Some questions about atonement and salvation

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

Fabian,
No one explained original sin, and the cause of it to you I guess.....
Original sin did not originate with mankind.
Original sin is pride, and it originated with the most beautiful and powerful of God's created beings.
- Maybe this will open another can of worms for you, but it's the truth, and necessary to know.

Skinski7 · Oct 29, 2013

FabianO said:

1. I understand that christians believe that we need Jesus because we are seperated from God by sinful acts we committed. Now, my first question would be - why didn´t God just create humans that would not sin? A virtuous act requires free choice otherwise it is not virtuous. Likewise an evil act requires choice otherwise it is not evil. Without the ability to choose virtue wouldn't be anything more than a "benefit" whilst evil would be a "calamity." And the answer I got was, that God did not want to create "robots", but rather people with free will. But, as I understand it, christians believe that they will have free will in heaven, but will only use their free will to "please God" and that heaven will thus be free of sin. So now my question would be - why didn´t God just create such a heaven in the first place where free will + no sin co-exist, since that seems to be what he wants and I thus see no reason for why he created the universe in the first place instead of just starting with heaven (I´ve also heard the answer that Satan corrupted his creation, but this doesn´t work for me for the same reason - why not create angels that would only use their free will as God wants them to, meaning that there never would have been any fallen angels in the first place?). Again virtue by necessity requires it to be voluntary. Are charitable acts truly charitable if they are performed under duress? God wants a people who "freely choose" to love Him and love their neighbour.

2. I understand that evangelical christians believe that all humans deserve punishment in hell for their sins (the non-evangelical christians I have met so far however don´t seem to believe that). I don´t understand how that can be fair / just. Afaict, evangelicals believe that it is impossible for humans to commit no sins whatsoever (Romans 3:23) The context of this verse...,

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Is within the framework that genuine righteousness (the righteousness of God) is through the faith (abiding in the will of God as opposed to resisting it) of Jesus Christ.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

In other words Jesus manifested the righteousness of God apart from the law in the sense that His righteousness flowed from a heart that was pure (and thus in submission to the will of the Father) as opposed to flowing from a necessity to obey a set of rules. Those whom "believe" actually manifest righteousness via the same methodology because they have aligned themselves with Jesus Christ and His teachings. Hence the justification (being declared by God as righteous) is through the grace (God's mercy and instruction) through the redemption (a being set free from the bondage of sin) that is found by abiding in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ. The death of Christ being that which dedicated the Covenant by which men can be reconciled to God through which God freely forgives the past sins of those who approach Him with a heart no longer set on rebellion.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

, so even the best of us will have committed some sins. It is very important to define sin for there is much confusion regarding the issue. But doesn´t that mean that the punishment in hell is not actually for what we did, but rather for what we are? Indeed it is both. It doesn´t seem fair to me to punish a human being for being human. Being human does not equal being a sinner. The sin that condemns is always a choice. I have heard the answer that it is not strictly impossible to live a life free of sin because Jesus was human and lived a sin-free life. But I don´t see the logic in that, that sounds like saying that humans could raise people from the dead and walk on water because Jesus was human and he could do it. Manifesting spiritual power that violates the perceived laws of the physical universe is a very different subject than choosing to do evil. So, where is the fairness / justice in this concept? The condemnation of the wicked is not on whether one can perform miracles so to speak but on whether one has rejected the light of truth.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

3. How can an eternal punishment be reconciled with God being just in any case? We wouldn´t call a human judge who sentences everyone, from a thief who stole some bread to feed his starving family to a serial rapist/murderer to "death by torture" a "just" judge - we would call him cruel and arbitrary. So why is this different with God? You are using extreme examples of wrongdoing done under duress. The Bible clearly teaches that wicked people do wicked things because they choose to do so, not due to any duress (starvation). God said to Cain that he ought rule over sin but instead Cain chose to let sin rule over him and thus he murdered his brother...

Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Gen 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

James teaches that sin is resultant of...

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Thus human beings are tempted to sin but they are never forced to sin. If human beings sinned by necessity then it would indeed be unjust of God to condemn sinners for that which they do naturally.

It was early Greek philosophy which taught that the vice inherent in humanity was a result of a birth nature and this philosophical paradigm was later adopted into Christian orthodoxy through Rome (ie. Catholicism), particularly through Bishop Augustine in the Fourth Century.

Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Augustine and Original Sin - YouTube

4. I don´t understand how christian beliefs can be reconciled with personal accountability. Many modern Christian beliefs cannot be reconciled with accountability. Yet this is not a reflection on the teachings of Jesus or the Bible but rather on the teachings of men as they force the philosophy of men onto the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. We believe that we are personally responsible for our actions, but in christianity, Jesus took this responsibility away and got punished in our stead. This is not true. The doctrine of "Penal Substitition" in REFORMED THEOLOGY teaches that Jesus was punished in the stead of a Christian and thus took away the believers responsibility. That doctrine was formulated by Reformers in the 1600's and was not taught before then.

Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement

Penal Substitition was an adaption of the Satisfaction Model put forth by Bishop Anselm of Cantebury in the 11th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisf...edia.com/Satisfaction_theory_of_the_atonement

Many of the Reformers were lawyers and thus it was easy for them to add a judicial element to the Model that Anselm had put forth. This notion also complimented their view that human beings sinned out of necessity (due to Augustinian theology) and thus salvation must be something set apart from this necessity to sin.

How can one simultaneously believe in personal accountability and christianity? One cannot believe in personal 'responsibility' and what often passes as Christian theology today. If human beings sin of necessity then they are simply not responsible for such action anymore than a man who is born blind is responsible for his blindness.(also, why didn´t Jesus have to suffer for eternity in hell if that is the appropriate punishment for sin?). Jesus simply did not take the punishment as a substitute for sinners. That perception is an invention of men. This point you have made I have raised many times...

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...odern-strawman-heresy-penal-substitution.html

5. Independent of whether one believes that libertarian free will exists or not, it seems obvious to me that beliefs cannot be chosen. I can see how my beliefs could change by seeing new evidence, hearing new arguments and so on and so forth. But I can´t simply choose to *genuinely* believe something out of the blue. That is correct and this is why God is a rewarder of those who DILIGENTLY seek Him.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

God's righteousness is revealed through faith. Yet men have no excuse to not diligently seek GOd because the creation itself reveals the Divine Mind behind it. Ordered information systems cannot proceed from disorder and randomness.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
I don´t claim to have studied all the arguments for christianity in detail (I most certainly did not), but so far, I don´t find the evidence for christianity to be convincing. If you are going to base your assessment of Christianity off modern theology, modern theologians, and thus generally what is passed as Christianity today then you will not find the evidence very convincing. That is why you must be diligent and hungry for the real truth, whatever that may turn out to be (ie. approach it like a child in sincerity and be willing to forgo preconecieved bias). Genuine Christianity is not for the lazy or those who do not truly care for the truth. Laziness and not really caring about reality are choices and one can simply choose to to not be lazy and to begin to care about reality, it is a good choice to make. I can´t simply choose to be convinced by something out of the blue. No, but you can choose to diligently seek the truth like your life depended on it because in actual reality it does. So if christianity is true and I would die tomorrow, wouldn´t I be sent to hell for something I could not have chosen any other way? You would be justly condemned for your rebellion against God. You (as have I) have freely chosen to do that which is wrong when you knew it was wrong (we all have a conscience) and thus we have indeed sinned and come short of the glory of God. Yet this is not God's wish for...

2Pe_3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Thanks for your time!
cheerio,
Fabian

You are more than welcome.

Scott.

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

The above response, which denies substitution, is the same argument all other religions use,......namely that if you are good enough you make it.
This self saving doctrine was rightly condemned by the church at the following councils:

Councils of Carthage (412, 416 and 418)
Council of Ephesus (431)
The Council of Orange (529)
Council of Trent (1546) Roman Catholic
2nd Helvetic (1561/66) 8-9. (Swiss-German Reformed)
Augsburg Confession (1530) Art. 9, 18 (Lutheran)
Gallican Confession (1559) Art. 10 (French Reformed)
Belgic Confession (1561) Art. 15 (Lowlands, French/Dutch/German Reformed)
The Anglican Articles (1571), 9. (English)
Canons of Dort (1618-9), 3/4.2 (Dutch/German/French Reformed).1

If Jesus is not a substitution for fallen man, - (as being fully God and becoming man, yet remaining in perfect obedience), then Christianity is as any other self saving religion.
The difference between Christianity and other religions is Christians believe in a risen savior that died for them personally.
- (Why? For what? - an afterlife)
Without this, it(whatever it is), is just another absorbing sacrifice to redeem one's self in this life.

- - And the important thing to know is all of those councils referred to the writings of the apostles, and the words of Jesus Christ Himself. - (Read Romans, The Gospel of John, I Corinthians, Ephesians, and any other text to see the fruition of this truth in both testaments.)

Skinski7 · Oct 29, 2013

RickShafer said:

What you are completely ignoring is the absolute historical fact that the Penal Substitution doctrine is an invention of the Reformers from the 1600's. A study of history certainly demonstrates this.

Even the more superficial internet wikis (which can be edited by anyone [of course within the context of peer review]) bare witness to this.

Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement

This view of the atonement common called "Penal Substitution" was never taught prior to the Reformation. Thus to respond to a denial of such a view with a list of councils is irrelevant because all those councils prior to the 1600th Century could not have even dealt with the issue because the Penal Substitution view had not been developed. The notion of "substitution" as a means to "satisify justice" in the place of personal obedience/righteousness was borne out of Anselm's work in the 11th century. What the Bible teaches has supremacy over any council of religion.

Prior to the 11th Century the view commonly held was the ransom view where the death of Christ was viewed as a rescue as opposed to a substitution.

In fact if we read the writings of Paul in the Bible we clearly see the Death of Christ being presented within the context of a "ransom from bondage" as opposed to being a "substitution for obedience/righteousness." It is by means of this "ransom from bondage" (via dying WITH Christ) that we can approach God and be cleansed of our past rebellion to God.

Thus Jesus did not die as our substitute so that we do not have to (for a substitute means "in the place of"), rather Jesus died on our behalf so that we could die WITH HIM and thus partake in His sufferings whereby we would not longer serve the lusts of men and therefore be raised up by the Spirit of God unto newness of life wherefore we serve righteousness as opposed to serving sin. That is what the death of Christ is all about.

The Reformers invented a new religion having rejected the rituals, structure and sacraments of the Catholic Church. Instead of returning to Biblical Christianity they simply compounded new errors upon the fundamental errors of Augustine. This is why seminary courses uphold Augustinian theology and oppose the simplicity of the patristic era.

Now here in the 20th century we can choose to believe and do what we want yet it is very prudent to establish our beliefs on the simplicity of Christ as opposed to the doctrines of men. It is the doctrines of men that lead people to make assertions that clearly imply that "sin you will and sin you must" and that "Jesus obeyed as your substitute so you don't have to."

Don't be deceived by religion and its dogma. Instead abide in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ whereby we are made inwardly pure where we do indeed go and sin (ie. rebellion/sin unto death) no more.

God bless.

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

...And yet I will add more, because this is such an important point, and delves to the heart of the matter(religion vs. relationship with God).

[h=1]Pelagianism[/h]
by Matt Slick
Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. In other words, a person's free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad without the aid of Divine intervention. Pelagianism teaches that man's nature is basically good. Thus it denies original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him.
Pelagianism fails to understand man's nature and weakness. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5). We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). Furthermore, Romans 3:10-12 says, “There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” Therefore, we are unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam, contrary to what Pelagius taught.

To deny penal substitution is to equate christianity with good works, ALL FALSE RELIGIONS DO THIS!
Hindu's seek nirvana(state of perfect nothingness), which is derived at by one's own 'karma'(perfectness).
All other nontheistic religions basically echo the same thing, the theistic religions seek to please an angry God.
Look up Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism; and juxtapose those to Mohammudism(Islam) and Judaism.
One set seeks to achieve perfect peace by becoming one with the universe, or their ancestors, or perfect wisdom; the other seeks to appease an angry God by what they do.

Christianity, and the belief in Jesus Christ is the ONLY message(gospel), that claims a savior for the sins of mankind.
All the other religions recognize sin, they understand it, they seek to find ways to deal with it; yet their answers are to become perfect either by becoming one with the universe, or your ancestors, or wisdom; or to be acquited by an angry God by the works that they do.
Thus Christianity-(and more specifically Jesus Christ), stands as the only beckon of hope to a world which is lost and dying in it's sins, and incapable of saving itself.

eternally-gratefull · Oct 29, 2013

FabianO said:

I think you misunderstand here. Free will can not be granted without the ability to chose to trust self or trust God (sin is a trust in self in ANYTHING we do, which comes from a lack of trust in God.)

The angels saw what God did through Christ on the cross. They would NEVER chose to distrust God again. When we get to heaven. We will see how much God forgave us (which we really can't comprehend now) and how trustworthy he really is.

It is not really that we can't sin, It is more that we would never chose to not trust God again. He put that to rest on the cross.

read romans 1. That will tell you why.

eternally-gratefull · Oct 29, 2013

and I would ignore what skinski is saying.

What he is saying we must do is impossible for any man as long as they live on this earth. Let alone rejects the cross. the only means of eternal life

Skinski7 · Oct 29, 2013

Rickshafer,

All you do is follow your pet theologians. Matt Slick in this case.

Matt Slick is a false teacher and his writings are very easy to dismantle in the light if Scripture. His doctrine utterly denies heart purity in salvation (because he upholds perpetual inward depravity being connected to the flesh body) and thus if forced to teach "sin you will and sin you must."

Therefore the salvation message he preaches must be an "abstract state" apart from an actual regeneration of the heart. Therefore under this delusion it is necessary to uphold justification as being premised upon the forensic judicial exchange taught under Penal Substitution.

Go on Paltalk and join Matt Slick's room and ask him about heart purity in salvation. He won't be able to discuss it directly because he does not believe in it. He will slip and slide around the issue misuse the Bible by isolating and proof texting scriptures like 1Joh 1:8-9.

Rick, why don't you speak of your own accord instead of being dependent on the work of others?

Pelagianism has nothing to do with this. Pelagianism is a straw man used by reformed theologians in order to group those whom they disagree with as heretics and in order to avoid discussing the real issues.

To deny Penal Substitution is to equate Christianity with good works? Do you even really think about what you write? I do you THINK about it?

Here is what the Bible says...

Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Eph_2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Christianity IS to be equated with good works.

When the Bible says "it is not of works" the context is of WORKS OF THE LAW.

