Featured The plausibility of John 3:18

You did almost affirm it with your idea that man has a "sin nature". Scripture does not actually use that term, but it does use "sin" as a "power" and as a "master" and as an enslaving force (my view).

That said, I never said that the rejection of God was not a moral sin (it is not, by definition, a "transgression"....if we are taking our definition of "transgression" from Romans).

You say that sin is a moral transgression.

I say that sin is a moral transgression, and an enslaving principle. Why should I have to deny passages that speak of sin as such a power in order to affirm it's moral implications???? Why should I have to deny that those who are condemned are condemned because they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son in order to affirm that the lost are "left in their sins"????

You do not have to deny one passage in order to affirm another. They all work together. This is my point. You do not have to limit the Atonement only to its judicial aspects because Scripture does not limit the Atonement only to its judicial aspects (Christ can mediate because He knows our suffering; Christ is the Head and we are the body; God was in Christ reconciling the World to Himself, etc).

Take a lesson from Spurgeon - let your answer not be "yes, nay" to Scripture but "yes, yes". Don't be Spurgeon's "Nelson".

 

Sorry. Maybe it was someone else. I take it you deny we have a "sin nature" ("fallen nature", or as I say, that we are "sinners" ) .

 

Scripture uses faith as more than a cognitive belief. That is why all one must do to be saved is to repent and believe.

Repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin - "faith".

It is the cause of Adam's rebellion - he surrendered to his will or his desires. He did not just flip a coin.

 

You don't believe we have a "sin nature"? Or you just use a different term?

 

I take it, then, that you affirm the idea we have a sin nature although you don't use the term.

My initial comment is that the idea is not so different from my use of the idea that we were "mastered" or "enslaved" by sin. What I do not entirely understand is why my wording seemed so offensive to some as they are the words Scripture uses.

 

That is not what the verse says. It says they are condemned already BECAUSE they do not believe.

The difference depends on whether or not one believes that God is revealed to all men (even the Godhead) through Creation (Scripture says the "invisible" things God has made known.

The Gospel is NOT that Jesus exists but that the Messiah has come. God's redemptive nature is manifested - the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world has ushered in a new covenant.

Those who do not believe, who have never heard the Gospel, are nontheless guilty of not believing in the name of the only begotten Son.

This was Adam's failure. He chose disobedience, relying on his own will instead of God. I belueve this is why Scripture informs us of the nature of the "fruit" (to make one wise, to be like God). It was then an issue of misplaced faith (a faith in ourselves) just as much as it is now.

 

Thank you.

It is impossible to "empty the gospel of the cross" (that is just an insult some toss around).

The gospel is that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is near (if you doubt this, read your Bible).

The Cross is central as without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. But it is wrong to concentrate on one aspect of Scripture at the expense of another. ALL of Scripture us "God-breathed". It ALL matters.

The reason we are (or should be) able to speak of the Gospel as "the Gospel of Christ" is because Scripture does.

 

Listen up, pal

My comment means that this is what the Bible says - if you doubt that the gospel of Christ is that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is near then read your Bible. Do not imply what is not written. My comment is that it is IN THE BIBLE. Stop being childish.

 

I consider "pal" an insult. I also consider it an insult to imply that I was somehow "insulting" you by telling you my conclusion was stated in the Bible. That is child-like behavior - like a child putting his finger in his ears and humming so he can't hear what the grown ups are telling him - hence the term "childish".

My comment was that the gospel being the "gospel of Christ" that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is at hand IS in the Bible. If you do not believe it then read your Bible. You will find it in the "Gospels" (usually the first four books of the New Testament). Somehow you went off the reservation by thinking I was suggesting you did not read your Bible.

 

No, not at all. There are miles between us.

I am saying that you have argued strongly against my view (not just what I deny of yours, but of what I believe to be true).

My argument is that sin is lawlessness. But my argument is that sin is also a power that has enslaved mankind. My comment is that there does not seem to be very much difference between your idea of a "sin nature" (although you don't use the term) and the biblical term that sin is a power under which mankind has been enslaved.