Featured Why do you sin?

Show me where I have insulted you, and I'll apologize to you pronto.

 

It's "you're" as "you are", not your.

 

Ok.....you are a cockaroach. SATISFIED?

 

And Willis, I did not insult you, although you may have taken it that way.

You quoted two men, Adam Clarke and Andrew Wommack. I responded with Matthew 12:33, which was spoken by Jesus.

Then I said, "You can listen to men, I will listen to Jesus"

If that hurt your feelings, then maybe your own conscience is giving you a well deserved jab in the ribs, but that was not an insult, it was the TRUTH.

Mat 12:33 is not difficult, and I am not twisting or wresting it in any way, Jesus said "Either make the tree good" "or else make the tree corrupt". The words "either" and "or else" show option, the word "make" shows ability. This verse shows we have both the option and ability to determine whether we are a good tree that produces good fruit, or a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit.

I don't twist scripture, and some have been honest and admitted that. GreekTim called me a "literalist" because I believe the scriptures for what they literally say. That is not twisting or wresting scripture. Both P4T and Luke have said I believe scripture for what it "says", not what it means. Now that is almost comical if it were not tragic. If scripture does not mean what it says, then no one can understand it. Might as well throw that book in the trash.

If you want to read all these theologians and believe them, that is your choice, but I am going to listen to the scriptures.

 

Well, I didn't particularly care for your little lecture. You are right, I don't listen to all these theologians and I'm glad I don't. You listen to them and you won't know what to believe.

For the most part, scripture is very easy and very straightforward to understand. It is very rare you have to consult a commentary.

Years ago I had a great pastor who was very knowledgeable on the scriptures. He told me he never uses commentaries any more. I asked him why, and he said that theologians had just as much difficulty with hard passages as he did. There is a lot of truth in this.

Believe it or not, I do consult commentaries on occasion, just to see how they interpreted a passage.

If you pay attention to the Calvinism versus non-Calvinism debate, you will see it usually involves Calvinists arguing their great theologians verses someone who argues scripture. Pay attention and see if this is not true.

 

I have to go out for a few hours, but here is a challenge Willis.

Tell me what Matthew 12:33 says in your own words. No looking at commentaries, just tell me what the words say to you.

I would appreciate that very much.

I will be back in a few hours.

 

I will and have many times, but you fail to respond. The reason: you are unteachable. You cannot refute my answer so you don't bother to respond.
Now first look at the context.

Mat 12:33-35
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.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

If you really want to get into the overall context Jesus is speaking of those who will not change and cannot change.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
--These Pharisees had committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They had attributed the works of Christ to the works of Satan, another spirit other than the Holy Spirit. They did that while Christ was standing right in front of them, in the flesh, doing these miracles and speaking to them. I do not believe this sin can be committed today. But that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it was a very serious sin, and they would not change, could not change, would not be saved. That is the context.

In verse 33 Jesus is speaking of a hypothetical situation which cannot be done. Can a person change the spots of a leopard, change the skin of an Ethiopian, change the nature of a fig tree so that it bear olive berries, or an apple tree that it may bear grapes? No. All these things are impossible. So it is impossible to change a corrupt tree to give good fruit, and a corrupt man to give good fruit. It is impossible. All of the above would take a miracle.

Look at verse 34. What does he call them? A generation of vipers! A generation of vipers, (a metaphor speaking of very evil people) is not suddenly going to start doing good! There is no way that is going to happen! Impossible.
Why? Out of the abundance of the mouth the heart speaks, and their hearts were evil. They were the ones that cursed Christ; mocked and scorned him. They put him on the cross and crucified him. They plotted his death--these Pharisees.

And then verse 35:
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
--The good heart is the regenerated heart.
Jesus said: "Why call me good; there is none good but One."
Unless the Holy Spirit dwells within there is no chance of one doing good.
There is no chance of that person ever producing the fruit of the Holy Spirit or good fruit, fruit that is acceptable in God's sight. His heart must be made good.

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Except for Christ, who here is an exception? Who does not need a Savior?
We need a Savior because we are sinners and our fruit is corrupted. The Lord will not accept it, just as the Lord would not accept Cain's offering although technically there is nothing wrong with the crops of the field.

