Limited Revealation

[Messy]

We are all born children of wrath...



I just hope you are not getting entangled with the 'Serpent-Seed' teaching.

But is a child of wrath the same as a child of satan or being of the wicked one? That language is used for extreme examples.

 

[prism]

Everyone gets born with a sinful nature but a baby can't sin yet. They're just not capable of sinning.

Babies still die, as a result of sin's presence.

 

[Ammi]

While I was learning the pleasures of sin at the age of 14, He chose to reveal Himself to me. Why, I don't know. I'm just glad He did.

 

[prism]

But is a child of wrath the same as a child of satan or being of the wicked one? That language is used for extreme examples.

Scripture is very clear as to which nature, we are born with and also stresses the fact of our need to be born again.

 

[Messy]

Babies still die, as a result of sin's presence.

Yes they also need Jesus' offer, but I don't believe a baby goes to hell. He can't judge them that they did not give Him a drink when they cant even hold a bottle and for such is the Kingdom. It would have been better fot Judas if he had not been born, so I suppose that means any child that dies in the whomb goes to heaven. So there is no baby with a hardened heart. They harden it during life by making wrong choices and sowing on the flesh and reaping destruction from it.

 

[prism]

While I was learning the pleasures of sin at the age of 14, He chose to reveal Himself to me. Why, I don't know. I'm just glad He did.

Ditto, except in my case it was 25 .

 

[Messy]

Scripture is very clear as to which nature, we are born with and also stresses the fact of our need to be born again.

Sinful, but not wicked. The wicked ones are always the ones that don't repent.

Oh wait that's not true.

 

[prism]

Yes they also need Jesus' offer, but I don't believe a baby goes to hell. He can't judge them that they did not give Him a drink when they cant even hold a bottle and for such is the Kingdom. It would have been better fot Judas if he had not been born, so I suppose that means any child that dies in the whomb goes to heaven. So there is no baby with a hardened heart. They harden it during life by making wrong choices and sowing on the flesh and reaping destruction from it.

We have David's child, but apart from that I can't comment.

 

[prism]

Sinful, but not wicked. The wicked ones are always the ones that don't repent.

Everyone needs to rethink the direction they are going.
Sinful, wicked, self righteous, self sufficient, religious etc.

 

[Messy]

Everyone needs to rethink the direction they are going.
Sinful, wicked, self righteous, self sufficient, religious etc.

I was wrong. I thought it was only used for those who don't get saved, but

38 Bible Verses about 'Wicked' - NKJV

A little that a righteous man has Is better than the riches… Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall… The memory of the righteous is blessed, But the name of the… The wicked borrows and does not repay, But the righteous shows mercy and gives… Blessings are on the...

dailyverses.net

• But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
  Ezekiel 18:21conversionsinlaw
• Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the Lord, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.
  Isaiah 55:7righteousnessconversionforgiveness

 

[Josiah]

So, if Christ died for all

He did.

And God desires all to be saved by it.

O

, then why does God not reveal Him to all?

"Revealing" the Gospel depends on us. Read the Great Commission.

The only answer that satisfies me is, because not all are of God.

I have no idea what you mean by "of God." No one is "of God" until God makes them so.

But the question of WHY some are saved and not others has to do with the reality that some have faith and some don't. And while such faith typically comes via the "Means of Grace" which WE supply, I realize that doesn't completely answer the question since God does not work faith in all.

Now, I can understand your felt need to know WHY.... your felt need to UNDERSTAND in your fallen brain. But I'll give you the same "answer" that has always been given to this age-old question: WE don't KNOW. God has not supplied us with the exact answer... instead He has supplied us with the Gospel that He loves all people, Christ died for all people, faith apprehends that and thus benefits from it, but that faith is not given to all. Anything more than that is not from God (it MAY be what makes sense to you or Joseph Smith or Joel Olsteen or whatever... it might come from YOU but you aren't God, of course. None of us is.).



.

 

[Josiah]

Everyone gets born with a sinful nature but a baby can't sin yet.

Quote the verse that states that those under a certain age are sinless.


.

 

[Messy]

Quote the verse that states that those under a certain age are sinless.

Innocent. Not holy and sinless like Adam before the fall. Otherwise there would be those who never sin.
For such is the Kingdom, become as a child.

