Man is unable to choose spiritual life (salvation) on his own!

[DHK]

My answer would be unbelief. We do not always believe God. We think we know better than God, we think we can get away with sin. So, we take matters into our own hands and sin.

There are lots of reasons folks can invent to rationalize sin. This is what we do. Or we give in to peer pressure, etc... There are a thousand reasons to sin.

But the fact is, no one is absolutely forced to sin. Yes, we can have very strong lusts and desires that are difficult to resist, but all of us can resist these desires if we really want to.

You are simply making excuse for sin when you say you MUST sin. And this is what is so evil about this false doctrine, it gives everyone an easy excuse for sin.

I am trying not to be offensive Winman, but I posted a personal post to you. The above is your answer. But here is my post again:

Then by your own logic, why are you not perfect?
Why haven't you attained sinless perfection?

The obvious reason--you have a sin nature!

First, you say you cannot be perfect because of your own unbelief. Why would that be? Why don't you believe? You are a believer. If you are born without a sin nature why would YOU have unbelief at all? Why the sin of unbelief Winman?
As you said: "Did you take matters into your own hands and sin?" If you have no sin nature what would cause you to do that? There would be no excuse for it. In reality, according to your own theology you should be sinless because you are a believer born w/o a sin nature.

There are lots of reasons you say. What is yours? What is your excuse? Why have you sinned or what caused you to sin?
"If all of us can resist these desires if we really want to," then why haven't you? "There is no excuse." You should have attained sinless perfection but you haven't. You deny your own theology.

"The fact is no one is forced to sin." But you do. Why?
Why do you sin? And you do it every day don't you?
You can resist all sinful desires? Really? The only one that could do that was Christ, and he was God. Are you making a claim to deity?
The reason you can't resist all sinful desires is because you are human, born with a sin nature unlike Christ, and you sin every day, and can't but help sin. "You are accustomed to doing evil."

 

[Winman]

I am trying not to be offensive Winman, but I posted a personal post to you. The above is your answer. But here is my post again:

First, you say you cannot be perfect because of your own unbelief. Why would that be? Why don't you believe? You are a believer. If you are born without a sin nature why would YOU have unbelief at all? Why the sin of unbelief Winman?
As you said: "Did you take matters into your own hands and sin?" If you have no sin nature what would cause you to do that? There would be no excuse for it. In reality, according to your own theology you should be sinless because you are a believer born w/o a sin nature.

There are lots of reasons you say. What is yours? What is your excuse? Why have you sinned or what caused you to sin?
"If all of us can resist these desires if we really want to," then why haven't you? "There is no excuse." You should have attained sinless perfection but you haven't. You deny your own theology.

"The fact is no one is forced to sin." But you do. Why?
Why do you sin? And you do it every day don't you?
You can resist all sinful desires? Really? The only one that could do that was Christ, and he was God. Are you making a claim to deity?
The reason you can't resist all sinful desires is because you are human, born with a sin nature unlike Christ, and you sin every day, and can't but help sin. "You are accustomed to doing evil."

If you want to believe you MUST sin, I am not going to change your mind. I cannot say that, I have never HAD to sin. I have sinned many thousands of times, but it was always because I chose to sin.

I believe every person comes into the world just like Adam and Eve. We have free will, and we are flesh with lusts and desires. Read Gen 3:6 and it is clear that BEFORE Eve sinned that she had fleshly desires working in her.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

This was the three lusts described in 1 John 2:16:

1 Jhn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Eve's temptation in the garden matches 1 John 2:16 perfectly. She saw the tree was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. She saw the tree was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes, and she saw the tree was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life. This was BEFORE Eve sinned. Eve was not evil at this point, she was VERY GOOD (Gen 1:31).

This is where I think folks make a huge mistake, they mistake the lusts of the flesh as being a sin nature. This is not so. We need lust to survive, we need to eat. We need to keep warm. Our body wants things that are necessary to survive. Jesus came in the flesh and had the same lusts and desires we have, but he never obeyed these lusts when they would have caused him to sin.

If Eve would have walked away from the forbidden tree, she would not have been a sinner, even though she was tempted and had lust. Sin is an act, it is a transgression of the law. Temptation is not sin, but this is what people call the sin nature.

Now, that said, I do believe there are such things as "sinful" lusts and desires. A person can develop these by engaging in sin. A person might engage in fornication and even become addicted to it. A person can drink or use drugs until they become addicted to it. I would absolutely call these "sinful" desires. But we are not born with these, except for perhaps "crack babies" children who are born addicted because their mother was addicted when pregnant. But little babies do not naturally have desires for sin like alcohol or sex, etc...

