-accountability.html
| 2012/6/22 16:10|
| Re: mak28 |
RE:mak28 wrote /Never did I say that one from a non-Christian household could not be a Christian/God-fearing man. Apparently I have been drastically unclear! I apologize./
Hi mak28 it is easy to misunderstand each other on these forums, But I knew the point you where making.
My point is that your interpatation of 1cor.7:14 as was Calvins would conclude that this man that became /Christian/God-fearing man/ later in his life raised in a non-Christian household, had he died in his infancy would be in Hell where the (worm dieth not!!!)
Am I misunderstanding what you are implying as the meaning of 1cor 7:14??
RE: mak28 wrote /I have staked no claim there but referenced it only to say that it seems to say such/
you are searching for the truths as am I and I aperciate that spirit, my understandings are continuely changing and I am open to God changing them. I personaly at this point in my life can not at all see how 1 cor 7:14 is alluding to some special Grace pased on to the children of Believers that is automaticaly removed in the act of divorse as what this interpatation would imply, Rather it seems clear that it is implying the natural course of direction that the Child would likely experience. Broken Homes often break the spirit of a child, which can lead to a destructive life(but not always!) Children raised by parents, that raise them in the Love and admiration of the Lord are more Likely to follow in there parents steps(but not always)
Re: mak28 wrote /Clearly Josiah was not covered by his Father's grace nor his grandfather's grace because they had none./
That is what I wanted you to admit.
So by your interpatation of 1 Cor 7:14, Had Josiah died as an infant he would "not be covered by his Father's grace nor his grandfather's grace because they had none" thus Hell Fire (where the worm dieth not)not because of his actions, but his parents, Is that not what you are implying??
| 2012/6/22 19:36||Profile|
| 2012/8/6 0:42||Profile|
| Re: |
Sorry about leaving this thread. We had our son Benjamin on June 25th.
Elias: I'll have to check out that link at some point.
I'll let the thread go since it's old now anyway. It didn't seem like my thoughts were coming off clearly since they were misinterpreted several times. I didn't start the thread to give my thoughts primarily anyway. Just curious what others thought. It seems the thread has run its course.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts!
| 2012/9/20 16:45||Profile|