|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 3:22:47 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
the reality of a sin nature doesn't say we might not be accountable, it says,don't EVEN think you might be guilt free, cuz you ain't.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:12:34 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
you're not providing doctrine, you're being philosophical.
I'm being biblical. You're being philosophical.
We could go back and forth like that for a long time huh?
God already provided the doctrine.
You've decided that I can't know something you don't know.
That's why you have to label me "philosophical"
You are unwilling to understand because of your own choice.
quote:
Silly? God's holy, righteous demands are silly? Amazing.
What are you taking about?
Why do you try to put blasphemy into my mouth.
Is it easier than having to think about anything I've said?
You said:
Jesus would have never come in the flesh if it were possible for even one person to obtain eternal life without Him.
I asked rhetorically:
Jesus would take one perfect person and leave everyone else without hope?
The implication is that Jesus would be willing to atone for the sins of one trillion people but if one of them obeyed God then Jesus wouldn't be willing to atone for the other 999,999,999,999 or however many were left.
What you said doesn't make any sense. Jesus would've died just for Adam and Eve if he was their only son - nevermind a trillion people. Remember the parable about the lost sheep? He left the 99 sheep who didn't have anything wrong with them to go and find the one who was lost.
There's no point in going back and forth like this if folks are not even willing to think about what I'm writing instead of jumping to weird conclusions and labels. Why don't you start a thread called "There IS a sin nature" and you can fill it up with anything you want. If you want to seriously discuss things, Good. But that means you have to be willing. Otherwise it is pointless. For the sake of people who might be willing to be cooperative I'll have to ignore those who aren't. Disagreeing with me doesn't mean you're being uncooperative. Just being unwilling to understand. Assuming I'm saying crazy things without paying closer attention is not cooperative.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:16:52 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 2061
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
quote:
Silly? God's holy, righteous demands are silly? Amazing.
What are you taking about?
It's God that asserts that nothing short of sinlessness can gain entrance into heaven. Not 99% nor 98%, 100%. He will not ignore sin, not even a "tiny" one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:21:39 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 2061
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
...Remember the parable about the lost sheep?...
I sure do, along with the lost coin, and the prodigal son. Those BELONGED to the owner/father. They represent straying children that He never gives up, not the unsaved. They are great parables of Perseverance of the Saints, not redemption. The prodigal was already a SON and he did not lose his sonship, though he lost his fellowship with his Father.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:27:15 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 2061
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
The implication is that Jesus would be willing to atone for the sins of one trillion people but if one of them obeyed God then Jesus wouldn't be willing to atone for the other 999,999,999,999 or however many were left.
One name to consider: Noah.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:27:48 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
the reality of a sin nature doesn't say we might not be accountable, it says,don't EVEN think you might be guilt free, cuz you ain't.
Read Ezekiel 18
You can't be guilty for something you didn't choose. God says so.
quote:
It's God that asserts that nothing short of sinlessness can gain entrance into heaven. Not 99% nor 98%, 100%. He will not ignore sin, not even a "tiny" one.
I didn't say anything about sinners getting into heaven. I don't understand what you think I've been saying. It doesn't seem like we're having the same conversation.
quote:
I sure do, along with the lost coin, and the prodigal son. Those BELONGED to the owner/father. They represent straying children that He never gives up, not the unsaved. They are great parables of Perseverance of the Saints, not redemption. The prodigal was already a SON and he did not lose his sonship, though he lost his fellowship with his Father.
Why'd you capitalize the "P" in Perseverance?
If you're not willing to believe in free will this won't get anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:31:03 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
One name to consider: Noah.
Do you understand that I meant that was YOUR implication? Not mine.
I said Jesus would've died even for two people. That's why I brought up the single lost sheep.
Noah is an excellent example!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:32:50 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
i'm getting some dinner so I might not reply as quickly as I have been the past few posts.
If anyone wants to go into a chat room to discuss things in an easier way that would be fine. Let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:35:22 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
There's no point in going back and forth like this if folks are not even willing to think about what I'm writing instead of jumping to weird conclusions and labels. Why don't you start a thread called "There IS a sin nature" and you can fill it up with anything you want. If you want to seriously discuss things, Good. But that means you have to be willing. Otherwise it is pointless. For the sake of people who might be willing to be cooperative I'll have to ignore those who aren't. Disagreeing with me doesn't mean you're being uncooperative. Just being unwilling to understand. Assuming I'm saying crazy things without paying closer attention is not cooperative.
then again, what if it's just that you're wrong?
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:37:26 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 2061
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
Why'd you capitalize the "P" in Perseverance?