I will not go on, but I do not believe the scriptures teach we are born sinners, or born guilty of Adam's sin. I believe the scriptures clearly show a person is born upright, spiritually alive (Romans 7:9) until they mature and understand right from wrong (Deu 1:31, Isa 7:16). At this time that only God knows, when a person willfully and knowingly chooses to sin they spiritually die.

 

[Winman]

First, you say you cannot be perfect because of your own unbelief.

I did not say this at all. I did not say we CANNOT be perfect. You should not put words in other people's mouths, that is not an honest form of debate. Shame on you!

Just because all men sin does not mean they HAVE to sin. Almost all men get married, but no man HAS to get married. They get married because they want to.

Likewise, we all have lusts and desires that tug and pull at us. These lusts and desires are not necessarily evil. It is not wrong to desire your wife. But if you desire another man's wife that is wrong. If you give in to this desire and lust after a woman in your heart, or actually act on this lust it is sin.

 

[salzer mtn]

Even if a person was not born with a sin nature it would be impossible from the time you know right from wrong to the grave to control every evil thought, every act, and every word to keep from becoming a sinner or die spiritually as you say. Let's say If we could manage to do this, we would have a righteousness all our own to present before the Lord as our salvation. Would God except this, No. He would say that we established our own righteousness and did not submitt ourselves to the righteousness of God, Rom 10:3

 

[DHK]

If you want to believe you MUST sin, I am not going to change your mind.

No, when a person takes a stand that opposes Biblical teaching they can't persuade me to believe it. You are right.

I cannot say that, I have never HAD to sin. I have sinned many thousands of times, but it was always because I chose to sin.

If you don't have a sin nature, you have no excuse. You ought to be sinless. So what is your excuse?

I believe every person comes into the world just like Adam and Eve. We have free will, and we are flesh with lusts and desires. Read Gen 3:6 and it is clear that BEFORE Eve sinned that she had fleshly desires working in her.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

She had been completely deceived by the greatest of deceivers, Satan himself. He had blinded her eyes to the truth. That is why Eve is not responsible and sin is not attributed to Eve, but rather to Adam.

This was the three lusts described in 1 John 2:16:

1 Jhn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Eve's temptation in the garden matches 1 John 2:16 perfectly. She saw the tree was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. She saw the tree was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes, and she saw the tree was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life. This was BEFORE Eve sinned. Eve was not evil at this point, she was VERY GOOD (Gen 1:31).

Eve was deceived, and therefore sin was not imputed to her.

This is where I think folks make a huge mistake, they mistake the lusts of the flesh as being a sin nature.

You err. If that is what you think, then you are wrong, and wrong about others. Keep studying.

This is not so. We need lust to survive, we need to eat. We need to keep warm. Our body wants things that are necessary to survive. Jesus came in the flesh and had the same lusts and desires we have, but he never obeyed these lusts when they would have caused him to sin.

Jesus did not have a sin nature, but a divine nature. Do you deny his divinity?
However, we are born with a sin nature. By nature we are sinners.

If Eve would have walked away from the forbidden tree, she would not have been a sinner, even though she was tempted and had lust. Sin is an act, it is a transgression of the law. Temptation is not sin, but this is what people call the sin nature.

Go read a theology book. You are confused and wrong. No one believes that "temptation is what people call the sin nature," as you assert. You are just plain wrong.

Now, that said, I do believe there are such things as "sinful" lusts and desires. A person can develop these by engaging in sin. A person might engage in fornication and even become addicted to it. A person can drink or use drugs until they become addicted to it. I would absolutely call these "sinful" desires. But we are not born with these, except for perhaps "crack babies" children who are born addicted because their mother was addicted when pregnant. But little babies do not naturally have desires for sin like alcohol or sex, etc...

The Bible says that we are born liars. How do you account for that?
Do children have to practice lying before they become one? No.
How many times does it take a person to kill before he is labeled a murderer?
How many times does it take a person to sin before he is labeled a sinner?
It is just once. There is no addiction involved. One sin is enough to make a person guilty enough to deserve an eternity in hell. He has transgressed the law of God.
Every person has sinful desires from birth because they have a sin nature from birth. That is why you cannot remember the first time you ever sinned.

