Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Winman

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Winman

  1. I'm not sitting on a fence, my position has been made clear time and again here for years.

     

    It's not your posting of Piper I was thinking of, I was thinking of someone who posted Piper as a positive example of someone/something they agreed with.

     

    As far as Piper is concerned, I can only go by what I've read of him. From what I've read, he makes a lot of "out there" statements so that even many Calvinists/Reformed don't care for him. He does seem to have a strong cult type following among a subset. You are correct, Piper is Calvinist/Reformed, and I didn't dispute that.

     

    Just a guess, but thinking about the matter I would say R.C. Sproul is much more widely accepted among the Calvinist/Reformed "mainstream". Myself, I know very little of him either.

     

    The only "Calvinist" I can think of I'm really familiar with their preaching/writing would be Spurgeon.

     

    The many books I have from Sword of the Lord Publishers are of non-Calvinist IFBs. I don't listen to many sermons online but will occasionally listen to FBN. The book I'm currently reading is by non-Calvinist IFB Pastor Scott Markle. I was discipled by a non-Calvinist IFB pastor.

     

    If this thread had been only a matter of doctrine, it's likely I would have read and studied the postings without comment; unless I had a question. However, this thread has also gone in the direction of making assumptions and assertions that are directly opposed to reality.

     

    I've no prOBlem with sound anti-Calvinist postings but when postings are made that claim to be what Calvinists believe when in fact that's not their belief, such should be confronted. Those sort of postings only weaken any anti-Calvinist stance and open the door for confusion among onlookers and makes way for Calvinists to have a clear shot at an exposed weak point. (I'm speaking in general here and not directly at you)

     

    Opposed to reality? I've shown you articles from well known Calvinists that admit assurance is a big prOBlem among Calvinists. That IS reality. These are not articles written by their opponents, but Calvinists themselves. 

  2. Has no one meditated on why Israel must be BORN AGAIN?

     

    You consider yourselves to be students of God's word, yet this simple questions alludes you?

     

    You would do well to stop arguing and bantering throughout this forum and just take time to ask God to reveal to you this simple truth.  And don't come back to the forum until he has revealed it.

     

    Why must Israel be born again?

     

    Why don't you just say why you believe Israel must be born again and see if folks agree with you? 



  3. Winman, John, that quote from Piper could apply to people with all sorts of theology -

    How can I know I am elect?

    How can I know my decision for Christ is sincere?

    How can I be sure that the assurance I was given by the person who talked me through the sinners' prayer is real?

    Adrian Rogers ("disgrace to grace" sermon on Lot) told me that having said the sinners prayer, I am saved forever, even if I live a filthy rotten life - but can I really trust him? [i heard that sermon on radio, & checked it on line.]

     

    The answer must be: Build your relationship in love with CHrist & his people, read his Word, pray & meditate on his Word, hate sin & seek to live a life in the Spirit. Those aren't works for salvation, they are evidence of salvation. Our Chrstian life is a walk with God in faith & love.

     

    Sure, folks from all different beliefs doubt their salvation from time to time, but it is especially prevalent among Calvinists, and I can understand why. If I was taught that only a regenerated elect person can truly believe, then I would want to know if I am one of those elect persons. Otherwise, my faith could be completely false, how am I to know? And this is exactly what Calvinists themselves have written.

     

     It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.

     

    Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.

     
    Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in this way, with such traumatic devastation. Why?
     
    This was written by a well known Calvinist blogger who answers questions for Calvinists. He says that the folks who have the greatest prOBlem with assurance are Calvinists. They don't know how to know they are elect, and they don't know how to know their faith is real saving faith. This is the natural consequence of teaching folks that only regenerated elect persons have the ability to believe. Unfortunately, these folks are listening to you. 
     
    Just because you go to church or read the Bible doesn't mean you are saved, the folks in Matthew 7 called Jesus "Lord, Lord" (Lordship Salvation), they preached in Jesus's name, cast out devils in his name, and did many wonderful works in Jesus's name, and yet they were completely lost. So the fact that you do certain works or have certain religious feelings does not prove you are saved. 
     
    So how do you know you are elect and that your faith is real? 
  4. I've posted verses on this many times, including recently, and each time AVBB uses the opportunity to denounce the verses (including those others have posted regarding being born again) so he can promote his opinion that there are several different Gospels for different people and for different times.

