Does man naturally have ability to Seek God ?

Brightfame52 said:

The all men He draws is restricted to His Sheep who become believers and followers. And none by nature does or can seek the True God

Click to expand...

Do sheep naturally seek their shepherd when they are lost and wandering?

Brightfame52 said:

Research that for yourself. I know Jesus/God particularly seeks His Lost Sheep, if you want to study sheepology go right ahead

Ezk 34 11

For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.
Ezekiel 34:11 “ ‘For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. “‘GOD, the Master, says: From now on, I myself am the shepherd. I’m going looking for them. As shepherds go after their flocks when they get scattered, I’m going after my sheep. I’ll rescue them from For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. For thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. “ ‘This is what the Lord GOD says: I, myself, will search for my sheep and take care of them. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I myself, even I, will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. ‘For thus says the Lord GOD: “Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. For thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I Myself will search for My flock and seek them out. “For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search and find my sheep. “For Lord YAHWEH says: ‘From now on, I will personally search for my sheep and look after them. “For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.
I also believe Lk 15supports that Lk 15

3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Click to expand...

I like the new word "sheepology". I think you got my point, which was that Jesus Christ is the one who seeks His sheep because the sheep are lost and incapable of seeking Him. As a side note, drawing from the field of goatology, the Good Shepherd never seeks any lost goats.

bbbbbbb said:

Do you believe that people who die before birth are capable of seeking God and finding Him?

Click to expand...

I do not believe that infants that die before birth are lost. They have not committed sin, and so are not cut off from God, and so are still constantly in His presence. But yes, they are capable of seeking God and finding Him.

Doug Brents said:

I do not believe that infants that die before birth are lost. They have not committed sin, and so are not cut off from God, and so are still constantly in His presence. But yes, they are capable of seeking God and finding Him.

Click to expand...

How do they seek Him and find Him?

bbbbbbb said:

How do they seek Him and find Him?

Click to expand...

They don't need to. They are already in His presence, because they have not yet sinned and been cut off from Him. If they lived and grew, then they would sin, and then need to seek Him again. And they would do so as every other person is capable of doing.

Doug Brents said:

They don't need to. They are already in His presence, because they have not yet sinned and been cut off from Him. If they lived and grew, then they would sin, and then need to seek Him again. And they would do so as every other person is capable of doing.

Click to expand...

Thus, it is a far better thing to nip their lives in the bud before they are born and can sin, is it not?

bbbbbbb said:

Thus, it is a far better thing to nip their lives in the bud before they are born and can sin, is it not?

Click to expand...

Not at all. First off, it would make you the worst of evil, destroying the innocent. But beyond that, it would prevent them from earning the crown they may someday wear. I don't know the extent of what it means, but I believe that there will be some who are greater, wear greater crowns, brighter robes, etc. in Heaven based upon the deeds they do here on Earth. Destroying the lives of infants before they are born prevents them from earning those crowns.

Doug Brents said:

Not at all. First off, it would make you the worst of evil, destroying the innocent. But beyond that, it would prevent them from earning the crown they may someday wear. I don't know the extent of what it means, but I believe that there will be some who are greater, wear greater crowns, brighter robes, etc. in Heaven based upon the deeds they do here on Earth. Destroying the lives of infants before they are born prevents them from earning those crowns.

Click to expand...

If it is true, as we both know, that vast majority of mankind will not be going to heaven, much less getting any crown, then it is, as Job opined, better that a person not be born if, in fact, all individuals who die prior to birth have any automatic get into heaven free ticket. I think that it is probably better to be in heaven, with or without a crown, than to be in the lake of fire, don't you?

bbbbbbb said:

If it is true, as we both know, that vast majority of mankind will not be going to heaven, much less getting any crown, then it is, as Job opined, better that a person not be born if, in fact, all individuals who die prior to birth have any automatic get into heaven free ticket. I think that it is probably better to be in heaven, with or without a crown, than to be in the lake of fire, don't you?

Click to expand...

