What caused Iniquity to be Found In Both satan/Adam?

[Winman]

So would this mean that everyone prior to the giving of the law never sinned and all went to heaven. Remember where there is no law there is no sin. Romand 4:15

No, Paul had already explained this in chapter 2. You have to remember, all these chapters were one long conversation. If you break them up you will not understand what Paul's hearers understood.

Rom 2

1 .) Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 .) But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 .) And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 .) Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 .) But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 .) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 .) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 .) But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 .) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 .) But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 .) For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 .) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 .) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
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:
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; )

In Romans 5:13-14 Paul is arguing that death proves all men are sinners. But they did not sin after the similitude of Adam, this alone refutes Augustine's error interpreting Rom 5:12. If Adam's sin passed on us, we would be guilty of committing the very sin he did. Paul says they did not commit this sin.

But they did commit sin without Moses' law. How? They violated the law written on their hearts and their conscience that all men are born with.

You do not have to have a written law to know sin. If you had never heard the scriptures and were walking down the street and someone punched you in the mouth, knocking you down, then they ripped your wallet out of your pocket and ran away, would you need a written law to know that is sin? Of course not. Even little children know when their brother or sister yanks a toy out of their hand this is wrong, although they do not have the capacity yet to understand sin and it's eternal consequences before God.

And notice that Paul speaks of those who patiently continue well doing (good). What? How can this be if Calvinism is true? It can't, Calvinism is not true.

 

[freeatlast]

You do not have to have a written law to know sin. If you had never heard the scriptures and were walking down the street and someone punched you in the mouth, knocking you down, then they ripped your wallet out of your pocket and ran away, would you need a written law to know that is sin? Of course not. Even little children know when their brother or sister yanks a toy out of their hand this is wrong, although they do not have the capacity yet to understand sin and it's eternal consequences before God.

So does a person have to understand that their wrong (sin) was against God or just believe it was wrong in general?

 

[The Biblicist]

No, Paul had already explained this in chapter 2. You have to remember, all these chapters were one long conversation. If you break them up you will not understand what Paul's hearers understood.

Rom 2

1 .) Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 .) But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 .) And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 .) Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 .) But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 .) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 .) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 .) But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 .) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 .) But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 .) For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 .) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 .) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
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:
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; )

This text is speaking about hypocritcal self-righteous Gentiles and Jews not about Christians at all in any sense whatsoever.

1. The man of this chapter is "INEXCUSABLE" (v. 1) because this kind of man judges another man for the same thing he does - HYPOCRIT (v.1).

2. Because this kind of man thinks he will escape the judgement of God (v. 3) when all evidences demonstrate he will not as this kind of man "depisest" everything that would lead him to repentance and hardeneth his heart in response to all of God's manifest mercies (v. 4) and this hardened heart only has judgement to look forward unto (v. 5) but it will be RIGHTOUS judgement.

3. Righteous judgement is defined by these principles:

a. Judgement is 'according to every man's deeds" - v. 6
b. Judgement provides the just recompense fitting good and bad deeds - vv. 7-8
c. Judgement will be greater against the Jews than Gentiles - vv. 9-10
d. Judgement will not be a respector of person but a respector of light - vv. 11-15
e. Judgement wil have its standard according to Christ's righteousness as revealed in the gospel - v. 16.

In Romans 5:13-14 Paul is arguing that death proves all men are sinners. But they did not sin after the similitude of Adam, this alone refutes Augustine's error interpreting Rom 5:12. If Adam's sin passed on us, we would be guilty of committing the very sin he did. Paul says they did not commit this sin.

His argument is very simple. All men did sin in Adam and that is why death is passed down to all men - v. 12

All men did sin in Adam and that is why there is death of all men between Adam and the giving of the Law - proving that death was not a consequence of breaking the Mosaic Law but present before the law was given - v. 13

All men did sin in Adam and that is why those incapable of willful sin as in the case of Adam still suffer death - v. 14 (infants and mentally hanicapped).

You do not have to have a written law to know sin.

You don't have to know what is sin to die -infants and mentally handicapped die without knowing sin. That is the point of Romans 5:14, willful sin is not necessary to die as death and sin came into the world by ONE MAN's OFFENCE and by ONE MAN's OFFENCE many were made sinners.