     

    The way of salvation is simple, as I know you understand. It's man that complicates the issue by trying to add traditions, false teachings, works and assorted hoops to jump through.

     

    I just want to know how you know you are saved. I don't care what someone else thinks, I am asking you, and you only. 

     

    You answer me and I will be glad to tell you exactly how I know I am saved. 

  5. As I said, I'm not defending "Calvinism" so much of this is beyond what I've been attempting to discuss.

     

    I've no doubt, as I stated above, that there are many professing Christians, "Calvinists" and non-Calvinists alike, who have doubts regarding their salvation. Such doubt can come for many reasons.

     

    The first few years after I was saved there would come times I wondered if I were really saved, if I had done what Scripture says I must. However, once I was finally discipled and sat under the teaching of a wonderful pastor, I learned what the Word says about these matters. I examined my faith by Scripture, I checked for that confirmation from the Holy Spirit, I looked at the evidence in my life, I took note that my being born again in Christ occurred in accord with Scripture. Now, just as Scripture says, I KNOW I'm saved, I KNOW I have eternal life.

     

    I'm only slightly familiar with Piper. Some time back there were links posted here to Piper that I checked out. I didn't care for what he had to say or how he said it.

     

    And what did the scriptures say you must do? 

  6. I was taught in Methodist Sunday school that one had to be "good enough" to get into heaven. I've known many Methodist, and others, taught the same false teaching, which leaves them continually being on edge that little lie they told will keep them from heaven or that lustful thought they had will doom them to hell.

     

    There is a lady in our church who spent most of her life in a church that taught it's impossible to know if one is saved or not. She was taught it's arrogant and prideful to declare oneself saved and heaven bound. Even today, after hearing the biblical truth of the matter preached and taught in our church for several years now those old teachings rear their ugly head and cause her concern.

     

    Anyway, back to "Calvinism": while I understand how you see some of their beliefs conflicting with one another, I've not encountered "Calvinists" who don't know what biblical faith is, who don't believe they can't know if they are saved. The "Calvinists" I know best all believe if one is saved, they are eternally saved. While that might stand in contrast to some of the tenants of "Calvinism" you point out, that's their belief.

     

    How can you know you are elect if Jesus did not die for everyone? Is your name on a list somewhere? 

     

    You may not know of any Calvinists who lack assurance, but I promise you there are thousands of them. Even John Piper said he struggles with assurance. 

     

    The most agonizing prOBlem about the assurance of salvation is not the prOBlem of whether the OBjective facts of Christianity are true (God exists, Christ is God, Christ died for sinners, Christ rose from the dead, Christ saves forever all who believe, etc.). Those facts are the utterly crucial bedrock of our faith. But the really agonizing prOBlem of assurance is whether I personally am saved by those facts.

     
    This boils down to whether I have saving faith. What makes this agonizing - for many in the history of the church and today - is that there are people who think they have saving faith but don't. For example, in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'"
     
    So the agonizing question for some is: do I really have saving faith? Is my faith real? Am I self-deceived? Some well-intentioned people try to lessen the prOBlem by making faith a mere decision to affirm certain truths, like the truth: Jesus is God, and he died for my sins. Some also try to assist assurance by denying that any kind of life-change is really necessary to demonstrate the reality of faith. So they find a way to make James 2:17 mean something other than what is seems to mean: "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead." But these strategies to help assurance backfire. They deny some Scripture; and even the minimal faith they preserve can be agonized over and doubted by the tormented soul. They don't solve the prOBlem, and they lose truth. And, perhaps worst of all, they sometimes give assurance to people who should not have it.
     
    This is one of Calvinism leaders, and he is not sure he has saving faith. This is the result of teaching people that they do not have the ability to believe. 
  7.  

     

     

    This is a different matter altogether. First, most Baptists do not believe you can lose salvation. But most Baptists believe in Preservation of the Saints, not Perseverance. 

     

    I don't know I am saved because I will always be faithful to Jesus or that I will persevere. If my salvation depends on my faithfulness, I am in serious trouble. 