I will not go on, but I do not believe the scriptures teach we are born sinners, or born guilty of Adam's sin. I believe the scriptures clearly show a person is born upright, spiritually alive (Romans 7:9) until they mature and understand right from wrong (Deu 1:31, Isa 7:16). At this time that only God knows, when a person willfully and knowingly chooses to sin they spiritually die.

However the Bible does teach that man is guilty and born a sinner. It is you that denies this doctrine. You remain outside historic orthodox Christianity--both of Calvinists and of non-Calvinists.

 

[Winman]

Even if a person was not born with a sin nature it would be impossible to control every evil thought, every act, and every word to keep from becoming a sinner or die spiritually as you say. Let's say If we could manage to do this, we would have a righteousness all our own to present before the Lord as our salvation. Would God except this, No. He would say that we established our own righteousness and did not submitt ourselves to the righteousness of God, Rom 10:3

If you do not sin you do not require salvation. Jesus said this when he spoke of 99 just persons who need no repentance.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Read Luke 15, Jesus tells 3 stories which are ONE parable. In the first, a shepherd has 100 sheep. NONE are lost. One goes out and becomes lost, the shepherd searches until he finds this lost sheep and recovers it. Then Jesus says there is more joy in heaven over one "sinner" who repents, than 99 just persons who need no repentance.

Who are the 99 just persons who need no repentance? Why would Jesus speak of imaginary persons who could not possibly exist if we are all born sinners?

Then Jesus tells the story of a woman with 10 pieces of silver. NONE are lost. She loses one piece of silver and searches diligently until she finds it. Again, Jesus says there is joy over ONE lost sinner that repents.

Again, who are the NINE silver pieces that are never lost? Why would Jesus tell a story that does not fit reality?

Then Jesus tells a story of a father who has two sons. NEITHER is lost. One goes out in sin and joins himself to the citizen in that far country (Satan). But the body comes to his senses and returns home. When he does, twice the father says this lost boy is alive AGAIN.

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.

Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Now why would Jesus say a repentant sinner is alive AGAIN if we are all born dead in sin? Why would Jesus ever say such a misleading thing?

But there is more, Jesus says the elder brother NEVER sinned.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

Why would Jesus tell a story about a person who has NEVER sinned? If we are all born dead in sin, such a thing would be impossible, yet Jesus himself said this.

Did the father correct the elder son or call him a hypocrite? NO, he called him SON, he said he was EVER with him (never lost) and that ALL that he had was his. He did not say the elder son was dead or lost like his younger brother.

Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Who could the 99 just persons who were never lost and need no repentance be? Who are the 9 pieces of silver that were never lost? Who is this elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time?

The only answer is young children. The scriptures clearly tell us that babies have not sinned.

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; )

Jacob and Esau had not sinned in their mother's womb, if they had died at this point they would not be lost and need no repentance.

Could there be 99 children who died before they sinned compared to every sinner who repents as an adult? YES.

Remember, it was Jesus himself who told these stories.

 

[Winman]

No, when a person takes a stand that opposes Biblical teaching they can't persuade me to believe it. You are right.

I show scripture for everything I believe. You have never showed scripture that says we are born sinners, because there is no such scripture.

If you don't have a sin nature, you have no excuse. You ought to be sinless. So what is your excuse?

I am not making excuse for my sin, I confess to God that I have willingly and knowingly sinned against him and am guilty. My only plea is that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead, and I accept him as my Saviour.

It is you that has not really confessed your sin, you make the excuse that you HAD to sin, you were compelled by your nature. It was not your fault.

She had been completely deceived by the greatest of deceivers, Satan himself. He had blinded her eyes to the truth. That is why Eve is not responsible and sin is not attributed to Eve, but rather to Adam.

Eve was guilty, God also punished her.

Eve was deceived, and therefore sin was not imputed to her.

Wrong, the scriptures say Eve sinned.

1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


And you were a missionary? You need to study more.

You err. If that is what you think, then you are wrong, and wrong about others. Keep studying.

Says the man who just made a huge error.

Jesus did not have a sin nature, but a divine nature. Do you deny his divinity?
However, we are born with a sin nature. By nature we are sinners.

Correct, Jesus did not have a sin nature and neither do we. Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (post-fall), was made like unto his brethren in ALL THINGS, and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

You don't get it, temptation is not sin. Jesus never obeyed his flesh when it would have caused him to sin, we did. This is the difference.

Go read a theology book. You are confused and wrong. No one believes that "temptation is what people call the sin nature," as you assert. You are just plain wrong.