 

[Winman]

So does a person have to understand that their wrong (sin) was against God or just believe it was wrong in general?

I believe they have to know it is sin against God. But that is exactly what Paul explained in Romans 1, that all men know by creation itself that there is a God and are therefore without excuse.

But a two year old cannot understand this. I think it varies with each child, I believe most children start to truly understand about the time they become teenagers. This is when children turn either good or evil, it is about this age that most persons start to commit crime and commit to this lifestyle. They have made a willful choice to live this way. But only God knows the heart and knows when a person understands enough to be accountable.

What did God say to Jonah?

Jonah 4

9 And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.
10 Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:
11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Notice that God asked Jonah, SHOULD NOT I SPARE NINEVEH? God was saying it was JUST, it was RIGHTEOUS for him to have mercy on Nineveh. Why? First, the people there were his, he is the one who laboured and made them grow. He is speaking of the 120,000 little children there who were so young that they could not discern their right hand from their left hand. And notice that God also mentions cattle? Why? Because he is comparing these little children to cattle who have no concept of right and wrong.

I showed this before, the scriptures show children belong to God.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Our children do not belong to us, they are born to God. They are HIS CHILDREN. We are not born children of the devil as many falsely teach here.

 

[freeatlast]

I believe they have to know it is sin against God. But that is exactly what Paul explained in Romans 1, that all men know by creation itself that there is a God and are therefore without excuse.

But a two year old cannot understand this. I think it varies with each child, I believe most children start to truly understand about the time they become teenagers. This is when children turn either good or evil, it is about this age that most persons start to commit crime and commit to this lifestyle. They have made a willful choice to live this way. But only God knows the heart and knows when a person understands enough to be accountable.

What did God say to Jonah?

Jonah 4

9 And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.
10 Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:
11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Notice that God asked Jonah, SHOULD NOT I SPARE NINEVEH? God was saying it was JUST, it was RIGHTEOUS for him to have mercy on Nineveh. Why? First, the people there were his, he is the one who laboured and made them grow. He is speaking of the 120,000 little children there who were so young that could not discern their right hand from their left hand. And notice that God also mentions cattle? Why? Because he is comparing these little children to cattle who have no concept of right and wrong.

I showed this before, the scriptures show children belong to God.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Our children do not belong to us, they are born to God. They are HIS CHILDREN. We are not born children of the devil as many falsely teach here.

Well I will say that although I do not agree with your understanding you certainly have covered all the bases within your view.

 

[Winman]

Well I will say that although I do not agree with your understanding you certainly have covered all the bases within your view.

What do you disagree with? Do you disagree with the MANY scriptures I have shown in this thread? I have shown more scriptures refuting Original Sin in this thread alone than you will ever see supporting it. Did you know that Augustine argued Original Sin almost exclusively from Romans 5:12 alone? Did you know he used a Latin text that said, IN WHOM all have sinned, instead of FOR THAT all have sinned? It is an historical fact you can easily look up on the web in numerous places.

Meyendorff states that Augustine did not have a Greek text of the Bible while forming his doctrine against the Pelagians. He notes that Augustine used the Latin Vulgate translation of Romans 5:12, to justify the western doctrine of inherited guilt imputed from Adam to his descendants. Gonzalez comments,

Such an interpretation of the text which claims that, “in Adam all die” is certainly not the only one that has appeared in the history of Christian thought; but it is the one that, from Tertullian on, became more and more common in Latin theology. This was due in large measure to Augustine's support of it (Gonzalez 44).

I found that in 30 seconds, look it up, you can find numerous scholars who said Augustine used a flawed text when he came up with the doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[Winman]

Here is a little more on that article, but you can find many if you sincerely want to know the truth.

However, the consensus of Greek Patristic and Byzantine traditions, note that the proper translation of Romans 5:12 is "because of" as opposed to "in whom” as Augustine thought. Augustine repeatedly appealed to Romans 5:12 as the scriptural authority for his doctrine of corporate guilt. Schaff agreed that Romans 5:12 was erroneously translated by the Vulgate as "in whom." The Greek text should be translated as a neuter conjunction meaning "on the ground that, or because, all have sinned." Schaff concluded, "the exegesis of Augustine, and his doctrine of a personal fall, as it were, of all men in Adam, are therefore doubtless untenable" (834). So the wages of sin for Adam is a similar punishment, for those who like him, sin. Romans 5:12 does not state that Adam’s progeny or descendants are born guilty, until they also sin as Adam sinned. Meyendorff writes,

In Greek patristic thought, only this free personal mind can commit sin and incur the concomitant guilt (Meyendorff 143).