     

    No, I know I am saved because Jesus will always be faithful to me. Jesus promised that any person who came to him would in no wise be cast out (John 6:37). I know I am saved because I have Jesus's promise, and Jesus cannot lie. 

     

    Arminians who believe they can lose salvation believe that only happens if they knowingly reject Jesus, if they quit believing the gospel on purpose. For them it is a willful decision. 

     

    That is not the prOBlem Calvinists have, they aren't even sure what faith is. How can you know your faith is real when you have been taught you do not have the ability to believe or comprehend belief? Faith is a complete mystery to Calvinists, they have no idea what true faith is. 

     

    Ask a Calvinist what faith is. Watch, they will describe works salvation. 

  8. I put this to Winman back near the beginning of this thread when he was arguing (as he maintains) that if God only died for an elect few then it is impossible to know that one is saved. At the time I argued that whether salvation is offered to all or a few is irrelevent to individual knowledge of salvation given that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists maintain that the evidence of salvation for the individual is what's seen 'at this end' as it were, i.e. what one sees and hears, what one confesses to, what they believe in, and what happens to them. Calvinists, like non-Calvinists, believe that true believers will show fruits of salvation.

    (As far as I can see the only people who can say that the offer of salvation to all is in itself evidence that a given individual is saved are universalists, because they believe that Jesus dying on the cross means all will be saved.)

    Winman responded to my argument by saying yes but Calvinists can't rely on the fruits of salvation because Calvin teaches 'evanescent grace', which is the idea that God engineers it so that the unsaved can appear to be saved, both to themselves and to others, meaning that according to Calvinism we can't tell the difference between real and fake salvation.

    I didn't have time to respond to Winman at the time, but since this bit of the debate has popped up again I'll do it now.

    I don't see how 'evanescent grace' supports the argument that Calvinists can't believe they are saved because of limited atonement, since it has nothing to do with limited atonement. It's actually a completely different argument for why Calvinists apparently can't know they are saved. This is demonstrated by the fact that if Calvinists didn't believe in limited atonement but did believe in evanescent grace, the argument that they couldn't know they were saved because of evanescent grace would be unaffected.

    So what about 'evanescent grace' itself then? Well, if a Calvinist does believe in it then I can see how that would lead them to ask 'how do I know whether my salvation experience was real or fake'?

    Thing is, non-Calvinists say pretty much the same thing. They don't attribute authorship of 'fake salvation' to God but they do maintain that you can think you're saved and appear to show fruit when actually you're not saved, so the effect on the individual is equivalent.

     

    There are two reasons why Calvinists cannot know they are elect. First, if you believe in Limited Atonement, you cannot positively know Jesus died for you. 

     

    If you asked a Calvinist, "Did Jesus die for you?", they will say YES. I would then ask, "How do you know?" The only answer they have is, "Because I believe"

     

    That is not proof that Jesus died for you, folks believe false things all the time. Like I said, you can believe a gun is empty and put it to your head and pull the trigger, and you will kill yourself. This is in fact how the famous guitarist for the band Chicago died. He put a gun to his head, and a friend said, "Be careful". He said, "Don't worry, it's not loaded!". He then pulled the trigger and killed himself instantly. If Jesus did not die for everybody, you have no possible way to know he died for you, that is impossible. Just because you believe it does not make it true. 

     

    And if Calvin was correct, you cannot even know if your faith is real. Calvinists are taught that unregenerated men cannot believe, and that they cannot even understand spritual matters. How in the world can they know what faith is? To complicate this, Calvin taught that God deceives many persons with an "evanescent faith" that seems so real that the person is deceived. Now how in the world can you know if your faith is real if this is true? 

     

    Calvinism is designed to make people doubt, not believe. And it is a fact that Calvinists doubt their salvation more than any other Christian groups. That is a FACT. 

     

    Here is what a well known Calvinist wrote on his blog concerning Calvinism and assurance of salvation:

     

     

     

    It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.

     

    Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect?  If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.

     

    http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/05/doubting-calvinists/

     

    See for yourself, google "how can I know I am elect?" and you will see dozens of Calvinists who are not certain they are elect. And if Limited Atonement is true, they are correct, there is no way to know if Jesus really died for them, or if their faith is even real. 

     

    It's tragic. 

