Infants born with sin nature

[DHK]

Excellent observations Romans7man, if we are born with a sinful nature, then why do we feel good when we do that which is good, and feel guilty and fearful when we do that which we know is wrong? This is true even before one trusts Christ.

Man has always been satisfied with his own perverted "sense of goodness." It is difficult to make him see his "sinfulness." What you are saying only goes against you that man has a heart that is sinful--above all things deceitful and desperately wicked. Mother Theresa is held up to the world as the exemplar of "goodness." She was satisfied in the "good" that she did. But it was all for naught. If she died believing what she did, then she is in hell today. So much for her "goodness." In fact the very thing you are espousing is humanism--that man is good. Man is not good. Only God is good. Man is evil. Man must realize his lostness, his sinfulness, his crimes against God, before he can be saved. Otherwise he is lost for all eternity. In God's eyes man cannot do good. Out of an evil tree comes evil fruit.

And how can we condemn crime or perversion if it is perfectly natural to do so?

A man can have adultery with another man's wife and vehemently condemn another for having adultery with his wife. He still knows it is wrong. He has the law of God written on his heart. His conscience bears witness to him that it is wrong. He accuses others while excusing himself. (Romans 2:14,15)

In another thread I was accused of being a humanist because I disagree with original sin.

Charles Finney denied the depravity of man. The result is Pelagianism and humanism. If man is sinless, man is good. If man is good, then man is God. For only God is good.

The opposite is true, if men are depraved by nature, then perversion and criminal activity are natural.

Have you looked around the world lately?

Those who hold to OS actually agree with homosexuals who commonly excuse themselves by arguing "I was born this way"

Now that is false, and you know it. There are some that do, for they are unsaved. Most Catholics hold to the depravity of man. Most Protestants hold to the depravity of mankind. Most of orthodox Christianity does. But you have sided with an heretical position of humanism and Pelagianism. So be careful who you are pointing fingers at.

or "This is how God made me.". If OS is true, then these folks are correct and are telling the truth. And if you go further and deny free will, then one must believe that God desires these persons to commit these sins, otherwise he would change their nature.

You know that your mischaracterization is completely false and you should not post things like that.

So, it is not those who disagree with OS that are humanists, it is those that assert it. They have given these persons the perfect excuse for their sins.

You have it backwards. I posted what Finney believed from a reliable source, and how he was accused of humanism. You are posting your confused philosophy which makes no sense. In fact given your logical conclusion you would not believe in eternal security either.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

So what does it matter Plain n simple? I suppose as much as it matters whether you are called a friend and a brother in the Lord or you are called a blasphemer and a heretic. About that much. Even DHK, (and others I might add) the moderator of this list, has called myself both of those things for disagreement over OAS, OS, and its implications. So why might it matter Plain n simple?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Wiman:L Edit- I forgot to mention that Isaiah is not speaking of individuals here, but of the nation of Israel. That is very important, and vs. 8 in no way can be construed to be teaching original sin.

HP: Now here is an individual fair minded enough to rightfully use a contextual issue as a reason for his views. You are doing a fine job of thinking Winman. Keep it up.:thumbsup:

 

[Romans7man]

I'm not sure why this all matters. If we are born into this world, we will need the blood of Jesus to cleanse us no matter what. When we sin, considered a sinner when born, ability to sin from birth but not committed an actual sin? Could someone define what the actual arguement is here and why it matters?

You are totally right. No matter what you say your theological position is, no man can enter into heaven without the blood of Christ.

That is a very good question. It matters because to say one is born a sinner and then God will send you to hell for being a sinner is to shuck the responsibility of being a sinner. It puts the blame on someone else and not on self. Those who believe in OS tell us we get it from Adam, like we are to believe Adam recreated his own nature somehow.

Another reason it matters is because, we are dealing with scripture and the interpretation thereof. If one can not properly interpret scripture, we have a problem.

