Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Original Sin/the Sin Nature


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Why would an innocent child need to be trained in the way he should go?  If he is innocent, he is already in a good way.
 

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Hmm, who would a child of innocence need correction?

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

Why would an innocent child need to be beaten with a rod?

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

An innocent child left to himself brings his mother shame? 

As I said, your ability to understand is addled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Nice misapplication of Scripture, Winman.

Be converted and become as little children was not speaking of becoming like infants. 

Tell us, where is this fountain of youth you have received your reverse-age process from?  It clearly has fermented and addled your understanding capability.

 

And you are mistaken. The word "converted" means to turn or repent. So Jesus is telling his disciples they must repent and become as little children to enter heaven. They must become sinless to enter heaven. No defiled thing enters heaven, I already showed you that. 

 

Little children are not evil, Jesus said they have angels who ALWAYS behold his Father's face. They are not separated from God. 

 

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
 
Was the prodigal son lost originally?
 
Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
 
You should read Luke chapter 15. Jesus tells three parable which are one, and they are all about sinners who repent. None were original lost as Original Sin falsely teaches.
 
Was the lost sheep originally lost?
 
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?
 
The lost sheep did not start out lost, he was in the shepherd's flock. Originally the shepherd had one hundred sheep. This refutes Original Sin that teaches all men are born dead in sin and separated from God. Jesus show the EXACT OPPOSITE. 
 
How many silver pieces did the woman originally have?
 
8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?
 
How many pieces of silver did the woman originally have? TEN. How many were lost? NONE. Boy, Jesus must have forgotten all men are born lost when he told these parables, because he is clearly speaking of lost sinners in this chapter. 
 
10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
 
Jesus got it right that a sinner has to repent, why does he mistakenly teach the sinner was not originally lost? Something is wrong here. 
 
And then he tells us about the prodigal son. Was he originally lost?
 
Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
 
Nope, Jesus said the father had two sons. They weren't lost. 
 
The prodigal didn's start out lost, but he soon decided to leave home and fell into sin. It was then that he was joined to a citizen (the devil) of that far country. 
 
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
 
This is when the prodigal became lost and spiritually dead, when he knowingly and willingly left home and went out in sin. It was then that he was joined to that citizen (the devil) of that far country. 
 
Could he repent? Yep, and he did. 
 
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
 
Did the prodigal lose the ability to repent as many falsely teach? NOPE, he headed for home. And notice that the father saw the boy coming when he was still a great way off. Hey, that's God's foreknowledge, God can see who will repent before they actually do!
 
But now, what did Jesus say the father said when the boy repented?
 
24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
 
Whoa! Wait a minute! What is Jesus saying here??? What does Jesus mean, the prodigal is alive AGAIN? That's impossible, we are all born dead in sin, none of us was ever alive until we repented. Right? Right?? Right????
 
BOOM! Original Sin is destroyed by Jesus himself. When the boy repented Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. You have to be alive once to be alive AGAIN, just like Paul said in Romans 7. 
 
Did Jesus forget we are all born dead in sin? Did Jesus forget that all of us are born separated from God? How could Jesus make such serious mistakes?? 
 
Surely Jesus must have been mistaken when he said the prodigal was alive AGAIN. That is impossi.....  what? He said it again? Where?
 
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
 
No, no, no, say it ain't so Joe!! Jesus said it again! He said the prodigal son was alive AGAIN! What was Jesus thinking? Doesn't Jesus know we are all born dead in sin? 
 
It just can't be so, it just can't be so, it just can't be so.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Why would an innocent child need to be trained in the way he should go?  If he is innocent, he is already in a good way.
 

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Hmm, who would a child of innocence need correction?

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

Why would an innocent child need to be beaten with a rod?

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

An innocent child left to himself brings his mother shame? 

As I said, your ability to understand is addled.

 

You do not comprehend. I have never denied that children do not do wrong things. I have eight children, I bet that I understand this better than you. 

 

But God does not hold them ACCOUNTABLE. Read that until you understand it. God does not hold little children accountable when they do wrong. Why? Because they do not understand their actions. 

 

We are just the same. If a three year old boy picks up his father's pistol and shoots and kills his sister, do we try that little child for murder and then send him to the electric chair? NO. Why? Because the little boy did not really understand what he was doing. He does not even really understand the concept of death. When he sees someone on TV shoot another person, it looks fun. 

 

And God is the exact same way, he does not hold that child accountable, he does not judge that child as a sinner. 

 

Children do wrong things all the time, but that doesn't make them a sinner. God does not hold them accountable until they understand what they are doing. The Jews understood this, and did not hold a boy responsible until he was 13 years old, and a girl 12. 

 

The scriptures are not written to little children, it is written to mature  men and women who understand it. 

 

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 

When the Jews sinned in the wilderness, God would not allow them to enter the promised land, which is a figure of heaven. But he did allow the little children to enter in. Why? Because they did not know between good and evil in the day that their parents sinned.

 

You don't get it, it is the "knowledge of good and evil" that makes us spiritually die. That is why Adam and Eve spiritually died, because they had the knowledge of good and evil.

 

And we are all born with that knowledge, but it take a few years to develop and mature, just like our bodies. At about the same time our bodies grow hair to cover our most private parts, men's minds develop and they understand good and evil. This is when they become accountable before God. Now when they knowingly sin, they DIE. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Become as children does not mean repentance.  It is speaking of trusting. , exercising faith. Unless on converts and becomes trusting as a child is trusting of its parents.