No, you need to put down man's books and read the Bible. It is you that is confused.

The Bible says that we are born liars. How do you account for that?

The scriptures do not say that, they say wicked persons go astray and speak lies from the womb, that is, after they are born.

Do children have to practice lying before they become one? No.

Agreed. Telling a lie is extremely simple and does not take practice.

How many times does it take a person to kill before he is labeled a murderer?
How many times does it take a person to sin before he is labeled a sinner?
It is just once. There is no addiction involved. One sin is enough to make a person guilty enough to deserve an eternity in hell. He has transgressed the law of God.

Agreed.

Every person has sinful desires from birth because they have a sin nature from birth. That is why you cannot remember the first time you ever sinned.

False, we are flesh with lusts and desires, but a newborn baby does not have sinful desires. A baby cannot know what sin is.

However the Bible does teach that man is guilty and born a sinner. It is you that denies this doctrine. You remain outside historic orthodox Christianity--both of Calvinists and of non-Calvinists.

No, Augustine taught we are born sinners, the scriptures do not teach this. Paul said he was ALIVE once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Paul said that without law sin is not imputed, Paul said he would have not known sin except for the law. Therefore, no sin was imputed to Paul until he knew and understood the law. This is what Paul meant when he said he was alive once WITHOUT the law, but when the commandment came he died.

A dead person cannot die. You can deny scripture all you want, but Paul said he was alive once, but when the commandment came he died. This has to be speaking of spiritual death.

You are kicking against the pricks.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just a note* There are few to no other non cals that hold to similar views as Winman. He is out there by him self. Please do not lump anyone else in with his positions.

 

[Winman]

Just a note* There are few to no other non cals that hold to similar views as Winman. He is out there by him self. Please do not lump anyone else in with his positions.

There are MILLIONS of Christians who do not believe in Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox church does not believe a person is born dead in sin.

This view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam.[6] According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine's interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.

There are something like 350 MILLION folks who are EOC, so I am hardly out there by myself.

The Anabaptists did not believe it, the Mennonites do not believe it. Many Pentacostals do not believe in Original Sin.

John Smyth, the man credited as starting the first BAPTIST church did not believe in Original Sin.

You should do a little study before you make wild statements.

 

[DHK]

There are MILLIONS of Christians who do not believe in Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox church does not believe a person is born dead in sin.

There are something like 350 MILLION folks who are EOC, so I am hardly out there by myself.

The Anabaptists did not believe it, the Mennonites do not believe it. Many Pentacostals do not believe in Original Sin.

John Smyth, the man credited as starting the first BAPTIST church did not believe in Original Sin.

You should do a little study before you make wild statements.

The EOC, a branch of Catholicism, believing that salvation is by works, does not believe in the depravity of man.
The anabaptists (so you say) did not believe it. But the anabaptist movement was wide and varied. It simply means "to baptize again." So what branch are you talking about. Oh, I know! The ones that don't believe in the depravity of man!
Many Pentecostals don't. Of course. Many Pentecostals believe in sinless perfection; part of the holiness movement. Then there are the Oneness Pentecostals, a cult all by themselves.
Yes, you have aligned yourself with good company there Winman, but it is not historic orthodox Christianity.

 

[Winman]

The EOC, a branch of Catholicism, believing that salvation is by works, does not believe in the depravity of man.
The anabaptists (so you say) did not believe it. But the anabaptist movement was wide and varied. It simply means "to baptize again." So what branch are you talking about. Oh, I know! The ones that don't believe in the depravity of man!
Many Pentecostals don't. Of course. Many Pentecostals believe in sinless perfection; part of the holiness movement. Then there are the Oneness Pentecostals, a cult all by themselves.
Yes, you have aligned yourself with good company there Winman, but it is not historic orthodox Christianity.

The EOC believes in a physical depravity, that because of Adam's sin man is prone to sin. They do not believe a person is born guilty of sin.

The early church fathers did not teach Original Sin

Neither the doctrine of Pelagius, nor that of Augustine, coincided entirely with the views of the ancient fathers. For the later Greek fathers had at least explained physical death to be a consequence of the fall, and some of them had admitted a growth. of moral deterioration originating from it; but it is also true that the Latin Church father's had at least taught no imputation of Adam's guilt, no loss of free will, and no damnation of the race, already experienced in consequence of this birth from Adam. Pelagius and Augustine were both in the wrong when they each maintained that he had only followed the already established Church doctrine; but the greater wrong was on the side of Augustine. We must pardon him however for this because, being ignorant of the Greek language he had never read the Greek fathers.

