Islamic extremists from Somaliaâ€™s rebel Al-Shabaab militants on Friday (Nov. 16) killed a Christian in Somaliaâ€™s coastal city of Barawa, accusing him of being a spy and leaving Islam, Christian and Muslim witnesses said.
The extremists beheaded 25-year-old Farhan Haji Mose after monitoring his movements for six months, Christian sources said. Mose drew suspicion when he returned to Barawa, in Somaliaâ€™s Lower Shebelle Region, in December 2011 after spending time in Kenya, underground Christians in Somalia told Morning Star News....
All I can say (due to the fact that I am not a theological) to all your points is that when Adam sinned, we sinned. We sinned in him. We were in the garden, and we broke the law. And thus, we are born sinners, evidencing this by our actions even from a very early age, even from birth.
I am not able to take it any further than that, despite given it thought, although I do believe scripture speaks to it, and it is a fundamental doctrine, without which everything else goes pear-shaped or arminist.
Thanks for the MH commentary but I'd be hard pressed to call it proof of imputation of original sin beginning with Cain since imputation is a judicial act of God which goes hand in hand with the imposition of the law, by God, to establish guilt. Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Sinai) not because God imposed it but because God permitted it.
Beside that, I can't reconcile MH's commentary with some of the historical, law and prophetic texts. For example, if Adam's transgression was imputed from Cain forward then the perfect opportunity for God to make it known would have been when God gave the law to Moses. Instead, we find God's statute which cannot be reconciled with MH's commentary (Deu 24:16) repeated by God to Ezekiel with more detail:
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Was the death which reigned from Adam to Moses physical or spiritual?
Is the wages of sin physical death or spiritual?
Why say this if all mankind is conceived spiritually dead?
Frank wrote: The child was not guilty, Adam was and the child's parents!
Frank, I do not claim to understand it, but I think you're wrong on this one. (I gotta be careful, now that I know you are my elder brother.)
The expression is, "we sinned in Adam", therefore we are guilty as Adam. Therefore we die. No sin - no death. So that if Adam had never sinned, he would still be alive today. Jesus never sinned, therefore he had to LAY DOWN his life, or he would have still been alive on earth today. He said, "I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again."
John UK wrote: Sure Mike, that is most true. But if you followed what MH was saying, it is also a certain sign that the child sinned and was guilty, which is why death could take him.
Heh John! Because of the fall of Adam, all life; plant, animal and human will in fact die. That is certainly the result of the fall of mankind. But unless we are here when the Lord returns, then death is necessary for us to receive our incorruptible bodies. So, the fact that babies perish, doesnâ€™t ,mean they will undergo judgment; I wonâ€™t. If you disagree, then see my post below on the different judgment scenarios.
1 co 15:35. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
The child was not guilty, Adam was and the child's parents!
CV wrote: Frank No I did not think your position was Arminian. I don't have a dogmatic position on this, only what I can best reconcile in scripture.
Thanks for your kind and thoughtful follow-up. I agree that both thoughts cannnot be correct at the same time, but I also think that God permits this for His glory. When genuine believers differ and dialogue in love over issues, then the truth is more clearly shown and the falsehoods become more evident. Our hypocricies and eisegesis come to the forefront so to speak? My problem is I often don't dialogue in love. Of course the Holy Spirit uses these things to teach us and to conform us into the image of Christ.
My issue really was with what happens to aborted babies or babies too young to contemplate right and wrong; arminianism was a side issue in my mind but it does relate to that issue as you know. There is no aspect of one doctrine that doesn't impact another doctrine, so all is important; you would agree with that.
Anyway, thanks for your response. I always enjoy reading your posts and all of them cause me to ponder God's word which is a good thing.
Apparently David had no doubt that he was going to be with his son again.
Sure Mike, that is most true.
But if you followed what MH was saying, it is also a certain sign that the child sinned and was guilty, which is why death could take him. Whether it was actual sin committed or sinned in Adam, sin is always the cause of death.
And I for one would prefer to be still alive when our Lord returns.
2 Samuel 12:18-23 "But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, 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."
Apparently David had no doubt that he was going to be with his son again.
"His proof of it is, Death reigned from Adam to Moses, Romans 5:14. It is certain that death could not have reigned if sin had not set up the throne for him. This proves that sin was in the world before the law, and original sin, for death reigned over those that had not sinned any actual sin, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, never sinned in their own persons as Adam did - which is to be understood of infants, that were never guilty of actual sin, and yet died, because Adam's sin was imputed to them. This reign of death seems especially to refer to those violent and extraordinary judgments which were long before Moses, as the deluge and the destruction of Sodom, which involved infants. It is a great proof of original sin that little children, who were never guilty of any actual transgression, are yet liable to very terrible diseases, casualties, and deaths, which could by no means be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God if they were not chargeable with guilt."