When the human person misuses its freedom, it can distort the natural will and corrupt nature itself. It is able to do so because it possesses a freedom, which is capable of orienting man toward the good and of imitating God. Man's will is also capable of sin. Sin is always a personal act, never an act of nature. “Photius even goes so far as to say, referring to western doctrines, that the belief in a ‘sin of nature’ is a heresy” (Meyendorff 143).

Therefore, the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God could be conceived only as their personal sin. There is no place in the ancient church for the concept of inherited guilt, condemnation and damnation. Death is passed on to the sons of Adam but not punishment. Meyendorff notes,

Neither original sin nor salvation can be realized in an individual's life without involving his personal and free responsibility (Meyendorff 144).

 

[Amy.G]

Did you know that Augustine argued Original Sin almost exclusively from Romans 5:12 alone? Did you know he used a Latin text that said, IN WHOM all have sinned, instead of FOR THAT all have sinned? It is an historical fact you can easily look up on the web in numerous places.

I've just been following along and watching the debate and decided to investigate the "in whom". The first place I went was to the Catholic bible.

Rom 5 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
12Wherefore 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.


Very interesting. Wasn't Augustine a Catholic?

 

[Winman]

I've just been following along and watching the debate and decided to investigate the "in whom". The first place I went was to the Catholic bible.

Rom 5 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
12Wherefore 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.


Very interesting. Wasn't Augustine a Catholic?

Of course, he is their greatest saint. And Calvin was enamoured with Augustine and quoted him more than any other theologian in his writings.

It was this doctrine of imputed sin that solidified infant baptism. Do you know how many Christians died because they believed the scriptures taught that only one who knowingly believes in Jesus could be baptized? Many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands. It brought about the ridiculous theory of the Immaculate Conception that says Mary was conceived by a special grace of God without sin, leading to Mary worship. And of course it led to the theory of Total Depravity we see here on BB every day.

I believed in Original Sin for years because that is what I was taught. I am embarrassed to say I used to tell my kids "we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners". I hope God will forgive me for that. It was reading the scriptures and paying close attention to the words that made me question Original Sin. For instance, 1 Peter 2:25 says we were as sheep going astray, but are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. What does "going astray" mean? It means to run away, as a sheep runs away from his flock and becomes lost. A sheep that is out in the wilderness and never belonged to a flock could not be said to have "gone astray". And how can we be "returned" to Jesus if we were born separated from him at birth? Words have meaning, to be returned means to come back to a place you were before. You cannot return to some place you have never been.

Luke 15 was a real eye opener. It clearly says the shepherd originally had 100 sheep, but one went astray and was lost. It didn't say backslidden as many try to say, it says LOST. When the shepherd searched and recovered this lost sheep Jesus said there is joy in heaven over one such sinner that repents. So, this was speaking of being saved from sin, not repenting from backslidding. The parable of the 10 pieces of silver is the same, the woman originally had 10 pieces of silver but lost one, searched, and recovered it. This didn't match up with Original Sin at all that teaches we are born sinners separated from God.

And the prodigal son is the same. He was originally with his father but left and went out into sin. When he returned his father said he was ALIVE AGAIN. How can that be? If we are born dead in sin we can never be said to be alive. And if we believe we are preserved in Christ, how could we have died after we were saved? It just didn't match up.

So, I paid more attention, especially to verses concerning sin. They always said we WENT ASTRAY or TURNED FROM GOD. They always show that we were originally with God, but went astray from him.

I also noticed that Jesus never spoke of little children as sinners. Jesus said we need to be converted and become like little children or we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Was Jesus telling us to be converted and become wicked sinners? That seemed utterly ridiculous to me and still does.

So, no one swayed me away from Original Sin, it was my own personal study that led me away from it. I was actually surprised to find out that many Christians throughout church history also denied Augustine's theory. And that is all it is, a theory. There are actually three major theories of Original Sin, and all three disagree with and refute each other. Even scholars who believe in Original Sin cannot come to agreement. Why? Simple, it is not scriptural.