Absolutely, it is better that you die and go to Heaven than to live and go to Hell. But only a monster would deliberately kill infants/unborn for any reason. It is not good that evil be done so that good will result.

Doug Brents said:

Absolutely, it is better that you die and go to Heaven than to live and go to Hell. But only a monster would deliberately kill infants/unborn for any reason. It is not good that evil be done so that good will result.

Click to expand...

Then the sin is not on the unborn, but on those who send them on their way into heaven. However, if the probability is extremely high that if they were born they would eventually end up in the lake of fire, then the party responsible for their sure and certain entrance into heaven is to be lauded, rather than condemned.

There is a similar rationale used in favor of the death penalty which is that a sinner who has committed a sin which the Bible states clearly as requiring the death penalty, such as picking up sticks on Saturdays, is shown great mercy by being killed for his sin rather than living longer and committing more sins and thus increasing his eternal suffering.

bbbbbbb said:

Then the sin is not on the unborn, but on those who send them on their way into heaven.

Click to expand...

Certainly the sin would be on the one murdering the unborn.

bbbbbbb said:

However, if the probability is extremely high that if they were born they would eventually end up in the lake of fire, then the party responsible for their sure and certain entrance into heaven is to be lauded, rather than condemned.

Click to expand...

Murder is ALWAYS sin, and is never to be lauded.

bbbbbbb said:

There is a similar rationale used in favor of the death penalty which is that a sinner who has committed a sin which the Bible states clearly as requiring the death penalty, such as picking up sticks on Saturdays, is shown great mercy by being killed for his sin rather than living longer and committing more sins and thus increasing his eternal suffering.

Click to expand...

While there is indication that there are different rewards in Heaven that are earned in this life, there is no indication in Scripture that there is any greater or lesser punishment in Hell. Hitler will receive the same punishment in Hell as will the liar or the one who shows disrespect to his parents.

But there is a great distinction between murder and lawful execution. Murder is condemned by God, but not all killing is murder. Killing in war, or killing a convicted criminal is not murder. Even revenge killing by the avenger of blood is not murder. So there is no similarity between murdering the innocent unborn and executing a criminal.

PS: picking up sticks on Saturday is no longer a sin punishable by death, but that is a topic for a different thread.

Doug Brents said:

Certainly the sin would be on the one murdering the unborn.

Murder is ALWAYS sin, and is never to be lauded.

While there is indication that there are different rewards in Heaven that are earned in this life, there is no indication in Scripture that there is any greater or lesser punishment in Hell. Hitler will receive the same punishment in Hell as will the liar or the one who shows disrespect to his parents.

But there is a great distinction between murder and lawful execution. Murder is condemned by God, but not all killing is murder. Killing in war, or killing a convicted criminal is not murder. Even revenge killing by the avenger of blood is not murder. So there is no similarity between murdering the innocent unborn and executing a criminal.

PS: picking up sticks on Saturday is no longer a sin punishable by death, but that is a topic for a different thread.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that those who break the Ten Commandments are guilty of sin?

The Bible seems to indicate three classes of the taking of life - the death punishment, murder, and unintentional killing. However, there are many today who view this definitions as being either no longer valid or to be selectively used. For example, at one time all theft was given the death sentence. Now, however, theft is no longer considered worthy of the death sentence.

Thanks to the Society of Friends, the penitentiary was invented with the intent being that the miscreant would be assigned a room of his own where he could contemplate his offense and come to repentance.

It becomes extremely complicated when it comes to unborn folks. There are many sincere Christians who demand that women carry their baby to full term regardless of any consequences. I know a couple from my own church of that persuasion. She conceived a baby and her obstetrician diagnosed her child as having a genetic disorder which would result in the death of the child because of a heart malfunction. Despite multiple such warnings from a variety of obstetricians they were assured by folks in the church that God would perform a miracle and the baby would be born perfectly healthy and God would reward their faith. The baby was born in due time with the anticipated heart trouble. The baby girl was put on life support for a month until she died. My friends ended up with a hospital bill well over $100,000 which they are slowly paying off. By the way, they did not carry health insurance because health insurance is indicative of a lack of trust in God.

bbbbbbb said:

Do you believe that those who break the Ten Commandments are guilty of sin?