In other words the righteousness of God is not through obeying commands outwardly like the Pharisees did.

Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

The Pharisees sought their righteousness in obeying the letter of the law. That is why they would condemn Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. They sought their righteousness in the works of the law.

Righteousness is via FAITH because FAITH WORKS BY LOVE.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

In other words the righteousness of God is from the INSIDE OUT as opposed to being from the OUTSIDE IN.

It is to fall from grace if one seeks to be righteous via obedience to the law. We are made righteous through the Spirit hence Paul taught...

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
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.

True righteousness is a result of walking after the Spirit, the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ. Hence we are made the righteousness of God IN Christ.

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.

It is so simple. It is so plainly taught in the Bible. Yet it seems so few people can see it because their minds are full of the doctrine of men and thus they cannot see past the veil. Jesus spoke of having eyes that cannot see and having ears that cannot hear.

In my next post I will dismantle that quote from Matt Slick.

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

All I do is follow the Holy Spirit, and the writings of the apostles who were charged with teaching It's Word.
You can try to 'dismantle' anything you want, yet you will never achieve an acceptable answer for this:
Romans 3:10-12 - “There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
Also this: Romans 5:12 - "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned".

How are you going to tear the Holy Writ ? Isn't the apostle's writing clear enough for you? - (It was to the church fathers)
- Also, there are multitudes of references to the total depravity of mankind by the Savior, the law, the psalmist and the prophets.
- - How you keep up this affront to the grace of God is ....really, quite beyond me.

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

I'm tired of arguing with a man who is patently wrong about the most basic theological concept of the Bible.
- The whole of God's dealings with mankind addresses this question!-(And Jesus' answer to it)
Here are two irreconcilable scriptures for the pelagian:
Genesis 2:17 :[SUP] "[/SUP]but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - - - NOW......DID ADAM AND EVE PHYSICALLY DIE THAT DAY? - NO.
So Paul says - "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"

Honestly,.......argue with the God on Mount Sinai that dictated that genesis account to Moses, and the least of the apostles(Paul).

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

As for Fabian,
Are robots equal to beings?
I mean think about it; would you rather marry a blowup doll or an actual woman who is sentient and able to have independent thought?
So this means God made people in His image, (independent thought).
Why? So they could choose Him.
Now, when sin entered the world it perverted the thinking of the sentient beings.
(Now you say - if God knew that would happen He wouldn't have made them) - Why not? Because He'd rather have robots?
- Now your protest is that God made them to fail....He did no such thing!
- - When you ask a woman to marry you are you expecting her to say no? - I mean after you've shown her love, given her everything she needs, taken care of her (as it were).....
- - -Would you still rather have a robot than the chance that the love you gave her would be requited to you?
- I already know the answer to that, so you don't have to post.

- B.T.W. - You still don't understand the origin of sin.

Skinski7 · Oct 29, 2013

RickShafer said:

by Matt Slick
Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. This is false. Pelagius denied that man needed an offsetting grace of God in order to obey.The issue between Pelagius and Augustine was "ABILITY versus INABILITY" not grace or no grace. The following quotes are from Pelagius' Commentary on the Book of Romans...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z0z1WvscKkkGr7nX-p5vj7DRYUSmhs4Csfm0aF_RsyY/edit?pli=1

And yet, despite quotes like that above, Pelagius is declared by many as a heretic who denied the grace of God as being necessary for salvation. It is a false charge. It is by the gracious mercy of God that we are forgiven and it is also by his gracious influence that we are redeemed. What Pelagius did deny was the perverted definition of grace as presented by Augustine.

Augustine had adopted the Manichaean teaching that the flesh itself was inherently sinful and thus the actual root cause of sin was the flesh body. Augustine perceived that the flesh itself had been corrupted by the sin of Adam and this corruption was in turn passed down via the male sperm. It was the Mani and his followers whom had developed this teaching from earlier Greek thought, particularly that of Plato as it had developed through the Gnostics for they taught a form of dualism. Under the dualism of Manichaeism the virtue of the soul was entrapped by the inherent corruption of the flesh and this is what suppressed a natural disposition towards virtue. They would teach that by denying the flesh one could tap into the virtue of the soul and thus asceticism was born (which influenced the later birth of the Catholic convents and monastries and the associated ascetic orders). Manichaean philosophy utterly denied that virtue was through the grace of God working THROUGH the human heart and that the flesh was merely a vessel of temptation.

Early Christianity (and Judaism) taught that the flesh was merely a source of temptation (Jam 1:14-15) and not evil in and of itself. The Gnostics on the other hand taught that the flesh was in and of itself evil. That is why they denied that Jesus came in a flesh body and therefore tried to spiritualise it and this is what John was refuting in his first letter. The Gnostics taught that sin was necessitated by the flesh body and so did Augustine and so does modern Christian theology for the most part.

