Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 80 of 80

Thread: Anyone for a heresy?

  1. #71
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,273
    Thanked: 14130
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    Not if they merely inherit the sinful nature in the flesh. But if they are conceived spiritually dead then they would be incapable of not sinning. Judging someone guilty of a crime requires that the person was capable of doing otherwise. The Bible proclaims God judge which requires that the one sentenced was capable of not doing what he decided to do. The principles of justice are the main argument against the "spiritual death from conception" doctrine, the way I see it. I find them to be incompatible.
    Exactly.

    But because you said "Judging someone guilty of a crime requires that the person was capable of doing otherwise", Bookie (or someone) is going to hit you up with, "But if men were not born sinners, it might be possible for someone to live their whole life absolutely free from sin, and they would not need to be saved by Christ, but could be saved by their works!!!"

    Just a heads up.

  2. #72
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    Exactly.

    But because you said "Judging someone guilty of a crime requires that the person was capable of doing otherwise", Bookie (or someone) is going to hit you up with, "But if men were not born sinners, it might be possible for someone to live their whole life absolutely free from sin, and they would not need to be saved by Christ, but could be saved by their works!!!"

    Just a heads up.
    Works are works according to the law, not an absence of sin.

    To perpetually avoid peer pressure to fall to sin (whether from men or the devil or both) one would need to be taught by God and have weight from God. Which would again imply that one has been born again which undoes the scenario. The real problem here may be that men don't seek God all by themselves, including children who are still in a state of innocense. Not unless they are taught to do so, directly or indirectly. They don't automatically embrace the Holy Spirit when introduced to his presence either, they obviously have a carnal nature at some level that resists him. I've seen small children get convicted by the Spirit of the things of God (not necessarily of personal sin) and then decide to believe based on that. In a very tangible way, that is. Including in church, as a matter of fact.

  3. #73
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,273
    Thanked: 14130
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    Works are works according to the law, not an absence of sin.

    To perpetually avoid peer pressure to fall to sin (whether from men or the devil or both) one would need to be taught by God and have weight from God. Which would again imply that one has been born again which undoes the scenario. The real problem here may be that men don't seek God all by themselves, including children who are still in a state of innocense. Not unless they are taught to do so, directly or indirectly. They don't automatically embrace the Holy Spirit when introduced to his presence either, they obviously have a carnal nature at some level that resists him. I've seen small children get convicted by the Spirit of the things of God (not necessarily of personal sin) and then decide to believe based on that. In a very tangible way, that is. Including in church, as a matter of fact.
    Here is another take on it:

    This objection reveals the sinister and ungodly nature of the original sin dogma. What does this objection imply? It implies that it would be criminal, wicked, and sinful for anyone to live a life without sin. It implies that men ought to be born with a sinful nature, lest it be possible for someone to live a life without sin! It implies that God wants men to be depraved sinners, that he wants them to be born with a sinful nature so that he can have the honor and glory of saving them. It implies that it would be impudence, arrogant pride, and high treason against God to live a life in humble obedience to God and never rebel against him. It implies that God would be insulted and dishonored if someone obeyed God all his life and never sinned against him. It implies that to please and glorify God we must be forced to displease and dishonor him. In a word, it implies that it would be sinful to be free to obey God. And why? Because if we were free to obey God, someone might do it and would not need to be saved. What logic!

    But this is an example of the type of reasoning that must be resorted to in order to defend the dogma of original sin. But we have already seen that if men are not free, and if they sin by a necessity of their nature, they cannot be responsible for their actions and their actions cannot have moral character anymore than a gun that is used to commit murder can have moral character. What? A man who must sin necessarily because of an inherited sin nature responsible and guilty for what he cannot avoid? If it were true that we were born with a nature that deprived us of the liberty and ability to obey God (which is the doctrine of Augustine and original sin), if it were true that we were born with a nature that made us disobey God, and if it were true that we were created by God under a law that made us by nature sinners and rebels, we could never in justice be blamed or punished for our sins. If we were unable by nature to obey God, sin would not be a crime, but rather a calamity. Words in the Bible like pardon and mercy would have no meaning. God would be cruel and a tyrant for condemning the unfortunate sinner to hell for what he could not avoid. The offer of mercy and pardon to the sinner would be an insult. The truth is that the doctrine of natural inability to obey God makes all the doctrines of the Bible absurd and irrational.

