Concupiscence - Sexual desire - of the Lord or original sin

[Skinski7]

He's the same with sex as with the charismatic movement. There is a lot of bad stuff so it's all bad.
They just don't believe the sin nature died with Christ. But holiness preachers aren't they Arminian too? They do believe that.

Yes, most holiness preachers are Arminian. They are in error.

We have communicated with many pastors, both Reformed and Arminian, and they all contend a "saved IN sins" message.

Their theology is all rooted in "inability" and thus they are forced to adopt the notion of grace being an offset.

The Reformed theologians teach "Common Grace" and "Irresistible Grace" whilst the Holiness side teach "Prevenient Grace." It is all rooted in the Augustinian teaching of inability.

Thus whilst it may seem that a holiness preacher is contending for righteousness, if you examining them closer they are contending for a sin/repent/sin/repent/sin/repent cycle and entering the kingdom is dependent on what side of the cycle you are on when you die. The Reformers on the other hand teach unconditional eternal security where nothing you do matters. Yet BOTH teach that the sin never actually stops because BOTH believe in a residual depravity remaining in the soul AFTER salvation.

It is a very clever ruse. We are presented with a paradigm in which both sides are in error and people tend to gravitate to one side of the paradigm and thus oppose the other side, NEVER REALISING that they are in fact in the trap of an artificial paradigm which serves to LIMIT their thinking.

People underestimate Satan.

 

[coby]

Whats that got to do with Skinski making a fool of himself? Context is key for understanding any quote..

So what?
MacArthur says that if you kill yourself you go to heaven. That's false grace and dangerous.

JOHN MACARTHUR UNSCRIPTURAL Grace To You

 

[coby]

Yes, most holiness preachers are Arminian. They are in error.

We have communicated with many pastors, both Reformed and Arminian, and they all contend a "saved IN sins" message.

Their theology is all rooted in "inability" and thus they are forced to adopt the notion of grace being an offset.

The Reformed theologians teach "Common Grace" and "Irresistible Grace" whilst the Holiness side teach "Prevenient Grace." It is all rooted in the Augustinian teaching of inability.

Thus whilst it may seem that a holiness preacher is contending for righteousness, if you examining them closer they are contending for a sin/repent/sin/repent/sin/repent cycle and entering the kingdom is dependent on what side of the cycle you are on when you die. The Reformers on the other hand teach unconditional eternal security where nothing you do matters. Yet BOTH teach that the sin never actually stops because BOTH believe in a residual depravity remaining in the soul AFTER salvation.

It is a very clever ruse. We are presented with a paradigm in which both sides are in error and people tend to gravitate to one side of the paradigm and thus oppose the other side, NEVER REALISING that they are in fact in the trap of an artificial paradigm which serves to LIMIT their thinking.

People underestimate Satan.

Oh, Thorben teaches freedom from sin and there are more.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Fo3BN1m7M

 

[phil36]

So what?
MacArthur says that if you kill yourself you go to heaven. That's false grace and dangerous.

JOHN MACARTHUR UNSCRIPTURAL Grace To You

I wasn't standing u for Macarthur, I was just saying that the quote was misquoted..in other words you where lead to believe it meant something it did not mean.

Oh, and as for the question of suicide, let me ask you this, if you where to be kiled right this minute(I pray not) would you have unforgiven sins?

BTW, I don't agree with all that Macarthur says either as in I am not a dispensationalist. However, when it comes to the gospel the man is spot on. Put it this way, you would be better listening to him than sitting on your computer agreeing with pelagian heretics.

 

[Skinski7]

Oh, Thorben teaches freedom from sin and there are more.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Fo3BN1m7M

That was an interesting video. He is confused though because he is is associating water baptism with dying to sin. Romans 6 is speaking of the baptism of repentance of which water baptism is only a symbol.

Real repentance produces this...

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.

The old man has to die once and for all from which we are able to WHOLEHEARTEDLY YIELD TO GOD (faith) and ONLY THEN can regeneration occur. The heart MUST be circumcised in repentance or it never will be circumcised.

The old man dies via...