Matt Slick won't reveal any of this because he is either naively ignorant or willfully ignorant because he refuses to look at it because of his emotional investment in that which he already believes. History clearly shows that Augustine introduced the notion of INABILITY into Christian orthodoxy and due to this it could be said he is the greatest and most influential false teacher of all time (Matt Slick being a latter fruit of Augustine).

In other words, a person's free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad without the aid of Divine intervention No it doesn't teach this, this is a misrepresentation of what Pelagius actually taught. Pelagius taught that humans have the full capacity to follow the lead of God if they choose to do so, he DID NOT teach that human beings could be righteous apart from God BECAUSE God is the source and standard of all righteousness. Without God men would be lost in the dark.

The issue is that God does not have to FORCEFULLY MAKE someone obey Him. Augustine taught what would later come to be known as "Irresistible Grace" (I in the TULIP of Calvinism) because he believed that man had no ability to obey God due to being born already in a wicked state and that God had predestinated some of those who would be born wicked to be saved apart from any choice they would make. Pelagianism teaches that man's nature is basically good. This is one area where I disagree with Pelagius as I believe we are born neutral having the capacity (when reasoning ability develops) to choose either good or evil. God has given all men a conscience where we know good and evil and has written his standard on the heart (which is why people feel guilty when they sin). Thus it denies original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. This is not completely true. Pelagius denied Original Sin (rightfully so) and thus denied that the CONSTITUTION of man was corrupted. He did not deny the effects of sin on the world or the curse thus it is inaccurate to claim that he taught that Adam only hurt himself. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him. Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Grace is more than merely some aid, grace is the guiding light of God and is absolutely essential. We are saved by grace THROUGH faith (abiding in grace) and not of anything we do apart from that mechanic. These people who bandy around the term Pelagius have never even read the man for themselves. They have read theologians who have read other theologians ABOUT Pelagius. If they had indeed read Pelagius they would not misrepresent him.

Pelagianism fails to understand man's nature and weakness. The "weakness" being spoke of here is "sin you will and sin you must" which in turn forces its adherents to defend ongoing rebellion to God in salvation. They utterly repudiate the purity of heart taught in the Bible. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5). Eph 2:3 says this IN CONTEXT...

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

It says NOTHING of a BIRTH NATURE. The word "nature" in the Greek is Phusis and it means GROWTH...

Nature - G5449 - phusis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Paul uses the same word when he states...

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The nature in context is the natural disposition that develops through the exercise of the will. It has nothing to do with a birth state. Sinners have developed (or grown) a natural disposition to do evil through choosing to sin. Likewise righteous people have developed a natural disposition to do good via abiding in the grace of God which teaches them how to live.

Eph 2:3 says NOTHING about being "born with a sin nature." That view is read into the text due to preconcieved subjective bias. The early church prior to Augustine taught no such thing as orthodoxy, they in fact taught the opposite.

Likewise with Psalm 51:5...

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

David does not say that "sin was born in me" rather he says that "I was born in sin" clearly in the context that his development was in an environment of sinning. He was shapen in iniquity and in sin was he conceived. The Jews never used that verse as evidence of Original Sin and in fact the Jews deny the doctrine of Original Sin to this very day. Original Sin has its origin in Greek philisophy and it was adopted into Christian orthodoxy through the prolific infuence of Augustine of Hippo in the Fourth Century.

Don't believe it? Then read the Ante-Nice Fathers for yourselves and see how Christian doctrine changed from the simplicity that was in Christ and the doctrine according to godliness to an institutional structure with its own dogma.

Ante-Nicene Father's Vol. 1-9
Ante-Nicene Fathers – VOL I – IX : HolyBooks.com – download free ebooks

Then go read Augustine.
St. Augustine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). The Latin Vulgate mistranslates Romans 5:12 where it uses the term "in quo" (in whom) instead of the Greek rendering which says "epi hos" (for that, because).

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.
propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt
Latin Vulgate Bible with Douay-Rheims and King James Version Side-by-Side+Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ

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:

Augustine was not comfortable with the Greek and thus used the Latin Vulgate for his studdies and thus when he read Rom 5:12 it aligned with his perception, which was derived from Neo Platonism and Manchaeism, that sin was a substance of the flesh itself. Augustine applied what he read in Hebrews 7:9-10...

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

to Romans 5:12 and thus deduced that all humanity was actually in the seed of Adam and thus actually sinned at the same time Adam sinned. Thus when Adam was corrupted by sin so was all humanity. To Augustine everyone human being was born corrupted by sin, already in rebellion to God and also already guilty. Thus the doctrine of "Tradicianism" (all souls preexisted in Adam/Parental Generation) was combined with the doctrine of a "Birth Sin Nature." Original Sin in Christianity Orthodoxy was born.

Romans 5:12 actually says that "death came upon all men because all have sinned." It does not say that "sin came upon all men because Adam sinned." Theologians read that into the text because they have submitted themselves uncritically to the doctrines of the theologians before them.

