Love requires choice?

[kyredneck]

Webdog believes what the Bible says.

No he doesn't, just as you he rejects the necessity of first being born of God in order to enter, or even see, the kingdom of God.

Why must you be dishonest here? No one said or even hinted that any man can justify himself by keeping the law.

???? How then exactly do these that you theorize of remain sinless of their own doing?

And you and others still have not given an example of when you HAD to sin. If we are compelled to sin because of our sin nature, you should easily be able to give examples of many times when your sin nature forced and compelled you to sin where you had no choice, and could not have done the right thing.

So please, tell us of some of these many times you were forced by your nature to sin.

I'll be waiting...

Egad, you have it so totally whacko backwards, it blows my mind. It is only because God has first wrought within one that there is even the remotest possibility of not sinning:

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. Gal 5:17

The natural man doesn't struggle with sin, there is no hunger or thirsting after righteousness, only the regenerate have that conflict:

but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Ro 7:23

No hunger or thirsting for righteousness in the natural man, no conflict, until he's supernaturally changed from above:

For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing...Ro 7:18

 

[kyredneck]

Ushering in Deut. 1:39, Ezek. 18:4, 18:20, and Romans 7:9 in 3, 2, 1......

More along the lines of 2 Tim 3:5. They hold to a form of Christianity while denying the power of it. Their religion is great big MAN, itsy bitsy tiny God.

 

[Winman]

No he doesn't, just as you he rejects the necessity of first being born of God in order to enter, or even see, the kingdom of God.

Baloney, you have to receive Jesus and believe on his name before God gives you the power to be born again (Jhn 1:12-13).

Calvinists misinterpret these verses to say you must be born again to receive Jesus and believe on him, but that is the exact opposite of what Jhn 1:12-13 says.

Yes, only God has the power to regenerate a man and make him to be born again, but God only does that to people who first receive Jesus and believe on him. This is what Jhn 1:12-13 is really saying. You know that.

???? How then exactly do these that you theorize of remain sinless of their own doing?

You know very well that I believe only babies and very small children are sinless. Again, you misrepresent my views, you should be ashamed.

We know from Romans 9:11 that babies are not sinful.

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; )

Romans 9:11 directly tells us that Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. They did not sin with Adam in the garden, and they did not sin anywhere else. They were without sin. If they had died (and millions of babies die), they would be without sin.

These are the persons I believe Jesus is speaking about in Matthew 18 and Luke 15 that have never gone astray and need no repentance. I believe Jesus is speaking of little babies and children only.

You know that, but you intentionally misrepresent me again. Why do you have to do that? Is it because you know you are losing the debate?

Egad, you have it so totally whacko backwards, it blows my mind. It is only because God has first wrought within one that there is even the remotest possibility of not sinning:

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. Gal 5:17

The natural man doesn't struggle with sin, there is no hunger or thirsting after righteousness, only the regenerate have that conflict:

but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Ro 7:23

It is you that does not understand, in Romans 7 Paul is saying his mind desires to obey God. He is not speaking from the perspective of a born again person here, because he says he is "sold under sin" and brought "into captivity to the law of sin" which cannot possibly be speaking of a Christian. Christians have been made free of sin and the law of sin and death. (Rom 6:18, Rom 8:2).

Romans 7 is Paul speaking from the perspective of a Jew under the law. In his mind he desires to obey God, but his flesh wars against his mind. The moment he (or anyone) sins, they are condemned and brought into captivity to the law of sin and death (the wages of sin is death). This is what Paul is saying.

Paul is not saying that an unregenerate person never does right, or that an unsaved person never desires to do right, he is saying the exact opposite, he is saying with his mind he always desires to do right, but because he has sinned he has been made captive of sin.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Paul is not saying the unregenerate man does not want and desire to do good, he is saying the opposite. Before he was saved, he desired very much in his "mind" to do good, but could not find a way to do it. Under the law, if you sin even once you are brought into captivity to the law of sin and death, you must die, even for that one single sin. This is what Paul is describing.

This does not mean everything an unregenerate man does is sin. It is not sin when an unregenerate man obeys God's laws such as telling the truth, or being faithful to his wife.