    But the objection we are considering both assumes and demands that men be born with the natural inability to obey God, and it imputes the onus of pride, self-righteousness, and even the despising of God's gracious plan of salvation to the person who will not swallow all the absurdities of the original sin dogma. One form of this objection is put in the following insinuating question: "So you think that a person is able to live his whole life without sinning and that he can be saved by his good works?" But the stigma of pride and self-righteousness does not belong to the one who rejects the dogma of original sin, for to recognize and admit that one is the author of his own sins, that he is guilty for them, and that he is worthy of being sent to hell for them is not self-righteousness, nor is it despising God's gracious plan of salvation. It is just the opposite. It is humbling one's self in view of the guilt of one's sins, and it is acknowledging one's need of God's mercy and salvation in view of one's deserved punishment for his sins.

    How ridiculous and absurd, then, is the objection that "men cannot be free and able to obey God, because if they were able, there would always be the possibility that someone might do it and would not need to be saved"! How foolish is the notion that God would be insulted, profoundly humiliated, and his government subverted and overturned if men could and did obey him! What supreme foolishness is the objection that "Someone might possibly live his whole life without sin." What! Would it really be a sin to not sin? Would it be wicked to be free and have the ability to obey God? Would God be insulted, dishonored, and confounded if someone in his kingdom lived all his life without sinning against him? Would he consider it a catastrophe of the first magnitude if someone actually did love and obey him perfectly from the cradle to the grave? It is impossible! God does not have that kind of character.

    http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs05.htm

  4. #74
    I think the utter depravity of man (original sin) is a crucial element to understanding the corresponding gloriousness of the gospel. If we say that man is born capable of not sinning, we are giving man an out. We are saying he's capable of living a godly life without God. On the other hand, God means for us to see that such a life is not possible due to our very nature. We are corrupt to the core. That's why the gospel is such a powerful remedy. It's not just for the forgiveness of sins (as wonderful as that is), it's a declaration that the old corrupt man, incapable of holiness, has to be put entirely to death. Only a new creation can live a holy life. Think of it. If original sin isn't true, then all Christ had to do at the cross was make our old man acceptable by simply dying for the sins of the old man. But that's only a partial gospel and doesn't get at the root of our problem. Only an understanding of our corrupt core--our original sin--reveals our true need--and that's for far more than forgiving our sins. It's for taking away for ever--by death--the old man that committed those sins.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bookman For This Useful Post:

    Ezekiel 33 (10-06-2016), FunFromOz (10-05-2016)

  6. #75
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,273
    Thanked: 14130
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
    We are saying he's capable of living a godly life without God.
    Read my post above yours and you will see, well you probably won't see, but you'll at least read the absurdity of that claim.

  7. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal TT View Post
    Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth

    Why is that heresy....he gave up omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence to rely totally on the Holy Spirit
    Hey, TT. I think that we are talking about a phenomenon that is difficult to fully understand. Theologians took a few hundred years to finally converge on the meaning of hypostatic union, and I think that simple phraseology beyond 100% God+100% man will fall hopelessly short.

    You use the term "gave up", Bill Johnson used the term "set aside." They are all "shorthand" for the realization that Jesus clearly did not make use of his God-like powers on earth like one might expect (e.g., He did not know everything (Mark 13:32).