Furthermore, Romans 3:10-12 says, “There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” Therefore, we are unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam, contrary to what Pelagius taught. Matt Slick again isolates and rips verses out of their context in order to establish his deception and many people take it at face value.

Paul is quoting Psalm 14 in Romans 3:10 and the context is of the FOOL and the WORKERS OF INIQUITY.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
Psa 14:5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
Psa 14:6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
Psa 14:7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

The overall context of Romans 3:10-12 is this...

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
Rom 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
Rom 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Paul is making a comparison between the Jew and the Gentile is is make the case that BOTH need Jesus Christ. He is not contending for perpetual iniquity or that men are UNABLE to obey God as Matt Slick asserts.

Read the above Bible verses again and it is so clear how Matt Slick has ripped Rom 3:10-12 completely out of context so he can use it to teach the INABILITY OF MAN TO OBEY GOD.

If Satan can convince someone that they are unable to obey God and that therefore they must wait on God to magically change their desires then Satan has then bypassed REPENTANCE AND FAITH as the means by which one approaches God for reconciliation and has replaced with with a WAIT ON GOD WHILE YOU KEEP SINNING attitude where faith is redefined to be merely "trust" and grace is redefined to be a "cloak" for ongoing iniquity. Hence sinners under this delusion are compelled to "confess their sinfulness" and "trust in the finished work of the cross" (as defined by Penal Subastition) and they are left in a wretched state still in bondage to sin with a FALSE ASSURANCE that they are in fact saved. That has to be the epitome of satanic deception, no wonder the Bible refers to Satan as a roaring lion.

Beware of wolves like Matt Slick. Many like Rick above are deceived by them. Please wake up before it is too late.

God bless.

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

Skinski7 said:

No Skinski, I'm deceived by what God said to Adam(Gen.2:17), and the prophet Moses recounted in the pentatuech when he was in His presence for forty days and nights without food or water, I'm also decieved by what Paul said concerning it(Romans 5:12). Me and Paul and Moses and God and the church fathers are wrong, you and the heretic Pelagius are right.

Genesis 2:17 :[SUP] "[/SUP]but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - - - NOW......DID ADAM AND EVE PHYSICALLY DIE THAT DAY? - NO.
So Paul says - "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"

Keep recounting your pelagian heresy and I'll keep reposting the very Words of God, His prophets, and His apostles.

Skinski7 · Oct 29, 2013

RickShafer said:

I'm tired of arguing with a man who is patently wrong about the most basic theological concept of the Bible.
- The whole of God's dealings with mankind addresses this question!-(And Jesus' answer to it)
Here are two irreconcilable scriptures for the pelagian:
Genesis 2:17 :[SUP] "[/SUP]but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - - - NOW......DID ADAM AND EVE PHYSICALLY DIE THAT DAY? - NO. The death that took place was spiritual. Adam died to God that day and fell under condemnation. I have no issue with that.

James writes...

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

What happened in the garden? Eve was drawn away by her own lust and enticed and sin was brought forth...

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.

Eve chose to yield to the lusts of the flesh instead of choosing to obey God.

1Jn 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1Jn 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Eve chose the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life ABOVE God. Thus she turned from God in rebellion to serve herself. She therefore died to God. Adam then followed her example and chose to sin also.

Choosing to do this leads to bondage due to a hardness of heart and the perceived satisfaction due to the gratification of fleshly passions thus the disposition to keep on sinning grows. Hence people sell themselves into bondage through the exercise of their own will.

The problem with sinners is they are addicted to sinning. Sinners are in bondage or enslaved to sinning. The purpose of the Gospel is to redeem sinners from this enslaved state and purify them that they be zealous of doing what is right instead of being zealous of doing evil. Salvation involves a total inward transformation of the heart resultant in a PURE HEART. Pure hearts do not work iniquity and thus God can forgive the rebellion of those who have forsaken their rebellion because they have no intention to re-offend.

The false teachers deny this and preach a salvation message which leaves sinners enslaved to sin. It is an utter rejection of what the Bible teaches. They teach that salvation is a positional state as opposed to a manifest state. Thus their religion has people literally serving Satan (serving sin) whilst they profess faith in God. It is a mess.

Strip all the fluff away from all the debates and dogma and proof texts and all of that, what you end up with is the denial of HEART PURITY in SALVATION. That ought to be enough to make people take a second look. Jesus did state that the PURE IN HEART will see God. To deny heart purity in genuine salvation is one of the most foolish things an individual can do because they set themselves up for strong delusion.
So Paul says - "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" Because ALL sinned. Death came upon all men because ALL sinned. Not because Adam sinned, no. Our own spiritual death is because WE sinned. Sin cuts one off from a right relationship with God and thus there must be a reconciliation. There can be no reconciliation whilst one keeps on sinning against God. The sin has to stop and the Gospel is the MEANS by which the sin stop through the CROSS where we DIE WITH CHRIST and are SET FREE FROM SERVING SIN.Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

It states it right there in the Bible. It is very simple. We are set free by obeying FROM THE HEART that form of doctrine that was delivered.

