What is sin nature?

[Darren]

The constitution of our will is not sinful by nature. If it were, we would not be able to be held responsible for our actions and God could not be just in doing so.

Sound! Truer words never spoken!

Nor, is the constitution of our flesh sinful by nature. It merely wants to do what God designed it to do. Our flesh wants to be in a certain temperature range, have a full belly, feel pleasure, feel rested, ... God created man with all these as attributes of his flesh and called it good. He added woman and called it very good! However, sin entered the world and this flesh became subjected to corruption, something it had been protected from in the Garden with it's Tree of Life.

Agreed! Here, here! Couldn't put it better myself. I'm not being sarcastic, just surpised to be in complete agreement with someone.

When man submitted his will to live after the lusts of the flesh outside of the will of God, he sinned and was guilty before his Creator. His flesh was not any more sinful than before, nor was his will inoperative. Neither, did his spirit die nor was he dead spiritually. He was merely guilty and given the death sentence. All men are under this sentence to this day. To die as a guilty sinner will result in eternal condemnation. To die with ones sins atoned for gives a hope for the resurrection and eternal life with the Living God and our brother Jesus.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Don]

"Our brother Jesus"?

What part of scripture justifies this heresy?

(John 10:30; John 17:11)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: The constitution of our will is not sinful by nature. If it were, we would not be able to be held responsible for our actions and God could not be just in doing so.

HP: Amen.:thumbs: Sin is formed only as the will chooses to form intents in agreement with selfishness. Sin is willful rebellion to a known commandment of God. Every definition of sin in Scripture is in accordance to this truth. ‘Sin IS a transgression of the law.’ ‘Where there is no law, sin is not imputed.’ ‘To him that KNOWETH to do good, and doeth it not to HIM it is sin.’ Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.’

TrustitL: Nor, is the constitution of our flesh sinful by nature. It merely wants to do what God designed it to do. Our flesh wants to be in a certain temperature range, have a full belly, feel pleasure, feel rested, ... God created man with all these as attributes of his flesh and called it good. He added woman and called it very good! However, sin entered the world and this flesh became subjected to corruption, something it had been protected from in the Garden with it's Tree of Life.

HP: Here I might disagree slightly. God did not design our flesh with a proclivity to sin. I believe that is a direct result of the fall and the natural consequences of generation as it affects the sensibilities. We are not born in every sense as was Adam. We have warped sensibilities that crave selfishness in a manner unknown to Adam and Eve in their sinless state. They were created with perfect sensibilities and perfect appetites. They were granted the ability to override those perfect natural appetites, which they obviously did bringing physical degeneration to every subsequent member of the human race.

TrustitL: When man submitted his will to live after the lusts of the flesh outside of the will of God, he sinned and was guilty before his Creator. His flesh was not any more sinful than before, nor was his will inoperative.

HP: I agree with this. :thumbs: Flesh can only be seen as sinful when one is making reference to the ‘whole of humanity’ or ‘men dwelling in physical bodies’ that have sinned and became guilty before God.

TrustitL: Neither, did his spirit die nor was he dead spiritually.

HP: I might say it this way. When man sinned his spirit died in the sense that it was no more alive alone to God and His will, but had became dead in the sense of being ‘unwilling’ to obey God and His commands. This spiritual death eliminated any and all possibility of man being reconciled to God without God first building a bridge, allowing for the atoning work of Christ via the shed blood of Jesus Christ to atone for sins that are past.

I see us, before coming to Christ in repentance and faith, as dead spiritually, We have chosen to sin voluntarily, separating us for eternity from our God. We have been completely cut off from hope of eternity with God apart from God providing a pardon for sins that are past. That relationship that once was afforded of fellowship with God via obedience to His commands has been put to death via our rebellion and sin. By the atoning work of Christ alone and our obedience to the conditions of forgiveness God has enjoined can that relationship with Him be restored.

 

[trustitl]

HP: Here I might disagree slightly. God did not design our flesh with a proclivity to sin. I believe that is a direct result of the fall and the natural consequences of generation as it affects the sensibilities. We are not born in every sense as was Adam. We have warped sensibilities that crave selfishness in a manner unknown to Adam and Eve in their sinless state. They were created with perfect sensibilities and perfect appetites. They were granted the ability to override those perfect natural appetites, which they obviously did bringing physical degeneration to every subsequent member of the human race.