The problem with the Calvinistic view is that it fails to see man is not only flesh, but spirit as well. Yes, the flesh wars against God's laws, but the spirit can will to do God's law.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This is exactly what Paul is describing in Romans 7. The disciples in their spirit and mind were very willing to obey God, they truly desired to obey Jesus and stay awake and pray with him as he commanded, but their flesh was very weak and caused them to fall asleep.

This was written before the disciples received the Holy Spirit, and so is speaking of the natural spirit (and mind) of a man they were born with.

Man is more than flesh, he is also spirit and mind, and the spirit and mind can will to obey God. This is what many do not understand.

 

[kyredneck]

Baloney, you have to receive Jesus and believe on his name before God gives you the power to be born again (Jhn 1:12-13)....

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

You distort this wonderful revelation above into an absurd contradiction. You are blatantly saying that one chooses of their own will to be born not of their own will. Incredible.

Jn 3:21 reiterates the truth revealed above:

But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

Those coming to Christ have already been born from above. God has already wrought within them.

 

[Winman]

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

You distort this wonderful revelation above into an absurd contradiction. You are blatantly saying that one chooses of their own will to be born not of their own will. Incredible.

Wrong. Verse 13 is describing that part of verse 12 that says "to them gave he power to become the sons of God".

The "them" is those persons who had received Jesus and believed on his name for salvation. To these persons God gave the right to "become" the sons of God. That word "become" is describing the new birth, which is God's will for those who believe. It is God's will that those who believe on Jesus are to be born again. And it is all of God, man has no power to regenerate himself, this power comes from God. But again, it is God's will to cause those who receive and believe on Jesus to be born again.

You can't get around the words "received" and "believed", they are both past tense, which shows the new birth occurs AFTER receiving and believing on Jesus.

Calvinists twist and pervert these scriptures to say the exact opposite of what they are really saying. God will judge.

Jn 3:21 reiterates the truth revealed above:

But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

Those coming to Christ have already been born from above. God has already wrought within them.

This verse is simply saying that men who do come to Jesus do so under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is true, no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him, but it is not teaching that the new birth precedes coming.

You cannot show a single verse of scripture that says the new birth precedes faith. I challenge you to show such a verse.

To the contrary, there are MANY scriptures that show a man must first believe before he is born again, John 1:12 already being shown.

Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jesus compared the new birth to those persons who were bitten by fiery serpents in the wilderness. The poisonous serpents represent sin, whosoever is bitten will die.

Moses was instructed to put a brass serpent on a pole, and any man who was bitten (and ALL men sin) could look at this brass serpent and live.

Of course, they had to be instructed first to look at this brass serpent for healing. Likewise, men must be taught by the word of God to look to Jesus for salvation. So, if any man looks or comes to Jesus, this work was wrought by God and his word that instructed men to trust in Jesus. That is what Jhn 3:21 is teaching.

You must be taught by God from his word to come to Jesus.

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Did Jesus say a man must be born again to come to him here? NO, he said they must be taught, they must hear from the Father and learn from him to come to Jesus. And how is this done? By the preaching of the word of God.

It is the word of God that enables a man to believe on Jesus, and when that man believes on Jesus, only then does God give that man power to be born again.

This is what the scriptures truly teach, you teach error.

 

[pinoybaptist]

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

You distort this wonderful revelation above into an absurd contradiction. You are blatantly saying that one chooses of their own will to be born not of their own will. Incredible.

Jn 3:21 reiterates the truth revealed above:

But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

Those coming to Christ have already been born from above. God has already wrought within them.

nothing incredible, brother.
he's an anti-Christ, fully possessed of its spirit.
and if he didn't know it then, he knows now, and he delights in the darkness he is in.

 

[Winman]

nothing incredible, brother.
he's an anti-Christ, fully possessed of its spirit.
and if he didn't know it then, he knows now, and he delights in the darkness he is in.

So, you believe all non-Cals and Arminians that believe as I do, that a person must first believe before they are born again are anti-Christ?

Is that what you believe? Yes or no?

 

[Aaron]

And you and others still have not given an example of when you HAD to sin. If we are compelled to sin because of our sin nature, you should easily be able to give examples of many times when your sin nature forced and compelled you to sin where you had no choice, and could not have done the right thing.

Bet I can describe an event wherein Winman's entire existence is defined by sin.

 

[Winman]

Bet I can describe an event wherein Winman's entire existence is defined by sin.

Let's hear it.

