Does man naturally have ability to Seek God ?

[Doug Brents]

Actually, the man in I Corinthians was not committing incest. He was not sleeping with his mother, but with the wife of his father, most possibly his step-mother. It was not at all an unusual scenario.

Not unusual? Paul says that even the Gentiles (heathen, Godless, sinful Gentiles) don't do such a thing. And it doesn't matter if it was his mother or his stepmother, Paul says it is condemned, and he cast the man out from the community of the Church.

His father had probably died, leaving his wife as a widow.

If the father had died, then the woman was no longer his wife, she would then have been his widow. And if she was his stepmother, then she would have been "fair game" as it were. But she was not his widow, she was still his wife. So the act of taking his wife was a sign of disrespect to the father, the mother/step-mother, and adultery.

The son, in respect to his father, took his step-mother into his home rather than forcing her into a life of beggary.

He did not just take her into his home. He "had" her in his bed. This was not just a sign of respect for his father, it was a sign a disrespect for both the father and his wife.

If the son was a typical man of his time, he probably had only one bed. It was not in the least bit unusual for people to share their beds with others.

No, it would not have been appropriate for a man to sleep with a woman who was not his wife. The single men might have slept in the same place, and the single women in another, but the married men and women did not sleep with the people of the opposite sex who were not their spouses.

In fact, it is still common in many countries for men to share their beds with other men. We would accuse them of homosexuality in our culture, but there is nothing sexual about it at all. Even Abraham Lincoln recorded that he shared beds with other men in the simple inns and taverns of his time and nobody today accuses him of homosexuality.

This is true, but this man and his father's wife were not in a hotel. They were not just sharing a bed innocently. And they were not guiltless in what they were doing. If they were, Paul would not have condemned them so harshly.

In any event, certain people in the Corinthian assembly were scandalized, as was Paul, and the man kicked his mother out of his bed. I suppose she may have even had to leave his home, as well. How dreadful it would be if a step-son today was living with a woman who was not his wife, but his step-mother!

"Living with" is one thing. Sleeping with is quite another. This man was sleeping with/having sex with/sinning with his father's wife. Any Church that holds to God's law today would kick them both out of the community, as Paul did, in the hopes that the sanction would drive them to repentance and save their souls.

Polygamy is not at all condemned as a sin in Mark 10:6-9. What is condemned is divorce and remarriage. Today, the church has embraced divorce and remarriage as acceptable behavior, but condemns polygamy, using this passage as its pretext.

The church (those who claim to be His, but who follow the world and not His commands) may embrace divorce, remarriage, and polygamy. But God and His Church (the real followers of Christ) do not accept any of those things. And any group who does accept those thing is not part of His real Church.
All three of those sins is identified as wrong in those verses. It says "a man", one man, not a group of men. It also says his wife, singular, not a group of women, not a harem. And the two, just two, not three, not a dozen, just two, shall become one flesh. And these two who are now one cannot be separated by man.

Paul never ever stated that polygamy was a sin. Ever. Why is that? Surely, if the appearance of incest merited his wrath, polygamy (not to mention slavery) ought to have been, as well. What he did say was that elders must be married to only one wife. Curiously, this requirement is not applied to deacons, although many can reasonably believe it to be.

"Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then have them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households." 1 Tim 3:8-12
Deacons must stand to the same standard in marriage that Elders do, as Paul tells Timothy. This is not giving license to those who are not Elders and Deacons to practice polygamy. It is instruction to those who would be the leaders to set the example for the flock of how they also should live.

The people (women as well as men) who had married non-Jewish spouses in Ezra and Nehemiah, were forced to break off all relationships with their non-Jewish spouses and children. You might wish to term it "separation" but the reality is that it amounted to divinely-sanctioned steps to maintain the purity of the Jewish people. As far as God was concerned, these folks had really never been married, because God only recognized marriages within the tribes of Israel, having prohibited even inter-marriage among the Jewish tribes. Thus, the Jews had to act on the reality that they had been living in sin with their spouses and needed to repent and evict these non-Jewish folks from their lives.

This is exactly what I said in not so many words.

It is not at all unlike the Catholic view of marriage. If a Catholic legally marries a non-Catholic, that marriage is only a marriage when both spouses profess the Catholic faith and have a marriage ceremony by a Catholic priest. If a Catholic man legally divorces his Catholic wife he has committed a mortal sin and cannot take communion until proper confession and penance is done. Even then, he cannot get remarried by the Catholic Church. However, if he divorces his non-Catholic wife and abandons his children in the process, all is well and he is free to get married, as long as it is in the Catholic Church.