  9. I've never encountered a "Calvinist" who didn't declare that one knows they are "elect" by the very fact they have been born again.

     

    On the point of salvation for Gentiles: Acts 8:37 refers to a Gentile making declaration regarding Jesus being the Son of God.

     

    "And Philip said, If thou believes with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

     

    No 5 point Calvinist can know they are elect. If Limited Atonement is true, then Christ did not die for the vast majority of people. Their sins have NOT been paid for. It doesn't matter what these persons believe. They can believe Jesus died for them, but if he did not, their faith is vain, and they shall perish in their sins. 

     

    Your faith does not determine reality. Paul himself shows this in 1 Corinthians chapter 15;

     

    1 Cor 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
    1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
     
    Do you understand what Paul is teaching here? Paul is saying that if Jesus did not in reality rise from the dead, then even if you believe Jesus rose from the dead your faith is vain, and you will die in your sins. 
     
    Likewise, if Jesus did not die for you personally, the fact that you have convinced yourself he did will not save you. He either died for you or he didn't, your faith does not determine reality. 
     
    You could believe a pistol is empty and put it to your head and pull the trigger, if it is loaded it will blow your head off. 
     
    No 5 point Calvinist can possibly know for a certainty they are elect. Ask them who the elect are, they will tell you they don't know. But then they contradict themselves and claim they know they are elect. That is impossible, they cannot know that either. 
     
    Just because they have convinced themselves they are elect does not make it so. 
  10. Nice theory, but that is all it is, your personal theory without a word of scripture to support it. 

     

    The angels were created, we are directly told Satan was created in Ezekiel 28;

     

    Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
    14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
    15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
    16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
     
    This has to be Satan, because he was in the garden of Eden. We are told he was perfect in his ways from the day he was created TILL iniquity was found in him. 
     
    This is why Genesis 1:31 refutes the Gap Theory, because God saw "every thing he had made"  and behold, it was very good. This was the sixth day, and Satan had not rebelled yet. 
     
    I think you are making a big unsupported assumption that the angels were created before everything else that was created in Genesis 1.
     
    Psa 148:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
    2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
    3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
    4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
    5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
    6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.
    7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:
    8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word:
    9 Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars:
    10 Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl:

     

    The angels are included with everything else we are told were created in Genesis 1 here, the sun, moon, stars, the heavens, the waters above the heavens, the mountains, hills, trees, beasts and cattle, creeping things, etc... 

     

    These are all the things we are told were created in Genesis 1, but here the angels are included among them. This argues this is speaking of one creation event. 

  11. the reason I believe the creation time of Angles, Arch angels, Cherubim, chrerubs, Seraphim, and the throne of God are not found in our bible is because they were not created during the 6 day work.  There is a difference between made and created.  and the fact that the earth was without form and void can only be interpreted in how it is usedin scriptures which shows that something was and then laer was destroyed.

     

    We are given only a limited understanding the Fall of the Anointed cherub, Lucifer because we need only understand that evil, darkness and sin were first found in him before the six day work of God in Gen 1:3-31

     

    Nice theory, but that is all it is, your personal theory without a word of scripture to support it. 

     

    The angels were created, we are directly told Satan was created in Ezekiel 28;

     

    Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
    14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
    15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
    16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
     
    This has to be Satan, because he was in the garden of Eden. We are told he was perfect in his ways from the day he was created TILL iniquity was found in him. 
     
    This is why Genesis 1:31 refutes the Gap Theory, because God saw "every thing he had made"  and behold, it was very good. This was the sixth day, and Satan had not rebelled yet. 
     
    I think you are making a big unsupported assumption that the angels were created before everything else that was created in Genesis 1.
     
    Psa 148:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
    2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
    3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
    4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
    5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
    6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.
    7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:
    8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word:
    9 Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars:
    10 Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl:

     

    The angels are included with everything else we are told were created in Genesis 1 here, the sun, moon, stars, the heavens, the waters above the heavens, the mountains, hills, trees, beasts and cattle, creeping things, etc... 

     

    These are all the things we are told were created in Genesis 1, but here the angels are included among them. This argues this is speaking of one creation event. 

  12. I chose to believe in a gap.  If you do not agree that is fine but let's not attack each other for my personal view.  the issue of a Gap is a non-essential issue and is of no cause to divide or hurt our relationship as Christians.