Although in the Council at Ephesus A. D. 431, his theory gained a transient victory over Pelagius, yet it did not in consequence find the least access to the Greek Church, and even in the Latin Church, it secured no permanent approval. On the other hand the system of the so-called semi-Pelagians, which in truth was not new, but had been hitherto the common doctrine, made itself very soon the controlling sentiment in the Latin Churches. Especially some monks at Marseilles, (for example, Cassian, Faustus, Vincent and Gennadins) taught that there does indeed result from Adam a certain moral weakness and inclination to evil, which is coincident with the infliction of physical death upon the race, but is not to be regarded as a punishment for Adam's sin. They also taught that man has evermore a free will, and can at least commence his own moral improvement in his own strength, but that he then needs grace to carry the work forward.

The EOC which used only Greek texts never agreed with Augustine, and to this day believe Augustine erred using a flawed Latin text that interpreted Romans 5:12 to say all men sinned in Adam. Those who used only Greek texts have always held that Romans 5:12 properly says death passed upon all men because all men have personally sinned. I agree.

 

[DHK]

The EOC believes in a physical depravity, that because of Adam's sin man is prone to sin. They do not believe a person is born guilty of sin.

The early church fathers did not teach Original Sin



The EOC which used only Greek texts never agreed with Augustine, and to this day believe Augustine erred using a flawed Latin text that interpreted Romans 5:12 to say all men sinned in Adam. Those who used only Greek texts have always held that Romans 5:12 properly says death passed upon all men because all men have personally sinned. I agree.

And do I care? So if you want to join the EOC go ahead.
It doesn't matter to me what they believe.
The Hindus also believe that man is essentially good. So does Humanism and the New Age Movement. Like I said you are in "good" company.

One thing that is different about the Bible "the sacred book" of Christianity compared to all "sacred literature" of all other religions, is that it is brutally honest. If a man were to write a history of his family what things would he include? He would include the good memories that he has. Most biographies and history books are written that way. But not the Bible. It is a record mostly of Israel's failures. It records such things as a Levite chopping up his concubine into twelve pieces and sending one piece to each tribal head of the nation of Israel--part of their national history. It records how Hezekiah pleaded to live longer, and he did. And in that time God gave him a son. That son turned out to be the most wicked king that Judah ever had. He even forced his own children to pass through fire, offering them to other gods. It describes mothers eating their own children in a time of famine.
Are those the things you would include in a history of your family, your ancestors? No. But the Bible includes things like that. It includes things like that, that display the depths of the depravity of the human heart. We are so depraved. We are depraved from birth.
If we were really born innocent and good, how on earth could man sink to such levels of evil? How is that even possible for a person who is untainted with sin? Does that make any sense? No.
In fact it was the Lord that said:
"Every imagination of his heart was evil continuously."
And shortly after the flood came.
The statement points the depravity of man. All his thoughts were evil. There were none good. Man is not good. He is born in rebellion to God, and therefore must be born again.

By not believing in the depravity of man, or the sin nature of man, you render null and void the necessity of the new birth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:applause::applause:

​

Well said D...well said:thumbs:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

There are MILLIONS of Christians who do not believe in Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox church does not believe a person is born dead in sin.



There are something like 350 MILLION folks who are EOC, so I am hardly out there by myself.

The Anabaptists did not believe it, the Mennonites do not believe it. Many Pentacostals do not believe in Original Sin.

John Smyth, the man credited as starting the first BAPTIST church did not believe in Original Sin.

You should do a little study before you make wild statements.

This is accurate.

Many people do not know two things: just how much influence Augustine had on Roman Catholicism and also Magisterial Protestantism, and how little influence he had on the EOC, Anabaptists, General Baptists, Pentecostals, and Holiness.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The EOC, a branch of Catholicism, believing that salvation is by works, does not believe in the depravity of man.
The anabaptists (so you say) did not believe it. But the anabaptist movement was wide and varied. It simply means "to baptize again." So what branch are you talking about. Oh, I know! The ones that don't believe in the depravity of man!
Many Pentecostals don't. Of course. Many Pentecostals believe in sinless perfection; part of the holiness movement. Then there are the Oneness Pentecostals, a cult all by themselves.
Yes, you have aligned yourself with good company there Winman, but it is not historic orthodox Christianity.