You say sinning is willful transgression of Go's will. Isn't it true that flesh does not have a will independent of its normal functions and independent of my will? That is why I wouldn't say that flesh does not have a proclivity to sin, but rather that it has a proclivity to be fulfilled. We have the will that will determine if the way our flesh is used is glorifying to God or not.

What difference do you see between the term sinful nature and your term "warped sensibilities"?

HP: I might say it this way. When man sinned his spirit died in the sense that it was no more alive alone to God and His will, but had became dead in the sense of being ‘unwilling’ to obey God and His commands. This spiritual death eliminated any and all possibility of man being reconciled to God without God first building a bridge, allowing for the atoning work of Christ via the shed blood of Jesus Christ to atone for sins that are past.

Isn't it true that our wills actually do want to obey God? Look at what Paul says in Romans 7:18-19 "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. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." Paul's will as an unbeliever was to do good, but he did not have the means to perform it. He found the command to not covet to be death because it showed him his inablity to be free from sin. He could say he did not murder or steal but this one got him.

I see us, before coming to Christ in repentance and faith, as dead spiritually, We have chosen to sin voluntarily, separating us for eternity from our God. We have been completely cut off from hope of eternity with God apart from God providing a pardon for sins that are past. That relationship that once was afforded of fellowship with God via obedience to His commands has been put to death via our rebellion and sin. By the atoning work of Christ alone and our obedience to the conditions of forgiveness God has enjoined can that relationship with Him be restored.

Adam's relationship with God was not afforded to him because of obedience; it was granted to him by God merely creating him. His place of residence changed after he sinned, but he continued to have a relationship with God.
We rarely consider the role eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil had on Adam. I think this effected his relationship with God. He now had a knowledge of good and evil without an ability to perform it. What a terrible place to find himself. This is where you and I found ourselves before we were saved. I remember it and am thankful you and I have now been "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

And not only created unto them, but able to do them.

Romans 8:3-4 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: You say sinning is willful transgression of God's will.

HP: I do not recall ever saying that. What I have stated is that sin is a transgression of the law, or sin is disobedience to a known commandment of God, etc.

TrustitL: Isn't it true that flesh does not have a will independent of its normal functions and independent of my will?

HP: True, unless one is using the word ‘flesh’ as that which is denoting mankind or one being part of that which is denoted as humanity. Flesh can be speaking of the mere physical or again, mankind or part of mankind as a whole.

The will of man is clearly distinguished from the physical and it is clearly distinguished between the sensibilities of man. The sensibilities of man influence the will, but the will is not under bondage to the sensibilities if in fact the individual remains a viable moral agent. If the will becomes under such bondage to the flesh and sensibilities that it is impossible for it to do any thing other than what it does, the will is no longer free and the individual has ceased to be a responsible moral agent. Such a one at that point may be pitied, but never blamed or punished for failure to do the impossible. All blame or praise would be focused upon acts and choices that led up to that bondage, choices antecedent to losing all ability to act contrary to that which now is seen as necessitated apart from actual formation of moral intents.

TrustitL: That is why I wouldn't say that flesh does not have a proclivity to sin, but rather that it has a proclivity to be fulfilled. We have the will that will determine if the way our flesh is used is glorifying to God or not.

HP: Are you certain you said this as you desired? It seems hard for me to follow your point as worded. Could you restate it for me? Thanks.

TrustitL: What difference do you see between the term sinful nature and your term "warped sensibilities"?

HP: When the term ‘sinful nature’ is used, it is more than likely referring to the state commonly known as original sin. That is a concept foreign to Scripture. On the other hand, if we limit the word ‘nature’ to its most common usage, i.e., that which pertains to the physical flesh, and view sinful as a ‘tendency’ to sin rather than transgression, I would agree that or nature, with its warped natural sensibilities, indeed has a tendency to sin, and as such in common parlance, can be seen as a sinful nature. I generally do not refer to it in that manner due to the obvious misunderstanding it might imbibe with the notion of OS so prevalent in Church circles today.
Let me stop here for now to see how we are being understood so far.

 

[Darren]

"Our brother Jesus"?

What part of scripture justifies this heresy?

He means that were are the Sons of God. As it says in the song

"God our Father Christ our Brother All who live in love are thine"

I think the song is titled, Joyful Joyful.

It's not herisy, it's just true. Did you not know you were in God's family?