But don't believe me, read the scriptures and see for yourself.

 

[convicted1]

If I weren't already on your "team" Brother Winman, after your dissertation, it'd be hard not to join it. Good job!!!

 

[convicted1]

Did you read my response to Winman's illustration of the fireman? If not please read it. I never have denied that relatively speaking between men there are things that men recognize as "good." However, that is not God's standard to define "good." God looks at the heart to see the motive behind all that we do and there is ONLY ONE motive that God accepts for anything we do to be "good" in his sight - "whatsoever ye do in word and in deed, do ALL for the GLORY of God."

Jesus says it is impossible for a bad tree to bring forth "GOOD" fruit does he not?

Job asks how anything good can come out of something evil and then answer his question "not one" - Job 14:4

Well, the thing you're hung up on is the word "fruit". The reason why a bad tree(sinner) can not bring forth good fruit(workings of the Spirit), is because sinners(bad trees) don't have the Spirit(good Fruit) dwelling with in them.

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


These verses here^^^^^ are the bad fruit from the bad tree, i.e. sins coming from a sinner.

Galatians 5:22-23

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

These verses here ^^^^^ are the good fruit coming from a good tree, i.e. righteousness coming from a righteous person.


So, jumping in to save a drowning person is a good deed, but will not save you.

Again, Paul is addressing already saved Spirit indwelt, born again people with new hearts by regeneration - not lost people.

Lost people are incapable of AGAPE love. They are capable of all manner of various other kinds of love but not AGAPE love because AGAPE love originates with God and must be given by God and lost people are not given the ability to love as AGAPE love is first to love the Lord thy God with all that is within you and your neighbor as yourself.

Agreed. I was just showing you that loving people, helping people, putting your own life on the line to save someone in distress, w/o salvation, if they died doing this good deed, they will die lost. Works do not save you, only Grace through faith will.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, the thing you're hung up on is the word "fruit". The reason why a bad tree(sinner) can not bring forth good fruit(workings of the Spirit), is because sinners(bad trees) don't have the Spirit(good Fruit) dwelling with in them.

No, go back and read that text and you will see that Jesus also said the tree must FIRST be made "good" BEFORE it can produce "good" fruit. But a "bad" tree "cannot" bring forth good fruit.

 

[freeatlast]

In this part of the discussion on the good tree and the bad tree who is the good tree and who is the bad tree?

 

[Winman]

Calvinists love to talk about the good tree and bad tree as though we are one or the other and can do nothing about it, but that is not what the scriptures say.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I doubt you'll hear these verses often in a Reformed church. Yes, the scriptures say it is necessary to have a new heart and a new spirit, but they do not show us passive in this, we must trust in God and obey him. These verses refute Total Inability and show man must cooperate with God's grace.

I am not saying we can make ourselves good alone, but we can listen to God's word and believe it and obey it, becoming a good tree bearing good fruit.

 

[convicted1]

Calvinists love to talk about the good tree and bad tree as though we are one or the other and can do nothing about it, but that is not what the scriptures say.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I doubt you'll hear these verses often in a Reformed church. Yes, the scriptures say it is necessary to have a new heart and a new spirit, but they do not show us passive in this, we must trust in God and obey him. These verses refute Total Inability and show man must cooperate with God's grace.

I am not saying we can make ourselves good alone, but we can listen to God's word and believe it and obey it, becoming a good tree bearing good fruit.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Winman]

If I weren't already on your "team" Brother Winman, after your dissertation, it'd be hard not to join it. Good job!!!

Willis, don't go by me, read the scriptures for yourself and believe what God tells you. I am a simple fellow and very capable of making mistakes, but my own personal study has led me to believe Original Sin is a false doctrine. However, if someone could show me strong evidence for OS from scripture (not men's opinions) I could be persuaded otherwise. I believe the evidence most present for evidence like Psa 51:5 and Psa 58:3 is VERY WEAK, as both are obvious hyperbole (intentional exaggeration) and not to be taken literally or that should be used to form doctrine. I believe there is FAR MORE evidence against OS than supports it. But that is me, study for yourself and pray God will reveal the truth to you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvinists love to talk about the good tree and bad tree as though we are one or the other and can do nothing about it, but that is not what the scriptures say.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Didn't you forget a verse or two here? I recall quoting a couple more along with this one! How about these:

Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mt 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I doubt you'll hear these verses often in a Reformed church. Yes, the scriptures say it is necessary to have a new heart and a new spirit, but they do not show us passive in this, we must trust in God and obey him. These verses refute Total Inability and show man must cooperate with God's grace.