I think the biggest problem with the belief of OS is if one follows it to it's logical conclusion, it disqualifies Christ as Saviour. Without them understanding it they are saying Christ has a sinful nature. Now the Christadelphians will just say even though Christ had a sinful nature he never sinned, but both Calvinist and others besides the Christadelphians consider Christadelphians heretics anyway.

Depending on which one you talk to depends on how this sinful nature is defined. Some define it from the Greek word sarx, which means flesh. The problem with that is, Christ came just as we are, in flesh. He is a descendant of man on one side and God on the other. That would make Him at least half a sinner and because we know a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, Christ would be a sinner by birth.

If one asks someone else they may be told we get our sinful nature from Adam, because his nature changed at the fall. Nature here is like some sort of inner control in the soul or something. It's defined as like something other than the flesh. Not quit sure, nor do I think they are either.

So it is a mixed bag to what one is told when asked to define this mysterious sinful nature.

It's origins comes from the Gnostic religion. The Gnostic belief is, All matter is evil, so therefore all flesh is made of matter it must be evil as well. Some even went as far as to say Christ could not have come in the flesh, but rather He came in the appearance of flesh. That is heresy. You can read about this in 1John where he makes it clear Christ came in the flesh and anyone that says otherwise is an antichrist.
St. Augustine was a Manichean follower before coming to the Christian faith and the Manichean religion is mixed with gnostic beliefs. Austine and Pelagius had an exchange of letters and when the dust settled Augustine must have been a better debater, because his won out with the Church.

Those of us that do not hold to OS are called Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. That is not to say we hold to everything Pelagius did, but we are unfairly accused of it anyway.
But we don't retaliate by saying, now that you believe in OS you must believe everything Augustine did. He also believed in purgatory, but then again so did the Manichean religion.
You want to know some of the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, check out the Manichean religion, it's almost like a check list as to what both believe.

 

[Romans7man]

HP: It matters and greatly so. The nature we are born in affects practically every single doctrine you can mention, including but not limited to the nature of Christ. it has ramifications from salvation to sanctification. It affects how one views sin and the penalty of it. It will affect how one views their own sin and if in fact they will see the real need and necessity of repentance or excuse it as being necessitated. It affects one whole attitude towards sin and punishment.

More than just those issue, it affects ones ability to worship God according to the dictates of ones conscience in almost every Church. because of the anathemas that has been historically placed on any deviation from the 'orthodox' viewpoint, it often determines the usefulness one can have in different groups. I can tell you first hand, when you deviate from the accepted 'orthodox' views, you are NOT generally accepted and can have a spiritual effect on not only yourself but others as well. Regardless if you voice your concerns vocally, or simply choose to remain silent, you are regarded as untrustworthy for almost the least tasks in most churches. This is again NOT because of something you have said or done, or the life you live, but rather simple because you refuse to raise your right hand to dogmas one honestly believes are contrary to God's Word.

What does it matter? Taste and see. Listen to the hate filled rhetoric of some even on this list.

Well said!!

 

[DHK]

That is a very good question. It matters because to say one is born a sinner and then God will send you to hell for being a sinner is to shuck the responsibility of being a sinner. It puts the blame on someone else and not on self. Those who believe in OS tell us we get it from Adam, like we are to believe Adam recreated his own nature somehow.

First, the orthodox position of all Christianity is and always has been that man is born in sin. Those outside of that position have taken a heretical view such as Pelagianism and humanism. Charles Finney did that, and was labeled a heretic.
Second, those who hold to the depraved nature of mankind leave the death of infants in God's hands knowing "that the judge of all the earth shall do right."
Third, we also know that without the shed blood of Christ there is no redemption. Paul said: "For Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. If children are not sinners then did Christ come to save them? Are they under the blood? The obvious answer is no.

Another reason it matters is because, we are dealing with scripture and the interpretation thereof. If one can not properly interpret scripture, we have a problem.

I agree.

I think the biggest problem with the belief of OS is if one follows it to it's logical conclusion, it disqualifies Christ as Saviour.

Rather it disqualifies children's need for a Saviour. No need--no saviour.