 

I didnt know Willis was a Calvinist. He told me he was an Old Regular Baptist. When did he become a follower of John Calvin???

 

Deuteronomy 25:1
When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.

Job 9:20
Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.

Matthew 12:7
If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Job 16:
18 “Earth, do not cover my blood;
may my cry never be laid to rest!
19 Even now my witness is in heaven;
my advocate is on high.
20 My intercessor is my friend
as my eyes pour.

It is not good for anyone of us to condemn the innocent before they come before the perfect judge.

I believe that you have started a war with those who believe only Jesus can save no matter how innocent you think they are we are. We are not to condemn the innocent or believe anyone can be saved without Jesus. If anyone is saved it is because what Jesus has done not with what ever good we think we have or they have.


We shouldn't condemn the innocent but also not to bring a salvation around apart from Christ.

If we are saved it is because we are in Christ rest not because of work.

This is why you are fighting a loosing battle with most of us.

 

A hypothetical? You do not even understand what Jeremiah is saying in Jer 13:23;

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Your interpretation of this verse makes God the author of sin. Who gave the leopard his spots? God. Who gave the Ethiopian dark skin? God.

So if men are born with a sin nature and must sin, who gave them a sin nature according to your interpretation? God!

You are blaming God and making him the author of sin. That's an insane interpretation of this verse.

Jeremiah is not saying the Jews were born with a sinful nature, he is saying they are so ACCUSTOMED to sinning that it is almost as IF they were born with a sin nature, as a leopard is born with spots, and an Ethiopian is born with dark skin. They were not born with a sinful nature, but it has BECOME their nature.

Theologians understand this interpretation.

Clarke correctly understands this verse. These men were not born natural sinners, but because they are so "accustomed" to sin it has "become" their "second nature". It is a learned habit, deeply ingrained. It is not completely impossible for these persons to repent, but it would be extremely difficult and highly unlikely.

You do not understand scripture nearly as well as you think you do, your interpretation is the exact opposite of what this verse is really saying, and makes God the author of sin.

Your interpretation couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

 

double post

 

Oh, I can understand why I would upset a Calvinist, I do not believe a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe on Jesus. I believe a person can hear the word of God, and this enables that person to believe through KNOWLEDGE. No one can believe what they do not know, and no one can believe on Jesus unless they have heard of him. This is what Paul implies in Romans 10:14:

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Does Paul ask "how shall they believe in him unless they are regenerated?" NO.

Does Paul ask "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" YES.

What does this say is necessary for a man to believe on Jesus? They must HEAR of Jesus. Paul doesn't say they have to be regenerated to believe, they must HEAR of Jesus to believe.

That is why preachers must be sent.

Supposedly DHK believes this himself, but he agrees that a man cannot do good until he is regenerated. This is Calvinistic, it is Total Inability, saying a man cannot believe until he is first regenerated.

If God does not hear the prayer of sinners, then Calvinism is correct, and a man must be regenerated before God will hear his prayer for mercy.

God DOES hear sinners, and sinners can believe. God heard the prayer of the publican.

Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

DHK and TND are a lot more Calvinist than they think. If you think God only hears a regenerated man's prayer, then you are a Calvinist.

 

If any one is bringing a prayer to God to save him it is the Holy Spirit that is working on them through the life given Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
2 Corinthians 3:6

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Galatians 5:13
[ Life by the Spirit ] You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

Galatians 6:8
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

 

Of course it is, who said differently? Show me where I ever said any man could get saved without God's influence. I have NEVER said that.

In fact, if you read my last post I said no man can believe what he does not know, and that is why God sends men to preach the gospel. But hearing the gospel does not ZAP you, it INFORMS you, it TEACHES you, it gives you KNOWLEDGE that enables you to believe. All scripture says this.

Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Did Jesus say people that got ZAPPED come to him? NO, he said people that are TAUGHT, that have HEARD, and LEARNED come to him.

Read that over and over until you understand it. It is KNOWLEDGE that enables us to believe on Jesus, not being ZAPPED.