2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

By connecting "water baptism" with the "death of the old man" we basically shift the focus from a true spiritual change to a mere carnal change. That focus is wrong which is why the man in the video relates his 2005 experience as a form of Christianity which became more real 6 years later. The truth would be that his experience 6 years later is reflective of a true repentance whilst previously he had never actually repented, he had only been under conviction. The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is given those whom obey God, not the disobedient, thus his claim to have recieved the Holy Ghost whilst still in rebellion is erroneous.

I can sympathise though, so please don't feel like I am condemning the man, we are surrounded with so much error than it can take quite a long period of time to escape the influence it has had on our minds. God is gracious and merciful and gives us that time. They key though is to experience a real salvation experience where the bondage to sin has actually been broken once and for all whereby we abide in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ and thus have victory over the world.

I think I will write Torben. I would like to speak with him.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That was an interesting video. He is confused though because he is is associating water baptism with dying to sin. Romans 6 is speaking of the baptism of repentance of which water baptism is only a symbol.

John's water baptism was unto repentance; water baptism in the name of Jesus was unto forgiveness of sins. So yes, water baptism in the name of Jesus is death to sin.

 

[Skinski7]

John's water baptism was unto repentance; water baptism in the name of Jesus was unto forgiveness of sins. So yes, water baptism in the name of Jesus is death to sin.

That is because water baptism in the name of Jesus is reflective of being raised up by the power of God unto newness of life.

Jesus baptises us with fire. Yet that does not mean the literal ordinance of water baptism has anything to do with it, it is just an illustration. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost BEFORE he was water baptised which demonstrated to the Jewish Christians that the New Covenant is set apart from the carnal and thus applies to all people everywhere, not blood lines, rituals or rules and regulations. The New Covenant is of the heart and we enter into it through repentance and faith (the new and living way) via the blood and thus abide in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ having been washed of our past sins.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That is because water baptism in the name of Jesus is reflective of being raised up by the power of God unto newness of life.

Jesus baptises us with fire. Yet that does not mean the literal ordinance of water baptism has anything to do with it, it is just an illustration. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost BEFORE he was water baptised which demonstrated to the Jewish Christians that the New Covenant is set apart from the carnal and thus applies to all people everywhere, not blood lines, rituals or rules and regulations. The New Covenant is of the heart and we enter into it through repentance and faith (the new and living way) via the blood and thus abide in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ having been washed of our past sins.

No he doesn't. He baptizes unbelievers with fire, and baptizes believers with the holy spirit. We had this discussion just recently. This error of thinking that believers are baptized in fire is partly responsible for the Pentecostal movement IMO.

John was talking to the heads of Israel (pharisees) telling them that Jesus was coming, who would baptize Israel with spirit and fire. Read the context of John's statement about fire in Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17 to see who the baptism of fire is directed towards. Believers may go through fiery trials if necessary, but they don't last. Baptism of fire is for unbelievers who are burned in the unquenchable fires of judgment. Do a scripture study on fire and see if a baptism of fire is something that awaits the godly, or the ungodly.

Cornelius received the spirit first, but Peter also ordered water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The inverted sequence may have been GOD's way of convincing a very skeptical Peter to offer water baptism to gentiles. It was the authority on earth to forgive sins. Baptism in water is into death, not life. Coming out of the water signifies newness of life.

 

[Skinski7]

No he doesn't. He baptizes unbelievers with fire, and baptizes believers with the holy spirit. We had this discussion just recently. This error of thinking that believers are baptized in fire is partly responsible for the Pentecostal movement IMO.

John was talking to the heads of Israel (pharisees) telling them that Jesus was coming, who would baptize Israel with spirit and fire. Read the context of John's statement about fire in Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17 to see who the baptism of fire is directed towards. Believers may go through fiery trials if necessary, but they don't last. Baptism of fire is for unbelievers who are burned in the unquenchable fires of judgment. Do a scripture study on fire and see if a baptism of fire is something that awaits the godly, or the ungodly.

Cornelius received the spirit first, but Peter also ordered water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The inverted sequence may have been GOD's way of convincing a very skeptical Peter to offer water baptism to gentiles. It was the authority on earth to forgive sins. Baptism in water is into death, not life. Coming out of the water signifies newness of life.