Without them understanding it they are saying Christ has a sinful nature.

That is a foolish accusation, and a statement that underscores your lack of Biblical knowledge.

Now the Christadelphians will just say even though Christ had a sinful nature he never sinned, but both Calvinist and others besides the Christadelphians consider Christadelphians heretics anyway.

False premises lead to false conclusions.

Depending on which one you talk to depends on how this sinful nature is defined. Some define it from the Greek word sarx, which means flesh. The problem with that is, Christ came just as we are, in flesh. He is a descendant of man on one side and God on the other. That would make Him at least half a sinner and because we know a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, Christ would be a sinner by birth.

His human nature came from Mary. The sin nature is passed down by man, from Adam. He was virgin born, and thus escaped the sin nature of man.

If one asks someone else they may be told we get our sinful nature from Adam, because his nature changed at the fall. Nature here is like some sort of inner control in the soul or something. It's defined as like something other than the flesh. Not quit sure, nor do I think they are either.

Flesh is meat. There is nothing wrong in the chemicals that make up the cells of your body. About 40 years ago your body was worth less than $5.00. Now, because of the value of organs and other body parts it is worth much more. That is flesh. God breathed into that flesh a living soul. He made man in the image and likeness of God. (not physical). That image was marred at the fall. Seth was made in the image of Adam. Man has lost the image of God. It is corrupted by the fall. It is now a sin nature. It can only be partially restored at salvation, and fully restored at the resurrection.

So it is a mixed bag to what one is told when asked to define this mysterious sinful nature.

It is not mysterious at all.
One is born with a nature that is prone to sin.

It's origins comes from the Gnostic religion. The Gnostic belief is, All matter is evil, so therefore all flesh is made of matter it must be evil as well.

This is false as even David could understand this concept. Gnosticism is vastly different than belief in a sin nature. Just because you don't understand it don't go saying it has its roots in a false religion. That again underscores your lack of Biblical knowledge.

Some even went as far as to say Christ could not have come in the flesh, but rather He came in the appearance of flesh. That is heresy.

And so it is, but it has nothing to do with the depravity of man.

You can read about this in 1John where he makes it clear Christ came in the flesh and anyone that says otherwise is an antichrist.

But you don't read the word "gnostic" there.

St. Augustine was a Manichean follower before coming to the Christian faith and the Manichean religion is mixed with gnostic beliefs. Austine and Pelagius had an exchange of letters and when the dust settled Augustine must have been a better debater, because his won out with the Church.

Those who deny the depravity of man have taken up the heresy of Pelagianism. Note well your own post.

Those of us that do not hold to OS are called Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. That is not to say we hold to everything Pelagius did, but we are unfairly accused of it anyway.

Not unfairly. Look it up.

But we don't retaliate by saying, now that you believe in OS you must believe everything Augustine did. He also believed in purgatory, but then again so did the Manichean religion.

So why the retaliation, that you say you don't do. The guilt by association post?

You want to know some of the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, check out the Manichean religion, it's almost like a check list as to what both believe.

The depravity of man is taught in the Bible, and did not originate with Augustine as some would like to think. Jeremiah taught it; David taught it; Moses taught it in Genesis. It is God that teaches it.

 

[DHK]

HP: It matters and greatly so. The nature we are born in affects practically every single doctrine you can mention, including but not limited to the nature of Christ. it has ramifications from salvation to sanctification. It affects how one views sin and the penalty of it. It will affect how one views their own sin and if in fact they will see the real need and necessity of repentance or excuse it as being necessitated. It affects one whole attitude towards sin and punishment.

More than just those issue, it affects ones ability to worship God according to the dictates of ones conscience in almost every Church. because of the anathemas that has been historically placed on any deviation from the 'orthodox' viewpoint, it often determines the usefulness one can have in different groups. I can tell you first hand, when you deviate from the accepted 'orthodox' views, you are NOT generally accepted and can have a spiritual effect on not only yourself but others as well. Regardless if you voice your concerns vocally, or simply choose to remain silent, you are regarded as untrustworthy for almost the least tasks in most churches. This is again NOT because of something you have said or done, or the life you live, but rather simple because you refuse to raise your right hand to dogmas one honestly believes are contrary to God's Word.

