Yes, correct, "We are not gods, in the sense of an omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscience".
but in immortality we are? can you provide me scripture that states this?
First, never said we were gods even after we go home to be with the Lord. There is no scripture that states that. And neither did I.
We (humans) are only gods in the sense of authority (kings, judges, lawyers) here on earth, as the psalm states. Jesus used miracles to show his authority, and quoted psalm 82 that humans have been called gods who have authority. Jesus "cherry picked" a verse to show that it was not wrong for himself to called the son of God.
He used the scriptures in Psalms 82 contextually to show that it was not wrong to call himself the Son of God. He knew how to answer the questions using the scripture and keeping it in context to the subject at hand. So he didn't cherry pick. He quoted it as He asked Ashap to write it.
So, If scripture cannot be broken and "the Soveriegn, King of kings, and Lord of lords, who alone has immortalitiy", how are our souls immortal?
Why do you think they are not immortal? Besides the scriptures that you use that obiously state spiritual death.
Thank you for providing this. This helps me see your view better.
So do animals have immortal souls as well? Genesis 1:20 , Genesis 1:21 , Genesis 1:24 all use the same word "nephesh" as Genesis 2:7
Don't know. I do know that the Lion will lay with the lamb. I do know they'll exist there with the Lord. They are also His creation. The only thing I can come close to explaining is this. God breathed life into us creating our soul. There's no scripture stating that He did the same to other animals. Remember we also are animals.
Additionally, how do you reconcile the verse you quoted Ecclesiastes 12:7 with Ecclesiastes 3:19-21? "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?"
Great question.
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; rather,
and the dust return, etc.—the sentence begun above being still carried on to the end of the verse. Here we are told what becomes of the complex man at death, and are thus led to the explanation of the allegorical language used throughout. Without metaphor now it is stated that the material body, when life is extinct, returns to that matter out of which it was originally.
1 So Siracides calls man "dust and ashes," and asserts that all things that are of the earth turn to the earth again (Ecclus. 10:9; 40:11). Soph., 'Electra,' 1158—
"
Instead of thy dear form, Mere dust and idle shadow."
Corn. a Lapide quotes a remarkable parallel given by Plutarch ('Apol. ad Apollon.,' 110) from Epicharmus,"
Life is compounded and broken up, and again goes whence it came; earth indeed to earth, and the spirit to upper regions."
And the spirit shall return unto God who gave it; or, for the
spirit—the clause being no longer subjunctive, but speaking indicatively of fact. In the first clause the preposition "to" is l, in the second
, as if to mark the distinction between the downward and the upward way. The writer now rises superior to the doubts expressed in
Ec 3:21 (where see note)
"Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upward," etc.? It is not that he contradicts himself in the two passages, as some suppose, and have hence regarded ver. 7 as an interpolation; but that after all discussion, after expressing the course of his perplexities, and the various phases of his thought, he comes to the conclusion that there is a future for the individual soul, and that it shall be brought into immediate connection with a personal God. There is here no thought of its being absorbed in the
anima mundi, in accordance with the heathen view, which, if it believed dimly in an immortality, denied the personality of the soul (see Eurip., 'Suppl.,' 529-534; Lucret., 2. 998,
sqq.; 3:455,
sqq.). Nor have we any opinion given concerning the adverse doctrines of creationism and traducianism, though the terms used are most consistent with the former. God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life; when this departs, he who gave receives it; God "gathereth in" man's breath. [
Ps 104:29] The clause, taken in this restricted sense, would say nothing about the soul, the personal "I;" it would merely indicate the destination of the vital breath; and many critics are content to see nothing more in the words. But surely this would be a feeble conclusion of the author's wanderings; rather the sentence signifies that death, releasing the spirit, or soul, from the earthly tabernacle, places it in the more immediate presence of God, there, as the Targum paraphrases the passage, returning to stand in judgment before its Creator.
traducianism is a doctrine about the origin of the soul (or synonymously, "spirit"), holding that this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of human beings.
You said it right there. So back to my question, since as you said that we know the difference between right and wrong from birth, do newborn babies who die go to hell?
Again, never said we know the difference between right and wrong from birth. I said again, that the law is placed in our hearts, at our conception.
The Bible tells us that, even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of
inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In
Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.
Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way.
John 14:6 records what Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through Me.” Also, Peter states in
Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Salvation is an individual choice.
What about babies and young children who never attain the ability to make this individual choice? The age of accountability is the concept that those who die before reaching the age of accountability are automatically saved by God’s grace and mercy. The age of accountability is the belief that God saves all those who die never having possessed the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. One verse that may speak to this issue is
Romans 1:20, “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” According to this, mankind’s guilt before God is based, in part, on the fact that people reject what they can “clearly see” of God’s existence, eternality, and power. This leads to the question of children who have no faculty for “clearly seeing” or reasoning about God—wouldn’t their natural incapacity to observe and reason provide them with an excuse?
Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind.
First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter said, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself” (
Acts 2:38–39, NAS). The word
children here (
teknon in Greek) means “child, daughter, son.”
Acts 2:39 indicates that forgiveness of sins is available to one and all (cf.
Acts 1:8), including future generations. It does not teach family or
household salvation. The children of those who repented were also required to repent.
The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is
2 Samuel 12:21–23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that, because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child but could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted by this knowledge. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see his baby son (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.
This also shows that the soul continues, even for the lost. Because God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious.
Although it is possible that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to those who cannot believe, the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject about which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. God’s applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His love and mercy. It is my position that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to babies and those who are mentally handicapped, since they are not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic. Of this I am are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever God does is always right and good, and He loves children even more than we do.