You mean Augustinian Christianity.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And do I care? So if you want to join the EOC go ahead.
It doesn't matter to me what they believe.
The Hindus also believe that man is essentially good. So does Humanism and the New Age Movement. Like I said you are in "good" company.

One thing that is different about the Bible "the sacred book" of Christianity compared to all "sacred literature" of all other religions, is that it is brutally honest. If a man were to write a history of his family what things would he include? He would include the good memories that he has. Most biographies and history books are written that way. But not the Bible. It is a record mostly of Israel's failures. It records such things as a Levite chopping up his concubine into twelve pieces and sending one piece to each tribal head of the nation of Israel--part of their national history. It records how Hezekiah pleaded to live longer, and he did. And in that time God gave him a son. That son turned out to be the most wicked king that Judah ever had. He even forced his own children to pass through fire, offering them to other gods. It describes mothers eating their own children in a time of famine.
Are those the things you would include in a history of your family, your ancestors? No. But the Bible includes things like that. It includes things like that, that display the depths of the depravity of the human heart. We are so depraved. We are depraved from birth.
If we were really born innocent and good, how on earth could man sink to such levels of evil? How is that even possible for a person who is untainted with sin? Does that make any sense? No.
In fact it was the Lord that said:
"Every imagination of his heart was evil continuously."
And shortly after the flood came.
The statement points the depravity of man. All his thoughts were evil. There were none good. Man is not good. He is born in rebellion to God, and therefore must be born again.

By not believing in the depravity of man, or the sin nature of man, you render null and void the necessity of the new birth.

And Winman, or an objective observer, might tell you to join the RCC, Presbyterians, or Lutherans if you want to practice Augustinian Christianity, though it is not Biblical.

 

[Winman]

By not believing in the depravity of man, or the sin nature of man, you render null and void the necessity of the new birth.

This is absolutely false, I believe all men will sin and must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven.

That said, I do not believe the scriptures are talking about babies and very little children. And truth be told, NEITHER DO YOU.

You guys can all attack me if you want, but almost NNE believes that little babies and children go to hell. You do not believe they DESERVE to go to hell, deep down you believe they are innocent of sin. If you truly believed babies were evil sinners you would have no difficulty believing that all babies who die go straight to hell and are tormented forever.

But you don't really believe that, and that is why almost every one of you is quick to find some solution for babies. You believe God saves them without faith, which is against scripture.

I believe babies and little children are the 99 just persons who need no repentance in Luke 15, I believe babies and little children are the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time. I am not the one who spoke about these persons who never sinned, JESUS did. Jesus knows doctrine, and I do not believe Jesus would speak about imaginary people that could not possibly exist. And I do not believe Jesus was trying to give the Pharisees the impression that they were without sin, Jesus was always very harsh toward the Pharisees and called them "children of hell".

Matt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Jesus DID NOT give the Pharisees the impression they were without sin as many here falsely teach. He told them directly they were children of hell.

So who are these just persons who need no repentance? Children, little ones.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Again, it was Jesus himself who described a shepherd with 100 sheep. None of them were lost. One went astray and became lost, the shepherd searched diligently until he recovered this lost sheep. He rejoiced over this one lost sheep more than the 99 WHICH WENT NOT ASTRAY. This is also true of the elder son, he complained his father never had a feast for him.

Then Jesus tells us who these persons are, they are LITTLE ONES.

It is right there if you will open your eyes and see it. If you want to refuse to see scripture, that is your choice.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is accurate.

Many people do not know two things: just how much influence Augustine had on Roman Catholicism and also Magisterial Protestantism, and how little influence he had on the EOC, Anabaptists, General Baptists, Pentecostals, and Holiness.

So Tom should I abandon Baptists all together for the reformed faith? Personally have nothing theological with you. Saved believers baptism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You mean Augustinian Christianity.

Vs what...Pelagius! Truly call it for what it is and be done with it. Come outages the closet & be the humanists you really are! There now...isn't that liberating! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[evangelist-7]

explain to me how He gave them a sin nature.....I dont see that in the scripture.... He cursed them
But do you see anywhere he made them evil. Please provide proof.

I'd say the proof is what several have already explained.

Da PROOF is that ... Jesus COULD NOT have a human father!
Because ... He had to be without sin.

Get it, got it, good.

Re: evil ... You do know that Jesus told all 12 of His disciples that they were evil?

P.S. Please keep in mind how Jesus rebuked the spiritually blind religious people of His day. Thanks.
.