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?

[bluejean_bible]

That's probably a conversation that you should have with God himself. However, I will not speculate as to all newborns going to heaven. God will have mercy on whomever He wishes.

Wow.

Anyone who thinks Bible God sends the unborn and newborns who die to Hell are obligated to prove it.

 

[posthuman]

No one is elected to be saved and every child or childlike understanding receives God's grace. You cannot be blamed for what you can't understand, that would make God cruel indeed.

why do elephants die?

 

[PaulThomson]

eternal life.

but death is the antithesis of life, and death is the wage of sin, and enters through sin.
and you seem to believe that even having received the reward of faith, at the end of the age, there will still be sin.

so do you actually have any hope..?

Yes, I have great hope, based on the promises if God, who is love and supremely trustworthy. Though the eternally effective sacrifice of the incarnation and the cross, He has provided proof that He is always willing to grant mercy to and to reconcile with creatures who are willing to reconcile with Him on good faith terms.

 

[PaulThomson]

how is it you believe that you know this, but you also believe God doesn't know whether anyone will sin or not?

View attachment 274772

It means knowing everything that is true.

 

[posthuman]

YesI have great hope, based on the promises if God, who is love and supremely trustworthy. Though the eternally effective sacrifice of the incarnation and the cross, He has provided proof that He is always willing to grant mercy to and to reconcile with creatures who are willing to reconcile with Him on good faith terms.

hope in your eternal ability to sin and God's eternal ignorance of it, is not a good hope, imo

 

[posthuman]

It means knowing everything t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶e̶

i repeat:

 

[PaulThomson]

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

sure

1 Corinthians 15:26​

The last enemy [that] will be destroyed [is] death.​

That verse does not even mention sin. How can it logically be offered as proof regarding something it does it mention?

 

[PaulThomson]

You posted it Gen 3:22,

And in another place God said they can eat from any tree in the garden except for one, which wasn't the tree of life.

Eating of the tree of life in the physical wasn't a automatic state of immortality. Adam could of been still living today if he had not eaten from the knowledge tree.

God has always been the Alpha and Omega, meaning there was always going to be a end to physical world regardless of what Adam did.

You posted earlier, "
SaysWhat said:
Having a physical body capable of never dying, would take eating from two trees not one. The tree of life alone doesn't allow a physical person to be immortal."

There is an extreme difference between "eating" and "not eating". You essentiall said then, based on you latest post,
'
SaysWhat said:
Having a physical body capable of never dying, would take eating from two both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life alone doesn't allow a physical person to be immortal.

That makes no sense.

 

[PaulThomson]

i repeat:

View attachment 274773

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..

 

[PaulThomson]

hope in your eternal ability to sin and God's eternal ignorance of it, is not a good hope, imo

I did not mention "ignorance". Why are you having to resort to the logical fallacy of straw-manning? Usually that is the haven of those who have no logical argument to make.

 

[PaulThomson]

eternal life.

but death is the antithesis of life, and death is the wage of sin, and enters through sin.
and you seem to believe that even having received the reward of faith, at the end of the age, there will still be sin.

so do you actually have any hope..?

Having the potential for sin does not make sin inevitable.

 

[PaulThomson]

in fact it does.

View attachment 274771

eph' hOi means "Upon which". When I say, The teacher came into the classroom, upon which all the student stood to attention," does that mean"The teacher came into the classroom, because all the student stood to attention," Or does that mean, " All the student stood to attention, because the teacher came into the classroom" and "the teacher came into the classroom, as a response to which all the student stood to attention,"?

 

[posthuman]

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



That verse does not even mention sin. How can it logically be offered as proof regarding something it does it mention?

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.

 

[posthuman]

Having the potential for sin does not make sin inevitable.

when we all get to heaven, you go right ahead and prove your case by committing sin.

 

[posthuman]

eph' hOi means "Upon which". When I say, The teacher came into the classroom, upon which all the student stood to attention," does that mean"The teacher came into the classroom, because all the student stood to attention," Or does that mean, " All the student stood to attention, because the teacher came into the classroom" and "the teacher came into the classroom, as a response to which all the student stood to attention,"?

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




so which came first, sin or death?

what does scripture say?

 

[posthuman]

I did not mention "ignorance". Why are you having to resort to the logical fallacy of straw-manning? Usually that is the haven of those who have no logical argument to make.

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.

 

[posthuman]

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..

 

[posthuman]

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.

 

[PaulThomson]

Sinful flesh can not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

​

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, ​

nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.​

1 Corinthians 15:50

That is why Adam's sin was first priority to be dealt with on the Cross!
If it were not? No one would be allowed to live to make their choice for salvation.

The atonement of the Cross was all encompassing.

.......

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.

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."

So, you are obviously wrong to assert that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Imperishable flesh will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[PaulThomson]

View attachment 274776

You are evading the question. You rejected my definition of omniscience: "Knowing everything that is true." That rejection means that you require an omniscient God also to "know" everything that is not true, such as knowing that one cm. is longer than one km.

Instead of conceding that the sense of "knowing everything" must be "knowing everything that is true", you are doubling down on your claim that God has to "know" even every untrue thing to be truely omniscient.

There is no logic to your approach.