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

That is a very interesting observation. I never thought about it like that before.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That was an interesting video. He is confused though because he is is associating water baptism with dying to sin. Romans 6 is speaking of the baptism of repentance of which water baptism is only a symbol.

I'm starting to wonder if water baptism is the authority on earth to forgive sins. It is written that Jesus said he would build his church on Peter; and though it doesn't say so explicitly, Peter may have been given the authority to loosen people from their sins through water baptism.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it! I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will be released in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19​

On the day of Pentecost, he exercised this authority to authorize the forgiveness of Israel's sins through water baptism in Christ's name.

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

So those who accepted his message were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added. Acts 2:41​

From that point on, many people in the church baptized others in Christ's name for the forgiveness of sins. Peter opened the door, but it was not his authority to exercise exclusively.

Then as head of the church on earth, Peter was sent to the gentiles to open the door of salvation to them. Again, he authorized that they be baptized in the name of Jesus for forgiveness of sins.

Surely no one can withhold the water for these [people] to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did!” So he ordered [that] they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days. Acts 10:47-48​

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

That is a very interesting observation. I never thought about it like that before.

I didn't either until a few days ago. It's amazing to me what this place brings to my mind.

 

[phil112]

I didn't either until a few days ago. It's amazing to me what this place brings to my mind.

It's not so much this place, as it is that the more we dwell on the word the more it is revealed to us. That is why I exhort folks to read daily. And yes, fellowship and discussion helps.
"As iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend".

 

[coby]

I wasn't standing u for Macarthur, I was just saying that the quote was misquoted..in other words you where lead to believe it meant something it did not mean.

Oh, and as for the question of suicide, let me ask you this, if you where to be kiled right this minute(I pray not) would you have unforgiven sins?

BTW, I don't agree with all that Macarthur says either as in I am not a dispensationalist. However, when it comes to the gospel the man is spot on. Put it this way, you would be better listening to him than sitting on your computer agreeing with pelagian heretics.

Better listen to Thorben and pray and get the harvest in.
At this minute no, I ask forgiveness preferably immediately if I sinned and ask the Holy Spirit to help me. He doesn't even preach that the Holy Spirit can keep you from falling and He doesn't just let someone die in sins. He knocks and knocks and keeps convicting but doesn't wait an eternity. Paul wasn't perfect yet, he hadn't attained it. But he didn't kill the saints anymore or hate them.
Suicide is a willful sin. It's murder. Murderers are in darkness, they aren't even saved. If they're lucky they repent in the last moment. I tried this one out myself and God told me to stop taking the rest of the pills, call for help otherwise the sinner's prayer was not sincere and I would be a hypocrit and not go to heaven. Calvin who made this doctrin up killed Servettus. If he never repented of that he isn't even in heaven. Why do people not listen to some preacher who has glory clouds and angel feathers and lives in adultery, yet when someone hates and kills and in that time comes up with a doctrin they just believe it. Look at the fruit. Paul warns that you don't inherit the Kingdom if you do certain sins. Some christians are in hell because they kept refusing to forgive someone. People saw it and it's in the Bible.
The only One who can keep you from sinning is the Holy Spirit, but MacArthur keeps people from getting baptized in the Spirit.

 

[coby]

John 16

These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble.2*They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.3*And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me.*4*But these things I have told you, that when the *time comes, you may remember that I told you of them.

 

[mrdesire]

God created eve out of Adams rib.
A husband and wife become one flesh
Out of this loving relationship are families born and gain an identity.

It appears though Augustine and Calvanistic theology believes sexual desire is a symbol of original sin.

Now I have heard hints of such an idea. The idea is the fruit of the tree is lust.

The problem I have with this idea, is we are sexual beings. Our whole being, our characters, our nature, our way of expressing ourselves are based on sexual identity, male and female. It leads to romantic love, appreciation of family, parents, children. If this is sin, then the whole of life and existance is sin.

On the other side if this is God created to bring life and existance into the world, it is something beautiful and precious, that needs an appropriate place in marriage, and family, but this would make such condemnation of desire or attraction as original sin as heresy.