I think this is the scripture proof some of my brethren are seeking.
I know I said I rest my case but I can't help myself
Cv you said you walk by faith. How can u a mere man walk by faith? I thought the Calvinistic view didn't allow for action on mans part ( not a good one anyway). You know is the t in tulip an all that. Please don't quote eph 2:8 in your reply because my reading of that particular verse differs than that of the Calvinist Can you show me elsewhere in scripture that man is incapable of making a good choice like repenting and believing and through that being saved? Ps I'm not wanting to come across as the enemy but as a brother In Christ with an interest on the subject
No I did not think your position was Arminian. I don't have a dogmatic position on this, only what I can best reconcile in scripture. But ultimately I leave it as a mystery. You advanced an alternative position and I gave some biblical reference for you to consider. I have far more in common with your beliefs
There is overarching discussion on "Arminianism" - mans role vs God's. I have some strong views on that. There is no way you can be a Christian and not be dogmatic about anything.
If there's one thing the Arminian discussion has shown us is this: CLEARLY at least one, if not both, position(s) cannot come from the Holy Spirit. If both sides are Christians, then God accommodates some of us in our stubbornness to be blind and ignorant. This is true for all of us at every turn. The oracle of God was given to believers, not unbelievers. It was not given so that we could find out what it says, but rather for God to show us and lead us thru it. In brokeness if we searched to know Gods truth, we would have found Him. But if we put Him thru the sieve of our own wisdom and pride, God will leave us in our ignorance. We will be so impressed in our own love and humility for Him, thinking that it's Him that we've loved all along. Yet we remain blind and ignorant.
Lurker wrote: Hello Frank and thanks for your reply. 1) No, my comment was not directed toward you. In fact I thought your comment was very sensible and generally likeminded with my view of the same. Like John, I have issues with some of our brothers who elevate their systematic theology to a level equal to or above scripture but I no longer have the desire to go nose to nose. Some things just will not change till Jesus stands up in furious rebuke and we must all bear our shame for saying "Thus saith the Lord" when He never spoke. 2) I await for the same. Btw, Happy Birthday.
Like I said, I know your comments weren't addressed to me. I am very careful with pronouns and so are you and like me, you aren't shy. My last thought was for all those who believe that election can send babies to hell to defend their positions with scripture. But, I did want you and everyone else to know that I am dogmatic about "my" position. Your post was the only one that gave me that opening.
Thanks for the birthday wish. It was my 66th. My wife got me a pressure cleaner and took me out to dinner. BTW, Deu. 29:29 is one of my favorite verses! You and I and John can discuss these things throughout eternity.
Frank wrote: 1) It never dawned on me that the opposite of my thoughts would make God a heartless monster. "Whatever" God does is perfectly compassionate, just and merciful by His very nature. I know you weren't aiming your comment at me and I know you and I agree on that thought regarding the impossibility of God being heartless - impossible.
2) Now I would still like to know which scripture says that God will send someone who hasn't volitionally sinned to hell. If someone can show me that, then I will ponder my thoughts again. I listed the various judgment scenarios above and other thoughts to support my dogmatic position.
Hello Frank and thanks for your reply.
1) No, my comment was not directed toward you. In fact I thought your comment was very sensible and generally likeminded with my view of the same.
Like John, I have issues with some of our brothers who elevate their systematic theology to a level equal to or above scripture but I no longer have the desire to go nose to nose. Some things just will not change till Jesus stands up in furious rebuke and we must all bear our shame for saying "Thus saith the Lord" when He never spoke.
Lurker wrote: Christopher, Don't permit some of these dogmatic statements and claims trouble you.
Hello brother, I appreciate your conciliatory tone and there is much truth in what you are saying, there are the secretive things of God that only He knows and understands, but let me be dogmatic.
Revelations 20:12 â€“ according to their deeds.
John 3:19,20 â€“ loved darkness; their deeds were evil; their deeds are exposed.
Matthew 7:23 â€“ they practiced lawlessness
Matthew 25:32-46 â€“ same principle as the above.
Ezekiel 18:4,20 â€“ The soul that sins will die; not the soul who is conceived or born.
It never dawned on me that the opposite of my thoughts would make God a heartless monster. "Whatever" God does is perfectly compassionate, just and merciful by His very nature. I know you weren't aiming your comment at me and I know you and I agree on that thought regarding the impossibility of God being heartless - impossible.
