each is to die of their own sins

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The Bible doesn't teach anywhere that a "sin nature" is inherited.

The bible is clear enough that we have inherited a corrupted, sinful nature from Adam:

Consequently therefore, as through the one offense (of Adam), condemnation came into all men, so also through one righteous deed came justification of life to all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Adam), the many were constituted sinners, so also through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19
​

 

[SarahM777]

Me in green.



A quick one liner in an attempt to steer clear of the specifics of my response?

You agree that a denial of Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is the basis of all self righteousness hence you stated...

You don't get it. If one can be righteous of their own accord what does one need Jesus for? Why would Jesus need to die for a perfectly righteous person? Jesus did not die for the righteous He died for the ungodly.

Do you not keep saying that one can do it or not? Do you have the ability to do it or not? Yes or no? Either you can obey the law or you can not. Can you and did you obey the law and were you able to? Have you ever had the ability to obey the law in every tiny thought,word and deed? Have you EVER done it? Have you obeyed the law PERFECTLY and do you do so now?

 

[Skinski7]

Me in green.

You don't get it. If one can be righteous of their own accord what does one need Jesus for? Who is teaching this? The Bible says this...

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Thus righteousness is only through ABIDING in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ.

The Bible also says this...

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Paul wrote this...

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Thus righteousness not via the law but rather via the death of Christ whereby Paul was CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST, nevertheless he still lived for it was Christ that lived IN Him. This the life he lived was by the FAITH of the Son of God. What is the faith of the Son of God? It is a faith that works by love wrought in abiding in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ.

Thus with that being said where does this notion of "one being righteous of their own accord" come from? I certainly have never taught such a thing.

Perhaps it is due to perceiving the notion of the "righteousness of Christ" being forensically imputed to an individual and thus you cannot conceive of an actual real legitimate righteousness being MANIFEST in a believer? Could that be the case? Is this why so many modern professing Christian's despise the teaching of genuine heart purity being manifest in a believer?

Why would Jesus need to die for a perfectly righteous person? Jesus did not die for perfectly righteous people. Jesus came to rescue people from their sins and thus He died for sinners. Those sinners are made righteous IN Him. Jesus did not die for the righteous He died for the ungodly. That is exactly right. A person who has never sinned and thus has never sold themselves into condemnation does not need to be saved from the dominion of sin. I don't know of any such person, do you? Thus with this in mind Jesus died for all people because all people have turned to their own devices and rebelled against God.

Do you not keep saying that one can do it or not? I say that one can CHOOSE to ABIDE IN CHRIST. Do you have the ability to do it or not? Yes we have the full capability to yield ourselves servants unto righteousness by turning to God in repentance. Yes or no? Yes we can yield to God whereby the light of God is manifested THROUGH us. Not saving self, saved by the mighty power and provision of God in which we abide in by faith. Either you can obey the law or you can not. Obedience to the law does not mean anything because one can submit to it whilst iniquity reigns in the heart. Hence righteousness can never by by the law. All the law can ever do is give OUTWARD INSTRUCTION in regards to what righteousness should look like, ie. thou shalt not kill, steal or lie. Thus the law is a POINTER to Christ. It is love that FULFILLS THE LAW. Can you and did you obey the law and were you able to? Again the law is a moot point. The Bible calls the law the "Ministration of Death" for sin gains its power through the commandment. ONE SIN brings death and there is NOTHING one can do to undo it. Hence the law brings death and not life. Life is found in Jesus Christ who came to call SINNERS TO REPENTANCE that they might turn to God and abide in the Spirit in which life is found. This is why the Bible says that while we are "reconciled by his death" (Rom 5:10) we are actually "saved by His life" (Rom 5:10). Have you ever had the ability to obey the law in every tiny thought,word and deed? YES WE DO and it is through ABIDING IN THE POWER of God.

To deny this is to contend that SIN IS GREATER THAN GOD. That is a lie and God can REALLY DELIVER US FROM SIN. God REALLY CAN make our hearts PURE. Do you believe it?

God is greater than sin. Modern theologians teach that sin is greater than God and thus the plan of salvation is a POSITIONAL rescue which only CLOAKS and ongoing state of defilement. It is pure blasphemy for it treats the blood of Christ like the blood of animals which cannot cleanse one from ALL SIN.