The tension is very real, because I cannot walk in righteousness if the very being that I am is unable to be free from this desire unless this desire is a gift of God. So it matters, to walking with the Lord in purity and holiness, else these words are lies.

So what is your opinion on this subject, as it is new to me as a proposition.

Unfortunately MacArthur is very much in the camp of it is original sin.

Yep misused their desire, but desire is the key to the heart of God.

 

[Dan58]

I owe my life to sexual desire.. None of us would here without it.. Sexual desires aren't sin, but like anything else, being overwhelm or controlled by natural instinct can lead to sin.

 

[sondra333]

Hello PeterJens,
I have a lot of questions in regards to this subject because i understand that Eve was created with what was taken out of Adam (rib) which tells me that for some reasoning Adam had the potential to be either male God created him or the female that was created by taken out his rib...which i could reason this as well for if i remember correctly it is men that decides the sex of a baby...and it would also explain hermorphidites. Something that i have a hard time reasoning is that the majority proclaim that for the eternal or (eternity) there shall not be any male or female and no need for sexual desires which i am assumming love making since we are talking about brethren, and yet in the same breath they will state that for this speck if you will or grain of sand in the eternity scheme of the matter God gave us marriage although His Son stated that again for all eternity there will be no marriage we will be given to each other like the angels in heaven....and who could not see a God as Allmighty as ours creating a world for just two, (Adam, and Eve) for i noticed that although God with His higher ways put into words what Adam was saying ... this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man....and God put Adams words into marriage which was to say: Therefore shall man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his WIFE; and THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH. Now although they were married here i noticed that Adam didn't know Eve until after the fall....So i believe our Heavenly Father gave adam what he wanted which was not what He intended according to the Lord, (speck....all of eternity) and why did adam not know Eve until after the fall? Again speck...lovemaking, intercourse, desire or as the majority say all of eternity NO lovemaking, intercourse, or desire....God knows either way and was prepared for it.

 

[TMS]

It appears though Augustine and Calvanistic theology believes sexual desire is a symbol of original sin.

Now I have heard hints of such an idea. The idea is the fruit of the tree is lust.

The problem I have with this idea, is we are sexual beings. Our whole being, our characters, our nature, our way of expressing ourselves are based on sexual identity, male and female. It leads to romantic love, appreciation of family, parents, children. If this is sin, then the whole of life and existance is sin.

On the other side if this is God created to bring life and existance into the world, it is something beautiful and precious, that needs an appropriate place in marriage, and family, but this would make such condemnation of desire or attraction as original sin as heresy.

The tension is very real, because I cannot walk in righteousness if the very being that I am is unable to be free from this desire unless this desire is a gift of God. So it matters, to walking with the Lord in purity and holiness, else these words are lies.

So what is your opinion on this subject, as it is new to me as a proposition.

Unfortunately MacArthur is very much in the camp of it is original sin.

I believe God gave us desires, feelings, and Emotions and these are all part of what we are. But i believe these things should always be secondary to the higher nature, (mental, conscious, spiritual thought,). When i feel sexual feelings arise in me, i need to choose what i will do with this, and that depends on the circumstances. If it's my wife (right time and right place) than i can let them go. If it's someone else's wife and i know it's wrong, than i can choose to put those thoughts out of my mind and do what i can to forget about it, (Die to self), (get behind me Satan).
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

 

[Kaycie]

Sex is not sinful. But perverting the way God meant sex to be is sinful. But because there is only one right way, and most ways are wrong, some say all sex is wrong. This is not true. God made sex. Matter of fact, God commanded sex. He told Adam and Eve to go be fruitful and fill the earth with people. Did they say they were too shy, or that it felt wrong? No- and they knew right from wrong, and they did the right thing, obeyed God, and filled the earth.

Of course some things need to be done in private, but just because it's private does not mean it's wrong. Is going to the restroom wrong? Taking a shower? Of course not. Sex the way God intended it is not wrong, but perverting it is wrong. He made one key to one keyhole- not two keys, not two keyholes, not any other combination.

When BOTH of them ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they did not know only one evil called lust, there are many other forms of evil. Mankind comes up with these thoughts in their heads, and then start teaching it as doctrine. Ridiculous.