What is Faith in the Bible?

[JIM]

It does no good to say something and then deny saying it. I asked "So God created Adam and Eve with sinful desires?" And you answered "Yes."

Sinful desires is not sin. Acting on those sinful desires is sin.

And yes, Eve bore the penalty of sin. But she was not the one who brought the condition of being a sinner down on all mankind. It was Adam.

The idea that Adam brought the condition of being a sinner down on all mankind is the terrible lie of Calvinism/Reformed Theology.

Eze 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.

The soul who sins is a sinner.

The Bible never refers to mankind as being "In Eve," only in "in Adam." Concerning the woman God said that from the woman would come the Seed that crushed the serpents head. Eve was not technically in Adam either, but out of Adam. Bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. One.

Being in Adam does not mean being a sinner. The entire human race is "in Adam", even those who have been justified and regenerated. In fact, the one place we even find the phrase, "in Adam" is in 1 Corinthians 15"22 and there it is talking about the whole of mankind, lost and saved.

 

[JIM]

Now if you can prove the self-contradictory notion that to create is not to cause, have at it.

When you can prove to me how high is up, then I might give some thought to your request.

 

[Mr GLee]

Sinful desires is not sin. Acting on those sinful desires is sin.

I would ask?

What is the difference between sinful desires and righteous desires?

If one looks to lust after . . . .that kind of ideology would promote the garden fall. The two building blocks of false pride. . . . lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, the power of lying signs to wonder after as if prophecy .satan working overtime today

The false prophecy "neither shall you touch" The "lust of the flesh in that parable drew them to the hidden tree of eternal in the center of the garden. . then the lust of the eye took over the flesh. Virtue lost

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Reminds me as a Dad of shopping with my children. Look with your eyes not with hands. It does not belong to you. They listened twice then came Mama bear . . .sit in the cart I do not care how old you are lol

 

[makesends]

When you can prove to me how high is up, then I might give some thought to your request.

What kind of answer is that --a response in kind?

If so, you have rather handily demonstrated my point. You mention a ridiculous request, as though 'up' is a distance rather than a relative direction. Likewise, to prove the self-contradictory notion that a caused effect can be uncaused, is a ridiculous request. You cannot explain it, yet you keep talking like it is fact.

 

[makesends]

Sinful desires is not sin. Acting on those sinful desires is sin.

'Sin' (sinfulness) and 'sins', do not describe the same thing, though our sins are derived from our sinfulness.

 

[JIM]

What kind of answer is that --a response in kind?

The issue is not what kind of answer is that. The real issue is what kind of a question is that, and that was my point. Your question, or your challenge was just as unintelligible as mine. So yes, of sorts, it was a response in kind.

If so, you have rather handily demonstrated my point. You mention a ridiculous request, as though 'up' is a distance rather than a relative direction. Likewise, to prove the self-contradictory notion that a caused effect can be uncaused, is a ridiculous request. You cannot explain it, yet you keep talking like it is fact.

If I mentioned a ridiculous request, then you did as well. The difference is that I knew mine was ridiculous, You apparently didn't realize that yours was as well.