And you are wrong when you say Scriptures were not for children. 

Colossians 3:20 Children, OBey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

You can continue to deny the facts if you wish, Winman, but it won't make them go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Become as children does not mean repentance.  It is speaking of trusting. , exercising faith. Unless on converts and becomes trusting as a child is trusting of its parents.


And you are wrong when you say Scriptures were not for children. 

Colossians 3:20 Children, OBey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

You can continue to deny the facts if you wish, Winman, but it won't make them go away.

 

The scriptures are not written for "little" children. Although a parent should begin early and teach children scripture. But we are talking about MATURITY. God does not hold little children accountable, because they do no know between good and evil. I have already showed you scripture that directly says this. You can read. 

 

It is you that is denying what the scripture plainly says. 

 

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 

Is that big enough for you to read? Do you understand what God was saying? He said he was going to let the little children go in and possess the promised land. Why, because they had no "knowledge between good and evil" when their parents sinned. 

 

It is you that is clearly in denial, nOBody is fooled. 

 

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

 

Are little children born knowing to refuse evil and choose good? NOPE.

 

You are just hurting yourself by denying scriptural truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Original Sin is complete falsehood. 

 

 Sin had to "originate" from somewhere. Please answer this question: From where did sin "originate"?  Did sin just "fall from the sky"?  If there is no such thing as "original sin", then there can be no sin whatsoever in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Sin had to "originate" from somewhere. Please answer this question: From where did sin "originate"?  Did sin just "fall from the sky"?  If there is no such thing as "original sin", then there can be no sin whatsoever in this world.

 

Sin originates from free will. 

 

Satan was created "perfect in his ways" but he chose to sin (Eze 28:15). Why? Because he could. He had free will. The fallen angels were created "very good" but they chose to follow Satan. Why? Because they could, they had free will. 

 

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31) but they had the ability to choose to sin. They had free will. That, and a lack of faith in God is all it takes. 

 

So the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin. 

 

Jesus said offenses "must needs be". Sin cannot be avoided, even by God. Why? Because God is love, and he desires that we love him. But love cannot be forced. You must give a person free will to love you. A person has to choose to love you, but this also gives them the ability to reject you. 

 

We are not rOBots as some seem to teach, we can choose for or against God. This gives us the ability to choose to love God of our own free will, which is what he desires. But this free will also makes it necessary that folks can choose against God and choose to hate him. So sin or offenses, "must needs be"

 

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

This says DEATH passed on all men, because all men have sinned. It does not say a sin nature passed on all men because Adam sinned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sin originates from free will. 

 

Satan was created "perfect in his ways" but he chose to sin (Eze 28:15). Why? Because he could. He had free will. The fallen angels were created "very good" but they chose to follow Satan. Why? Because they could, they had free will. 

 

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31) but they had the ability to choose to sin. They had free will. That, and a lack of faith in God is all it takes. 

 

So the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin. 

 

Jesus said offenses "must needs be". Sin cannot be avoided, even by God. Why? Because God is love, and he desires that we love him. But love cannot be forced. You must give a person free will to love you. A person has to choose to love you, but this also gives them the ability to reject you. 

 

We are not rOBots as some seem to teach, we can choose for or against God. This gives us the ability to choose to love God of our own free will, which is what he desires. But this free will also makes it necessary that folks can choose against God and choose to hate him. So sin or offenses, "must needs be"

 

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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?

 

 

Alimantado,

 

Winman is a Pelagian; therefore, he will interpret verses to fit his theology. I posted a verse earlier that proves that because of Adam's sin, mankind was made sinners...

 

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disOBedience many were made sinners, so by the OBedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

He jumped through his hoops of interpreting it as "legal" wording to say that it only set a precedent. That "might" make some type of sense if the word "sinner" only appeared in the context Romans 5...which he attributed this "legal" meaning of "sinner" to. However, the same word for "sinners" is used 45 other times throughout scripture...the same word...not used in legal context.   :scratchchin:

 

I don't have to tell anyone here this, but this is what "sinner" means...this also defines our sin nature...

  1. From Webster's 1828 Dictionary...SIN'NER, n.
    One that has voluntarily violated the divine law; a moral agent who has voluntarily disOBeyed any divine precept, or neglected any known duty.
  2. Greek...ἁμαρτωλός  devoted to sin, a sinner  
    a.  not free from sin 
    b.  pre-eminently sinful, especially wicked  
    1.  all wicked men 
    2.  specifically of men stained with certain definite vices or crimes 1b 
    c.  tax collectors, heathen

I see no "legal" terminology in any of that...simply the fact that a sinner is a sinner. If Adam set the precedent, then how was Paul able to say...

 

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

 

Same word (sinners) used as in Romans 5:19...but he was CHIEF. This should settle whether Christ died for people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. We certainly agree that Christ died for Paul, and Paul was saved...yet he was the chief among sinners? Wow! Unlike Hitler, Paul not only had Jews sentenced to death...he had Christian Jews sentenced to death!

 

We inherited a sin-nature from Adam, and that's the plain teaching of scripture without having to twist it to fit Pelagianism. Just let God say what he said.

 

Winman isn't only a Pelagian, but he teaches that Jesus Christ had to be saved. :offended: That's why I quit responding to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wondering why the Mods allow Winman to continue to teach heresy on OB,

 

What heresy is that? John Smyth, the man credited with starting the FIRST Baptist church, did not believe in Original Sin. FACT. 

 

It might be you who is the Baptist heretic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...