The Absurdity of ‘Born a Sinner’

[tribesman]

i guess so.
best case scenario our free-will friends have forgotten their former state.

i'll be a good Lutheran now....coffee & donut, t-man?

Nah...caffeinated drinks are too late for me now...I will go for some verbena herbal tea...the snack will probably be quaker's(!) oat cookies. Had a blueberry cheese donut yesterday at DD...terrible experience lol.

 

[zone]

I won't say I was 'good' clearly none of us are, but I believed and accepted Jesus Christ into my life which was the plan of salvation and all those who follow the Lord are predestined to spend eternity with Him.

The trouble is, as every Calvinist will point out is that due to the depravity of man few will make that choice.

you'll have something to boast about then.

this false humility is a nice touch though:

"I won't say I was 'good' clearly none of us are"

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 Corinthians 1
28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus

 

[zone]

Nah...caffeinated drinks are too late for me now...I will go for some verbena herbal tea...the snack will probably be quaker's(!) oat cookies. Had a blueberry cheese donut yesterday at DD...terrible experience lol.

what is it with those awful hats?

 

[PS]

you'll have something to boast about then.

this false humility is a nice touch though:

"I won't say I was 'good' clearly none of us are"

1 John 4:10
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 Corinthians 1
28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus
30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus

How come I have something to boast about. Clearly it is all down to the Jesus which tribesman confirmed when he spoke about the finished work.

I do have something to 'Rejoice' about though.

 

[psychomom]

what is it with those awful hats?

*ellie reluctantly puts (formerly) cool hat
in yard sale pile*

but I looked so good in it!

 

[progressivenerdgirl]

what this always comes down to, verbally, is "i am not a robot"..."God did not create me as an automaton"..."God doesn't force anyone to do anything"

if we can't come up with anything more substantial than that, i don't see how this can really proceed beyond idolatry.

why can't we examine ALL the passages?

The actual 'objection' of the Free Willers is ridiculous. They can not or will not recognize a distinction between intentionality and freedom. People have will - they intend to do things, they have goals, they have emotions. But who do you think made your muscles, bones, sinews and soul? What do you think it is in you that makes you WANT things, like things, hate things? Obviously it is the makeup of your being; your body, mind and spirit determine your actions by determining your capacities and desires. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't entail they could have wanted something else.

All Biblical arguments aside, 'free will' isn't even meaningful. It's just words strung together in a category error. It's like saying, "I slept very slowly." Abuse of language.

 

[unclefester]

right.
you were good and chose God by your clear freewill, but your neighbor who also has clear freewill decided to spend eternity in the fire.

do you have a ring for me to kiss?

I am so thankful for Saul of Tarsus, the twelve apostles , Jonah, Moses, all the prophets of old etc. etc. If it weren't for them choosing God, we wouldn't have God's written and divinely inspired Word to read and light our paths. All praise and glory goes to those before us that chose God

 

[Blain]

Holy crap! wasn't this thread started just a few days ago? it has over one thousand views and a hundred and forty six responcesXD

 

[progressivenerdgirl]

Holy crap! wasn't this thread started just a few days ago? it has over one thousand views and a hundred and forty six responcesXD

Telling Catholics or Calvinists that there's no original sin is like setting a match in gunpowder! We're lucky nobody lost an arm!

 

[superdave5221]

The actual 'objection' of the Free Willers is ridiculous. They can not or will not recognize a distinction between intentionality and freedom. People have will - they intend to do things, they have goals, they have emotions. But who do you think made your muscles, bones, sinews and soul? What do you think it is in you that makes you WANT things, like things, hate things? Obviously it is the makeup of your being; your body, mind and spirit determine your actions by determining your capacities and desires. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't entail they could have wanted something else.

All Biblical arguments aside, 'free will' isn't even meaningful. It's just words strung together in a category error. It's like saying, "I slept very slowly." Abuse of language.

I am so glad that you are here. Since you obviously have all of the answers, perhaps you could answer a few questions.

To start with, does God make us repent?

Luke 13: 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

But Peter says that the Lord wants EVERYONE to come to repentance!

2 Peter 3: 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

In fact, Jesus has this to say:

Luke 15: 7I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

So, someone of your obvious intelligence should be able to answer the following question for me.