If you're not willing to believe in free will this won't get anywhere.
Because most people write that way to indicate the particular doctrine. But I'm not fussy, I can write in without the caps: perseverance of the saints.
What makes you think I don't believe in free will? I don't remember ever NOT believing in it. Unless you confuse free will with a salvation kept by works...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:38:28 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
quote:
One name to consider: Noah.
Do you understand that I meant that was YOUR implication? Not mine.
I said Jesus would've died even for two people. That's why I brought up the single lost sheep.
Noah is an excellent example!
so...we don't all need a Savior. Just those guilty people. And what about those that don't need a savior? Are they as good natured as Jesus?
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 4:39:48 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 2061
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
quote:
Read Ezekiel 18
You can't be guilty for something you didn't choose. God says so
Have you heard of Adam, the corporate head of the human race and how sin entered through him and how we, all his descendants, inherit sin through our human fathers? It's a major reason Christ had no earthly father.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 5:03:08 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
Ezekiel 18:20
A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
And a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 5:05:47 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
in other words, a son has the option of choosing a godly life even if his father is wicked.
both the father and the son must be accountable for themselves. not a lightbulb there.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 5:11:19 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
Ezekiel 18 is about God telling a society that they cannot assign guilt on a father or son based on the other's ACTIONS. God is saying that HE alone has that authority and if either the father or son choose to KEEP GOD's statutes, they will be in good standing with HIM.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 5:48:28 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 2061
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
quote:
One name to consider: Noah.
Do you understand that I meant that was YOUR implication? Not mine.
I said Jesus would've died even for two people. That's why I brought up the single lost sheep.
Noah is an excellent example!
My point, OTH, was that God allowed the inhabitants of the ENTIRE world at that time die without any hope, except for Noah and his small family.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 6:37:41 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
what's OTH mean?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 6:55:20 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
Because Noah was willing to obey God and the rest were not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 7:33:23 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1782
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
benjoseph,
quote:
What do you mean by salvation?
If you mean eternal life...well Jesus said eternal life is to know Him and his Father.
If you mean forgiveness of sins...well babies simply aren't guilty of any.
This "innocent baby" concept that keeps coming up really does not prove a thing about sin nature. The topic on the thread is if there is a sin nature. Bringing up whether babies are actually sinning or not does not prove it.
Lets say that a baby did not actually sin. That was easy.
Now, lets move on.
Is there anything else at all that you could think of that could disqualify a baby from the love of God?
I can.
God Himself can disqualify a person of His love by His own will and perogative and it depends not on the person doing anything at all good or bad.
God could look at an infant in the womb that is not even born yet, and hate it if He feels like doing so and it would have nothing to do with the baby doing anything and how innocent or guilty it is.
He can choose to hate as He wills and it could be just because He hates the nature instead of things actually done that are good or bad.
I will use the KJV instead of the NIV if it makes you feel better on the translation and hopefully this will show a point;
11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Pretty straight out and simple. The babies were not even born. They were not even born and they had not actully done nothing at all good or evil.
God decided to love one and hate the other.
And guess what?
There is no unrighteousness with God.
Kind of defies all human logic dont you think?
Maybe we need to use more of the Word of God and less human logic?
On the human nature topic we dont really need to keep preaching about infants and their actual deeds or lack of deeds anymore as if that proves or disproves a sin nature.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 7:53:53 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
you're choking on meat kjb.
It's referring to the lineage of the promised seed.
It doesn't mean that God hated Esau before he was born.
God hates sinners.
BTW, I like talking about babies.
What if what you described is actually how you are?
Watch:
"[Can you think of anything] that could disqualify a baby from the love of KJB?
I can.
KJB can disqualify a person of his love by his own will and perogative and it depends not on the person doing anything at all good or bad.
KJB could look at an infant in the womb that is not even born yet, and hate it if he feels like doing so and it would have nothing to do with the baby doing anything and how innocent or guilty it is.
KJB can choose to hate as he wills and it could be just because he hates the nature instead of things actually done that are good or bad."
Sounds more like Planned Parenthood than the Father of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 8:47:46 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1782
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
benjoseph,
quote:
What if what you described is actually how you are?
I dont care how I "are".
How I "are" does not mean that is how God "is".
Like I said in my post benjoseph, maybe we need to use more of the Word of God and less human logic?
Forget how I are and how you are.
The last place we need to look to try and get a proper understanding of God is ourselves.
quote:
It doesn't mean that God hated Esau before he was born.
Oh it doesnt?
Well......then why does it say He did?
Are we just being duped and tricked on this?
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad........but Esau I hated.