The catholic cult has formulated its own rules about marriage and divorce, quite apart from Scriptural truth. God's Word says that a man, not a catholic, not a Christ follower, not a sinner, just a man, any man from the beginning of time to the end of time; a man shall take his wife and the two shall become one flesh, and man must not separate what GOD!!!! had joined together. None of the catholic "priests" is anything more than a man. They are not God, nor are they greater than God. So they too must not separate what God has joined together.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not unusual? Paul says that even the Gentiles (heathen, Godless, sinful Gentiles) don't do such a thing. And it doesn't matter if it was his mother or his stepmother, Paul says it is condemned, and he cast the man out from the community of the Church.

If the father had died, then the woman was no longer his wife, she would then have been his widow. And if she was his stepmother, then she would have been "fair game" as it were. But she was not his widow, she was still his wife. So the act of taking his wife was a sign of disrespect to the father, the mother/step-mother, and adultery.

He did not just take her into his home. He "had" her in his bed. This was not just a sign of respect for his father, it was a sign a disrespect for both the father and his wife.

No, it would not have been appropriate for a man to sleep with a woman who was not his wife. The single men might have slept in the same place, and the single women in another, but the married men and women did not sleep with the people of the opposite sex who were not their spouses.

This is true, but this man and his father's wife were not in a hotel. They were not just sharing a bed innocently. And they were not guiltless in what they were doing. If they were, Paul would not have condemned them so harshly.

"Living with" is one thing. Sleeping with is quite another. This man was sleeping with/having sex with/sinning with his father's wife. Any Church that holds to God's law today would kick them both out of the community, as Paul did, in the hopes that the sanction would drive them to repentance and save their souls.

The church (those who claim to be His, but who follow the world and not His commands) may embrace divorce, remarriage, and polygamy. But God and His Church (the real followers of Christ) do not accept any of those things. And any group who does accept those thing is not part of His real Church.
All three of those sins is identified as wrong in those verses. It says "a man", one man, not a group of men. It also says his wife, singular, not a group of women, not a harem. And the two, just two, not three, not a dozen, just two, shall become one flesh. And these two who are now one cannot be separated by man.

"Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then have them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households." 1 Tim 3:8-12
Deacons must stand to the same standard in marriage that Elders do, as Paul tells Timothy. This is not giving license to those who are not Elders and Deacons to practice polygamy. It is instruction to those who would be the leaders to set the example for the flock of how they also should live.

This is exactly what I said in not so many words.

The catholic cult has formulated its own rules about marriage and divorce, quite apart from Scriptural truth. God's Word says that a man, not a catholic, not a Christ follower, not a sinner, just a man, any man from the beginning of time to the end of time; a man shall take his wife and the two shall become one flesh, and man must not separate what GOD!!!! had joined together. None of the catholic "priests" is anything more than a man. They are not God, nor are they greater than God. So they too must not separate what God has joined together.

I think it is fair to say that some folks in the Corinthian assembly thought the man was probably engaging in sexual activity with his step-mother.

Leviticus 18:8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.

This is the specific commandment which served as the basis for Paul's action. Curiously, there is nothing in the New Testament regarding any form of incest other than this one instance. In its context, this verse follows after the prohibition against sexual intercourse with one's mother. Thus, the "father's wife" in Leviticus 18 would not be the biological mother of the man. She could either be simply another wife of the man in addition to the man's mother, or a wife the father married after the death of the man's mother.

The curious theological conundrum that Paul faced was that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles had been recorded as repeating this commandment (or any other incest commandments) as being valid for the Church. That, and such commandments as relate to the Sabbath, were not reiterated in the New Testament.

If one wishes to relegate the Sabbath commandments to the dust bin of useless Old Testament laws because they are not repeated in the New Testament, then one must also discard many other Old Testament commandments such as those related to incest. From a legal standpoint, Paul had no legal framework on which to base his decision if, in fact, only the commandments of the Old Testament which are repeated in the New Testament are actionable.

However, we know that Paul did base his judgement on Leviticus 18:8. How he knew that the man was having intercourse with his step-mother is a matter of pure conjecture, on the order of speculation regarding the personal life of Mary and Joseph, where the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim that they have absolute certainty that Mary and Joseph never engaged in sexual intercourse. The only way anyone can know these things with absolute certainty would be to storm the bedroom while they were engaged in sexual intercourse, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery in John. As an aside, it is interesting that Jesus Christ, who never denied the flagrant adultery of this woman, chose to forgive her rather than condemn her to hell, as Paul did to the man in Corinth.