What does it matter? Taste and see. Listen to the hate filled rhetoric of some even on this list.

Do you have a sin nature HP?
Are you sinless?
Does nothing affect the way you worship?
Will you be able to stand before God and tell him that you are as holy as he is for you have never sinned?
Why do you need a Savior?

 

[Winman]

Response to DHK; There is so much misrepresentation in your last post I don't know where to begin. First, I do not believe man is good. I believe men are made upright (Ecc 7:29), but 100% of men will sin against God. I believe we are like Adam who was created good, but highly susceptible to temptation and will sin as he did. Being guided by a natural mind that is devoid of God's word, we will choose our own path and sin. It is only the Word of God that prevents us from sinning. I do not believe God holds a child accountable until he reaches a maturity where he can distinguish between good and evil before God. At this point, when a young person sins, they are held accountable and justly condemned as a sinner. I believe 100% of men will and do commit sin at this point. There are many reasons for this, which I do not have space (phone) to explain. But basically put, I believe all men come into the world like Adam, and sin in like manner.

Second, I do not follow Finney at all, but I do know for a fact he believed in Total Depravity, he wrote on the subject, Google and see. So this is another outright misrepresentation by you.

So, get your facts straight before you misrepresent others.

 

[DHK]

So, get your facts straight before you misrepresent others.

Again, a quote from Beale's "Search for Purity."

[FONT=&quot]Charles Finney was most famous as an innovative revivalist who introduced “new measures” or pragmatic methods, such as the “anxious bench” and the protracted meeting, to induce individuals to respond to the gospel. In 1835, he became professor of theology at Oberlin College (est. 1832) in Ohio, where he remained for the rest of his life. He served as the college president from 1851 to 1865. Finney, along with Asa Mahan, Oberlin’s first president, established and popularized the institution a seedbed of New England Theology. Out of the welter of contradictory ideas at Oberlin, two distinct theological trends found significant support: Pragmatism and Perfectionism. The pragmatic tendency was revealed in Finney’s attitude toward revivals: “Revival is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means.” He justified the means that he used on the basis of the results he achieved. If his “new measures” persuaded men to make professions of faith, then they must be legitimate.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Oberlin Perfectionism taught that man is capable of attaining entire sanctification in this life. Charles Hodge, a critic of the view, maintained that the root of this system was the assertion that “every man in virtue of being a free agent, has plenary ability to fulfill all his obligations.” Finney assumed that God cannot justly require a man to do anything he is unable to do, and thus the law is brought down to the level of a man’s ability. Furthermore, if every man can be entirely sanctified, then society itself is also perfectible. Mahan and Finney trained scores of professional evangelists who were noted for their zeal for social reform. This ideal of changing society was most popularly expressed in the work of Charles M. Sheldon (1857-1946), a graduate of Andover Seminary and pastor of the Central Congregational Church in Topeka, Kansas. His novel, In His Steps (1896), which he read chapter by chapter in his congregation, presented a method for reforming society through following the example of Jesus. Pragmatism and Pelagian Perfectionism blended naturally into what became the Social Gospel.

[/FONT]

 

[Winman]

To DHK continued;

Further, it is your view that supports humanism, not mine. In your view men are born totally depraved. In this view perversion and criminal activity must be considered "natural". You have given perfect excuse and license for sinful behavior, and destroyed any basis for judging it sinful. It cannot be sinful for a man to obey his nature, as that is the only possible thing he can do.

The scriptures show the opposite, the scriptures show men by nature have the law written on their hearts. Even without God's written law, men knew sins like murder, lying, and stealing were wrong. Men know perversion is wrong and "unnatural" (Rom 2:26-27). Though man is naturally devoid of the Word of God unless God reveals it to him, man has the ability to perceive God through creation and is without excuse.

