Sinless children?

[tango]

It's good to not entwine, entangle, mix, confused Law and Gospel. BOTH are true. BOTH apply all the time. But they are not the same thing. Yes, we are to be His friends.... yes He LOVES His enemies and died for them. Yes, we are to be PERFECT.... yes He promises to forgive us ("77 times 7") when we come with repentance and faith. Law and Gospel are both true, neither deminishes the other. Again, kind of a red flag comes up in the mind as people try to minimize one in light of the other. Let Law be Law - and accomplish it's task. Let Gospel be Gospel - and accomplish it's task (they "meet" at the Cross).

If we summarise the gospel as being "we sinned and deserve damnation, Jesus died and paid the price for our sins, so now we can go to heaven if we accept the sacrifice Jesus made" it doesn't work without the law. The reason we sin is that we break the law. Jam 2:10 makes it clear that if we keep the whole law but stumble in one area we are guilty of everything, but even so if we could keep the whole law why would we need a savior at all? The two have to go hand in hand - the law shows that we can't live up to the standard God expects, the gospel then gives us an alternative to eternal damnation for failing to keep to the requirements of the law. As you say they meet at the cross. I'm not looking to diminish one over the other, just looking to say that in theory if we could keep the whole of the law we wouldn't need grace because we would never have sinned. If we could achieve that then the gospel, to us, would be the exact opposite of Eph 2:8-9 in that we would have earned a place in heaven through our own works having lived a sinless life.

Got to run (work pesters). Good discussion! You are making me think - and I appreciate that.

It's getting late here and the comfort of bed is calling me. I too am enjoying the discussion, it's good to thrash out ideas and see where they stand and where they struggle. It's the whole "iron sharpens iron" thing

 

[tango]

"loved " not loves .. he afforded the world an act of love to give them a chance to be saved .. he does not love the world ongoing .. he going to burn it up with fiore .

I think you're using "the world" in two different contexts there. I don't think it makes sense to say "God so loved this lump of rock that he sent his son..." in the same context as "God is going to burn up this lump of rock with fire". Before the flood Genesis records that "the earth was corrupt" (Gen 6:11). The problem was that the people on the earth were corrupt, not that the actual dirt itself was corrupt.

God so loved the world (everybody) that he sent his son. In due course God is going to destroy the world (the lump of rock) with fire. God still loves the world (the people) because if he didn't why would he bother giving us a chance of salvation?

 

[Alithis]

God doesn't love us..... we're only to be nicer in some single outward performance.... a destruction of Gospel AND Law.

Except thats not what i said.
The refere.ce to john 3 :16 you worded as god 'loves' the world. But in john 3 16 it staes he "loved" that is a past tense in reference to a monent in which he extended love to all mankind in order to make the way of salvation available.buthedoes not go on loving the sytem that is diametricly opposed to him in every aspect possible.
He steas he willcome and judge it and pour out woe after woe upon it and in the end destroy it all in fire.

He loves..past present and future tense,those who love Jesus.
He does not love the world but rather he will judge it for thier wicked godless acts and disobedience to the Goodnews he graciously made available.

Im not saying anything the scripture does not already state.
Does scripture destroy scripture?
There are no grounds for such beligerant accusations .

 

[Alithis]

I think you're using "the world" in two different contexts there. I don't think it makes sense to say "God so loved this lump of rock that he sent his son..." in the same context as "God is going to burn up this lump of rock with fire". Before the flood Genesis records that "the earth was corrupt" (Gen 6:11). The problem was that the people on the earth were corrupt, not that the actual dirt itself was corrupt.

God so loved the world (everybody) that he sent his son. In due course God is going to destroy the world (the lump of rock) with fire. God still loves the world (the people) because if he didn't why would he bother giving us a chance of salvation?

Wel nope..because christ did not die for tbe lump of rock..and the lump of did not sin against the creator..man did.sowe know he speaks of humanity and the system by which mankind lives.

He showed mercy when he gave (once)his only beloved son.. He is not going to give him again.he displayed an astounding reaching out in an act of love toward those who are in every respect..his enemies.
Jesus is his olive branch.
Offered as a one off peace offering of good will.not an ongoing state of automated grace. Those who reject it wil suffer the full fury that was already coming upon the wickedness of man... Not rock.
The world... Ref https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=KJV

So loved.. As in just so.. Once he afforded an act of love toward those who deserved none and were awaiting only a just judgment.
When we put it into the contex. Of the entire scripture we see that god does not adore ,dote on,hold as the apples of his eye etc ..the world .buton the contrary holds back his wrath from it that more may be saved from the ful force of the indignatio. He is about to pour out upon it.

 

[Lamb]

You seem to be limiting God's forgiveness because you look to the Law instead of the truth of the full Gospel.

 

[tango]

Wel nope..because christ did not die for tbe lump of rock..and the lump of did not sin against the creator..man did.sowe know he speaks of humanity and the system by which mankind lives.

He showed mercy when he gave (once)his only beloved son.. He is not going to give him again.he displayed an astounding reaching out in an act of love toward those who are in every respect..his enemies.
Jesus is his olive branch.
Offered as a one off peace offering of good will.not an ongoing state of automated grace. Those who reject it wil suffer the full fury that was already coming upon the wickedness of man... Not rock.
The world... Ref https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2889&t=KJV

So loved.. As in just so.. Once he afforded an act of love toward those who deserved none and were awaiting only a just judgment.
When we put it into the contex. Of the entire scripture we see that god does not adore ,dote on,hold as the apples of his eye etc ..the world .buton the contrary holds back his wrath from it that more may be saved from the ful force of the indignatio. He is about to pour out upon it.

I think that's pretty much what I said... God sent Jesus to die for the world (i.e. the people living on the lump of rock) as opposed to the world (the lump of rock itself).

I'm not sure if I'm missing your point but I'm struggling to read what you're saying here as meaning anything other than "God loved (past tense) the world but doesn't love the world any more". Did I misunderstand you somewhere?