The plausibility of John 3:18

[Martin Marprelate]

your idea of a "sin nature"

You have a cheek!! I have specifically said that I don't use the term and yet you still conspire to foist it on to me, to the point that it has suddenly become 'my idea'! Please remove this false allegation forthwith.

If by 'power' you mean what is meant when people are described as 'under the power' of drink or drugs, then the term is not exceptional. But sin has no power in itself, any more than drink, drugs etc. It has no personality, no brain that might exert enslaving power. It is people's fallen natures that make them vulnerable to temptation.

 

[JonC]

You have a cheek!! I have specifically said that I don't use the term

I use the term. You said you do not but that while not using the term you accept the idea as valid.

Here is what I actually stated: "your idea of a "sin nature" (although you don't use the term) ".

If you reject the idea of a "sin nature" (that men have a fallen, sinful nature) then I will apologize for my mistake.
If you just do not like the words I use then grow up.

Which is it? Do you believe that we have sinful natures or not?????

 

[JonC]

If by 'power'

By "power" I mean how Scripture presents sin as an enslaving power.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I use the term. You said you do not but that while not using the term you accept the idea as valid.

Here is what I actually stated: "your idea of a "sin nature" (although you don't use the term) ".

If you reject the idea of a "sin nature" (that men have a fallen, sinful nature) then I will apologize for my mistake.
If you just do not like the words I use then grow up.

Which is it? Do you believe that we have sinful natures or not?????

Here is what I wrote:

Where exactly did I say that man has a 'sin nature'? It is not a term that I tend to use, so I'll be interested to know where it was.

You have admitted that you don't know where I have used the term, but now you say is is my idea.
Take the allegation down, please.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

By "power" I mean how Scripture presents sin as an enslaving power.

Let me ask again: do you see drink, drugs, gambling as 'enslaving powers? Yes or no would be good.

 

[JonC]

Here is what I wrote:

You have admitted that you don't know where I have used the term, but now you say is is my idea.
Take the allegation down, please.

Sorry. Maybe it was someone else.

I take it you deny we have a "sin nature" ("fallen nature", or as I say, that we are "sinners" ) .

No, you take it wrongly. I just don't tend to use the term 'sin nature.'

Don't be silly. It is MY term. I was saying that you stated you affirmed the "idea" behind the term "sin nature" because you said that you affirmed the idea but never used the term.

IF you deny that natural man has a sin nature (a fallen nature, are "sinful") then I will apologize. If not, then you are acting like a child. Stop.

 

[JonC]

Let me ask again: do you see drink, drugs, gambling as 'enslaving powers? Yes or no would be good.

That is between you and God. I just referenced His terms that we were enslaved by sin, mastered by sin, that sin was crouching at our door. Tell God to purchase your dictionary and then He would know that "sin" is a "moral transaction" and never an enslaving power. If you want to critique the choice of words, ask Him why He spoke of "death" as a "power" as well.

For me, I just take it as God is God. If He says it, I believe it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Don't be silly. It is MY term. I was saying that you stated you affirmed the "idea" behind the term "sin nature" because you said that you affirmed the idea but never used the term.

IF you deny that natural man has a sin nature (a fallen nature, are "sinful") then I will apologize. If not, then you are acting like a child. Stop.

I object in the strongest possible terms to people making out that I hold opinions that I don't. Men are sinners. 'Sin nature' is not in the Bible and for that reason I reject it. Please remove the false imputation.

 

[JonC]

I object in the strongest possible terms to people making out that I hold opinions that I don't. Men are sinners. 'Sin nature' is not in the Bible and for that reason I reject it. Please remove the false imputation.

You know what. I will remove the post IF you deny the idea that men have a sin nature. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. Do you reject it too? The term Penal Substitution is not in the Bible. Do you reject it?

Now PLEASE stop being childish. You are making a fool of yourself. I said that you do not use the term and that the term is mine to refer to the idea of natural men being sinners (by nature). You already affirmed you believe the idea that men have a "sin nature" but don't use the term. Stop trying to be offended.

 

[Reformed1689]

Now PLEASE stop being childish.

You mean like deleting/editing posts of others that make you and your position look bad at random abusing power?

 

[JonC]

You mean like deleting/editing posts of others that make you and your position look bad at random abusing power?

