Agreed... I guess Andy Stanley is evil/wrong because 1. He's not his daddy... 2. He rejects Christadelphian heresy... 3. and because he doesn't wear a tie.
May this conclude the witch hunt...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Andy Stanley
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Agreed... I guess Andy Stanley is evil/wrong because 1. He's not his daddy... 2. He rejects Christadelphian heresy... 3. and because he doesn't wear a tie.
May this conclude the witch hunt...
When did I say that Jesus had a sin nature? NEVER. That is you putting words in my mouth.
What I deny is that man is BORN with a sin nature, and if you had read my posts with comprehension you would have seen that. I quoted Ecc 7:29 to support my position.
Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Scripture says God has made man upright, not a sinner. And the word "they" is plural showing this is speaking of ALL men, not just Adam.
But I think you knew exactly what I was saying. You can't have an honest debate with Calvinists, you folks will pull out every dirty trick in the book, not an honest person in the bunch. When you know you are losing a debate (which is practically ALWAYS) you will use dirty tricks in an attempt to smear your opponent. No one except the very simple are fooled (and by very simple I mean other Calvinists).
Nice try.
And here is the very simple I spoke about.
You guys think that slapping each other on the back proves you are right. Dumb.
Maybe you ought to quit parroting your Reformed/Calvinist creeds and actually read your Bible. Jesus came in the flesh, took on our nature, and was made like us in all things.
If we are born with a sin nature inherited from Adam, then so was Jesus, because Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and David was descended from Adam.
So what you're saying is that no one is born with a sin nature? Jesus wasn't and because He was born "in the likeness" of man, I wasn't born with one either? So now it's Pelagianism... oh brother... this gets better and better. As I recall, Pelagius was condemned and declared a heretic for his position.
Just so we're clear, in the New Testament, Paul affirms an inherited sin nature when he says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). And the Apostle John says this to his readers: If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).
So which is it... Christadelphianism or Pelagianism? Your choice...
Oh and for the record, calling other believers dumb is out of bounds and not necessary.
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
winmans response:
Bring some more pejoratives perhaps? Could you use a complete sentence as well?
You're not even close.
We believe the Word of the living God proves we are right. Not only do we believe it, we know it.
You believe Jesus could lie. Scripture denies your assumption. But Scripture typically and commonly denies your doctrine. No true Baptist believes your teachings.
Now you quote me out of context to misrepresent me. In the very next post I wrote;
I think you were completely aware of this post, so you intentionally try to misrepresent me. Nice character you have there.
Unfortunately for you, almost everybody here knows I do not believe in original sin, and have been posting scripture to prove this for years.
Oh well, if you can't win honestly, what else are you going to do?
Calvinists are silly, like immature little kids. You guys will gang up on people, all ridiculing that person you disagree with. You are like a pack of dogs.
You can't win one on one, and you can't even win in a gang, but you all slap each other on the back anyway. And the truly funny part is, you guys are actually FOOLED by your own behavior. :laugh:
Wow, you quote the same EXACT verses every Calvinist quotes. I'm shocked!
Paul also said he was alive without the law once.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. He had just said in vs. 7 that he would have not known sin, except for the law. Back in Romans 5 Paul said sin is not imputed when there is no law.
So Paul is speaking of when he came to know the law and what sin is. When he knew and understood the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died. You have to be ALIVE to die. You have to be ALIVE for sin to slay you.
When the prodigal son repented, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. If we are all born dead in sin, then no man could be said to be alive AGAIN, but that is exactly what Jesus said twice.
Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Jesus knows scripture better than your man Calvin.
I could show you dozens of more scriptures that all prove we are not born dead in sin, but spiritually die later when we knowingly and willingly choose to sin. But I doubt you will listen.
I truly pity you, Winman - you have my prayers. That's really all I can say.
Where is the scripture teaching the virgin birth is the means of being unblemished? You also falsely assume sin nature = guilty sinner when scripture also doesnt equate the 2. We still have the sin nature, yet are no longer guilty sinners as we are in Christ...proving your logic wrong.
I pity you for being so condescending.
You'll get over it.
DrJamesAch
New Member
oops and oops again
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
Really? Classic Arminianism rejects eternal security. :laugh: :laugh:
So for Stanley to proclaim in his book 'Eternal Security' (which I've read) that OSAS is biblical truth, such would show he is adhering to Calvinist doctrine, not Arminian. :laugh:
You're wrong yet again!!!!!!!! :wavey:
I doubt Stanley believes in Perseverance of the Saints, I would be willing to bet he believes in Preservation of the Saints which is very different. They are not the same doctrines whatsoever.
Yeah he never read the book. I have spoken with Arminian that do not like Stanley because he holds to Calvinist doctrines.
Try reading the book Eternal Security.... Please!!!!
P4t doesn't know what he is talking about. From the 'classical arminianism' wikipedia page...
Eternal security is also conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.[21] Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renunciation of saving faith. Such apostasy is irremediable.[22]
The Five articles of Remonstrance that Arminius's followers formulated in 1610 state the above beliefs regarding (I) conditional election, (II) unlimited atonement, (III) total depravity, (IV) total depravity and resistible grace, and (V) possibility of apostasy. Note, however, that the fifth article did not completely deny perseverance of the saints; Arminius, himself, said that "I never taught that a true believer can… fall away from the faith… yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such as kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding."[23] Further, the text of the Articles of Remonstrance says that no believer can be plucked from Christ's hand, and the matter of falling away, "loss of salvation" required further study before it could be taught with any certainty.
He holds to no Calvinist doctrines. He is squarely in the Free Grace camp who holds to a millennial exclusion eschatology. His eternal security must be understood and filtered through that lens.
I like Dr Stanley, but that view of millennial exclusion of his has NO scriptural support!
And also don't like his concept that we could commit apostasy, even to point denying jesus as saviour, yet still be saved!