In any event, it is not in the least bit unusual for poor folks to share beds with other family members. Even my parents shared a bed (with themselves) because we were too poor to afford separate beds, much less an additional bedroom, in our house. In fact, I shared a bedroom with my brother and I can assure you that we never engaged in sexual proclivities with each other, although these things are known to happen in some homes.

I have a friend whose mother bore seven children before her husband passed away, leaving her quite destitute. She married a widower with six children who was equally impoverished. There were three beds in their house. His parents had one bed, the girls had another, and my friend share the remaining bed with his five brothers.

Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

 

[Doug Brents]

I think it is fair to say that some folks in the Corinthian assembly thought the man was probably engaging in sexual activity with his step-mother.

Leviticus 18:8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.

This is the specific commandment which served as the basis for Paul's action. Curiously, there is nothing in the New Testament regarding any form of incest other than this one instance. In its context, this verse follows after the prohibition against sexual intercourse with one's mother. Thus, the "father's wife" in Leviticus 18 would not be the biological mother of the man. She could either be simply another wife of the man in addition to the man's mother, or a wife the father married after the death of the man's mother.

The curious theological conundrum that Paul faced was that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles had been recorded as repeating this commandment (or any other incest commandments) as being valid for the Church. That, and such commandments as relate to the Sabbath, were not reiterated in the New Testament.

You are correct, the commandments against incest and the commandments for sabbath were not restated in the NT. So they are not binding on the NT Church. However, there is commandment in the NT to abstain from ALL SEXUAL IMPURITY (1 Cor 6:18, Col 3:5, Eph 5:3, Gal 5:19, 1 Cor 7:2, and others).

If one wishes to relegate the Sabbath commandments to the dust bin of useless Old Testament laws because they are not repeated in the New Testament, then one must also discard many other Old Testament commandments such as those related to incest. From a legal standpoint, Paul had no legal framework on which to base his decision if, in fact, only the commandments of the Old Testament which are repeated in the New Testament are actionable.

There is much freedom in the NT that was not there in the OT. Much of the righteousness of God was given over to generalized statements, not specific laws. Since "sexual impurity", without qualification, is condemned by the Apostles, anything that even resembles sexual impurity is to be avoided, shunned, condemned when we see it in others, and forbidden in the assembly of the Church. So that means that Paul was correct to condemn the man (and the woman, although it does not appear that she was a member of the Church at the time) for bringing the appearance of evil into the Church.

However, we know that Paul did base his judgement on Leviticus 18:8. How he knew that the man was having intercourse with his step-mother is a matter of pure conjecture,

Paul says that there are reports, I assume from trusted ministers who have passed through the area. Is the man bragging about his "conquest"? Is the father complaining to his neighbors that his wife is sleeping with his son? I don't know how they knew of the son's actions, but the fact remains that it was known to the community, and the elders of the Church should have taken action before Paul had to write to them about it.

on the order of speculation regarding the personal life of Mary and Joseph, where the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim that they have absolute certainty that Mary and Joseph never engaged in sexual intercourse.

But we know for certain that Mary and Joseph did have sexual relations as man and wife after Jesus was born (Matt 1:5, Matt 13:55-56). We know that Mary and Joseph had at least 4 other sons and at least two daughters after Jesus was born. Two of Jesus' brothers write books of the Bible: James and Jude. So the catholic and orthodox cult's claim that they did not have intercourse is preposterous at best.

The only way anyone can know these things with absolute certainty would be to storm the bedroom while they were engaged in sexual intercourse, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery in John.

This is not the ONLY way these things could have been known. He could have been bragging about it to his friends. He could have been seen through an open window, his father could have noticed/seen them and taken the accusation to the elders. It does not matter how it became public knowledge, the fact remains that it was public knowledge, and it even reached Paul's attention in Rome.

As an aside, it is interesting that Jesus Christ, who never denied the flagrant adultery of this woman, chose to forgive her rather than condemn her to hell, as Paul did to the man in Corinth.

That is not remarkable. Jesus was making a point to the Pharisees who were condemning the woman (but not the man), and trying to trap Jesus. Paul is making the condemnation in order to push the man into ceasing his sin, repenting and coming back into righteousness. Jesus brought the woman back into righteousness through forgiving her and not showing her condemnation.

In any event, it is not in the least bit unusual for poor folks to share beds with other family members. Even my parents shared a bed (with themselves) because we were too poor to afford separate beds, much less an additional bedroom, in our house. In fact, I shared a bedroom with my brother and I can assure you that we never engaged in sexual proclivities with each other, although these things are known to happen in some homes.