Are Babies Sinners? Are Babies Sinful or Innocent? Jesse Morrell

This is an excerpt from the book, “The Natural Ability of Man: A Study on Free Will & Human Nature” by Jesse Morrell. To order this book: Click Here ARE BABIES SINFUL OR INNOCENT? Since Je…

biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com

ARE BABIES SINFUL OR INNOCENT?​

Since Jesus said, “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin…” (Jn. 9:41), and since James said, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17); infants are, therefore, morally innocent. This is because they don’t yet know right from wrong and they cannot yet know right from wrong. They have “no knowledge between good and evil” (Deut. 1:39) and do not yet “know to refuse the evil, and choose the good” (Isa. 7:15-16). Consequently, infants haven’t yet made any moral choices. Infants have not yet “done any good or evil” (Rom. 9:11). Without moral knowledge, you cannot have moral obligation or make moral choices. And without moral obligation and without moral choices, you cannot have moral character. It is impossible for infants to have moral knowledge due to the undeveloped state of their minds. Therefore, in their case, ignorance does equal innocence. Their ignorant state is not criminal since it is unintentional and unavoidable.
Since infants are without moral knowledge, moral obligation, moral choices, and consequently without moral character, they are exempt from the wrath of God. Only those who have a developed mind or have enough knowledge are “without excuse” before God (Rom. 1:20). The “wrath of God” is coming upon those who “hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). That means that God’s wrath is against those who possess the truth and yet are sinning anyway. Infants, therefore, have an excuse for their behavior and are not under the wrath of God because they do not yet possess moral knowledge of right and wrong.


Since infants are without moral knowledge, without moral obligation, and without moral choices, this adequately explains why the Bible explicitly describes infants as morally “innocent” (2 Kin. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3). When Bible talks about the shedding of “innocent blood” (2 Kin. 21:16), the context of this passage is child sacrifices

I don't agree with the rest that he writes. He believes people have no sinful nature.

 

[Lees]

agreed

John is talking about his nature (satan's). Cain's father was Adam, not satan.

We are of God through the new birth, otherwise we retain the nature of satan.

Again, he was speaking of their fallen nature, not their natural birth.

We are all born children of wrath...

Ephesians 2:1-3 KJV
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; [2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: [3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

but through the new birth, has quickened us...

Ephesians 2:5 KJV
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

I just hope you are not getting entangled with the 'Serpent-Seed' teaching.

Well, of course Cain had Satan's nature as he was of Satan. The earthly parent, such as Adam is not in view here. Of Satan or of God is in view.

I disagree. We who are 'of God' traces our origin back before we are even 'born-again'. (John 3:3) says that "Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." In other words if your origin is not right, you cannot even see it. Those whose origin is right can see and will then enter the Kingdom through the New Birth. (John 3:5) "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

We who are believers, of God, were never children of Satan. We certainly were children of wrath, but not children of Satan.

No, Jesus was not addressing the Pharisees 'fallen nature'. He was addressing their source, their father, Satan. Jesus was very clear. (John 8:41) "...for I proceeded forth and came from God...." (John 8:44) "Ye are of your father the devil...."

Jesus then says, (John 8:47), "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." Do you see? Jesus didn't say if you just hear God's words you will be of God. He said the reason you don't hear is because you are not of God.

Just like when He told some Jews later, (John 10:26), "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep...." He didn't say you are not my sheep because you don't believe. He said the reason you don't believe is because ye are not of mine.

(Eph. 2:1-3) describes the believer prior to his being born-again. Lost. And here a distinction should be made. Not everyone born in Adam is a child of God. As I have said, some are children of Satan and some are children of God. And, it is only the children of God who are 'lost'. I am guilty as most when using the term 'lost' to refer to all those who are not saved. But that is incorrect.

To be 'lost' implies previous ownership. It implies one is a child of God but is lost. And Jesus came to save the lost. (Luke 19:10)

I believe I have explained with Scripture my position. As far as 'Serpent-seed' teaching, doesn't the Bible say Satan has a seed? (Gen. 3:15)

Lees

 

[Lees]

He did.

And God desires all to be saved by it.

O


"Revealing" the Gospel depends on us. Read the Great Commission.






I have no idea what you mean by "of God." No one is "of God" until God makes them so.