I am not saying we can make ourselves good alone, but we can listen to God's word and believe it and obey it, becoming a good tree bearing good fruit.

Regeneration is NEVER spoken of in the middle voice or of man in the active or middle voice. ALWAYS the passive voice as you cannot help CREATE anything and the new birth is a CREATION by God (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10).

However, regeneration always accompanies and is concluded with gospel conversion and that is the aspect where man enters actively into the picture. This passage in Ezekiel and many other similar passages refer to the active conversion aspect of repentance and faith in Christ.

Spiritual life precedes repentance and faith which in turn precede justificaiton which is the Law's declaration of eternal life LEGALLY and POSITIONALLY.

Hence, conversion wherein man particpates is preceded by SPIRITUAL life and followed by LEGAL LIFE and both are eternal life, but the first is IMPARTED to your own person while the latter is IMPUTED as your position.

Sorry, but that is the whole truth.

 

[Winman]

I didn't forget anything, when Jesus said either MAKE the tree good and it's fruit good, or else MAKE the tree corrupt and it's fruit corrupt that Jesus is saying we have ABILITY to determine which tree we can be. This verse makes no sense in Calvinist thought. Much of scripture makes no sense if Calvinism is true, which is a sure indicator that Calvinism is not scriptural.

And I don't want to see a mini-novel explaning why the word "make" here doesn't really mean "make". I watched a James White video once where he went on for an hour trying to explain away one word in scripture because it refutes Calvinism. It is the old "if you can't convince them with a sound argument, then baffle them with bull". Simple folks are sometimes fooled by this, not because the argument is sound, but because the person making the argument sounds so intelligent and learned, they figure they must be right. I am a simple fellow, but I know when someone is trying to sell me a load of manure.

 

[The Biblicist]

I didn't forget anything, when Jesus said either MAKE the tree good and it's fruit good, or else MAKE the tree corrupt and it's fruit corrupt that Jesus is saying we have ABILITY to determine which tree we can be. This verse makes no sense in Calvinist thought. Much of scripture makes no sense if Calvinism is true, which is a sure indicator that Calvinism is not scriptural.

So pitting scripture against scripture! That is par with your position and necessary to defend it. The text does not say who it is that is responsible to MAKE the bad tree good! Other scriptures define that action as a work of CREATION and in Ephesians 2:10 it does define who does that - "for we are God's WORKmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus..." Can a bad tree be made good OUTSIDE of Christ???

Jesus plainly tells you that a "bad" tree CANNOT bring forth good fruit and so why do you insist it can "MAKE" itself good and produce good fruit? Is Christ a liar? Or...........

 

[percho]

Calvinists love to talk about the good tree and bad tree as though we are one or the other and can do nothing about it, but that is not what the scriptures say.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I doubt you'll hear these verses often in a Reformed church. Yes, the scriptures say it is necessary to have a new heart and a new spirit, but they do not show us passive in this, we must trust in God and obey him. These verses refute Total Inability and show man must cooperate with God's grace.

I am not saying we can make ourselves good alone, but we can listen to God's word and believe it and obey it, becoming a good tree bearing good fruit.

Do we make ourselves a new heart and a new spirit by we birthing ourselves again or does God make us with a new heart and a new spirit by giving us new birth?

I agree with you concerning "sin nature" Adam was made flesh we are born, of the flesh. Not one word is said in John 3 about needing to be born again because we are sinners but because we are born flesh. Adam wasn't made fit to see or enter or inherit the kingdom of God, he became a living soul when God gave him temporal life as a corruptible being but to see, enter, inherit the kingdom of God he would need to be a given life within himself, a quickening spiritual incorruptible being.

We had nothing to do with our being born of the flesh and we will have absolutely nothing to do with our being born again.