My view holds all men accountable, your view provides every sinner with the perfect excuse that they were "born a sinner". This is the favorite excuse of perverts and liberals who excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. Your view supports humanism, not mine.

 

[Romans7man]

First, the orthodox position of all Christianity is and always has been that man is born in sin. Those outside of that position have taken a heretical view such as Pelagianism and humanism. Charles Finney did that, and was labeled a heretic.
Second, those who hold to the depraved nature of mankind leave the death of infants in God's hands knowing "that the judge of all the earth shall do right."
Third, we also know that without the shed blood of Christ there is no redemption. Paul said: "For Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. If children are not sinners then did Christ come to save them? Are they under the blood? The obvious answer is no.

I agree.

Rather it disqualifies children's need for a Saviour. No need--no saviour.

That is a foolish accusation, and a statement that underscores your lack of Biblical knowledge.

False premises lead to false conclusions.

His human nature came from Mary. The sin nature is passed down by man, from Adam. He was virgin born, and thus escaped the sin nature of man.

Flesh is meat. There is nothing wrong in the chemicals that make up the cells of your body. About 40 years ago your body was worth less than $5.00. Now, because of the value of organs and other body parts it is worth much more. That is flesh. God breathed into that flesh a living soul. He made man in the image and likeness of God. (not physical). That image was marred at the fall. Seth was made in the image of Adam. Man has lost the image of God. It is corrupted by the fall. It is now a sin nature. It can only be partially restored at salvation, and fully restored at the resurrection.

It is not mysterious at all.
One is born with a nature that is prone to sin.

This is false as even David could understand this concept. Gnosticism is vastly different than belief in a sin nature. Just because you don't understand it don't go saying it has its roots in a false religion. That again underscores your lack of Biblical knowledge.

And so it is, but it has nothing to do with the depravity of man.

But you don't read the word "gnostic" there.

Those who deny the depravity of man have taken up the heresy of Pelagianism. Note well your own post.

Not unfairly. Look it up.

So why the retaliation, that you say you don't do. The guilt by association post?

The depravity of man is taught in the Bible, and did not originate with Augustine as some would like to think. Jeremiah taught it; David taught it; Moses taught it in Genesis. It is God that teaches it.

As you say.

 

[Winman]

Again, a quote from Beale's "Search for Purity."
[/FONT]

Why don't you read Finney? I Googled "Finney Total Depravity" half an hour ago and read part of what he believed. He absolutely believed in TD, although his concept is not the classic Calvinist view.

Why would you judge him on what an enemy said (and he has many, especially Calvinists), and not his own writtings?

That said, my view on OS came from my own study from the scriptures, though I have also read writers on this subject.

 

[Romans7man]

To DHK continued;

Further, it is your view that supports humanism, not mine. In your view men are born totally depraved. In this view perversion and criminal activity must be considered "natural". You have given perfect excuse and license for sinful behavior, and destroyed any basis for judging it sinful. It cannot be sinful for a man to obey his nature, as that is the only possible thing he can do.

The scriptures show the opposite, the scriptures show men by nature have the law written on their hearts. Even without God's written law, men knew sins like murder, lying, and stealing were wrong. Men know perversion is wrong and "unnatural" (Rom 2:26-27). Though man is naturally devoid of the Word of God unless God reveals it to him, man has the ability to perceive God through creation and is without excuse.

My view holds all men accountable, your view provides every sinner with the perfect excuse that they were "born a sinner". This is the favorite excuse of perverts and liberals who excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. Your view supports humanism, not mine.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::godisgood:

 

[DHK]

Response to DHK; There is so much misrepresentation in your last post I don't know where to begin. First, I do not believe man is good. I believe men are made upright (Ecc 7:29), but 100% of men will sin against God.