     

    Gen 1:31 refutes the Gap Theory. 

     

    Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

     

    On the sixth day God looked and saw "every thing" he had made, and behold, it was "very good". Satan and the fallen angels had not rebelled against God yet, so it is impossible there was a gap with rebellion and death between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. 

     

    Oops. 

  13. He believes & confesses Jesus as Lord & Saviour.

     

    Your misunderstanding of "calvinism" has NOTHING to do with the Gospel of salvation & Christian living.

     

    Believing does not guarantee he is one of the elect. Calvin taught that God often deceives the non-elect with an "evanescent grace" that completely deceives them. They believe and feel they are true believers but are not. 

     

    And if Limited Atonement is true, then no man can know for a certainty he is one of the elect. If Jesus did not die for you personally, your faith is completely vain and will not save you. 

  14. That is easy.  If one is truly saved, you are one of the elect.

     

    You do not know if you are elect, it is impossible for anyone who believes in Limited Atonement to know if they are elect, even if they believe. If Jesus did not die for you personally, then it does not matter if you believe on him, your faith is vain. 

     

    The only person who can know they are saved is someone who knows for a certainty that Jesus died for him personally, and that he has trusted this work of Jesus on his behalf to save him. 

     

    You can't possibly know that. 

  15.  

    11  I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
    12  But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
    13  The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
    14  I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
    15  As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
    16  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one 

     

     

    Jesus saying he died for the sheep does not mean he did not die for all men. 

     

    If I say I love my children, does that mean I hate all other children?

     

    This is reading Calvinism into scripture when it is not there. 

  16. The word "sinner' is always used in a legal context. It is like the word "felon". It is a legal term describing someone who has transgressed one of God's laws, for sin is the transgression of the law. 

     

    The scriptures did not throw the word "sinner" around like we do today. To the Jews, not everyone was "a sinner".

     

    Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
    38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
    39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

     

    Now, the Pharisee called this woman, who was a prostitute, "a sinner". We don't think much of that, because the Pharisees were a self-righteous bunch who commonly said evil things of others. 

     

    But note vs. 37 that the scriptures themselves say this woman was "a sinner". This is not saying she was just an average person who does many wrong things in their life, no, this woman was guilty of committing what was considered serious sin. She was "a sinner", and the whole town knew it. 

     

    When Adam sinned, he became "a sinner". Likewise, those who transgress God's laws after him are judged or MADE a sinner. That is what Romans 5 is teaching, It makes sense because that is EXACTLY what Paul is telling us. Adam was the legal precedent for sinners. Jesus is the legal precedent or "second Adam" for those who believe. 

     

    The scriptures are full of references to men who "made Israel to sin". Does this mean that their personal sin compelled the nation to sin? Nonsense. It simply means this king set a bad example that others followed. This is also how Adam made others sinners. 

     

    1 Kin 15:26 And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin.

     

    2 Kin 21:9 But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the children of Israel.

    10 And the LORD spake by his servants the prophets, saying,
    11 Because Manasseh king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols:
     
    Manasseh made Judah to sin. That doesn't mean when he sinned that every man in Judah suddently couldn't help himself but was compelled to sin. No, it simply means he set a bad example that others followed. 
     
    And this is how Adam made men sinners, by his example. 
  17. Didn't take the ol' Pelagian boogie man long to make his appearance. 

     

    f76a9ea9-9f93-4f9b-bb09-668fe1f7db44_zps

     

    Intelligent people are insulted when folks try to use fear smear tactics when they can't present a real argument. The Catholic church did this for centuries, telling folks they would go to hell if they tried to interpret the scripture themselves. 

     

    As the mother, so the daughter. 

  18. At this point, Winman, can you or someone else explain what a 'sin nature' is, as is proposed. Are we talking about a desire or inclination to do or want things that are sinful, or is it the state of being born guilty for sins being committed by another? Or both?

     

    Way back I asked the question why people choose to sin. I asked this because the original poster, although they mentioned 'original sin' in their OP, started asking questions about the peoples' 'inclination'.

