The problem is you are not saying what the poster "infered" he thought you meant. So the poster fills in the blanks for you from his imagination. Only he can say to SG.....so you think Paul lied,etc....lol
-
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!
Do Christians Have an Inner Struggle with Sin or the Flesh?
- Thread starter Internet Theologian
- Start date
- Status
CBS
The Corinthians did many things after chapter 3 that needed to be corrected . That was not what Paul was speaking of in chapter 3 however.
We know because he tells us exactly what he was speaking about.
I am not certain why there is debate on this topic for 10 pages.
It seems that all the posters agree that there is at some level a need for immature believers to mature.
It seems that all the posters agree that there are believers who are sin, even occasionally and are repentant.
A problem arises when I read comments about how someone must have posted there was no need for repentance, though I haven't read that in the thread.
Another problem arises when I read comments about a highly credentialed leader of a seminary who considered some area of teaching as adding to the gospel, and some posters would actually discredit that man's concern. One who warns of excess should not be discredited, but the warning examined in light of the Scriptures. In this case, I personally think there was/is a cause for such warning. There is a great difference in a believer growing in the faith and setting aside the world as God gives insight and guidance in establishing principles of living, and one teaching that such must take place at conversion. The disciples had three years of training before they became apostles, and even then they were not perfect in understanding and living - or Peter would not have needed to be publicly rebuked by Paul.
So, I ask, what is the contention of this thread?
Do Christians have an inner struggle with sin and sinful living?
If they don't they aren't saved. It is as simple as that.
The Spiritual wars against the flesh, and the things of the flesh. The wages of sin, the earned payment of sin, brings death just as much to the believer as unbeliever. It is the gift of God that is life everlasting. The Scriptures state that all die, but not all die. Some die both physically and are already dead Spiritually. Others die physically and yest are alive by God's grace.
1 John states:
It is the PRACTICE of sin. One who can seeming go on with worldly living without rebuke. That person who has no evidence of a changed life is not changed. It is not a matter of "Lordship." It is a mater of redemption.
ALL believers have that one or more areas of a "besetting" sin, in which we remain weak, yet are made strong through and by Christ. We overcome the world not through human manipulation, but by remaining in the Spirit of God.
So, what is the contention on this thread?
Perhaps some need to change their BB name or practice what they call themselves. Does not a practice of sin deny what principles believers would stand upon and for?
It seems that all the posters agree that there is at some level a need for immature believers to mature.
It seems that all the posters agree that there are believers who are sin, even occasionally and are repentant.
A problem arises when I read comments about how someone must have posted there was no need for repentance, though I haven't read that in the thread.
Another problem arises when I read comments about a highly credentialed leader of a seminary who considered some area of teaching as adding to the gospel, and some posters would actually discredit that man's concern. One who warns of excess should not be discredited, but the warning examined in light of the Scriptures. In this case, I personally think there was/is a cause for such warning. There is a great difference in a believer growing in the faith and setting aside the world as God gives insight and guidance in establishing principles of living, and one teaching that such must take place at conversion. The disciples had three years of training before they became apostles, and even then they were not perfect in understanding and living - or Peter would not have needed to be publicly rebuked by Paul.
So, I ask, what is the contention of this thread?
Do Christians have an inner struggle with sin and sinful living?
If they don't they aren't saved. It is as simple as that.
The Spiritual wars against the flesh, and the things of the flesh. The wages of sin, the earned payment of sin, brings death just as much to the believer as unbeliever. It is the gift of God that is life everlasting. The Scriptures state that all die, but not all die. Some die both physically and are already dead Spiritually. Others die physically and yest are alive by God's grace.
1 John states:
Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
So no one is confused.
It is the PRACTICE of sin. One who can seeming go on with worldly living without rebuke. That person who has no evidence of a changed life is not changed. It is not a matter of "Lordship." It is a mater of redemption.
ALL believers have that one or more areas of a "besetting" sin, in which we remain weak, yet are made strong through and by Christ. We overcome the world not through human manipulation, but by remaining in the Spirit of God.
So, what is the contention on this thread?
Perhaps some need to change their BB name or practice what they call themselves. Does not a practice of sin deny what principles believers would stand upon and for?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Truth! Hey, it looks like Bob Hope has hit me with about 15 dumbs today, and likes for dhk. Wonder who bob hope could be? LOL!
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Probably covering up moreso that it is against the doctrine of the board than that it isn't what he really believes.
Well, he gave me 30 'dumbs'. I feel firmer in my position each time he 'dumbs' my posts. Anyone who denies bible inerrancy is someone I do not want supporting me.
Bob Hope must be a carnal christian. He denies bible inerrancy. How much more carnal can one be?
[Edited by Moderator: Name calling.]
Jeremiah saw clay in a potter's hand and the Lord used this to show him what He would do with His people. He continually shapes and molds us. We are still on that wheel, His hands are still on us, still shaping and molding us. We are not carnal christians, in that we can live carnally for months on end. God's hands are upon His children and when we sin, He continues to shape and mold us.
Yes. That is basically what I said. His initial statement was open to misunderstanding and his subsequent statement cleared up that misunderstanding.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes, I wanted to bring that to the forefront so no one misunderstood.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Debate the issues. Lay off the inflammatory language. I will answer your posts when you have something to say addressed to the OP or the substance of my post related to the OP, not personal attacks.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
It is not a document such as the archaic Westminster CoF (1647) which certain churches and individuals ascribe to. But rather I was using a current statement of faith to quote the position on salvation that one individual ascribes to. Apples and oranges. I also have a statement of faith.I want to acknowledge the above for the record. The link goes to a statement of faith, or confession of what is believed. This will be remembered the next time a person is ridiculed for doing the same in quoting or linking any CoF as they have been in the past.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Do they?
You attend a Reformed Baptist Church?
Do they have their own Statement of Faith or rely solely on the Westminster? or some other 17th C. document? L.C.or Faith perhaps?
Do they have their own constitution or pattern after one of the Puritans or maybe Spugeon's?
Are you still stuck back in the 17th century IT?
Why are you even using a computer? It is amazing that you have electricity. Does the Westminster CoF allow for that?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Truth has always been truth.
Who wrote your SoF? You? By the way most SoF are merely copy cat versions with some editing.They are typically shallow doctrinally. Go figure.
If it is based on what you post concerning your beliefs here it is old too, and based on Finney doctrine as all readily see.
As far as the CoF we have adopted it is of the LCoF 1689 and is quite biblical.
The bottom line is there is no difference of PURPOSE between your SoF and another CoF.
Well, he gave me 30 'dumbs'. I feel firmer in my position each time he 'dumbs' my posts. Anyone who denies bible inerrancy is someone I do not want supporting me.
I got 12 more 'dumb' on my resume. Lullz.
Look, stop the name-calling. If my Sof F is based on Finney then it is obvious your is based on the Catholic Church. You took it from the teachings of Augustine one of the Fathers of the RCC. It is nothing but Augustinianism, the person whom Calvin got most of his teaching. So your Reformed Baptist is reformed RCC. There you go: A reformed Catholic. I hear that Pope Francis is trying to reach out to you too.Truth has always been truth.
Who wrote your SoF? You? By the way most SoF are merely copy cat versions with some editing.They are typically shallow doctrinally. Go figure.
If it is based on what you post concerning your beliefs here it is old too, and based on Finney doctrine as all readily see.
As far as the CoF we have adopted it is of the LCoF 1689 and is quite biblical.
The bottom line is there is no difference of PURPOSE between your SoF and another CoF.
Truth is truth. But in many areas you don't have it.
In many areas it must be applicable to today. If the 17th century CoF that you have today isn't relevant to the needs of today it may be some good, but is not as effective as it could be. It is deficient in areas of the Charismatic movement, for example. It is deficient in areas of separation.
It also is in error concerning the Sabbath and the two ordinances. If it were the W CoF, which I just read it would be in error in these areas believing that the ordinances are sacraments. It is more of a Presbyterian document rather than a Baptist document, or so it seems.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes, they do.
Yep reformed.
We rely solely on Scripture, which is, by the way some 3400 years old or so, so I am 'stuck in the past' for sure, twice as long as you thought. The CoF we employ helps to systematize beliefs on the differing topics.
We had the apostle Paul write our constitution.
Waaaaayyyy before that my friend!
Is that the purpose of a SoF? Or, are you just out of control and being absurd?
Last edited:
- Status