    But those who understand Jesus operational-mode as a human operating with the anointing of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38, John 3:34) (as a model for us) have no problem with this. Jesus operating as a man, does not mean he didn't have the nature of God also inside him.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Jonathan david For This Useful Post:

    Cardinal TT (10-06-2016)

  9. #77
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    Here is another take on it:

    This objection reveals the sinister and ungodly nature of the original sin dogma. What does this objection imply? It implies that it would be criminal, wicked, and sinful for anyone to live a life without sin. It implies that men ought to be born with a sinful nature, lest it be possible for someone to live a life without sin! It implies that God wants men to be depraved sinners, that he wants them to be born with a sinful nature so that he can have the honor and glory of saving them. It implies that it would be impudence, arrogant pride, and high treason against God to live a life in humble obedience to God and never rebel against him. It implies that God would be insulted and dishonored if someone obeyed God all his life and never sinned against him. It implies that to please and glorify God we must be forced to displease and dishonor him. In a word, it implies that it would be sinful to be free to obey God. And why? Because if we were free to obey God, someone might do it and would not need to be saved. What logic!

    But this is an example of the type of reasoning that must be resorted to in order to defend the dogma of original sin. But we have already seen that if men are not free, and if they sin by a necessity of their nature, they cannot be responsible for their actions and their actions cannot have moral character anymore than a gun that is used to commit murder can have moral character. What? A man who must sin necessarily because of an inherited sin nature responsible and guilty for what he cannot avoid? If it were true that we were born with a nature that deprived us of the liberty and ability to obey God (which is the doctrine of Augustine and original sin), if it were true that we were born with a nature that made us disobey God, and if it were true that we were created by God under a law that made us by nature sinners and rebels, we could never in justice be blamed or punished for our sins. If we were unable by nature to obey God, sin would not be a crime, but rather a calamity. Words in the Bible like pardon and mercy would have no meaning. God would be cruel and a tyrant for condemning the unfortunate sinner to hell for what he could not avoid. The offer of mercy and pardon to the sinner would be an insult. The truth is that the doctrine of natural inability to obey God makes all the doctrines of the Bible absurd and irrational.

    But the objection we are considering both assumes and demands that men be born with the natural inability to obey God, and it imputes the onus of pride, self-righteousness, and even the despising of God's gracious plan of salvation to the person who will not swallow all the absurdities of the original sin dogma. One form of this objection is put in the following insinuating question: "So you think that a person is able to live his whole life without sinning and that he can be saved by his good works?" But the stigma of pride and self-righteousness does not belong to the one who rejects the dogma of original sin, for to recognize and admit that one is the author of his own sins, that he is guilty for them, and that he is worthy of being sent to hell for them is not self-righteousness, nor is it despising God's gracious plan of salvation. It is just the opposite. It is humbling one's self in view of the guilt of one's sins, and it is acknowledging one's need of God's mercy and salvation in view of one's deserved punishment for his sins.

    How ridiculous and absurd, then, is the objection that "men cannot be free and able to obey God, because if they were able, there would always be the possibility that someone might do it and would not need to be saved"! How foolish is the notion that God would be insulted, profoundly humiliated, and his government subverted and overturned if men could and did obey him! What supreme foolishness is the objection that "Someone might possibly live his whole life without sin." What! Would it really be a sin to not sin? Would it be wicked to be free and have the ability to obey God? Would God be insulted, dishonored, and confounded if someone in his kingdom lived all his life without sinning against him? Would he consider it a catastrophe of the first magnitude if someone actually did love and obey him perfectly from the cradle to the grave? It is impossible! God does not have that kind of character.

    http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs05.htm
    I think peer pressure ensures that every adult human being with normal faculties and who isn't born again has already sinned against God from the heart when he or she reaches adulthood. It doesn't take that long for the Romans 7:9-11 experience to take place when what is described "the law came" has been definitely established in the person.

    The article made me think of Calvinists that I've talked to elsewhere, ones that were mostly Cessationists (whether theologically or practically). The flip side of the coin of the "born a spiritually dead sinner" doctrine is that the adherent tends to think of sin as normal and though it can be administrated to within what other sinners will consider to qualify as "social" it will still be an ingrained part of everyone's life. The reason why is that sin never amounted to a personal fall, to a personal loss of innocense, rather it amounts to being "born that way". Kind of like being born without legs, one makes the best out of it but one will never be able to run. God is angry with the legless person who cannot grow legs and he is still angry even when the person administrates his leglessness to the best of his ability. So that is just a given, a default for everybody. God's anger and the certainty of hell for those who have simply been born are seen as realities, sin as merely a theological theory, or perhaps a description of the fact that noone is born perfect.