Then you are inconsistent in your view. First, we should keep the topic on track. Depravity of man and original sin deals with infants and small children, not adults, though its consequent theology may have results on adults.
"Believing man is good," is not the topic. The topic is "Infants born with a sin nature." Do you believe that? The answer is no. Correct?
Take it one step further. Then do you believe an infant is born "good"? I believe that in the past you have used words like, good, innocent, etc. How can an infant be evil (not good)? Infants and children. That is the topic.

I believe we are like Adam who was created good, but highly susceptible to temptation and will sin as he did.

Adam didn't have to sin. If we are created "good" as Adam was, what causes us to give into temptation and sin. Why should any person sin. Why don't people live perfect and sinless lives. Surely there must be some examples of this if man is not born of sin. It would only make sense. Finney taught this.

Being guided by a natural mind that is devoid of God's word, we will choose our own path and sin.

Why do we choose our own pat and sin, if we don't have a sin nature. We should naturally love the one who created us. The evidence of the Creator is all around us. He has put His law in our hearts. He has given us a conscience to tell us if what we are doing is wrong or right? There is no reason to sin. God has set boundaries all around us. In fact the Bible states: "they are without excuse."

It is only the Word of God that prevents us from sinning.

Can you back that up with Scripture. I don't believe that statement.

I do not believe God holds a child accountable until he reaches a maturity where he can distinguish between good and evil before God. At this point, when a young person sins, they are held accountable and justly condemned as a sinner.

Start a thread on accountability. That is another topic. You have brought in a red herring. We are talking about the depravity of man, not accountability.

I believe 100% of men will and do commit sin at this point.

If they don't have a sin nature there is no reason for them to sin. Do you have any Scripture to back this up?

There are many reasons for this, which I do not have space (phone) to explain. But basically put, I believe all men come into the world like Adam, and sin in like manner.

Adam didn't have to sin. Adam came into this world as an adult, not an infant; created not born. The comparison is not equal.
Infants come into this world born of their parents, inheriting the nature of Adam instead of the image of God.
They may have the image of God, but not like Adam did. The image is marred by sin, and therefore it is a sin nature.

Second, I do not follow Finney at all, but I do know for a fact he believed in Total Depravity, he wrote on the subject, Google and see. So this is another outright misrepresentation by you.

Yes, he did write on the subject. He was President of a college that taught it. He taught it in that college. Oberlin College.

So, get your facts straight before you misrepresent others.

No misrepresentation. Only the facts.

 

[DHK]

Why don't you read Finney? I Googled "Finney Total Depravity" half an hour ago and read part of what he believed. He absolutely believed in TD, although his concept is not the classic Calvinist view.

Why would you judge him on what an enemy said (and he has many, especially Calvinists), and not his own writtings?

That said, my view on OS came from my own study from the scriptures, though I have also read writers on this subject.

It doesn't take much study does it. Sometimes other men can do a better job then I can, having already waded through his works. Take this quote for example:

I have everywhere found that the peculiarities of hyper-Calvinism have been the stumbling block both of the church and of the world. A nature sinful in itself, a total inability to accept Christ and to obey God, condemnation to eternal death for the sin of Adam and for a sinful nature,—and all the kindred and resultant dogmas of that peculiar school, have been the stumbling block of believers and the ruin of sinners." [Memoirs, 444].​

But Finney was too much of a novice to distinguish between biblical, orthodox Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. He lumped them together and ended up rejecting much sound doctrine along with what he thought was "hyper-Calvinism." Far from being a "moderate," Finney answered hyper-Calvinism by shifting to the opposite extreme—Pelagianism.

Notice that under the guise of condemning "hyper-Calvinism," Finney expressly attacked the idea that people are fallen and depraved because of a sinful nature inherited from Adam. That is the doctrine of original sin, not a hyper-Calvinist dogma, but a standard tenet of Christian doctrine—and recognized as such by all mainstream Christians since the Pelagian heresy of the Fifth Century. Note, too, that Finney rejected the idea that sinners are totally unable to please God (contra Rom. 8:7-8). Again, total inability is no hyper-Calvinist notion, but a biblical truth defended by Augustine and the Protestant Reformers alike.