But the question of WHY some are saved and not others has to do with the reality that some have faith and some don't. And while such faith typically comes via the "Means of Grace" which WE supply, I realize that doesn't completely answer the question since God does not work faith in all.

Now, I can understand your felt need to know WHY.... your felt need to UNDERSTAND in your fallen brain. But I'll give you the same "answer" that has always been given to this age-old question: WE don't KNOW. God has not supplied us with the exact answer... instead He has supplied us with the Gospel that He loves all people, Christ died for all people, faith apprehends that and thus benefits from it, but that faith is not given to all. Anything more than that is not from God (it MAY be what makes sense to you or Joseph Smith or Joel Olsteen or whatever... it might come from YOU but you aren't God, of course. None of us is.).



.

No, it actually depnds on God. (Matt. 16:17) "...Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

As to what I mean by 'of God' read again post #(15) and read also #(34).

Well, my Bible has 1684 pages. Yours is but two sentences. Seems God has much more to say then you are saying.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Yeah it's weird. You cannot just explain it by their upbringing.
It looks like the seed was already bad. The enemy who sows tares.
I think because Adam and Eve sinned they became one with satan and could get a good spiritual kid and a bad kid, from the flesh, but also because sin still reigned.
During the 1000 year peace they don't get such kids:
Isaiah 65:23
They shall not labor in vain,
Nor bring forth children for trouble

The complete Jewish Bible:
23 They will not toil in vain or raise children to be destroyed, for they are the seed blessed by ADONAI; and their offspring with them.

I do agree that (Is. 65:18-25) speaks to Millennial conditions in the Kingdom. And because Satan is bound during that 1000 year reign, (Rev. 20:2), and Christ is ruling, (Rev. 20:4), it will be a blessed time.

But, many who come into that Kingdom will still have the Adamic nature. And they will still have children during that time. I believe the same thing will be true then as far as some being of God and some of Satan. Those of Satan are forced to live in a righteous world run by Jesus Christ. And then once their father, Satan is loosed, he immediately goes and rounds his up and sets out to destroy those of God. (Rev. 20:7-9)

Lees

 

[Josiah]

Innocent. Not holy and sinless

So, sinless but sinful? Hum.


See Sin and the Law

Since infants are without moral knowledge, moral obligation, moral choices, and consequently without moral character, they are exempt from the wrath of d.

So, if I don't know that the speed limit is 65 it's okay to go 85? Ignorance makes one holy and guiltless?

Since infants are without moral knowledge, without moral obligation, and without moral choices, this adequately explains why the Bible explicitly describes infants as morally “innocent” (2 Kin. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Ps. 106:37-38; Matt. 18:3).

1. Sorry, I looked up all those verses.... none of them remotely indicate that persons under the age of who-knows are sinless and thus innocent.

2. Where does the Bible says that those under the age of who-knows are without moral obligation?

I don't agree with the rest that he writes. He believes people have no sinful nature.

And therein lies his whole problem.... the whole argument falls because his basic assumption is wrong.

 

[prism]

Well, of course Cain had Satan's nature as he was of Satan. The earthly parent, such as Adam is not in view here. Of Satan or of God is in view.

Do you believe satan had intercourse with Eve and had Cain?

 

[prism]

No, Jesus was not addressing the Pharisees 'fallen nature'. He was addressing their source, their father, Satan. Jesus was very clear. (John 8:41) "...for I proceeded forth and came from God...." (John 8:44) "Ye are of your father the devil...."

Would that include Paul/Saul seeing he also was a Pharisee prior to his conversion?

 

[Lees]

Do you believe satan had intercourse with Eve and had Cain?

Of that I do not know for certain. It is held by many that (Gen. 6:1-2) speaks of sexual intercourse between angels and women which was an angelic intrusion into the human race. So the idea should not be as far fetched as it first appears.

I believe something occurred at the fall that introduced another seed line into Adam's race. (Gen. 3:15) And at the beginning that seed line was clearly distinct with Cains line identified in (Gen. 4:16-24) and described in very worldly terms and boasting of murders.

Then compare that to Seth who is described as "another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." (Gen. 4:25) And when Seth had a son, Enos, we are told, "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." (4:26)

In other words, why did it not say "another son instead of Abel whom Cain slew"? Answer: because the seed line was the purpose, not just another son.

Lees