Premise one: God wants all people to be saved, (2 Peter 3:9),

Premise two: NOTHING is required from us, (not even a choice)

Conclusion: Then all people should repent and be saved.

Is the Conclusion true? Are ALL people saved? If not, then one of the premises is false. So which of the above premises, (or possibly both) is false?

 

[Skinski7]

hi Scott:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/54391-origins-contrite-heart-5.html#post877731 < click #95

i had not seen this reply, though i did attempt to keep searching to see if you answered. thanks for answering.

i'll be taking some time to weigh your claims and remarks, and will do my best to remain objective and follow the sequence of events in the life of our hypothetical man, who is just you.

you've provided some names of teachers, and a few details of your life as you stumbled about (i guess that's appropriate to say (?) since you appear to be certain now that you were never saved at all until a year or so ago, had apparently been delivered from your own egypt, but hadn't actually been saved).

i'm going to study your posts and be careful in my reply(s). but at this moment, it appears you believe that it was faulty doctrine which led you to be double-minded and pretend you were saved while not being saved...and that upon discovering the true doctrine of salvation, you were then set free from 'bondage' to your lusts.

this is a hollow and deceptive assertion, since you claim there's no such thing as bondage. there's no such thing as a sin nature, and no reason whatsoever for a man to sin, ever. that all sin is conscious, willful rebellion against God, whether redeemed or not redeemed. and that it is sin after salvation which damns a man < (your contradictions are carefully crafted to cover your own trail, and cover your own indulgence and lack of responsibility for your own actions...it lets you off the hook for your own failings, and places the blame on others).

this is my summary just at this time. no need to reply now, i'll post later, combining both your answers...most likely in this thread, if that's okay with you.

if you have some other idea on how to proceed, let me know.

zone.

No it was not faulty doctrine which led me to be double-minded. It was my willful rebellion to God and refusal to yield to His commands. Faulty doctrine only gave me a rational or excuse to continue in my rebellion.

You make these assertions about me...

this is a hollow and deceptive assertion, since you claim there's no such thing as bondage No i do not claim that and you know it. I have written extensively about the bondage that sin produces. For you to state that I claim there is no such thing as bondage means you do not read my writings but rather skip through them trying to find a point of accusation.

God designed human beings to be addicted to God. This is why we are to constantly renew our minds and it is why our mortal bodies are actually quickened.

Sin is a substitute for this and over a period of time the action of sinning hard-wires itself into a human being. The human brain literally forms pathways and dependency in induced via a reward system which becomes established through the release of the so called "pleasure chemicals" like dopamine. This is why physical drugs like Cocaine and hobbies like Pornography are so addictive. The sinner falls into extreme bondage a the natural disposition to sin increases.

there's no such thing as a sin nature, No I do not claim there is no such thing as a sin nature, and again, if you actually read what I write you would clearly see this is so. I deny that you are BORN A SINNER.

The Bible teaches that you are born subject to the passions and desires of the flesh and it is these passions and desires that draw people into sin. These passions and desires ARE NOT a sin nature. Jesus Christ was made a man and was subject to the passions and desires of the flesh EXACTLY like us.

Sin is rooted in the free will choice and not in a nature you were born with. If the causation of sin is rooted in your birth nature then sinning is not your fault and you are not responsible for your conduct because it was conducted due to necessity.

The Reformed Tradition teaches that human beings sin by necessity.

Here is Chapter 6 from the Westminster Confession which sums up the Reformed position...

Chapter VI

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

I completely oppose the above. Babies ARE NOT born guilty and condemned. Adam's sin is not passed down to babies. Sin is a choice, it is not some kind of substance or non-substance which can be passed down via seminal means nor does God impute sin to the soul at conception. That is nonsense.

True Christian's DO NOT have some remaining original corruption which was passed down from Adam. A Christian has the natural passions and desires of their flesh WHICH THEY HAVE CRUCIFIED.

The passions and desires of the flesh (or concupiscence) IS NOT SIN nor a SIN NATURE.

The Westminster Confession is LYING and teaching the opposite of what the Bible teaches. The doctrine of Total Depravity is rooted in Augustinian Theology and Augustine misapplied Romans 5:12 and Hebrews 7:10-11 to prove his doctrine.