HP: Here I might disagree slightly. God did not design our flesh with a proclivity to sin. I believe that is a direct result of the fall and the natural consequences of generation as it affects the sensibilities. We are not born in every sense as was Adam. We have warped sensibilities that crave selfishness in a manner unknown to Adam and Eve in their sinless state. They were created with perfect sensibilities and perfect appetites. They were granted the ability to override those perfect natural appetites, which they obviously did bringing physical degeneration to every subsequent member of the human race.

I think we're all actually saying the same things. God created us perfect, we sinned, and corrupted our own nature. All God did, was make that possible, He didn't make it happen. We did. Hence why we are nothing more than worms.

The spiritual death, which I don't think TrustitL was talking about, was when we fell. We fell, and therefore had to be saved. I put forward not only did Adam fall, but we fall, and NOT because of Adam, but because of our own weaknesses. I believe firmly it POSSIBLE for a man to not sin... however that isn't MY story, and probably not yours so, in the mean time, give thanks to Jesus for the sacrifice.

I think the three of us aren't disagreeing much, just pointing it out.

 

[DHK]

The constitution of our will is not sinful by nature. If it were, we would not be able to be held responsible for our actions and God could not be just in doing so.

1. The Bible teaches that our will is sinful by nature.
2. We are held responsible for our actions.
3. God is just in all that he does.
Thus all of your statements are wrong.

As to your first statement:
Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--As soon as one is born, by nature they go astray speaking lies. They have a sin nature. They are born with it. I have four children. I didn't have to teach them to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do those things which are evil in God's sight. They knew how to do those things from the time that they were born. They were born with a propensity to do evil. It is in their nature to do so. But I did have to teach them to tell the truth, to be honest in all their doings, to be upright, and ultimately to lead them to the Lord, and allow Him to change their lives.

The Bible calls the unsaved: "children of the devil" (John 8:44), "children of wrath," "children of disobedience" (Eph.2:1-3), "condemned already" (John 3:36).

Therefore Jesus said:
"You must be born again." You must be born again, because you are not in God's family. You are in the wrong family, the devil's family. You have the wrong nature; Satan's nature, "the prince of the power of the air," the god of this world," "he that committeth sin from the beginning;" a sin nature. Every man has a sin nature, and thus the propensity to sin. Is it any wonder that Jesus said:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

He said "You must be born again" three times. He said it because you have a sin nature. That sin nature will cause you to reject Christ and that sin will keep you out of Heaven.

And yet at the same time, we are still responsible for our own sin. God did not make us robots. He created us in his own image and likeness with a will to do good or evil. He gave us a mind to choose. We are not programmed automatons. He do have choice. You choose to sin; all men choose to sin. When we stand before God someday we will give account for all that we have done in this life whether good or bad.

And finally, to suggest that God is unjust needs no comment. It is blasphemous.

 

[Darren]

1. The Bible teaches that our will is sinful by nature.
2. We are held responsible for our actions.
3. God is just in all that he does.
Thus all of your statements are wrong.

Really? Lets try to follow your logic for a while.

On Psalms 58
:BangHead:

(Talks to conscience.)
Do... but...
settle down Darren...
but did you see what he just did? This is the Word of God, not just something to be abused like that!
yes I know
What in the world... did he even read the passage at all?
Probably not, but try to be nice

Okay, okay, how do I do this? I can't. READ BEFORE YOU QUOTE!!! You tell me, what was Psalms 58 about?

Read John 8: 12-59. Then take your quote and tell me what Jesus was really talking about.

Ephesians 2: 1-10 was most literally only to certain individuals, but as we can see, it was not meant literally. Then what of your conclusion?

John 3:36

36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

How can one reject what one does not know? This is a condemnation of those whom know him, but throw Him away. At best, a verse against OSAS.

Do you know what John 3:1-21 was about? Where is sin nature mentioned in it?

And yet at the same time, we are still responsible for our own sin. God did not make us robots. He created us in his own image and likeness with a will to do good or evil. He gave us a mind to choose. We are not programmed automatons. He do have choice. You choose to sin; all men choose to sin. When we stand before God someday we will give account for all that we have done in this life whether good or bad.

Wow, you pretty much just agreed with us.

And finally, to suggest that God is unjust needs no comment. It is blasphemous.