Have you EVER done it? Have you obeyed the law PERFECTLY and do you do so now? Those who walk after the Spirit are not under the law. The law is for sinners. We who are in Christ walk after the Spirit by a faith that works by love and fulfill the righteousness of the law in us. THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE PLAINLY STATES. Do you believe it?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney - Dr. Michael Horton

Skinski's teachings are essentially identical with Charles Finney's teachings. For more info on Finney, see - Monergism :: Finneyism

Finney was an ungodly, self-willed man who made this audacious claim vaunting the efficacy of his teachings:

"If the whole Church, as a body, had gone to work ten years ago, and continued it as a few individuals, whom I could name, have done, there might not now have been an impenitent sinner in the land. The millennium would have fully come into the United States before this day.”
​

A tree is known by its fruit. And what was the fruit of Finney's teachings? While reading this know that Finney was influential in evangelizing the western part of the state of New York in the US.

Predictably, most of Finney's spiritual heirs lapsed into apostasy, Socinianism, mere moralism, cultlike perfectionism, and other related errors. In short, Finney's chief legacy was confusion and doctrinal compromise. Evangelical Christianity virtually disappeared from western New York in Finney's own lifetime. Despite Finney's accounts of glorious "revivals," most of the vast region of New England where he held his revival campaigns fell into a permanent spiritual coldness during Finney's lifetime and more than a hundred years later still has not emerged from that malaise. This is directly owing to the influence of Finney and others who were simultaneously promoting similar ideas.

The Western half of New York became known as "the burnt-over district," because of the negative effects of the revivalist movement that culminated in Finney's work there. These facts are often obscured in the popular lore about Finney. But even Finney himself spoke of "a burnt district" [Memoirs, 78], and he lamented the absence of any lasting fruit from his evangelistic efforts. He wrote,

I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state [cited in B. B. Warfield, Studies in Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1932), 2:24].
​

One of Finney's contemporaries registered a similar assessment, but more bluntly:

During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by [Finney] himself, that "the great body of them are a disgrace to religion" [cited in Warfield, 2:23].
​

B. B. Warfield cited the testimony of Asa Mahan, one of Finney's close associates,

. . . who tells us—to put it briefly—that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power; and the evangelists—"among them all," he says, "and I was personally acquainted with nearly every one of them—I cannot recall a single man, brother Finney and father Nash excepted, who did not after a few years lose his unction, and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor."

Thus the great "Western Revivals" ran out into disaster. . . . Over and over again, when he proposed to revisit one of the churches, delegations were sent him or other means used, to prevent what was thought of as an affliction. . . . Even after a generation had passed by, these burnt children had no liking for the fire [Warfield, 2:26-28].

From A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement Copyright © 1998, 1999 by Phillip R. Johnson.
​

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You don't get it. If one can be righteous of their own accord what does one need Jesus for? Why would Jesus need to die for a perfectly righteous person? Jesus did not die for the righteous He died for the ungodly.

Do you not keep saying that one can do it or not? Do you have the ability to do it or not? Yes or no? Either you can obey the law or you can not. Can you and did you obey the law and were you able to? Have you ever had the ability to obey the law in every tiny thought,word and deed? Have you EVER done it? Have you obeyed the law PERFECTLY and do you do so now?

Amen. Some people like mr Skinski here love to judge others, while refusing to admit, or acknowledge his own sin.

Think of Christ speaking to the pharisee, Who said they were good for doing part of the law. Put should have been doing other parts also. They got angry at him, Much like mr skinski here, But it is no wonder, he is one of them.

I have no doubt if Christ would appear on earth today And spoke the way he spoke 2000 years ago, People like skinski here would call him a false prophet.

 

[SarahM777]

Me in green.

You're still not getting the gist of what I am asking so let me try rewording it. You keep saying you have the ability to yield to righteous,why didn't you or the rest that keep saying this yield to sin in the first place if you can and are able to be righteous in the first place? Why didn't you,why didn't they? Why did you all fall into sin if you could have yield to God in the first place to not sin?

You keep asking if I believe that God did it in my life or not. Have I not given my testimony many times or did you miss it? I know what I was,have I been obtuse on that?

 

[homwardbound]

The thing about legalist is not minimizing the atonement or plateau of self righteousness stuff. It is that they don't have God in their lives and don't have love and are trying to act as if they do. And the thing about people going on and on about legalism is that they make out like the things that they do, copying people who DO love the Lord and are doing those things because they do, are what make them legalists.

Legalism is NOT what legalists do, it is describing how they do it. The vicious circle is people against the things they do.