    Calvinist election, which automatically applies to everyone who actually believes in it, remedies this. In the case of the elect, election supercedes original sin and the true status of the person is now God's elect and heaven is a certainty. His sinfulness that he was born with no longer has any practical significance, it only has that to the non-elect. God loves his elect, even when they were sinners, and he hates his non-elect and their sin becomes (as in suits) them. To some, the gospel message boils down to a simple message of individual election. Some are favorized by God, some are not. Besides the fact that everyone is "born that way" in terms of their sinfulness, God sees some as individuals that he would like to spend eternity with after changing their nature and some as individuals that he would not like to spend eternity with and he figures that hell is a fitting place for them according to their sinfulness that they were born with. The non-elect being on their inevitable way to hell from their conception and on is a problem to many Calvinists but not if they manage to focus sufficiently on God's favor on themselves. To me this seems completely similar to when teachers treat some students better than others, the student favorized tends to look the other way with how the others are treated as long as they themselves benefit from siding with the teacher. The benefits empower the favorized to overlook the improperness of the whole thing. The certainty of heaven from conception empowers the true Calvinist to overlook the improperness of "passing by" the nonelect and sending them to hell for eternity as a certainty from their conception and on.

    "You chose to sin though you were truly capable of not making that choice" is a different world from the above. "Choose this day whom you will serve and know that you are capable of persisting in the wrong choice" is a different world from the above. All favoritism is annulled, all certainty of one's destiny apart from making the correct choices is annulled, the notion of being "born that way" is annulled.

  10. #78
    Senior Member Ezekiel 33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan
    Posts
    3,970
    Thanked: 2924
    We have to remember in all of this that Adam and Eve were created perfect. They could have lived forever without sinning.
    But because of their fall, sin entered the world. It is there waiting to capture all of mankind.

    As I pointed out earlier, when you watch a baby grow into a toddler and tell their first lie, no one had to teach them to lie/sin. It just came natural to their fallen flesh condition.
    That is why we need to bury that man and be resurrected with Christ as a brand new creation, just like Adam.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Ezekiel 33 For This Useful Post:

    curly sue (10-06-2016)

  12. #79
    Administrator fuego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    16,273
    Thanked: 14130
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel 33 View Post
    We have to remember in all of this that Adam and Eve were created perfect. They could have lived forever without sinning.
    But because of their fall, sin entered the world. It is there waiting to capture all of mankind.

    As I pointed out earlier, when you watch a baby grow into a toddler and tell their first lie, no one had to teach them to lie/sin. It just came natural to their fallen flesh condition.
    That is why we need to bury that man and be resurrected with Christ as a brand new creation, just like Adam.
    No one had to teach Adam and Eve that either did they? They just did it. The fact that Adam and Eve sinned without a sin nature throws a monkey wrench in 'we sin because we were born with a sin nature. We sinned for the same reason Adam and Eve did.

    That same link I posted above, what you just addressed is the 'objection' they address first. I just ask you to read it carefully whether you agree or not.

    http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs05.htm

  13. #80
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by fuego View Post
    No one had to teach Adam and Eve that either did they? They just did it. The fact that Adam and Eve sinned without a sin nature throws a monkey wrench in 'we sin because we were born with a sin nature. We sinned for the same reason Adam and Eve did.

    That same link I posted above, what you just addressed is the 'objection' they address first. I just ask you to read it carefully whether you agree or not.

    http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs05.htm
    Sin is in the world when we are conceived, that is a difference. Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh which means that we don't, we are born with a sinful nature in the flesh. So there are differences.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can avoid major, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Volvo. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.