Now I would still like to know which scripture says that God will send someone who hasn't volitionally sinned to hell. If someone can show me that, then I will ponder my thoughts again. I listed the various judgment scenarios above and other thoughts to support my dogmatic position.
Don't permit some of these dogmatic statements and claims trouble you. The doctrine of original sin sounds good in theory and as part and parcel of a systematic theology which leaves no stone unturned.... even the stones God did not want turned. But when it comes down to the eternal fate of an unborn child, it encounters some real problems which require some fancy footwork by fallible men to keep God from looking like a heartless monster.
The truth of the matter is, God is love and needs no man's feeble work-arounds to a doctrine that is obviously not representative of the truth in the first place.
The further truth of the matter is, the bible is silent on the eternal fate of children, born or unborn, who die before an age of reason so any doctrine which speaks of such is trespassing in the secret things of God.
Deu 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
This is what God revealed to Moses in the matter:
Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
CV wrote: Many Godly people believe that God saves all babies. I believe as John does', that of election. Either way, one day we will know. Some consideration for your study would be Deut 7:1-4,16,24 etc where God wants these people wiped out COMPLETELY - their names wiped out. Also, outside the ARK would have been "innocent" children.
I'm not sure if you think my thoughts are of the arminian sort, but I can assure you they aren't; not even slightly. Your points make arminianism impossible and I concur. If someone has the ability to determine their own fates, then when God destroyed all children during the flood and at other times, then He would be consigning some to hell that could later have been saved. But to say that election, as in the case of God saving one sinner over another, was the issue with those children He destroyed is tenuous at best; they didn't sin. Am I understanding you correctly?
Dwayne, this is being covered very adequately already. My problem is the exaltation of man above God. God is reduced to an AA councelor walking alongside giving us a talking and hoping we'd take Him up on his offer. It is man asserting his sovereign right to decide over what God would like. Man has so much power that on his own, outside of the regenrtive pwer of God, man CAN choose God on his own, that is -not to sin. If he can do it once then, theoretically, he can do it 100% of the time - to not sin. Outside of Adams sin, it is possible for man to attain sinlessness.
Before God surrendered His sovereighty to man, He also gave up his omniscience as he looked into the corridors of time cluelessy twidling His thumb waiting to see what Arminius would decide.
God is less then God, sin isn't as bad, man is better then he is.
WE are never more better off then to be under the care of the God who says He is. I don't trust me, I trust God. God is totally sovereign and man is responsible. One day we will know. Untill then we walk by faith, trusting where we don't know.
People shouldn't box things. Cv you imply that arminion faith is fake right? Just because someone DECIDED to repent because he read the bible and saw that the action required for salvation was repentance and faith doesn't mean that his faith is fake. I am on a middle road. A Christian does not have to decide whether he wants to be a Calvinist or an arminionist they both have truth and we will not come to a conclusion on a Internet thread. I rest my case
Frank wrote: Christ will not ..say "you are condemned" because you were conceived. All in Adam have sinful natures.. but ..if someone wants to postulate how a baby in the womb can sin, or ..contemplate and decide on a sinful act, then I will reconsider my thoughts. Why not simply say that when a baby dies, God ..accepts them because they have not actively or passivly sinned? Show me a judgment scenario ..it should be easy to prove.
Many Godly people believe that God saves all babies. I believe as John does', that of election. Either way, one day we will know. Some consideration for your study would be Deut 7:1-4,16,24 etc where God wants these people wiped out COMPLETELY - their names wiped out. Also, outside the ARK would have been "innocent" children.
Salvation is of God - all God. GOD CHOOSES a people for Himself. And NOT based on their Arminian faith
Were the ONLY few people in the ARK - because of Arminian faith? Surely Not! They were of Gods Choosing! Abram exercised faith? Right? God looked thru the corridors of time and only one pagan on the whole planet had it. If it was Arminian faith, surely more then one could have qualified.
NO! It was God chosing a people for himself! ALL Gods Choosing.
John UK wrote: Frank, I am glad to see that you also will not force everything into the structure. You may be interested to see what the Baptists had to say about the salvation of infants and also others who have no human means of hearing and responding. Chapter 10: Effectual Calling: 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8) I reckon that is mighty fine myself.
Thanks John. To be honest the only group that I was aware of that condemned a new born child "were" the Catholics because the child hadn't been baptized into their church. They then changed it somewhat to say the child went into some type of limbo or purgatory. I guess so they could pay for being born. Anyway, I know the issue is more complicated then I made it, but space negates an in-depth discussion of the issue. Thanks for your comments!
You brought up a very good issue on the Dawkins thread. My comments there support you. That means you were correct. I hope that statement doesn't resurrect Phoebe, et al.