All of this is irrelevant. The fact that the man and his father's wife were having sex is a Biblical fact. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write this accusation, so there can be no explaining it away by saying they were sleeping in the same bed but not having intercourse. And regardless of what you are claiming, it is not appropriate for a single man and a married woman to share a bed at any time. This constitutes "the appearance of wrong", and so should not happen.

I have a friend whose mother bore seven children before her husband passed away, leaving her quite destitute. She married a widower with six children who was equally impoverished. There were three beds in their house. His parents had one bed, the girls had another, and my friend share the remaining bed with his five brothers.

Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

I also shared a bed with my brother when I lived in the wilderness in Alaska. No, there is nothing wrong with sharing a bed for warmth between multiple men, or multiple women. But mixing men and women in the bed for any reason other than marriage is wrong.

 

[Brightfame52]

@Doug Brents

I do not believe that infants that die before birth are lost. They have not committed sin

Scripture says all sinned in Adam Rom 5:12 hence it was as each infant themselves sinned themselves when Adam their federal head sinned.

 

[bbbbbbb]

@Doug Brents



Scripture says all sinned in Adam Rom 5:12 hence it was as each infant themselves sinned themselves when Adam their federal head sinned.

Psalm 51:5 makes it quite clear - I was born in sin and in sin did my mother conceive me. One might wish to limit that verse to David only. However, such a hermeneutic would divorce most of scripture from any application beyond the individuals of and for whom it was written. Thus, Psalm 23 would simply be a personal psalm of David, applicable to nobody else.

 

[Doug Brents]

@Doug Brents
Scripture says all sinned in Adam Rom 5:12 hence it was as each infant themselves sinned themselves when Adam their federal head sinned.

When Adam sinned sin entered into the world. Sin damaged the Earth (causing weeds, pests, natural disasters, etc.), and it damaged the souls of everyone born. But the soul of each individual is not "sinful" until that individual sins. As David said of his infant son, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam 12:23)

 

[bbbbbbb]

When Adam sinned sin entered into the world. Sin damaged the Earth (causing weeds, pests, natural disasters, etc.), and it damaged the souls of everyone born. But the soul of each individual is not "sinful" until that individual sins. As David said of his infant son, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam 12:23)

Where did David go when he died? The obvious answer is that he went to the royal tomb where his infant son had previously been laid to rest. Thus, he went to his son even though his son could not return to him after he had perished.

Did David go to heaven after death? Theologically, he actually went to Sheol, which is not heaven, but a waiting place for all souls until the judgement. It was not until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ that the gates of Paradise were opened. Thus, many saints were brought back to life, according to Matthew, and were seen in Jerusalem.

 

[bling]

@Doug Brents



Scripture says all sinned in Adam Rom 5:12 hence it was as each infant themselves sinned themselves when Adam their federal head sinned.

Not sure what which translation you are reading from, but Ro. 5:12 does not say: “all sin in Adam”, but does say: “…and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” in NKJV and “in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” in the NIV.

The message of the Spirit is: “All mature adults sin, so death is necessary.” Paul is not blaming Adam and Eve, but we are to be blamed for as adults sinning.

“Death” is not bad in and of itself since it is the way good people get to go home, and bad people quit doing bad stuff. Death helped me and others in fulfilling our earthly objective, since without death, I would put off making a commitment and not fear death.

 

[Doug Brents]

Where did David go when he died? The obvious answer is that he went to the royal tomb where his infant son had previously been laid to rest. Thus, he went to his son even though his son could not return to him after he had perished.

ROTFL - David is speaking spiritually here, not physically. David's body went to the royal tomb, but David was not his body any more than Jesus was His body. David, you, me, and Jesus are all Spiritual beings residing in physical bodies while we are in this world. But when this body dies, the Spirit/Soul/Mind continues to live, and goes to either Heaven/Paradise/Abraham's Bosom with God or Hell/Torment with Satan. David's son, being sinless, went to Heaven, and that is where David went to see him again.

Did David go to heaven after death? Theologically, he actually went to Sheol, which is not heaven, but a waiting place for all souls until the judgement. It was not until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ that the gates of Paradise were opened. Thus, many saints were brought back to life, according to Matthew, and were seen in Jerusalem.