It looks to me like I am reading it right. I think the problem has more to do with your nature and not my reading. Human nature likes to look at human nature as if human nature is the standard by which God should be measured.
Sorry, but it just dont work that way.
quote:
BTW, I like talking about babies.
Well, thats nice.......but it still does not prove they dont have a sin nature.
All the baby talk proves nothing on the actual topic of the thread.......all you are trying to show is that they have not actually sinned "yet".
It proves nothing of any inherited nature.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 11:09:50 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
KJB, you don't believe in free will?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 11:57:44 PM
|
|
|
AbbyGrace
Posts: 660
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
(Romans 5:19)
This passage disproves sin nature just like the rest of the scripture.
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
What is that saying? "just as...so also"
It means that in the same way many will be made righteous
In that same way many were made sinners
Well what is that same way?
What is the way that many will be made righteous?
It's got to be the same way that many were "made" sinners.
We know that righteousness is by faith.
Noah had righteousness by faith.
Abraham had righteousness by faith.
David had righteousness by faith.
The apostles had righteousness by faith.
The martyr Steven had righteousness by faith.
But "faith" can't be the answer because faith didn't make anyone a sinner.
That just wouldn't work:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man [by faith ??] the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man [by faith] the many will be made righteous.
Doesn't really make any sense does it? In fact, the bible say it's not faith at all that leads to disobedience and sin. It's actually the opposite of faith: Unbelief.
Lets try it again:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man [by unbelief] the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man [by faith] the many will be made righteous.
Well that makes a little more sense but it says that these two things happened in the same way. How can unbelief and faith happen in the same way? ("just as...so also")
What do faith and unbelief have in common? Anything?
Yes. It's you.
Faith and unbelief are two options that every man has.
God has set before us life and death.
So another way of saying "you" is your "will" or "your own choice"
Let's try it again:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man [by their own choices] the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man [by their own choices] the many will be made righteous.
Now if you want to change what's in the brackets in the first line because it holds you accountable for your own sins instead of Adam then you have to change the second line also. But if the righteousness of faith doesn't come by a man's own choice then you end up with everyone being forced to be righteous in the same way people say everyone was forced to be sinners.
Like this:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man [against their will?] the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man [against their will?] the many will be made righteous.
And that's obviously nonsense once you think about it.
Paul is making a figurative comparison between Christ and Adam. He's not making a doctrine about inherited sin. Paul wouldn't have dared to suggest anything like that. He was very familiar with the scriptures. Much more than we are. The fundamental principle of the free choice to obey or disobey is never called into question. It is a given. That's why I've cautioned about milk and solid food. Peter told us that some of the things Paul wrote are hard to understand. Why doesn't anyone believe Peter? People think it's totally easy to understand. "see Adam made us bad, Jesus made us good" That's not at all the full understanding. That's what people who have already bought into the sin nature excuse think when they read over the passage without having to think much about it. That's what I did before too. Peter warned that ignorant and unstable people twist some of the things that Paul wrote (to their own destruction) as they do the rest of the scripture. What's more destructive than this gnostic view of human nature that says you never could have avoided sin because of the way you were born. As a man thinks so he is. Bad teachers have twisted the meaning of Paul's writing to make them contrary to God's word. They say "the fathers [Adam] have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth [us] are set on edge"
Romans 5:19 is basically saying...We were all born in Adam's physical family - the family line that leads to certain death. All of us have reaped the results of Adam's sin. A sinful nature...the tendency to sin, and God's punishment. because of Jesus however, we can trade judgment for forgiveness. We can trade our sin for Jesus' righteousness. Christ offers us the opportunity to be born into His spiritual family - the family line that begins with forgiveness and leads to eternal life. If we do nothing, we have death through Adam, but if we come to God by faith, we have life through Christ.
_____________________________
Hebrews 12:14 "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/3/2008 12:24:23 AM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
All of us have reaped the results of Adam's sin. A sinful nature...the tendency to sin, and God's punishment.
Did you understand what I wrote? It sounds like you didn't understand it.
You can't inherit a tendency. You can have temptations, but a tendency is only through your own choices. A tendency is just "what you tend to choose". It can't be something you are born with because that would mean we aren't free to choose right and wrong like God says we are.
quote:
We make choices everyday of our life, what else would one call "free will?"
There are a lot of people who don't believe in free will. Some say that God makes our choices for us and who are we to question him? It's true "who are we to question God". But God does not make our choices for us.
If someone thinks that they don't have free will, then they will likely believe they have a sin nature. It will be the only way to explain the "choices" they HAD to make. That's the wrong kind of thinking.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