But can't you think of a single instance where you were forced to sin by your sin nature?

Don't you think it is kinda whacky to teach people are compelled by their sin nature to sin, and yet you can't think of a single example where you were forced to sin? You SHOULD be able to name hundreds or thousands of examples, don't you think?

You probably never really thought about that, just believed what others told you.

 

[DHK]

Let's hear it.

But can't you think of a single instance where you were forced to sin by your sin nature?

Don't you think it is kinda whacky to teach people are compelled by their sin nature to sin, and yet you can't think of a single example where you were forced to sin? You SHOULD be able to name hundreds or thousands of examples, don't you think?

You probably never really thought about that, just believed what others told you.

Sins of ignorance or unintentional sins:

Were you forced to say what you just said?
Remember what you said:

Originally Posted by Winman
And you and others still have not given an example of when you HAD to sin. If we are compelled to sin because of our sin nature, you should easily be able to give examples of many times when your sin nature forced and compelled you to sin where you had no choice, and could not have done the right thing.

Now in this post, you just called someone's teaching (that which they sincerely believe to be true) whacky! I consider that sin. You may not. You may not have considered that sin when you wrote it. Perhaps it was unintentional. But it was insulting. Why would you call someone else's teaching whacky if that is what he sincerely believes as biblical truth? Don't you believe that is arrogant and sinful? Arrogance is also sin.

It is easy to find many such examples.
You may not realize it; you may even deny it. But sin is sin. Attitude is included.

 

[kyredneck]

<..................>

 

[Winman]

Sins of ignorance or unintentional sins:

You are sucking dirt. The only sins you can think of that you believe you were forced to sin were unintentional sins. :laugh:

That is ridiculous. Just because you did something that you later found out was wrong does not mean you were forced to do it. If you would have known it was sin, you could easily have chosen not to do it.

Were you forced to say what you just said?
Remember what you said:

Now in this post, you just called someone's teaching (that which they sincerely believe to be true) whacky! I consider that sin. You may not. You may not have considered that sin when you wrote it. Perhaps it was unintentional. But it was insulting. Why would you call someone else's teaching whacky if that is what he sincerely believes as biblical truth? Don't you believe that is arrogant and sinful? Arrogance is also sin.

You are being silly, it is completely ridiculous (and whacky) to claim your sin nature forces you to sin, and then you cannot name a single example of any sin you have been forced by your nature to commit.

It is easy to find many such examples.
You may not realize it; you may even deny it. But sin is sin. Attitude is included.

No, it's not, because no such sins exist. Not knowing something was a sin does not mean you were forced to commit it. You might think the speed limit is 30 MPH when it is only 15 MPH, does that mean that if you found out it was only 15 MPH you would be unable to slow down next time you drove there? Completely ridiculous.

And it is you that is denying sin, you are making excuse for it, claiming that you HAVE to sin. You never have to sin, it is always a choice.

Does that mean it is easy to go without sinning? NO, because we have all learned to sin by habit and culture. We turn on the TV and it shows girls half dressed, so it is easy for our mind to wander. But if we really wanted to, we could turn that TV set off. There is no excuse for sin, but you are the one trying to make excuse for yourself.

 

[kyredneck]

Still trying to nail jello to the wall:

Winman, you believe that man is capable of not sinning...

Yes, but don't get me wrong, I am not saying it's easy. .

...This is very basic Christianity 101 that these two (Winman & webdog) have made shipwreck of:

….if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. Gal 2:21

….if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. Gal 3:21

...Why must you be dishonest here? No one said or even hinted that any man can justify himself by keeping the law. ...

...???? How then exactly do these that you theorize of remain sinless of their own doing?....

To which you didn't answer.

I ask once again, if not by obeying the law of God, how then exactly do these that you theorize of remaining sinless, do so?

How does one remain sinless and NOT keep the law?

This goes back to the question I've asked you more than once:

Why did Christ have to die?

 

[DHK]

You are sucking dirt. The only sins you can think of that you believe you were forced to sin were unintentional sins. :laugh:

That is ridiculous. Just because you did something that you later found out was wrong does not mean you were forced to do it. If you would have known it was sin, you could easily have chosen not to do it.

You are being silly, it is completely ridiculous (and whacky) to claim your sin nature forces you to sin, and then you cannot name a single example of any sin you have been forced by your nature to commit.