No. More like a person going off topic to insult and make false statements about people and then whining when their posts are edited or deleted. You know, the common foolishness some members that cannot accurately defend their position do. Often it is just a smoke screen (to be fair, sometimes it is "talking past" the other....but I don't think this is normally the case).

I'll tell you what we need - bro. We need men who can act like men (who don't go whining to the "teacher" but can address issues with other people. I think you are (may be) one of these (I hope....time will tell). But we are plagued with a bunch of whiners.

 

[loDebar]

Men do not have a sin nature but it appears that way when men continually make bad sinful choices in their free will/
Just the same as saints resist temptation more easily by continually choosing to be led by God

 

[Reformed1689]

No. More like a person going off topic to insult and make false statements about people and then whining when their posts are edited or deleted. You know, the common foolishness some members that cannot accurately defend their position do. Often it is just a smoke screen (to be fair, sometimes it is "talking past" the other....but I don't think this is normally the case).

You and I both know, as well as others here, that my post was factual.

 

[JonC]

Men do not have a sin nature but it appears that way when men continually make bad sinful choices in their free will/
Just the same as saints resist temptation more easily by continually choosing to be led by God

I like the term Scripture uses (sin as a "power" or "master" over man). We are by nature "enslaved to sin" or "sold under sin".

Sin nature is the same as saying we are sinners. Not much to it. And you are right, it often presents us as not choosing to sin (if pushed to its logical conclusions). Enslaved by sin can go both ways (because of the Gospel of Christ).

 

[JonC]

You and I both know, as well as others here, that my post was factual.

Truth is it was not. The problem then was when I said "wait, that is not what I believe" your reply was "that's your opinion".

Even you should be able to admit that was a childish reply. You can argue against my beliefs and I can argue against yours. BUT neither of us can tell the other what they believe. That is just wrong (morally and logically).

 

[Reformed1689]

Truth is it was not. The problem then was when I said "wait, that is not what I believe" your reply was "that's your opinion".

Even you should be able to admit that was a childish reply. You can argue against my beliefs and I can argue against yours. BUT neither of us can tell the other what they believe. That is just wrong (morally and logically).

Ah so you ADMIT you deleted posts because you didn't like them. Not for cause, but for your opinion. You should be removed immediately from moderator as you do not use your power ethically.

 

[JonC]

Ah so you ADMIT you deleted posts because you didn't like them. Not for cause, but for your opinion. You should be removed immediately from moderator as you do not use your power ethically.

No. I never said I did not delete them. But it was not because I did not like them. I don't like a lot of things here. It was because you made an off topic comment that was a false accusation and then continued to discuss moderator actions on the open forum.

What you said was that I did not believe what is just is defined by God. I said that God is the ONLY standard for what is just and that your accusation was false. You said that was my "opinion".

We cannot define another person's belief for them. You believe what you believe, right or wrong. If you say you believe the sky is brown then I have to accept that you believe the sky is brown - regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

What is troubling is you know this. You know it from debates at Liberty. You know it from studying formal arguments. So the question is why you are choosing this line of interaction. I have my suspicions, but nothing I'll voice here. It is something you need to consider. You are behaving substandard to experience and education you present yourself as having. Not that I doubt you graduated seminary or that you serve in the ministry, but attributing to another person beliefs they claim not to hold does not match your testimony.

 

[Reformed1689]

Not that I doubt you graduated seminary or that you serve in the ministry, but attributing to another person beliefs they claim not to hold does not match your testimony.

You can say one thing, but your overall posts show another. That is the justification for what I said.

As we have said many times, you are all over the place in your theology. I doubt you understand your own beliefs and seriously doubt you understand Scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

We cannot define another person's belief for them.

But we can point out when what they claim their beliefs are do not match their overall writings.

 

[JonC]

But we can point out when what they claim their beliefs are do not match their overall writings.

No, even here people can hold two opposing views (insofar as free-will I'm a compatibilist, which really holds two opposing things together).

In such cases you could, however, bring up the opposing views and ask the other to defend the position. That would be both fair and proper (we did this in debate...I guess, it's been a while since I've graduated....please tell me there are still debates where you have to defend your position).

If you want to revisit the contention then we can. I say that the measure of what is just is determined by God alone. You claimed that this is not what I really believe. What led you to that conclusion?

See how civil and nice I am.....now let me spit out this blood for biting my tongue (kidding) but seriously, if you have a question of what I believe then ask me and I will tell you....but don't prescribe for me a belief I claim to reject and I won't you. Fair?