Being zapped or regenerated happens AFTER you believe. The moment you receive Jesus and believe on his name, THEN God gives you the power to become a son of God and be born again.

But it is KNOWLEDGE that enables you to believe, not being regenerated.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Did Paul say the scriptures zapped Timothy so he could believe the gospel here? NO, he said the scriptures MADE HIM WISE. The scriptures TAUGHT him, just like Jesus said in John 6:45. Once he LEARNED the gospel, Timothy was able to believe in Jesus and be saved.

You and others need to read the scriptures far more carefully, we are not zapped to believe, we are TAUGHT to believe.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

We are zapped by His word when we listen and learn, they are the only one's that will come.

We have a sin nature from conception that is why on our own will not turn toward God without the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is why we are sent out to reach them with the words of Jesus that is Spirit and life.

A righteous man with no sin nature doesn't need to know how wicked they are. Why preach the Gospel that Jesus came to save a sinner like me to them.

I witness to children and I had to show them their sin like disobeying their parent that they are sinful to spread the Gospel to them. I don't have to know if they sinned or not I know they have a sin nature.

 

Pay attention.

Here was your question; even challenge:

I never explained Jeremiah 13:23. I used two examples from the verse but never fully explained the verse. Check and see.

I fully explained Mat.12:33. You have no refutation. You did not answer my post at all. You just went on a rant on Jer.13:23 which I hardly touched on.
Answer the post Winman.
BTW, by using Clarke as you did, you proved to all that he is not a Calvinist.

 

That is not correct. People who have heard and learned from the word of God come (believe) to Jesus. And THEN when you come or believe on Jesus he gives you life.

Jhn 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

You think coming to Jesus is life. You are WRONG. You must come to Jesus that ye might have (future tense) life. Coming is just another word for believing, it means to rely upon, depend upon, or trust Jesus. When you come to Jesus in dependence, at that moment he will give you life.

This is where Spurgeon is wrong.

Men can will to do God's will, Jesus himself said so.

Jhn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

How many men did Jesus imply could will to do God's will here? ANY MAN.

No, we are told to go out and TEACH all nations, TEACHING them to observe all that Jesus said. You just saw that for yourself.

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Why do you and others keep introducing something I have NEVER said?

No, you know they have sinned. The fact that they have sinned is no proof they were born with a sin nature. Satan was not created with a sin nature, yet he was able to sin. The fallen angels and Adam and Eve were all "very good" (Gen 1:31) yet they were all able to sin.

So scripture itself proves that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin. And you cannot show one word of scripture to support your view.

Show me where the Bible says we are born with a sin nature.

 

Look above Brother Wes. Brother DHK did a very good job. You can't divorce Matthew 12:33 from the surrounding verses. It's in its proper context that true biblical doctrine is established. If man can get themselves a new heart, then Christ died in vain.

 

My challenge was to Willis. After seeing how you interpret scripture numerous times, I would NEVER ask to see your interpretation of any scripture. You are so far out in right field that you are not even in the ballpark. Your superstitious belief that sin is inherited from your father is a good example, pure nonsense.

You have explained Jer 13:23 many times before, and you think it is teaching men are born with a sin nature. If so, then it would be God's fault, because God is the one who gave the leopard his spots, and the Ethiopian his dark skin. Again, you are not even in the ballpark when it comes to interpreting scripture correctly.

You gave me one of YOUR personal interpretations. My interpretation is just as good as yours and far more literal.

As for Clarke, I have known for years he was a Methodist. Nevertheless, he was greatly influenced by Calvinist teaching as almost all theologians were several hundred years ago.

You are not a Calvinist, but you have been greatly influenced by it. Your belief that God does not hear a sinner's prayer is a Calvinist belief. If that were so, nobody could get saved until they were first regenerated. Calvinism 101.

 

I have zero problem being called a Calvinist. Sure, I don't agree with infant baptism or that the water baptism supplants circumcision as a sign the way Presbyterians do, but as for the five points attributed to Calvinists, I am not offended by being called a Calvinist. In fact, I have told many people I'm a "five pointer" or a "five point Calvinist"...