No, it's not, because no such sins exist. Not knowing something was a sin does not mean you were forced to commit it. You might think the speed limit is 30 MPH when it is only 15 MPH, does that mean that if you found out it was only 15 MPH you would be unable to slow down next time you drove there? Completely ridiculous.

And it is you that is denying sin, you are making excuse for it, claiming that you HAVE to sin. You never have to sin, it is always a choice.

Does that mean it is easy to go without sinning? NO, because we have all learned to sin by habit and culture. We turn on the TV and it shows girls half dressed, so it is easy for our mind to wander. But if we really wanted to, we could turn that TV set off. There is no excuse for sin, but you are the one trying to make excuse for yourself.

I laid out a completely rational answer for you. What is your rebuttal?
It is a sinful one; one which includes personal attacks, which I bolded for you: "sucking dirt"--not complimentary at all; totally uncalled for.
--once "ridiculous" and twice "completely ridiculous" showing some contempt for what I said.
--Then you call me (or at least what I said) "silly!" That would be an attack on my character.

Did you not have a choice in the words you chose to express yourself Winman?

 

[kyredneck]

DHK, Winman denies the most very basic tenet of our religion, and that is a need of the Saviour.

Pinoybaptist is spot on, in it's final analysis, it is antichrist.

 

[Aaron]

Let's hear it.

Wager first.

But can't you think of a single instance where you were forced to sin by your sin nature?

Of course I can. It's a no brainer. But it will be more fun to point out yours.

 

[Winman]

DHK, Winman denies the most very basic tenet of our religion, and that is a need of the Saviour.

So, saying we have a choice and never have to sin denies that we are sinners and do not need a Saviour? That's some loopy logic you got going there.

Pinoybaptist is spot on, in it's final analysis, it is antichrist.

I won't insult your intelligence by believing even you believe that.

 

[Winman]

Still trying to nail jello to the wall:

To which you didn't answer.

I ask once again, if not by obeying the law of God, how then exactly do these that you theorize of remaining sinless, do so?

How does one remain sinless and NOT keep the law?

This goes back to the question I've asked you more than once:

Why did Christ have to die?

I did answer it. When a little child who has never sinned dies, they are sinless.

That said, they have never done any good either. That is exactly what Romans 9:11 says

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; )

I didn't say little children who die are "good", I said they are "sinless". And that is exactly what Romans 9:11 says, they have done neither good nor evil.

They haven't obeyed the law, they don't know or understand the law, how could they obey it?

You do not pay attention well.

And for about the third time, I have said that every person who matures and understands right from wrong will choose to sin and need a Saviour. Why do you have to intentionally misrepresent me? Is is because you know you are losing the debate?

And nobody yet has told us a sin they MUST commit because their sin nature compels them to.

 

[kyredneck]

Stop being such a weasel, innocent babies are not what we're talking about here. You have implied it is possible for one to remain sinless beyond the age of accountability.

Don't be a weasel Winman, is this not correct?

 

[DHK]

So, saying we have a choice and never have to sin denies that we are sinners and do not need a Saviour? That's some loopy logic you got going there.

No, it isn't.
Look at your premises.
1. You do not believe in Original Sin, or the depravity of man, that is, that man is born with sin. You believe that infants are born innocent without sin. BTW, in order to believe that all the scripture you use is taken out of context.
2. You continue to say that no one is forced to sin.
3. You really ought to demonstrate that theory, and it ought to be demonstrable, but it isn't, and hasn't been throughout some 6,000 to 10,000 years of human history.
4. If what you say is true then out of the billions and billions of people who have lived on this earth just one of them should have lived a life (other than Christ who was deity) that was perfect and sinless. But no one has. Not even one.
5. This fact alone disproves your theory: It is impossible for man to live a life free from sin; absolutely impossible.
6. In fact John put that theory to rest in the strongest possible words. He said that if a person should claim to live a sinless life:
a. he would be deceiving himself.
b. The truth is not in him.
c. He makes Christ a liar.
d. Christ's Word is not in him.

Those are the consequences of your belief.
But thankfully Christ died for our sin; the sin that we are bound to do.
The sin that Jeremiah says "we are accustomed to do," because, like the leopard and the Ethiopian, it is in our nature to do from birth.