Fasting is not legalism, but you can fast in a legalistic way. Saying the Lord's Prayer is not legalism, but you can say the Lord's Prayer in a legalistic way.

we will all be seen by our motive(s) and will have praises of God and losses as well, when we just don't co-crucify with Christ at the cross, being dead to self and alive to God by God and through Christ. So simple it has been made to be not, and it really is. God did do it all for us, so there is no room to boast except to God in thanking and praising Christ for this amazing salvation that we receive by God through Son, Christ Jesus
I just want to scream Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! over and over and over, I thin I shall wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how amazing to be able to rest in God, self works of all sorts is dead via the death of Christ, being a partaker in this is just amazing in the freedom that comes and the new life that takes over more and more as one goes deeper and deeper into the death of self with the death of Christ.

 

[Elin]

the DeSario cult upholds Judaism's rejection of Original sin:

The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.

Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin

ever wonder why jews don't think they need Jesus?

However, Southern Baptists believe in original sin.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

However, Southern Baptists believe in original sin.

the term origional sin just means that in adam all die.. the moment he sinned we all sin.

it was adam's sin (the origional one) which caused the fall of mankind.

Now catholics seems to believe baptism just cleanses this sin and no toher, thus we are left on our own, i am sure others believe this way also.

 

[Elin]

The Bible doesn't teach anywhere that a "sin nature" is inherited.

Try Ro 5:18-19.

The sin of one man made all mankind sinners.

 

[homwardbound]

No they are not because what they teach omits the PURGING OF THE CONSCIENCE whereby the heart is made pure.

This is why the doctrine they uphold treats the blood as a cloak for an ongoing "struggle" with defilement.

This is why modern Pastors will assure a pornography addict that they are saved so long as they "trust in Jesus" despite the ongoing service to their addiction.

ACTUAL freedom from sin and the actual state of salvation are disconnected under this error. The cross is viewed as a "provision" one trusts in and the "crucifixion of the flesh" in repentance is simply not taught. This is why these people REFUSE to discuss heart purity. Look at all the replies to my posts and try and find a single one addressing heart purity in a Christian.

Reformed Theology teaches that the heart remains defiled due to the inherent corruption due to Total Depravity thus salvation is purely a positional in nature. For example the pornography addict who "trusts in Jesus" is POSITIONALLY RIGHTEOUS whilst in ACTUALITY his heart remains defiled.

These people cannot perceive that the cross is the means to CLEANSE ONE INWARDLY. They view the cross as a JUDICIAL LEGAL cleansing. Thus it is in "sanctification" that the heart is made clean to these people which makes an allowance for the "double-minded" service of sin AND righteousness in their doctrine.

In the Bible the ongoing sanctification of a believer unto maturity has nothing to do with the heart being made clean. It has everything to do with growing in the working and understanding of God. Thus as we learn more we are able to put into effect what we learn and thus become more and more like Christ. Our discernment and understanding grows and our ignorance and foolishness is purged out.

I think I will write an article on "having ESCAPED the corruption in the world through lust" for that seems a foundation point which is completely ignored by these people.

The more I talk with pastors, local believers as well as engage on forums like this the clearer the root of error becomes.

Basically it is HEART PURITY which is completely ignored. People don't like that subject because they know their doctrine forces them to admit that the hearts of Christian's are not pure for they teach a system of "sin you will and sin you must."

understood and thank you. Easier terms for me, is to say unless one willingly decides to die to the self, then one will not see the truth of the new life that God gives through the resurrection of Christ
It starts as I am seeing first belief, then the enemy comes to steal that belief and when the enemy can't steal it, the enemy goes after to gratify the flesh, and steal truth that we need to actually start dying to self as Paul did by being Co-crucified with Christ at the cross dead to self, which opened up to him the new life in God's Spirit, the resurrected Christ.
And as you have said in this post, people are still working the energy of their own flesh and no flesh before God will ever please God except Christ Jesus, which was the only one that ever pleased God after the first Adam.
I remember, being stuck in many things of the past, and I am thankful to God for loving me in spite of what I have done in the past. This is amazing to me and is what began to change me. And I went out after it, never seeing that I was doing this in the energy of my own flesh, feeling good about doing it, but not before God, as God showed me this. What I needed more than anything was to go to the cross and co-crucify me with Jesus there, see me the self efforts as dead, and since this began and doing this I am seeing who God is and what God came to do for us all, God getting all the credit, as I see me deeper and deeper in death to this world, which has and is showing me deeper and deeper the love in God, being alive in God
I do not know if I made any sense to you, but I do know the wonderful growth God ahs shown me through my willingness and asking to be dead to self in the flesh and yet alive to God, as Paul said
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Thanks, Skinski for your answer from what you see, I see this too, as what has in the past been in me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so in seeing this I am now just living day by day in dying to the self and being alive to God, trusting God to do in me what I have given up in the self, and see the change, beyond words, giving God all the credit

 

[Elin]

Have you ever wondered why the early church did not teach inherited corruption but rather upheld the free agency of man?