I am not blowing smoke here. Anyone can look these things up.

Augustine read "IN WHOM ALL HAVE SINNED" from the Latin Vulgate (Rom 5:12) and concluded that all of mankind was present inside the loins of Adam and saw Heb 7:10-11 as further evidence of this. Thus he concluded that all human beings were guilty of the sin of Adam because they all actually sinned with him and that when Adam was corrupted they too were corrupted. Thus all people are born guilty and condemned already and are stained with Original Sin. This is why Augustine believed in Infant Baptism as absolutely mandatory to wash away this Original Sin.

Augustine was a deceived heretic. He had been a Gnostic philosopher for many years and he adopted his gnostic world view to Romanism and was able to influence the Roman Church into accepting "being born a sinner."

Zone if you are going to oppose what I write at least be honest and oppose what I actually write, don't assert a false position and oppose that. If you claim to be about the truth then be truthful.

and no reason whatsoever for a man to sin, ever. Another false assertion. I have never claimed any such thing. The REASON that men sin is because they are drawn into sin by the natural passions and desires of the flesh. These passions and desires are very powerful and the urge to gratify them, even in opposition to the light of conscience, is very powerful.

Babies are born in an ignorant state subject to the passions of the flesh. They develop yielding to their passions and thus when the come of an age where they the capacity to reason right from wrong they have already developed a pattern of walking in the flesh. They also do not have an understanding of the consequences of sin because they are not righteous, they are neutral. Thus the choice to willfully sin is a very easy option indeed. Is it any wonder everyone chooses to sin? Not at all.

The sin that brings condemnation is willful sin. It is transgression, doing wrong when you know to do right. Young babies cannot do this and thus they cannot sin and they are not guilty and condemned. I oppose any insinuation they babies born guilty and condemned, that is heresy.

that all sin is conscious, willful rebellion against God, Yet again you make another false assertion. Do you deliberately twist my words or are you careless and doing it in ignorance? All unrighteousness is sin but there is sin unto death and sin not unto death (1Jn 5:16-17). Sin unto death involves a YIELDING IN DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD (Rom 6:16). It is the REBELLION that has ceased in a Christian, the perfecting of the Saints is for the purging of any bad habits, false understandings, ignorance which causes a Christian to sin unwittingly. A Christian has an advocate for non-presumptuous sin but they do not have an advocate for ongoing willful rebellion. No sacrifice remains for ongoing willful rebellion (Heb 10:26-29), the blood only cleanses if one is walking in the light as He is in the light (1Jn 1:7) and there is no way an individual walking in flagrant disobedience to God is WALKING in the light.


whether redeemed or not redeemed. and that it is sin after salvation which damns a man < (your contradictions are carefully crafted to cover your own trail, and cover your own indulgence and lack of responsibility for your own actions...it lets you off the hook for your own failings, and places the blame on others. You have issue with me teaching that the REBELLION CEASES. You obviously cling to a gospel which COVERS ONGOING REBELLION and thus I am a heretic to that kind of gospel.

If you are going to discuss things with me at least be honest in representing what I say truthfully. Otherwsie you are acting exactly like Eternally Grateful who twists my words into Fictions and then proceeds to take issue with the Fictions.

Please explain to me how an individual can be WALKING in the light and be in rebellion at the very same time?

Please explain to me how one can yield to sin (Rom 6:16) and yet be saved from sin at the same time?

Original Sin necessitates salvation be taught as an abstract provision which judicially cloaks the ongoing rebellious state of the professing Christian.

 

[progressivenerdgirl]

Why are those passages supposed to be difficult? Of course you are called to repent. You just can't do it without the grace of God upon you. You can't will yourself to repent unless God is dragging you along.

Pre-Grace: Constitutionally incapable of repenting or showing obedience to God. Dead in sin.
Post-Grace: Changed by the power of the spirit and reborn in Christ, and his strength changes our will. Then so shall we repent.

And believe me, if I had all the answers I would hardly be here. I have not nearly the patience our Lord had to suffer fools gladly, being a fool myself. Thank God for Jesus

 

[superdave5221]

Why are those passages supposed to be difficult? Of course you are called to repent. You just can't do it without the grace of God upon you. You can't will yourself to repent unless God is dragging you along.