     

    You responded to my post by saying that my question was irrelevant because desires have got nothing to do with 'sin nature'--having desires to do or want things that God does not want for us is not sinful and therefore is not a 'sin nature'. When I read that I assumed therefore that 'sin nature' is the belief that we are born guilty of sins already committed by others, and it was this belief that was the focus of the discussion.

     

    Yet here we are back at a question about inclination and you've said that Adam and Eve being created "very good" means that "the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin".

     

    So what is this 'sin nature' that is not needed? You've already said that having desires for what God does not want for us is not a sin nature, so what could a 'sin nature' conceivably be?

     

    Also, you say that sin originates from free will, since Satan had the free will to choose sin and he did: "Why? Because he could. He had free will." But he also 'could' have chosen against sin, yet he didn't. So free will doesn't explain why Satan chose a certain way, only that the choice was available. Last time you said to me 'they just do' when I asked why free agents choose a certain way when offered a free choice. If that's your answer, fine, but that is not the same as saying it is free will.

     

    If having desires that tempt us is a sin nature, then Jesus had a sin nature. He was tempted in ALL POINTS (think about that one for a minute) as we are, yet without sin. 

     

    Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

     

    Most folks think Jesus was only tempted by the devil in the wilderness. NO, Jesus was tempted in ALL POINTS AS WE ARE. Whatever has tempted you, and tempted me, and tempted every single man that was ever born tempted Jesus. This is an incredible statement, but that is what the scriptures say. 

     

    Does this mean Jesus had a sin nature? NO, the scriptures say Jesus was HOLY. 

     

    Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

     

    This is where folks go off the tracks, people think temptation is sin. Temptation is not sin. Sin is when you OBey temptation and transgress one of God's laws. 

     

    Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

     

    We are told exactly how Eve was tempted in the garden. This is the three worldly lusts shown in 1 John 2:16;

     

    #1 Lust of the flesh- the forbidden fruit appealed to her hunger and appetite, it looked good for food. 

     

    #2 Lust of the eyes- the forbidden fruit was beautiful and fascinating. 

     

    #3 Pride of Life- the forbidden fruit could make her wise. This would make her better than others, this would make her "special"

     

    Was Eve sinning here? NO. 

     

    God did not tell Eve she could not look at the forbidden fruit or think about it, only that she could not eat it. If Eve would have walked away, she would not have been a sinner. 

     

    But Eve broke God's one law or commandment, not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is when she sinned, and this is when she became a sinner. 

     

    Being tempted does not make you sinful. It is only when we actually transgress one of God's laws that we sin, sin is the transgression of the law. 

     

    1 Jhn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

     

    Now, it is not always easy to determine where temptation ends and sin starts. But temptation is not sin. But I believe most people believe that the fact we all get tempted is a sin nature. No, that is the flesh. The flesh simply lusts for whatever pleases it, it cannot choose what it wants. That is not sin. Sin is when we OBey it when it would transgress God's law. 

     

    I heard a fellow say this once, if you see a pretty girl walking down the street and take a look, that is temptation. If you circle around the block so you can come back and look at her again, that is sin. I think this was a pretty good analogy. 

     

    Being tempted is not a sin nature, or Jesus would have had a sin nature. 

  19. You said sin originates from free will.

     

    The Bible says by one man sin entered into the world.

     

    So where did sin originate?

    From each man's free will? No - from one man - that is where sin entered from.

     

    I am not addressing the "original sin" issue as such, but showing that you are wrong in a statement.

    And by the way, I used a Scripture verse.

     

    And pointing to the other end of the verse is irrelevant to my point, and an attempt to avoid the actual point by you.

     

    Satan was the first to sin, so sin originated from him. But it was free will that enabled him to sin. 

     

    God wants people who love him, not programmed rOBots. Love requires choice, you cannot force someone to love you, they must do that of their own free will. Unfortunately, when you give a person free will which enables them to love you, this also enables them to reject and hate you if they choose to do so. So it "must needs be" that offences come. 

     

    Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31), They did not have a sin nature. Yet they were quite able to sin. Why? Because they had free will. 

     

    I am answering your questions, and answering them correctly, you just don't want to hear what I am telling you. 

  20. Dave, we're wasting our time with him.  His conscience is seared.  He doesn't want to receive the truth.

    1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

     

    Do you know what the word IRONY means?

×
×
  • Create New...