Link redirects to http://www.allaboutgod.com/sin-of-pride.htm which my browser refuse to display.
Sorry. I have to get into the habit of clicking the link to make sure it works. I'll look it up and see If I can repost a working link. Thnx for bringing it to my attention.
However...
That's cold comfort as one of those who doesn't accept God as our creator. Not that I worry about his judgment on the matter, I find the possibility of his existence remote to say the least but I do despair of people who dodge the results of the trust I place in reason and logic, accusing me of unwarranted pride in human accomplishments. I find such accusations more than a little prideful themselves, an arrogant celebration of ignorance. Not that I'm accusing you of this in any way.
The feeling of pride in having accomplished something is a gift from the creator who also feels proud of what he accomplishes. Or feels good about the things he accomplishes to express it a different way.
Actually that does help explain a few things. So, and correct me if I'm wrong but you're not say that my son has sinned, only that he has that capability in his nature even if he hasn't yet practiced it.
Correct
Following this logic what he inherits is not an actual sin, an honest to goodness black mark against his hypothetical soul, but a sinful nature. Or to put in back into terms I relate to a capability and tendency towards immoral action. Coupled with the abundant opportunity for such action it becomes an eventual inevitability. however as of yet, you're not necessarily suggesting he has sinned. Much less, his older but stillborn brother.
The unborn cannot willfully sin. The culpability of those who are born is based on their understanding of what they do. Their sanity, or ability to tell right from wrong for example. Momentary insanity also affects culpability as is evident in trials involving crimes of passion.
As such if I follow you logic correctly, under your paradigm they are both currently eligible for eternal life despite being un-baptised and unredeemed by Jesus.
Agreed.
They simply don't need it. Is that correct?
Eternal life isn't a given. Neither is it based on need. Eternal life is a gift which comes for perfect obedience. Since we cannot obey perfectly, Jesus obeyed perfectly for us and died
for our sins. If he himself had sinned then he would have been paying the penalty for himself. But since he was sinless, he could die for the sins of those who passed away, people alive and those yet not born in order that they too could have an opportunity gain eternal life by being viewed as sinless based on his payment of their debt.
However, just as in Eden, a show of respect anbd apreciatiuon is reqwured as evidenbce tyhat we accept that gift:
1 Timothy 6:18-20 (King James Version)
18That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
19Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come,
that they may lay hold on eternal life.
In short, if the basis for the gift is missing then there is no basis to give it. Jesus sacrifice provided the basis to offer such a gift to everyone who accepts it. That implies the ability to consciously accept the gift. Since those who are not as yet born are incapable of accepting or rejecting, then their decision has to be made later when theyt are capable of it. Which requires of course a resurrection. Which is promised. So they are not just summarily written off as some would perhaps suppose.
It's also might help to keep in mind that's gifts can be rejected or accepted and that they aren't forced upon those who might not appreciate them had they had the chance to Choose. That would constitute a violation of freedom of choice. which of course leads to an entirely different subject.
I understand that my living son might in your eyes benefit from such redemption as a kind of inoculation against inevitable sinning later in life but random chance forbid he does die unblemished by sinful action I suspect that you might answer with a subtle difference between an ability to sin and an inability to refrain from doing so. Thus far I've equated the two. I've considered an ability to sin as a probability of doing so which coupled with abundant opportunity leads to an eventual inevitability. If that is not that case then I'd welcome clarification on the difference, in your eyes, between my son's present condition and that of Adam and Eve prior to their transgression.
First, this present situation with its injustices due to random chance was not what God had in mind, It is a temporary condition which he promises and promised immediately in Eden to restore things to pre-rebellion conditions. But there were serious issues raised in Eden.
1. Was the rebel angel right? Was God unworthy of worship as he had said?
2. Was he right in saying that mankind could do better alone?
3. Was God lying as that rebel told Eve?
4. Would mankind invariably reject their creator if tempted because the only reason they would obey was for selfish reasons.
No, these things weren't said directly but were implied in the words he spoke. What was our first parent's reaction-agreement with Satan and a joining with him in his disrespect and rebellion.
So it wasn't simply eating a forbidden fruit but what that signified. It signified rejection of God;s guidance in favor of the creature behind the serpent and a demand for being left to decide what is good and evil on their own. It also cast a doubt on the rightfulness of God's rule. It was described as being motivated by selfish need to dominate and to keep Adam and Eve and their offspring from being more like him.
As God and their heavenly father he had the right to guide them as all parents guide their children. He'd provided them with life, a beautiful home, given them a task of subduing the earth as earth's caretakers, given them the gift of sex and mutual companionship, made the eating of food pleasurable via taste, made their home pleasurable via sight and sound.
Consider what he could have done instead., He could have made eating and procreation pleasureless via making them either self fertilizing or else like the sea anemone which sprouts buds, or else like the amoebae the uses cellular fission Could have made the garden in black and white, filled with cactuses as the only vegetation. Just to name a few things at his disposal. He could have forced obedience by strapping them with an automatic agonizing pain inducer as soon as they as much as thought of doing something contrary.
Yet he chose otherwise. All he expected was a refraining from eating of a certain tree as a show of appreciation and respect and their love for their heavenly father. Not eating wasn't going to cause starvation since they had all they needed. Neither were they obligated to even be near the tree since they could simply go elsewhere.
Obviously we differ in opinion about the historical reality of the Garden of Eden story. however I speak with reference to your beliefs out of a desire to understand. This sinful nature we inherit from our imperfect forebears, when did that begin? You see I've heard this described as original sin and comes as a consequence of Adam and Eve eating forbidden fruit. However this nature cannot have come from that initial transgression. For them to sin in the first place it must have already been in their nature. [/COLOR]
Adam and Eve's perfection was based on their ability to live forever in eternal youth and perfect health and their inherent ability to remain sinless. There was no tendency to do evil as we have it. There was a tendency to do good instead-which makes their decision to rebel even more serious since there was no inherent weakness to which they could point as the cause of their failure. In fact, if there had been such a weakness then they would have npthomg tp lose if they sinned. But the scriptures indicate that there was a change-both physical and mental- Cain's murder of his brother based on envy is asn example of the mental deterioration. The mental condition is described by the Apostle Paul :
Romans 7
18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
So the the first indication must have been their awareness of an inability to prevent sinful thoughts, as described by Paul, from constantly plaguing their now imperfect minds coupled by unwanted desires and emotions engendered by such thoughts.
James 1:14-16 (King James Version)
14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The second indication must have been their gradual awareness of physical change or the gradual inexorable journey toward death something contrary to what Satan had promised.
Genesis 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Genesis 5:5
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
The had dwindled to approx eighty by the time
Psalm 90:10 was written due to further loss of physical vigor.
BTW
This reminds me of the film Bruce Almighty where he suggests that he could do better than God in managing world affairs and God replies that he is free to try but to remember that he has to let people choose their own behavior. In short, he had to allow for the possibility of mistakes and the consequences of such mistakes in order to avoid making them robots. If you were God how would you get around such a connundrum?
