You take Eph 2:3 and use it as a proof text that human beings are born objects of wrath.
Firstly that implication maligns the character of God by implying that His wrath abounds on an innocent baby who has done nothing wrong. You honestly believe that a new born baby is wicked and evil, of no choice of its own, and deserves to be cast into the Lake of Fire.
Think about that for a minute.
On the one hand you will assert that God is righteous and just, and yet on the other hand you will assert that God is righteous and just in condemning an infant to the Lake of Fire because Adam sinned. Not only that but you assert that God is righteous and just for condemning sinners to the Lake of Fire because they don't do what they were never able to do. You must be out of your mind to believe that. Surely believing such a thing is unconscionable.
When professing Christian's spout that kind of rhetoric is it any wonder that people scorn the God of the Bible?
When you remove human responsibility from the equation both sin and righteousness lose all meaning. If human beings are born as sin robots then they are not rebels anymore than television is a rebel because it cannot refrigerate a drink.
How did it come to this where Christianity is full of such foolishness? Oh the mind of God is so incomprehensible that plain logic is to be thrown out the window? Is that what you tell yourself?
Paul in writing Eph 2:3 uses the word "Phusis" which we have translated to "nature" in English.
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.
If Paul is referring to a "birth nature" and thus "natural inability to do anything but sin" then why does Paul use the same word in Romans 2?
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
If people by "nature" do evil how is it by the same "nature" they do good? I assert that they don't. I assert that our nature develops over time as a result of whether we obey God or not. If we choose sin then we develop a sinful nature and if we yield ourselves to God then we develop a godly nature.
It is quite well known in this technological age that the human brain wires itself in accordance with our conduct. Addiction is often simply the result of the development of neurological pathways in the brain where the brain has adapted to the release of dopamine in accordance with some kind of conduct in an individual. A cocaine addict uses a physical substance to effect a release in the pleasure centers of the brain whilst a pornography addict uses visual images to effect the same thing. In both cases the brain adapts to this release and a removal of the stimulus creates a very powerful longing and thus the addict is strongly compelled to repeat the behaviour.
This is why sin leads to bondage. This is why the old man must be crucified through godly sorrow working a genuine repentance. The mind has to change and be yielded to the power of God to find that strength to endure temptation, temptation that lessens as the brain rewires itself to become addicted to God.
The commentators who use Eph 2:3 as a proof text for being "born a sinner" very conveniently ignore Rom 2:14-15.
I have mentioned this countless times on this forum but people ignore it. They just keep quoting Eph 2:3 as if Rom 2:14-15 does not exist.
Elin you quote this verse too...
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
So let me understand this. If Adams sin automatically condemns everyone that must mean that by the righteousness of Jesus the free gift justifies all men also.
Oh it doesn't? Why not?
You say the New Testament is very clear.
Is this clear...
1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
There is that 1Pe 2:24 that you proof texted to support Penal Substitution (your legal swap which cloaks ongoing iniquity). I'll quote some of the verses before it so as to show the greater context which teaches that Jesus left us an example that we follow in His footsteps. An example which you must believe is impossible because everyone is born a sinner and thus totally disabled.
Firstly that implication maligns the character of God by implying that His wrath abounds on an innocent baby who has done nothing wrong. You honestly believe that a new born baby is wicked and evil, of no choice of its own, and deserves to be cast into the Lake of Fire.
Think about that for a minute.
On the one hand you will assert that God is righteous and just, and yet on the other hand you will assert that God is righteous and just in condemning an infant to the Lake of Fire because Adam sinned. Not only that but you assert that God is righteous and just for condemning sinners to the Lake of Fire because they don't do what they were never able to do. You must be out of your mind to believe that. Surely believing such a thing is unconscionable.
When professing Christian's spout that kind of rhetoric is it any wonder that people scorn the God of the Bible?
When you remove human responsibility from the equation both sin and righteousness lose all meaning. If human beings are born as sin robots then they are not rebels anymore than television is a rebel because it cannot refrigerate a drink.
How did it come to this where Christianity is full of such foolishness? Oh the mind of God is so incomprehensible that plain logic is to be thrown out the window? Is that what you tell yourself?
Paul in writing Eph 2:3 uses the word "Phusis" which we have translated to "nature" in English.
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.
If Paul is referring to a "birth nature" and thus "natural inability to do anything but sin" then why does Paul use the same word in Romans 2?
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
If people by "nature" do evil how is it by the same "nature" they do good? I assert that they don't. I assert that our nature develops over time as a result of whether we obey God or not. If we choose sin then we develop a sinful nature and if we yield ourselves to God then we develop a godly nature.
It is quite well known in this technological age that the human brain wires itself in accordance with our conduct. Addiction is often simply the result of the development of neurological pathways in the brain where the brain has adapted to the release of dopamine in accordance with some kind of conduct in an individual. A cocaine addict uses a physical substance to effect a release in the pleasure centers of the brain whilst a pornography addict uses visual images to effect the same thing. In both cases the brain adapts to this release and a removal of the stimulus creates a very powerful longing and thus the addict is strongly compelled to repeat the behaviour.
This is why sin leads to bondage. This is why the old man must be crucified through godly sorrow working a genuine repentance. The mind has to change and be yielded to the power of God to find that strength to endure temptation, temptation that lessens as the brain rewires itself to become addicted to God.
The commentators who use Eph 2:3 as a proof text for being "born a sinner" very conveniently ignore Rom 2:14-15.
I have mentioned this countless times on this forum but people ignore it. They just keep quoting Eph 2:3 as if Rom 2:14-15 does not exist.
Elin you quote this verse too...
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
So let me understand this. If Adams sin automatically condemns everyone that must mean that by the righteousness of Jesus the free gift justifies all men also.
Oh it doesn't? Why not?
You say the New Testament is very clear.
Is this clear...
1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
There is that 1Pe 2:24 that you proof texted to support Penal Substitution (your legal swap which cloaks ongoing iniquity). I'll quote some of the verses before it so as to show the greater context which teaches that Jesus left us an example that we follow in His footsteps. An example which you must believe is impossible because everyone is born a sinner and thus totally disabled.
Last edited:
