I was born this way...

[Skandelon]

I agree that God determined in eternity past that they would be born (many of them) with a propensity to that particular sin.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! "Many of them?" So some were determined and others were contra-causally free to do otherwise? What?

"PROPENSITY"???? PROPENSITY????????

You go from God determines all desires, acts, choices of men for the praise of his glory, to 'many of them may be born with a propensity to sin." Are you kidding me?!

What happened to your conclusions of the Joseph story? Was the gay man made to be gay by God's determinitive counsel, and what ever that gay man does in his bedroom is meant for evil, but God intends it for good? Isn't that the way you justify God's determination of ALL evil choices? Does that apply to them all except the really gross ones that you can't stomach?

I used to think the child molestation, murder, and cannibilism of Dahmer would lead you to take this approach, but apparently those things aren't quite as detestable in your eyes as being gay.

Wow!

 

[Luke2427]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! "Many of them?" So some were determined and others were contra-causally free to do otherwise? What

No, that's not at all what I am saying. Some are born (according to the predestined plan of God) with a tendency to be more effeminate than others.

Other homosexuals are not born with it but (equally predetermined) develop those characteristics over time.

That's all I mean by "many of them." Not all are BORN that way. Some are, some develop it.

 

[Skandelon]

No, that's not at all what I am saying. Some are born (according to the predestined plan of God) with a tendency to be more effeminate than others.

Oh, ok. So back to the original question. When one who was born predetermined by God to be homosexual (effeminate) claims, "I was born this way, and God made me like this," do you affirm that claim? Or do you deny your doctrinal perspective and tell them they weren't born like that and God didn't make them that way?

Other homosexuals are not born with it but (equally predetermined) develop those characteristics over time.

That's all I mean by "many of them." Not all are BORN that way. Some are, some develop it.

Ok fine. Some develop it according to God's predetermined will, the question is still the same. Why don't you just answer the original question? Do you agree with them or disagree when they make this argument and why?

 

[Amy.G]

That's the flesh. The flesh lusts. Jesus had lusts just like us. Lusts do not make you evil, it is when you transgress God's law to fulfill a lust that you sin.

Jesus was hungry in the wilderness, is that evil? NO, but if he had turned the stone into bread to fulfill his hunger he would have sinned.

You are comparing being hungry to a child hitting another child??
One desire is from the body for survival. The other is from the heart, which the Bible says is wicked.

It is wrong when a little child hits his brother or sister for a toy, but certainly not a sin. God does not hold little children who do not have a clear understanding between good and evil accountable.

What double speak! It's wrong but it's not a sin??? Whatever is wrong most certainly is sin because God is the one who defines what is wrong.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

When the Jews sinned in the wilderness, God cursed them and said they would not enter the promised land. But God allowed the children to go in. Why? Because the children did not know between good and evil in that day.

So, God does not impute sin to little children who do not fully understand what they are doing.

Good thing, you wouldn't want little children going to hell would you?

God does impute sin to little children as Paul teaches in Romans that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Do they go to hell if they die? I don't believe so. I believe that Jesus' blood cleanses them. The Bible doesn't specifically say, but because God is gracious, which the Bible DOES say, I think those that die are with Him.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What double speak! It's wrong but it's not a sin??? Whatever is wrong most certainly is sin because God is the one who defines what is wrong.

Ahhhh Amy........You have just summed it up!!!!! :thumbs:

 

[Jerome]

Luke:

Not all are BORN that way. Some are, some develop it.

Albert Mohler:

sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/09/homosexuality-and-the-bible.pdf

Scripture. . .allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual.

 

[Winman]

You are comparing being hungry to a child hitting another child??
One desire is from the body for survival. The other is from the heart, which the Bible says is wicked.

Scripture says Jesus was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus felt the same temptations you do, he felt every kind of temptation there is, yet he never obeyed these temptations and sinned.

So, having lusts and being tempted is not a sin nature. The scriptures call it "flesh" and that is what I prefer to call it. We are all born "flesh". But flesh itself is not evil, it is the choice to obey our flesh when it would transgress the law of God that makes us evil.

What double speak! It's wrong but it's not a sin??? Whatever is wrong most certainly is sin because God is the one who defines what is wrong.

No, it is not sin. Scriptures say sin is not imputed when there is no law. That is why little children cannot be guilty of sin, they do not have the capacity to understand God's law.

God does impute sin to little children as Paul teaches in Romans that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Do they go to hell if they die? I don't believe so. I believe that Jesus' blood cleanses them. The Bible doesn't specifically say, but because God is gracious, which the Bible DOES say, I think those that die are with Him.

No, in Romans 9:11 Paul shows that babies have committed no sin.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Paul shows here that Esau and Jacob had done no evil in their mother's womb.

But what were Esau and Jacob doing in Rebecca's womb? FIGHTING!

Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Esau and Jacob were FIGHTING with each other in Rebecca's womb, and this is when she went to enquire of the Lord and heard the prophecy concerning two nations that Paul is speaking of in Romans 9.

Jacob and Esau were fighting, yet Paul said they had done no evil. This proves my point, sin is not imputed when there is no law (Rom 5:13, Rom 7:9). Esau and Jacob could not possibly know and understand the law at this point, and so were not imputed sinners.

The term "sinner" is a legal term, like the word "felon". It is not a physical state of being, but a legal judgment.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Note also, that Romans 9:11 is speaking of two NATIONS, not individuals. Paul is explaining why the Jews are being rejected while the Gentiles are now being brought into the kingdom.

 

[Amy.G]

Scripture says Jesus was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus was not tempted with hunger. The temptation was to listen to Satan and turn stones into bread. Being hungry is not a temptation to sin. Sin comes from the heart, not the stomach.

So, having lusts and being tempted is not a sin nature. The scriptures call it "flesh" and that is what I prefer to call it. We are all born "flesh". But flesh itself is not evil, it is the choice to obey our flesh when it would transgress the law of God that makes us evil.

So a child being hungry and desiring food is the same thing to you as a child hitting his brother in order to take his toy.
People, including children act out in violent ways because it's their nature to do so.

No, it is not sin. Scriptures say sin is not imputed when there is no law. That is why little children cannot be guilty of sin, they do not have the capacity to understand God's law.

Neither does a schizophrenic. Yet you would probably agree that the ones who have committed murder should be punished.

ALL have sinned. ALL are born according our father Adam.

No, in Romans 9:11 Paul shows that babies have committed no sin.

Of course a baby in the womb has "committed" no sin, but the nature is there and he will sin.


Your whole post is a big jumbled up mess of eisegesis.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Jesus was not tempted with hunger. The temptation was to listen to Satan and turn stones into bread. Being hungry is not a temptation to sin. Sin comes from the heart, not the stomach.

Really??

Luke 4, NASB
2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry. Emphasis added​

I believe that is the exact point, that Christ was tempted in the same way we are, and when we are hungry, angry, lonely, tired, stressed (the "HALTS" mentality) we are likely to be weak and disobedient. Because of our physical condition, our spirit also grows weak.

So a child being hungry and desiring food is the same thing to you as a child hitting his brother in order to take his toy.
People, including children act out in violent ways because it's their nature to do so.

It's also in our nature to be hungry, angry, lonely, tired, stressed, again, weakening our spirit as well as our physical well-being.

Surely that's not hard to understand?

Neither does a schizophrenic.

Ah, not so fast, Amy. Do you know any schizophrenics? Are you licensed to counsel them? As it happens, I am both. And yes, schizophrenics do know right from wrong, and if they commit crimes, darn right they should be punished. Regardless of who sin is committed, we are responsible for the sin we commit, and even though saved, sin has consequences, if not in the eternal sense, then certainly in the temporal sense. I'm really not certain why you chose to attack Winman's post. it is common sense and biblical teaching. Why attempt to discredit the position? Contrary to your statement that it is a "jumbled up mess of eisegesis" it is an excellent breakdown of the facts of sin, responsibility and Christ's role in delivering us.

 

[Amy.G]

Really??

Luke 4, NASB
2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry. Emphasis added​

Being hungry is not the same as acting out in anger. I am talking about a moral nature, not physical survival.

It's also in our nature to be hungry, angry, lonely, tired, stressed, again, weakening our spirit as well as our physical well-being.

It only weakens that which is already weak. We act out sin because it's our nature to sin. Sin comes from the heart, not the body.

Ah, not so fast, Amy. Do you know any schizophrenics? Are you licensed to counsel them? As it happens, I am both. And yes, schizophrenics do know right from wrong, and if they commit crimes, darn right they should be punished. Regardless of who sin is committed, we are responsible for the sin we commit, and even though saved, sin has consequences, if not in the eternal sense, then certainly in the temporal sense.

I know they here voices and believe them be real. I know they follow those voices. I know some are so bad that they cannot understand right from wrong. That's why they can claim innocence by reason of insanity.

I'm really not certain why you chose to attack Winman's post.

Because his view is un-biblical and un-baptist!

We are not born good. Only God is good!

 

[Amy.G]

Really??

Luke 4, NASB
2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry. Emphasis added​

QUOTE]
Being hungry is not the same as acting out in anger. I am talking about a moral nature, not physical survival.

It's also in our nature to be hungry, angry, lonely, tired, stressed, again, weakening our spirit as well as our physical well-being.

It only weakens that which is already weak. We act out sin because it's our nature to sin. Sin comes from the heart, not the body.

Ah, not so fast, Amy. Do you know any schizophrenics? Are you licensed to counsel them? As it happens, I am both. And yes, schizophrenics do know right from wrong, and if they commit crimes, darn right they should be punished. Regardless of who sin is committed, we are responsible for the sin we commit, and even though saved, sin has consequences, if not in the eternal sense, then certainly in the temporal sense.

I know they hear voices and believe them to be real. I know they follow those voices. I know some are so bad that they cannot understand right from wrong. That's why they can claim innocence by reason of insanity.

I'm really not certain why you chose to attack Winman's post.

Because his view is un-biblical and un-baptist!

We are not born good. Only God is good!

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

 

[Winman]

Really??

Luke 4, NASB
2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry. Emphasis added​

I believe that is the exact point, that Christ was tempted in the same way we are, and when we are hungry, angry, lonely, tired, stressed (the "HALTS" mentality) we are likely to be weak and disobedient. Because of our physical condition, our spirit also grows weak.

It's also in our nature to be hungry, angry, lonely, tired, stressed, again, weakening our spirit as well as our physical well-being.

Surely that's not hard to understand?

Ah, not so fast, Amy. Do you know any schizophrenics? Are you licensed to counsel them? As it happens, I am both. And yes, schizophrenics do know right from wrong, and if they commit crimes, darn right they should be punished. Regardless of who sin is committed, we are responsible for the sin we commit, and even though saved, sin has consequences, if not in the eternal sense, then certainly in the temporal sense. I'm really not certain why you chose to attack Winman's post. it is common sense and biblical teaching. Why attempt to discredit the position? Contrary to your statement that it is a "jumbled up mess of eisegesis" it is an excellent breakdown of the facts of sin, responsibility and Christ's role in delivering us.

It's really simple, if babies are wicked sinners, then they deserve to fry in hell like any other sinner.

But does anybody really believe that? NO. Even the most hard-core Calvinists will make an exception for babies. Why? Because deep down they KNOW babies are not sinners.

But instead of confessing babies are not sinners, they invent more error and claim God gives "special grace" to babies. They say babies are saved without faith in Jesus. This is serious error!

No, Paul showed that babies are not sinners in Rom 9:11, and other scripture like Deu 1:39, Isa 7:16, Jon 4:11 , 2 Sam 12:23, and Mat 18:3,10 confirms this.

And if you do believe babies should burn in hell, then error has fried your brain.

 

[annsni]

It's really simple, if babies are wicked sinners, then they deserve to fry in hell like any other sinner.

But does anybody really believe that? NO. Even the most hard-core Calvinists will make an exception for babies. Why? Because deep down they KNOW babies are not sinners.

But instead of confessing babies are not sinners, they invent more error and claim God gives "special grace" to babies. They say babies are saved without faith in Jesus. This is serious error!

No, Paul showed that babies are not sinners in Rom 9:11, and other scripture like Deu 1:39, Isa 7:16, Jon 4:11 , 2 Sam 12:23, and Mat 18:3,10 confirms this.

And if you do believe babies should burn in hell, then error has fried your brain.

See, you misrepresent Calvinists. Deep down, every Bible believing Christian knows that babies are sinners. That's just biblical truth.

 

[Winman]

See, you misrepresent Calvinists. Deep down, every Bible believing Christian knows that babies are sinners. That's just biblical truth.

If I lived near you I would bet you a breakfast at a nice restaurant that you do not really believe babies are sinners. And I'll prove it.

Let me ask you this Ann, and please answer honestly.

Do you believe aborted babies and newborn babies that die should go to hell?

Yes, or no?

 

[annsni]

If I lived near you I would bet you a breakfast at a nice restaurant that you do not really believe babies are sinners. And I'll prove it.

Let me ask you this Ann, and please answer honestly.

Do you believe aborted babies and newborn babies that die should go to hell?

Yes, or no?

If that is where they should go according to God - yes.

 

[Winman]

If that is where they should go according to God - yes.

And do you believe God sends aborted babies and newborn babies who die to hell?

 

[annsni]

And do you believe God sends aborted babies and newborn babies who die to hell?

If that is where God decides that they belong, yes. I believe that God is a just God and that He judges rightly. If someone is in hell, they belong there. If they are in heaven, they belong there. If a child is in heaven, it is by the saving grace of God covering their sins just the same as if an adult is in heaven. If a child is in hell, it is because that is where they rightly belong.

I lost two children. I trust that God could save them just as He saved me. I also know that they could also very well be in hell. I trust Him to do what is right.

 

[Winman]

If that is where God decides that they belong, yes. I believe that God is a just God and that He judges rightly. If someone is in hell, they belong there. If they are in heaven, they belong there. If a child is in heaven, it is by the saving grace of God covering their sins just the same as if an adult is in heaven. If a child is in hell, it is because that is where they rightly belong.

I lost two children. I trust that God could save them just as He saved me. I also know that they could also very well be in hell. I trust Him to do what is right.

And what do you think is right for your two babies?

 

[annsni]

And what do you think is right for your two babies?

Whatever God has deemed right. If God were to send my babies to hell, I would be heartbroken just as I would be if my older brother were to die today denying Christ. But I would know that it was a right judgment. I trust God. Don't you?

 

[Skandelon]

Whatever God has deemed right. If God were to send my babies to hell, I would be heartbroken just as I would be if my older brother were to die today denying Christ. But I would know that it was a right judgment. I trust God. Don't you?

That is the best answer to this question regardless of where you stand regarding the doctrine of depravity and original sin.