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.

In being set free from sin we become servants of righteousness. We are raised up with Jesus Christ unto newness of life where ALL THINGS become new. There is nothing positional about it. It is an actual MANIFEST reality for the true believer. That is why the early Church in the patristic era turned the world upside down, people were really being delivered from sin and being made pure. It was real and they knew it. They KNEW Christ and Christ KNEW them and they walked according to all His teachings. They were willing to be put to death for what they knew because it was a REALITY.

What is going on today has almost nothing in common to what was going in then. False doctrines have been introduced which negate the Gospel and thus negate the inward transformation. People might have an emotional transformation but they keep serving sin. Not only do they keep serving sin they defend ongoing sin as being due to some "sinful nature" they were born with. Thus personal responsibility and obedience to God is thrown right out the window. The people worship and IMAGE of Jesus, an IMAGE which speaks the language of the dragon whose ministers APPEAR as agents of righteousness. The Bible warns over and over all over the place about this MASSIVE DECEPTION which would FOOL THE WORLD.

Honestly,.......argue with the God on Mount Sinai that dictated that genesis account to Moses, and the least of the apostles(Paul).

I don't have any issue with any of those scriptures. It is all very clear to me.

Think carefully.

Skinski7 · Oct 29, 2013

Think about it. Most modern theology teaches that you can sin and not surely die and it also teaches that you cannot obey God.

It is dressed up in the perception of "sin you will and sin you must."

Isn't that true? Don't many in fact teach that "sin is inevitable" even though Jesus said "go and sin no more."

"Sin you will and sin you must" is the OPPOSITE of "go and sin no more."

Why do we so easily throw reason out the window? None of this is hard to understand.

"Sin no more" means "stop sinning." Jesus Himself said that. Was Jesus playing a trick? Was Jesus telling the man he healed to do something that was impossible because the man was BORN with a SIN NATURE?

Skinski7 · Oct 29, 2013

The Pharisees were the religious authorities of the time of Jesus. Yet they rejected the plain and obvious truth. They spoke evil against Jesus.

Why is it any surprise that it is any different 2000 years later? The modern Pharisees are the celebrity theologians who deny the doctrine of Jesus and twist Paul to substantiate their dogma.

Jesus said "go and sin no more" and they respond with "you can't."

Jesus said "blessed be the pure in heart for they shall see God" and "cleanse first that which is within that the outside be clean also" and they respond with "there is none righteous not one" EVEN THOUGH the Bible speaks of righteous people who were following God.

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Yet people don't believe it. They teach perpetual iniquity and ongoing sinning due to the flesh.

It just blows my mind and frustrates me to no end to see how stubborn people are in refusing to believe the plain words of Jesus Himself. It is so unbelievably sad. God has his hand out to people to come to Him and be reconciled and people refuse to come because they have bought into some tickling ears philosophical dogma which directly contradicts Jesus. It is so horrible and upsetting.

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

Your problem is that you don't trust the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost.
You think that if people recognize that they cannot save themselves they will sin that grace abounds.
- This is a false assumption.
First, you are placing the onus on the sinner to 'get right', instead of the Holy Spirit conforming them to the image of the Son.
- This willing act of derision you cling to.
The whole of the scriptures disagree with you.
For instance, I John 2:15-17 is not a salvific point. It is a sanctification truth.
Those who are chosen will not love the world, yet it is not them not loving the world, it is the Holy Spirit which sets them apart as a royal priesthood(which the world despises).
- You make it a rule as if those who love the world might be saved.
The whole point of the atonement is that any good that is in the redeemed comes from the Father.
You, (like a lawyer, or a pharisee), automatically impose conditions on the work of grace. (As if it is the energy of man).
- You are so much like the pharisees in your thinking.
- - The James quote proves my point, that every man is tempted. How might that be? Because we are from the same stock as Adam.
Now according to I Cor. 1:30 Jesus is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.
- Yet you say those whom the Father has given Him....some will be lost.
What did the savior say?
- - You miss the principles of the gospel because you focus on yourself- (Or like the pharisees...on other people).
- - -Listen, compared to God's holiness all of your works are but filthy rags.
- - - Unless you think the redeemed are partially saved?
So we can have wisdom unto righteousness(salvation), yet not be sanctified? Read what Jesus said.