You misunderstand free agency. It is not the "free will" of Aristotle and Cicero.

Free agency is compatible with inherited corruption.

 

[homwardbound]

Me in green.

So is this all you are saying is that by Christ we being born again actually should have forsaken all sin?
So is this us doing this in our flesh?
Or is this Christ the resurrected Spirit doing this through us?
Now if it is yes to it is Christ doing it through us. Then we are on our way to see all truth, the truth that sets us free, giving God all the credit.
Tell me is their any credit to us for doing?

 

[homwardbound]

There is no life without Jesus so no need to create a strawman of "you're teaching we don't need Jesus." It is not prideful to obey God from the heart nor it is prideful to teach that we are to obey God from the heart.

This "prideful" argument is a STRAWMAN. Paul taught this...

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Were those people who "obeyed from the heart" being prideful?

Was the Prodigal Son prideful in leaving the pig pen and confessing his sin to his father?

Was Nineveh being prideful in forsaking their rebellion?

No. You objection is pure fallacy. It is concocted in desperation in order that one write something off indirectly.

As far as needing Jesus Christ, we need Him every day for it is the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ in which we walk (Rom 8:2) for without Him we can do nothing (John 15:4-5).

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

so is the above response of flesh or Spirit of God?
Can our flesh please God while it is alive?

 

[zone]

Me in green.

take the time to use the quote feature.

 

[homwardbound]

The Bible doesn't teach anywhere that a "sin nature" is inherited.

That doctrine was only accepted as orthodox through the prolific influence of Augustine in the Fourth Century. Augustine used the Latin Vulgates mistranslation of this one verse...

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: (KJV)

Augustine read that verse as follows...

Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (Latin Vulgate)

That one error of "IN WHOM" which appears in the Latin (instead of "for that" or "because all" which appears in the Greek) was to Augustine the Bliblical prooftext he needed that supported the notion of an inherited sin nature associated with the flesh (dualism) which was a position he had brought over from his involvement with Neo-platonism and Manichaeism. Thus with that one error cemented in his mind he then was able to build a fatalistic theology.

With this foundation set FATALISM was accepted into church orthodoxy and the rest is history.

Here is a documentary on the issue...


Augustine and Original Sin
[video=youtube;KVQ1t5i058Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVQ1t5i058Q[/video]

okay, so you do not believe flesh and blood is sinful, and needs a new life? I see you saying yes and then no, I see you using scripture and then this about inherited sin nature, that you do not believe this.
And this is exactly what 1 John talks about one not admitting to having a sin nature and those that do not believe Christ came in the flesh. That if one will come to believe God about this then that one will receive the forgiveness that is provided for all at the cross, only if one will come to believe truth, then one will receive truth and move on from there to the new life in the resurrection of Christ, made alive in the Spirit of God
Do you believe this to be true?

 

[Elin]

Me in green.

Again, you failed to address the Scriptures and the questions presented:

a complete disconnect - NO EXPLANATION for why Jesus was tortured AND DIED for the sins for OTHERS, and the SUBSEQUENT gift of the washing of REGENERATION (new heart)....THE HOLY SPIRIT.

God is SATISIFED by the death of His SINLESS Son but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH the sins of the people (rebels)?

Romans 5
Peace and Hope

1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,

Christ died for the ungodly.

7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this:

While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

10For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

what's all this Christ dying FOR others?
what's all this BLOOD shed FOR others?
what's all this DYING FOR the UNGODLY?
what's all this WHILE WE WERE STILL HIS ENEMIES Sinless Perfect Jesus DIED for us?

WHY DID HE SUFFER AND DIE?

how did THAT satisfy God - JESUS DYING TO SATISFY - WHAT?

His wrath on SIN.

who sinned?

JESUS?

i recall you saying JESUS DID SIN.
you said Jesus experienced SEXUAL LUST.

didn't you.

Concupiscence (from the Latin: con-, with + cupi, cupid - desire + -escere - suffix denoting beginning of a process or state) is often defined as an ardent, usually sensual, longing.[1] The concept is most commonly encountered in Christian theology, where it also receives the name "Fomes peccati", as the selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience.[2] For Christians, concupiscence refers to what they understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to long for fleshly appetites, often associated with a desire to do things which are proscribed.