Many of the doctrines Finney rejected were central to the gospel itself. Remember his comments about his own pastor's views? ("I could not receive his views on the subject of atonement, regeneration, faith, repentance, the slavery of the Will, or any of their kindred doctrines.") Again, not one of the issues he lists deals with any error that arises out of hyper-Calvinism. Instead, what Finney was rejecting were basic biblical doctrines and long-standing tenets of Christian orthodoxy. He jettisoned several essential aspects of Protestant and Reformed doctrine related to "the atonement, regeneration, faith, repentance, the slavery of the will." Many of the doctrines he argued most vehemently against are, in fact, core biblical truths.

You ought to read the entire article for yourself. It is really well written and objective.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

 

[Winman]

DHK, your whole argument is destroyed by Adam. He did not have a sin nature. If the nature controls one, no amount of temptation could have caused him to sin as no amount of temptation caused Jesus to sin. It is your view that is inconsistent, Adam should not have been able to sin in your view.

It is free will that enables sin. We are born flesh like Adam and are highly susceptible to temptation as he and Eve were. Adam had free will and chose to sin, we sin the exact same way, we choose to sin.

Children? Children are innocent and lack knowledge to make willful decisions to sin against God. When they mature and know good from evil and sin, they are condemned as sinners.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Winman, when you disagree with some on this list, do not even begin to think they're going to give you a fair shake. You will be attacked, misrepresented, slandered, and maligned. Welcome to the Baptist board my friend. In the and all that will matter is the truth. Hang in there.

Your posts have been excellent with great truthful insight. You are right on as to original sin giving an excuse and a license for sinful behavior. You are dead on that it cannot be sinful for a man to simply obey his nature, as original sin logically indicates. Keep thinking!:thumbs:

 

[plain_n_simple]

So what does it matter Plain n simple? I suppose as much as it matters whether you are called a friend and a brother in the Lord or you are called a blasphemer and a heretic. About that much. Even DHK, (and others I might add) the moderator of this list, has called myself both of those things for disagreement over OAS, OS, and its implications. So why might it matter Plain n simple?

HP I did not mean to sound flippant in my question of why it matters. It does matter you are right. I was just trying to play catch up on 3 simular threads on this subject,and got a little frustrated. Carry on.

 

[Winman]

Winman, when you disagree with some on this list, do not even begin to think they're going to give you a fair shake. You will be attacked, misrepresented, slandered, and maligned. Welcome to the Baptist board my friend. In the and all that will matter is the truth. Hang in there.

Your posts have been excellent with great truthful insight. You are right on as to original sin giving an excuse and a license for sinful behavior. You are dead on that it cannot be sinful for a man to simply obey his nature, as original sin logically indicates. Keep thinking!:thumbs:

This is not new for me, I noticed many scriptures that disagreed with OS many years ago. It is difficult to shift a position when you are taught OS since you were a boy, but I studied and prayed and became convinced it is complete error.

I might add that free will is not the only cause of sin, lack of faith precedes any freewill choice to sin. Sometimes we ignore God's warning and think we can get away with sin. I found out the hard way this is not true, God is always right!

I am not bothered by the ridicule, it is to be expected.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Winman, you are indeed correct that Charles Finney believed in total depravity. You are also correct that the concept of total depravity to Finney was not the classic Calvinist view. Men like DHK judge Finney, myself, or others, in the same manner Augustine charged Pelagius. They are not concerned about fairness, or properly representing the views of another, but only seek to destroy any idea that might be seen as different than what they have hammered out on their own anvil. Notice carefully that DHK will not take the time to seek out the honest views of those he calls heretical, but instead resorts to the mischaracterizations of the opponents of men like Finney, and what they have said about him. Face it. It is simply easier to discredit one by the means, or lack thereof, that DHK is using, than to actually do the necessary reading and study to establish the truth of what he really stated and felt. Oh yes, he is ever reading the remarks of others concerning others, but never coming to the truth.