If you choose to see it that way, then Sheol is divided into two sections by a "great gulf" according to Jesus' parable (told before His resurrection). Those in "Abraham's Bosom"/Paradise are good, and those who are in Torment are evil.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not sure what which translation you are reading from, but Ro. 5:12 does not say: “all sin in Adam”, but does say: “…and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” in NKJV and “in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” in the NIV.

The message of the Spirit is: “All mature adults sin, so death is necessary.” Paul is not blaming Adam and Eve, but we are to be blamed for as adults sinning.

“Death” is not bad in and of itself since it is the way good people get to go home, and bad people quit doing bad stuff. Death helped me and others in fulfilling our earthly objective, since without death, I would put off making a commitment and not fear death.

Do non-adults not sin?

 

[Brightfame52]

When Adam sinned sin entered into the world. Sin damaged the Earth (causing weeds, pests, natural disasters, etc.), and it damaged the souls of everyone born. But the soul of each individual is not "sinful" until that individual sins. As David said of his infant son, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam 12:23)

The baby sinned in Adam as a full grown man. wasn't Adam a full grown responsible man ?

 

[Brightfame52]

Not sure what which translation you are reading from, but Ro. 5:12 does not say: “all sin in Adam”, but does say: “…and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” in NKJV and “in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” in the NIV.

The message of the Spirit is: “All mature adults sin, so death is necessary.” Paul is not blaming Adam and Eve, but we are to be blamed for as adults sinning.

“Death” is not bad in and of itself since it is the way good people get to go home, and bad people quit doing bad stuff. Death helped me and others in fulfilling our earthly objective, since without death, I would put off making a commitment and not fear death.

All men sinned in Adam and incurred death, death to God spiritually, physically, eternally. Babies sinned in the Adult Adam

 

[bling]

Do non-adults not sin?

Right, they do not sin and thus are in a "safe" condition.
In the Old Law of the OT, you could earn your salvation by not sinning, so if babies "sinned" than how could a person deserve salvation?

 

[bling]

All men sinned in Adam and incurred death, death to God spiritually, physically, eternally. Babies sinned in the Adult Adam

So, you feel an unborn baby is spiritual and eternally hell bound? If not, what does the unborn baby have to do?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Right, they do not sin and thus are in a "safe" condition.
In the Old Law of the OT, you could earn your salvation by not sinning, so if babies "sinned" than how could a person deserve salvation?

When does a human being become an adult? When I was young adulthood was legislated as being 21.

 

[Brightfame52]

So, you feel an unborn baby is spiritual and eternally hell bound? If not, what does the unborn baby have to do?

All men sinned in Adam and incurred death, death to God spiritually, physically, eternally. Babies sinned in the Adult Adam.

There is nothing nobody can do to be saved, it all has to be done by God, its Salvation by Grace. Otherwise the unborn baby who sinned in Adam is going to hell for it.

 

[bling]

All men sinned in Adam and incurred death, death to God spiritually, physically, eternally. Babies sinned in the Adult Adam.

There is nothing nobody can do to be saved, it all has to be done by God, its Salvation by Grace. Otherwise the unborn baby who sinned in Adam is going to hell for it.

Your ideas has: “All people die because they were conceived” and not because, “all sin”.

If people could keep from sinning than there would be no need for death.

People love to blame others for their hell bound condition, so are you not blaming: Adam & Eve, God, and/or bad luck for those who go to hell?

What keeps God from enabling everyone to go to heaven?

I fully agree there is nothing: noble, righteous, worthy, deserving, or holy an unbelieving sinner can do, but that does not mean a “dead” person, “dead” by the way Deity defines it, cannot do some sins of choice and thus be personally responsible for those actions.

A soldier of satan hating his enemy “God” can for purely sinful selfish reasons (selfishness being a sin) give up, wimp out and surrender to his/her hated enemy, just willing to accept pure undeserved charity from the Being they are hating. They still hate God and are not want to join God, but will accept His undeserved charity.

That willingness allows God to shower the person with unbelievable wonderful gifts including: Godly type Love, Forgiveness, eternal life, fellowship, Purpose and meaning.

 

[bling]

When does a human being become an adult? When I was young adulthood was legislated as being 21.

When a person can be held personally responsible for their sins. Ther is no specific age for all people, but maturity.

 

[Brightfame52]

@bling

Your ideas has: “All people die because they were conceived” and not because, “all sin”.

False misrepresentation, I clearly referenced as Per Rom 5:12 all sinned in Adam

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

[bbbbbbb]

@bling



False misrepresentation, I clearly referenced as Per Rom 5:12 all sinned in Adam

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

There is a subtle difference between the idea that all have sinned and all are sinners.