RickShafer · Oct 29, 2013

What did Jesus say concerning those that the Father had given Him?[SUP]
12 [/SUP]While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:12)

How could none of them be lost? Who was Jesus addressing? What was the subject?
- THOSE WHOM THE FATHER GAVE HIM.
- - And Jesus sent The Comforter. (As listed in the same chapter)
- - - Why did Jesus send the Holy Spirit? Read it. Who would it reprove of sin? Who would it judge?
Would It reproof and judge the elect or the world? (Read it)

You assume we who depend on the grace of God are sinning so it(grace) will abound. - You are dead wrong.

homwardbound · Oct 31, 2013

tdrew777 said:

Good questions. I will begin to answer, and continue later if the exercise seems profitable.
First, note that your questions are not confined to theology, but also delve into philosophy. The bible never proves the existence of God - it assumes his existence. Therefore, arguments to prove the existence of God are not theological proofs, they are philosophical proofs. You are into philosophy when you ask why God created some people who would not be saved. The bible says that he does it without saying why. This leaves that question opened to philosophical speculation - and I'll get around to sharing my two cents, if you remember that what the bible says is one thing - infallible - and my two cents are quite something else..
Theology: We are born with bad character. By prolonging the life of Adam after the fall enough to allow offspring, God allowed that his offspring would be born with bad character, not of their own choosing. Natural man has free choice only in that he can choose how he manifests rebellion to God. Natural wants to live apart from God (as Adam did he rejected God's counsel to try to obtain what he saw as a good thing - knowledge of good and evil. He was not trying to do what was evil in his own sight - kill his wife, or abuse the animals or plants). He wants to be good, but does not want "God" telling him what good is. God loves man - in spite of all this. God had planned, from the foundation of the world, to provide an atonement for sin. Not for sins (just my part, or just your part), but for sin - the whole tangled mess from day one to the end of history.

My Philosophy: One sin has a role in causing the next sin. Dad's abuse causes (does not determine, but is a causative factor) the son's drunkenness. God forgave the whole mess without untangling it into "your part" and "my part"

Theology: The atonement is sufficient for all. We dare not fail to forgive another - otherwise the whole mess of our own sin is put back on the table. Those who exercise the gift of faith to trust in the atonement receive a new, regenerated character. The true Christian suffers an internal war where the old fleshly desires go contrary to the will of God at every point. He has to choose between his old nature that can not please God and his new nature that can not sin, moment by moment. He cannot choose "once for all". Notice that when exercising the old nature AND when exercising the new nature, man exercises free will choice, in the sense that there is no outward compulsion - all the options are on the table. God causes his sun to rise on the good and the evil and sends his rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

By the blood of Jesus, the Holy Spirit offers man, in rebellion, a new character. If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature. The old has passed away and all things are made new. Men may refuse that offer - they are free to try to reform their own character apart from the counsel of God. Sin has been forgiven, yet some still arrive at the judgement seat with a corrupt character. God will judge those who "arrive at the wedding feast but don't have wedding clothes" - those who are invited to the kingdom of heaven, but come with a corrupt character. They will shake their fists at God from hell and say, "I WAS BORN THIS WAY (correct), so THIS IS ALL GOD's FAULT (incorrect).

Those who have lived with a new, regenerated character will find that character dominant. The entire old character will pass away, but they themselves will survive. There are some, whose works were mostly done through their old nature, who will survive but as though through fire. Others, who did works through the regenerated nature while on earth, will find that their works have eternal reward.

History is not focused on man. Those who pursue happiness will not obtain it. Those who are engulfed in the glory of God will find happiness. History is focused on God. Each man does NOT come into the world with a neutral slate (as man-centered justice would demand). It is the glory of God in the center of history, not the decisions of man.

2-cent Philosophy: Why did God set things up this way? He wanted to show love. Show it to man and show it off to the angels. Love HAS TO BE VIOLATED in order to be shown to be true love. Even evil people love those who love them. God so loved the world. He went beyond forgiving sins to forgiving sin - the entire mess. Yet, He will be, in the end, rejected by many. And he did not force a regenerated character on anyone.

If you love your birth character, you will keep trying to polish it up, to show what a great man you really are. But the pressures of life will show the warts - not just on the surface, but at the core. May the Holy Spirit, then, convict you of sin. Not just of your "sins" but of sin itself. So much of what passes for "noble desires" is rebellion against fellowship with our loving God, who would direct us right if we would let him. Man is determined to find "good" - without Him.

Those who flew the planes into the twin towers believed they were doing an incredibly noble, good work.

Awesomely put, Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to me, thank you, so very true

homwardbound · Oct 31, 2013

Skinski7 said:

only by the regenerated Spirit of God placed in us by God through the death, burial, resurrection and ascension can and does one walk sinless, and not of self, of trusting God and living daily in the Spirit of God by reckoning self dead to self,
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous

Everyone that believes are in a growth period, learning to understand
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit

So God is working with everyone as being perfect from God for those that are seeking the truth, in God and come to the understanding, it is all God and none of self, except to trust God 100% of the time as Christ showed us here on earth.
Christ was 100% of the time dead to his self and alive to God, all the way to the cross and suffered the most punishment anyone else ever would. when he never once had to do this for himself, being perfect.
It is through his death and resurrection, that one receives new life in God, has nothing to do with what "I" do or don't do. except whether I believe God or not.
I can take no personal claim to doing what is right ever. I can only in truth participate, not imitate in God's righteousness, seeing how God is the only one good.
Thanks

Some questions about atonement and salvation

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

eternally-gratefull

Guest

eternally-gratefull

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member