Click to expand...

Only those of the 10 commandments that are restated in the NT; only nine of them are. And the one that most quote as, "Thou shalt not kill." is more properly translated, "Thou shalt not murder."

bbbbbbb said:

The Bible seems to indicate three classes of the taking of life - the death punishment, murder, and unintentional killing. However, there are many today who view this definitions as being either no longer valid or to be selectively used. For example, at one time all theft was given the death sentence. Now, however, theft is no longer considered worthy of the death sentence.

Click to expand...

Are you talking man's laws, or God's Law? There are many kinds of killing under God's law. War, criminals being executed, murder, accidental death, death by negligence, and others.

bbbbbbb said:

Thanks to the Society of Friends, the penitentiary was invented with the intent being that the miscreant would be assigned a room of his own where he could contemplate his offense and come to repentance.

Click to expand...

The OT gave only two punishments for breaking the statutes within it. The most common was death. Death was the punishment for murder, and rape, and theft, and disrespect to parents. This means that all of these violations are equal in God's eyes: the breaking of any law is the breaking of the whole law (James 2:10). But there were some violations that carried financial punishments: when a man accidentally killed a man, he became responsible for caring for the man's widow and children as if he were the widow's husband.

bbbbbbb said:

It becomes extremely complicated when it comes to unborn folks.

Click to expand...

There is no complication whatsoever. The deliberate killing of an unborn person is murder, pure and simple. There are no mitigating circumstances or acceptable loopholes.

bbbbbbb said:

There are many sincere Christians who demand that women carry their baby to full term regardless of any consequences. I know a couple from my own church of that persuasion. She conceived a baby and her obstetrician diagnosed her child as having a genetic disorder which would result in the death of the child because of a heart malfunction. Despite multiple such warnings from a variety of obstetricians they were assured by folks in the church that God would perform a miracle and the baby would be born perfectly healthy and God would reward their faith. The baby was born in due time with the anticipated heart trouble. The baby girl was put on life support for a month until she died. My friends ended up with a hospital bill well over $100,000 which they are slowly paying off. By the way, they did not carry health insurance because health insurance is indicative of a lack of trust in God.

Click to expand...

This is a very sad circumstance, and the parents were correct in their refusal to murder their child. But the story also indicates a couple of false beliefs on the part of the people involved.
1. It is great to trust in God for healing, but there are times when He will say "No.", so we must be prepared to accept His answer, whatever it is.
2. Purchasing insurance is not demonstrating a lack of trust in God. It is prudent stewardship of His gifts. We are expected to be gentle as doves, but also shrewd as serpents. We must be in the world (meaning we must use the world system as it exists), but we must not be of the world (meaning sinning as the world does).

Doug Brents said:

Only those of the 10 commandments that are restated in the NT; only nine of them are. And the one that most quote as, "Thou shalt not kill." is more properly translated, "Thou shalt not murder."

Are you talking man's laws, or God's Law? There are many kinds of killing under God's law. War, criminals being executed, murder, accidental death, death by negligence, and others.

The OT gave only two punishments for breaking the statutes within it. The most common was death. Death was the punishment for murder, and rape, and theft, and disrespect to parents. This means that all of these violations are equal in God's eyes: the breaking of any law is the breaking of the whole law (James 2:10). But there were some violations that carried financial punishments: when a man accidentally killed a man, he became responsible for caring for the man's widow and children as if he were the widow's husband.

There is no complication whatsoever. The deliberate killing of an unborn person is murder, pure and simple. There are no mitigating circumstances or acceptable loopholes.

This is a very sad circumstance, and the parents were correct in their refusal to murder their child. But the story also indicates a couple of false beliefs on the part of the people involved.
1. It is great to trust in God for healing, but there are times when He will say "No.", so we must be prepared to accept His answer, whatever it is.
2. Purchasing insurance is not demonstrating a lack of trust in God. It is prudent stewardship of His gifts. We are expected to be gentle as doves, but also shrewd as serpents. We must be in the world (meaning we must use the world system as it exists), but we must not be of the world (meaning sinning as the world does).