 

[zone]

There is no life without Jesus so no need to create a strawman of "you're teaching we don't need Jesus." It is not prideful to obey God from the heart nor it is prideful to teach that we are to obey God from the heart.

This "prideful" argument is a STRAWMAN.

does the Bible teach man obeys Him without His intervention?

Romans 3
No One Is Righteous
9What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”b
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”c
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”d
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”e
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”f
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”g

19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Righteousness Through Faith
21But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness is given through faith inh Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,i through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

...

oh look:

be declared righteous

dikaioó: to show to be righteous, declare righteous
Original Word: δικαιόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: dikaioó
Phonetic Spelling: (dik-ah-yo'-o)
Short Definition: I make righteous, defend the cause of, justify
Definition: I make righteous, defend the cause of, plead for the righteousness (innocence) of, acquit, justify; hence: I regard as righteous.

Cognate: 1344 dikaióō (from dikē, "right, judicial-approval") – properly, approved, especially in a legal, authoritative sense; to show what is right, i.e. conformed to a proper standard (i.e. "upright").

The believer is "made righteous/justified" (1344 /dikaióō) by the Lord, cleared of all charges (punishment) related to their sins. Moreover, they are justified (1344 /dikaióō, "made right, righteous") by God's grace each time they receive (obey) faith (4102 /pístis), i.e. "God's inwrought persuasion" (cf. the -oō ending which conveys "to bring to/out"). See 1343 (dikaiosynē).

....


21But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.


dikaiosuné: righteousness, justice
Original Word: δικαιοσύνη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: dikaiosuné
Phonetic Spelling: (dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay)
Short Definition: justice, justness, righteousness
Definition: (usually if not always in a Jewish atmosphere), justice, justness, righteousness, righteousness of which God is the source or author, but practically: a divine righteousness.

1343 dikaiosýnē (from 1349 /díkē, "a judicial verdict") – properly, judicial approval (the verdict of approval); in the NT, the approval of God ("divine approval").

1343 /dikaiosýnē ("divine approval") is the regular NT term used for righteousness ("God's judicial approval"). 1343 /dikaiosýnē ("the approval of God") refers to what is deemed right by the Lord (after His examination), i.e. what is approved in His eyes.

 

[Skinski7]

Skinski's teachings are essentially identical with Charles Finney's teachings. For more info on Finney, see - Monergism :: Finneyism

Finney was an ungodly, self-willed man who made this audacious claim vaunting the efficacy of his teachings:

"If the whole Church, as a body, had gone to work ten years ago, and continued it as a few individuals, whom I could name, have done, there might not now have been an impenitent sinner in the land. The millennium would have fully come into the United States before this day.”
​

A tree is known by its fruit. And what was the fruit of Finney's teachings? While reading this know that Finney was influential in evangelizing the western part of the state of New York in the US.

Keeping true to form ChristRoseFromTheDead you again refuse to discuss the specifics of what I have said and choose to cut and paste a spiel written against Charles Finney.

For your information I reject the theology of Charles Finney. Whilst Charles Finney rejected the pagan doctrine of Original Sin he never discarded the P of the TULIP thus his theology is contradictory. Not only that but Charles Finney was also a promoter of the Moral Government view which I do not promote. Like Anselm's view I can understand the logic of such thinking but my concern is how it shifts the focus off of inward cleansing to government satisfaction.

In my opinion Charles Finney focused on "method" and "emotionalism" which is why I think many of the conversions under his preaching did not last.

I have not spent a lot of time on Finney's work primarily because I have a Bible and can read it for myself. I have only looked at Finney briefly due to others who have mentioned him. In particular I have taken a close look at his writings on Perseverance of the Saints in order to try and understand how he rationalised such a stance with free agency.

Anyway that is all besides the point. You are unable to refute my contention that Original Sin was introduced into Church Orthodoxy by Augustine in the Fourth Century. In fact you do not even care about the truth of such things, in mind Original Sin is biblical and you won't let yourself be confused by the facts.

Thus for many people Original Sin is a doctrine which has been cut loose from its history and whereby it is probably for emotional reasons that it is upheld by many.

 

[zone]

However, Southern Baptists believe in original sin.

hehehe...contact Jewish Virtual Library.
it seems Judaism likes to use the Baptists for this, then for that