Perspective

[JonC]

That's what the Bible says though.

If you left a child alone in the wilderness(and fed him from afar or whatever), he would still sin. We don't learn it, it's what we are from birth.

Does it?

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

 

[FrigidDev]

That's exactly what I was saying. I was literally thinking of that verse when I bolded your statement.

The SOLE reason that everyone dies and goes to hell, is because of the original sin. It was imprinted upon them from birth, and they were on there way to hell from birth, because of that sin nature.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[JonC]

That's exactly what I was saying. I was literally thinking of that verse when I bolded your statement.

The SOLE reason that everyone dies and goes to hell, is because of the original sin. It was imprinted upon them from birth, and they were on there way to hell from birth, because of that sin nature.

That's all I'm saying.

I agree there. The problem is our sinfulness (that sinful nature which manifests sinful actions).

 

[Internet Theologian]

Candidly, you have taken a fraction of a passage as a proof text.

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh a and following its desires and thoughts.

All WERE headed for Hell, but God saved a people (they didn't save themselves or each other). Salvation is wholly a work of God. But we were condemned for being dead in our sins and transgressions....our sinfulness...our sinful nature of which our sins bear witness....not because birth is considered sinful.

Frankly the context doesn't do away with the facts of the portion stated, no matter how badly you wish your faulty position to be true. The context actually supports it, showing that due to their nature they behaved in certain ways. But hey, don't let hundreds of years of works by church father's, ODT's and proper exegesis stand in your way.

 

[JonC]

Frankly the context doesn't do away with the facts of the portion stated, no matter how badly you wish your faulty position to be true.....

If you are denying that we are condemned for our sinful nature then you have severely misunderstood Scripture. God re-create us, we are reborn...born from above....God gives us a new spirit. We MUST be born again.

I know that we might disagree on this passage, and that's fine (I'm not here to tell you what to believe). But I think that this is applicable to God's saving grace:

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your unclleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleans you. And I will give you a NEW HEART and a NEW SPIRIT I will put within you. And I will REMOVE the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put MY SPIRIT within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. And you shall dwell in the land that I gave your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

That, IMHO, is a NEW CREATION. Why? Because we are condemned in our old, natural, sinful natures. We must be born again. Not "stop sinning" but regeneration. The natural cannot understand the spiritual. I do not know why so many seem to deny the supernatural in conversion. It is not a decision, it is not something that we do (or cease doing), it is the supernatural work of God. This is an ontological change plain and simple.

And this is not something that I just made up. That position is not backed by centuries of scholars but by over two thousand years of Church history and by Scripture.

The reason I stand so strongly against your denial of my position (that our fallen natures are the issue and we must be reborn) is because the doctrine sits at the heart of the gospel (and your denial of that position strikes at that truth). You say that I made up this doctrine, but read the Bible and the Early Church Fathers. Read Luther, Calvin, Owen....stick with John Owen a bit....John Gill. If this is what you are denying then you are way off base, brother. Orthodox Christianity recognizes the "fallenness" of man and the necessity of a supernatural work of God in the lives of those being saved. Unfortunately sometimes our churches and online theoreticians do not.

 

[kyredneck]

Only idiotic and deeply misguided Christians threaten unbelievers with Hell.

ROFL!!!! There's a hell fire damnation clique of Puritans on board that thumps CHRISTIANS over the head with just that, routinely, right here on the BB!!!

 

[JonShaff]

ROFL!!!! There's a hell fire damnation clique of Puritans on board that thumps CHRISTIANS over the head with just that, routinely, right here on the BB!!!

I've read the reformed crowd do the same thing, and did it in the name of fruit inspection.

 

[kyredneck]

Simple. If they have never heard the gospel, they will not be saved.

Pharisees:
49 But this multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed. Jn 7

Evangelicals:
But this multitude that knoweth not the gospel are accursed.

 

[kyredneck]

But I ask, “Didn’t they hear?”

The sound of their voices went out to all the earth. Their words went out to the farthest places in the world.

They are without excuse.

You're taking that out of context. The preaching at Pentecost was literally a gospel bomb within the Jewish world. No sort of gymnastics on your part will convince me that the Inuit or the Shawnee or the Inca or the Aztec were included in that passage at that time.

 

[kyredneck]

We are condemned at conception, I should say.

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. Paul was separated from his mother's womb. David was made to hope while on his mother's breast. Isaac was born after the Spirit before he was weaned. I don't think these are the exception. I'm convinced they're the examples.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is because of all of the above. You guys play these games by talking past each other and you know you do it. The real disagreement between yall is not why someone goes to hell it is whether or not someone makes the choice.

Yes it it....

no its not....

yes it is...


No its not...

Move on good grief.

 

[Aaron]

Only idiotic and deeply misguided Christians threaten unbelievers with Hell.

But warning them to flee the wrath to come is eminently biblical. Whether or not they believe the report can only be helped by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JonC]

You're taking that out of context. The preaching at Pentecost was literally a gospel bomb within the Jewish world. No sort of gymnastics on your part will convince me that the Inuit or the Shawnee or the Inca or the Aztec were included in that passage at that time.

I disagree. Jews were not the only ones who "sinned and fell short of the glory of God." Also, the earlier passage says the same, but specifically to the Gentiles. Native Americans were not automatically "saved" because they did not have Scripture. They also were condemned. They also had a sin nature and they also sinned.

The passage does not say that the gospel message of salvation is known by all men (it is not about Pentecost either). It says all are justly condemned. Native American tribal people were not excluded from condemnation because they did not have Bibles. And God was not unjust for condemning them because they did have a general revelation of God and like all men even their consiences are witnesses to their sin. You are mixing up "rejecting what was revealed of God" with "believing the gospel message towards salvation."

Like I said, these are two issues. All men are justly condemned because they sin against God in that a general revelation of God has been made known (and David, BTW, lived before Pentecost). ALL men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Even ancient Native Americans.

 

[JonC]

The world here doesn't entail the now North America, Canada. Can you provide some evidence for your claims that natives here heard the Gospel without misapplying the Scriptures you've quoted?

So, you think that their actual voices (as you state 'the sound of their voices') was actually heard here? I cannot imagine an North American native cupping his ear saying 'Did you hear that'? I'm just trying to put into imagination what you are making the bible say here.

I'm sitting around reading...getting ready to head to gym...and ran across this commentary. You do not have to take that passage I offered (which you "disliked"). Here's a Reformed commentator who also believes that those "who never heard" have actually heard enough to be justly condemned:

John Gill:

“the Gentiles were not without hearing of God, even whilst they were destitute of a divine revelation”; “by the light that is given to them: it is light by which that which may be known of God is manifest; and this is the light of nature, which EVERY MAN has that comes into the world; and this is the internal, it is in him, in his mind and conscience, and is communicated to him by God, and that by infusion or inspiration...the very Heathen, who have only the light of nature, and are destitute of a revelation, have no colour or pretext for their idolatrous practices, and vicious lives, nor have they, nor will they have anything to object to God’s righteous judgment against them, or why they should not be condemned” (John Gill’s Commentary)

That the lost have rejected what has been made known of God by God, and that they are justly condemned is something that you are free to reject. But it is not a product of my "imagination." Neither is the fact that we are born with sinful natures.

 

[JonC]

.

Another imaginative fellow, I suppose. This is what I find missing so often today. A very good (IMHO) explanation not only of the necessity of the new birth but of the new birth itself. Salvation is not merely a decision made given the right information.