Click to expand...

Are there any Old Testament commandments other than nine you mentioned, which are valid for you today?

Is slavery a sin since both Testaments address it as a valid part of the social order? Is polygamy a sin?

I take that you are perfectly content to expect women to die in childbirth when they are accurately informed that such will be the case, thus committing both suicide as well as murder.

bbbbbbb said:

Are there any Old Testament commandments other than nine you mentioned, which are valid for you today?

Click to expand...

The condemnation on homosexuality is one, drunkenness, and many others (1 Cor 6:9-10). It is not necessary to study the OT to figure out which ones are also restated in the NT. What is more important is studying the NT to find out what things are condemned.

bbbbbbb said:

Is slavery a sin since both Testaments address it as a valid part of the social order? Is polygamy a sin?

Click to expand...

Slavery, both being a slave and owning slaves, is neither praised nor condemned in Scripture. Jesus says if you are a slave remain a slave and be the best slave you can be. If you are a slave owner be a compassionate, loving, honorable owner, and do not mistreat your slaves.

Polygamy is a sin because God made man to be with one wife as long as both live. This was true in the OT as well as in the NT.

bbbbbbb said:

I take that you are perfectly content to expect women to die in childbirth when they are accurately informed that such will be the case, thus committing both suicide as well as murder.

Click to expand...

That is neither suicide nor murder. It would be murder to kill the child. Both murder and pure selfishness. Whatever is medically proper to do should be done to save both the mother and the child, but to kill one to save the other is wrong, no matter how you slice it. In college, there was a hypothetical story about 100 people in a cave. The cave was filling with water, and the exit was blocked by a huge, fat man who could not go in or out. The question was, do you murder the one man to save yourself and the other 98 people? The only Godly answer is, NO. I am not killing the other 98, nor am I killing myself by inaction. But murdering the man would be sinful, and so to do so would not be right.

Doug Brents said:

The condemnation on homosexuality is one, drunkenness, and many others (1 Cor 6:9-10). It is not necessary to study the OT to figure out which ones are also restated in the NT. What is more important is studying the NT to find out what things are condemned.

Slavery, both being a slave and owning slaves, is neither praised nor condemned in Scripture. Jesus says if you are a slave remain a slave and be the best slave you can be. If you are a slave owner be a compassionate, loving, honorable owner, and do not mistreat your slaves.

Polygamy is a sin because God made man to be with one wife as long as both live. This was true in the OT as well as in the NT.

That is neither suicide nor murder. It would be murder to kill the child. Both murder and pure selfishness. Whatever is medically proper to do should be done to save both the mother and the child, but to kill one to save the other is wrong, no matter how you slice it. In college, there was a hypothetical story about 100 people in a cave. The cave was filling with water, and the exit was blocked by a huge, fat man who could not go in or out. The question was, do you murder the one man to save yourself and the other 98 people? The only Godly answer is, NO. I am not killing the other 98, nor am I killing myself by inaction. But murdering the man would be sinful, and so to do so would not be right.

Click to expand...

None of the Old Testament prohibitions against incest are repeated in the New Testament. I agree, it is not rocket science to determine which Old Testament commandments are repeated in the New Testament and which commandments are unique to the New Testament.

Neither slavery nor polygamy are condemned anywhere in the Bible. In fact, various commandments and instructions in both testaments regulate their practice. For example, in the New Testament a polygamist cannot be an elder. That implies that there were polygamists in the New Testament church and that they were not prohibited from practicing polygamy. The only instance where divorce is commanded is in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah where the Israelites were forced to divorce their non-Jewish spouses. That was clearly based on the Law given to Moses. Even in the New Testament Christians are not commanded to divorce their non-Christian spouses, although mixed marriages are strongly discouraged.

bbbbbbb said:

None of the Old Testament prohibitions against incest are repeated in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