Pre-Grace: Constitutionally incapable of repenting or showing obedience to God. Dead in sin.
Post-Grace: Changed by the power of the spirit and reborn in Christ, and his strength changes our will. Then so shall we repent.

And believe me, if I had all the answers I would hardly be here. I have not nearly the patience our Lord had to suffer fools gladly, being a fool myself. Thank God for Jesus

But if God changes our will, why not change EVERYONE'S will, since Peter says that God wants everyone to be saved? 2 Peter 3:9.

Peter says that God wants EVERYONE to repent. Is God not powerful enough to change everyone's will? Or are you saying that God only changes who He wants, and Peter is lying?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is not something you or I will resolve in this thread. I am a Calvinist. You, obviously, are not.

That is fine, but should we still not be open to discussion to see why we believe things? I am neither Calvinist or Armenian. I am a child of God. Calvin ans Arminius were men, we should be followers of God before followers of men correct?

 

[progressivenerdgirl]

But if God changes our will, why not change EVERYONE'S will

Because at least three different meanings for two different Greek words are translated as 'will' in the English Bibles. One meaning is that a person is forbidden by command, the other by plan, and another actual compulsion of effectual divine sovereignty. It's the difference between telling your son not to go out and locking him in a room. Both could be described with, "I didn't let my son go out."

Calvin ans Arminius were men, we should be followers of God before followers of men correct?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? We have to differentiate various theologies. "I'm the only orthodox Christian I know - aren't you?" Well just sound like lunatics if we refuse to use deleniating terms like this. Would you prefer I said, "Reformed Theology"?
Most of the time when people say things like this they just don't want to be pinned down and have to actually defend specific views. 'Simple Christianity' is 90% eclecticism and New Age nonsense.

 

[superdave5221]

Because at least three different meanings for two different Greek words are translated as 'will' in the English Bibles. One meaning is that a person is forbidden by command, the other by plan, and another actual compulsion of effectual divine sovereignty. It's the difference between telling your son not to go out and locking him in a room. Both could be described with, "I didn't let my son go out."

I really don't see the significance of this response. It is a simple answer to a simple question that doesn't require dictionaries and research. Can you answer the question.

Is God able to get his own will done on the earth, which should be easy with no free will, or does He choose and Peter is lying?

 

[progressivenerdgirl]

That is fine, but should we still not be open to discussion to see why we believe things? I am neither Calvinist or Armenian. I am a child of God. Calvin ans Arminius were men, we should be followers of God before followers of men correct?

And if you are not a determinist or an atheist or a Pagan you are an Arminian. These options are exhaustive. It does not mean you worship Arminius, for the sake of children's tears, it means you accept a free will and cooperatavist view of salvation.

 

[progressivenerdgirl]

I really don't see the significance of this response. It is a simple answer to a simple question that doesn't require dictionaries and research. Can you answer the question.

Is God able to get his own will done on the earth, which should be easy with no free will, or does He choose and Peter is lying?

Wow, anti-intellectualism dragon goes full bore. Goodbye.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It should be noted that there's a huge theological difference between the holiness perspective and the Pelagian position that is being presented in the original post. In fact, they are nothing alike at all.

Original Holiness doctrine placed complete reliance on God as the means in which one can become holy. Where as Pelagian doctrine insists that one can become holy through his or her own efforts. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

I would agree with this except for one major Issue.

Both doctrines state salvation is dependent on this holiness does it not? If one does not become Holy then their salvation is lost?

This being the case. It is a false precept to say one group depends on God, Because if they depended on God. then they would realise GOD WOULD SUCCEED. The fact they deny the power of God can fail, and if man does not live up to his standard proves they ALSO rely on self to be holy on their own efforts.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Agreed..but this is going to be a moot thing to prove to these folks..no matter how much i try to say its all by the Holy Spirit enabling it..and only by the Holy spirit its possible..im accused of trying to be made right in my own works..

You state the HS can fail. thus you are depending on self. Just because you SAY SOMETHING does not mean you actually believe it. Your have lied to yourself and you are believing your own lie!