This is true. The specific incest laws from the Law of Moses are not repeated in the New Testament.
But, Paul condemns the man in 1 Cor 5 who is sleeping with his father's wife. He says that even the Godless Gentiles do not do such evil. The Christ followers of Corinth were proud, boasting that they were so tolerant that they accepted such a sinner. But Paul condemned him and cast him out of the assembly of saints so that he might repent and be saved.
He was not condemned for incest. No, he was condemned for sleeping with a married woman: his father's wife.

bbbbbbb said:

Neither slavery nor polygamy are condemned anywhere in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Not so fast here. Slavery is not condemned, but polygamy is.
Mark 10:6-9 makes it very clear that from the beginning, from Creation, God intended for marriage, sexual relationships, and intimacy to be between one man and one woman for life. After the death of one spouse, the other is free to remarry. But as long as both live there is supposed to be only those two together. Because of man's sinful nature, God allowed man to divorce, but that is not what God intended.

bbbbbbb said:

In fact, various commandments and instructions in both testaments regulate their practice. For example, in the New Testament a polygamist cannot be an elder.

Click to expand...

So only one man with one woman, thus the elders are supposed to be the examples for the congregation of the Church they lead. They are not to be living in the sin of polygamy, nor any other sinful lifestyle, and still lead the congregation over which they are shepherds.

bbbbbbb said:

That implies that there were polygamists in the New Testament church and that they were not prohibited from practicing polygamy.

Click to expand...

That implication does not condone the sin. It simply points it out, and forbids the office of overseer to those who practice that sin.

bbbbbbb said:

The only instance where divorce is commanded is in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah where the Israelites were forced to divorce their non-Jewish spouses. That was clearly based on the Law given to Moses.

Click to expand...

These marriages were not sanctioned by God, because they were a violation of an already established Law. The men were told to divorce their wives to bring themselves back into line with the Law of Moses. This was not really "divorce", but was ceasing to live in an unmarried (unsanctioned marriage) sexual relationship with these women.

bbbbbbb said:

Even in the New Testament Christians are not commanded to divorce their non-Christian spouses, although mixed marriages are strongly discouraged.

Click to expand...

Correct, we are not told to divorce our non-Christian wives, but to live with them peacefully as long as they are willing to live with us, because in so doing we may bring them to salvation.

Doug Brents said:

This is true. The specific incest laws from the Law of Moses are not repeated in the New Testament.
But, Paul condemns the man in 1 Cor 5 who is sleeping with his father's wife. He says that even the Godless Gentiles do not do such evil. The Christ followers of Corinth were proud, boasting that they were so tolerant that they accepted such a sinner. But Paul condemned him and cast him out of the assembly of saints so that he might repent and be saved.
He was not condemned for incest. No, he was condemned for sleeping with a married woman: his father's wife.

Not so fast here. Slavery is not condemned, but polygamy is.
Mark 10:6-9 makes it very clear that from the beginning, from Creation, God intended for marriage, sexual relationships, and intimacy to be between one man and one woman for life. After the death of one spouse, the other is free to remarry. But as long as both live there is supposed to be only those two together. Because of man's sinful nature, God allowed man to divorce, but that is not what God intended.

So only one man with one woman, thus the elders are supposed to be the examples for the congregation of the Church they lead. They are not to be living in the sin of polygamy, nor any other sinful lifestyle, and still lead the congregation over which they are shepherds.

That implication does not condone the sin. It simply points it out, and forbids the office of overseer to those who practice that sin.

These marriages were not sanctioned by God, because they were a violation of an already established Law. The men were told to divorce their wives to bring themselves back into line with the Law of Moses. This was not really "divorce", but was ceasing to live in an unmarried (unsanctioned marriage) sexual relationship with these women.

Correct, we are not told to divorce our non-Christian wives, but to live with them peacefully as long as they are willing to live with us, because in so doing we may bring them to salvation.

Click to expand...

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. His father had probably died, leaving his wife as a widow. The son, in respect to his father, took his step-mother into his home rather than forcing her into a life of beggary. 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. 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. 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!

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.

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.

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. 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.