Yea well... we were saying God is not unjust and you barely payed enough attention to know that, or so it seems, so....

 

[DHK]

Really? Lets try to follow your logic for a while.

On Psalms 58
:BangHead:

(Talks to conscience.)
Do... but...
settle down Darren...
but did you see what he just did? This is the Word of God, not just something to be abused like that!
yes I know
What in the world... did he even read the passage at all?
Probably not, but try to be nice

Yes, many, many times. The psalm is an imprecatory psalm, a psalm of judgment. But that is not the point is it? Whether the psalm was of judgment or of praise, truth is truth. And the Lord clearly said in that Psalm:

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

It doesn't matter whether or not the psalm is imprecatory, or whether or not it speaks of judgment. The truth of verse 3 remains the same. It is a constant. It is a timeless truth. Black just doesn't suddenly change to white because you think the context is different. Not here. The wicked speak lies as soon as they are born. They are born with a sin nature. You cannot twist that Scripture to mean anything else.

Okay, okay, how do I do this? I can't. READ BEFORE YOU QUOTE!!! You tell me, what was Psalms 58 about?

I did. You didn't even attempt to give a meaning to the verse because you cannot. The meaning is so clear that you cannot deny it. Man has a sin nature. Say it. That is the teaching.

Read John 8: 12-59. Then take your quote and tell me what Jesus was really talking about.

Jesus was telling the Pharisees that their spiritual father was the devil himself; they needed to be born again. But they would refuse and crucify him instead.

Ephesians 2: 1-10 was most literally only to certain individuals, but as we can see, it was not meant literally. Then what of your conclusion?

It is as literal as John 8:44, isn't it?
If you are not saved, you are a child of disobedience, a child of wrath. In fact, let's look more closely:

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
1 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
--You walked according to the prince of the power of the air--Satan himself.
--You are a child of disobedience.
--You are by your own sin nature a child of wrath.

This is what the Bible literally says about you. It says it about all men, before they are saved.

John 3:36
36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

How can one reject what one does not know? This is a condemnation of those whom know him, but throw Him away. At best, a verse against OSAS.

From another thread that you have started, I will assume that you do not know him. But you have heard. Therefore you have no excuse, and the wrath of God remains on you until you believe. The same is true for everyone. The argument that you put forth against OSAS is non sequitor.

Do you know what John 3:1-21 was about? Where is sin nature mentioned in it?

If one is not born again he is left with a sin nature that controls his natural flesh. But if one is not born again, no matter how many times he reads John 3, he will never understand it, so I can see where your confusion comes from.

 

[trustitl]

I do not recall ever saying that. What I have stated is that sin is a transgression of the law, or sin is disobedience to a known commandment of God, etc.

Ok.

The will of man is clearly distinguished from the physical and it is clearly distinguished between the sensibilities of man. The sensibilities of man influence the will, but the will is not under bondage to the sensibilities if in fact the individual remains a viable moral agent. If the will becomes under such bondage to the flesh and sensibilities that it is impossible for it to do any thing other than what it does, the will is no longer free and the individual has ceased to be a responsible moral agent. Such a one at that point may be pitied, but never blamed or punished for failure to do the impossible. All blame or praise would be focused upon acts and choices that led up to that bondage, choices antecedent to losing all ability to act contrary to that which now is seen as necessitated apart from actual formation of moral intents.

Agreed

HP: Are you certain you said this as you desired? It seems hard for me to follow your point as worded. Could you restate it for me? Thanks.

Sorry. Was in a rush with 30 people coming over for Mother's Day. Double negative shouldn't have been there. Should have read "That is why I wouldn say that flesh does not have a proclivity to sin, but rather that it has a proclivity to be fulfilled. We have the will that determines if the way our flesh is used glorifes God or not."

HP: When the term ‘sinful nature’ is used, it is more than likely referring to the state commonly known as original sin. That is a concept foreign to Scripture. On the other hand, if we limit the word ‘nature’ to its most common usage, i.e., that which pertains to the physical flesh, and view sinful as a ‘tendency’ to sin rather than transgression, I would agree that or nature, with its warped natural sensibilities, indeed has a tendency to sin, and as such in common parlance, can be seen as a sinful nature. I generally do not refer to it in that manner due to the obvious misunderstanding it might imbibe with the notion of OS so prevalent in Church circles today.

How about this question. Did Adam have "a tendency to sin" before he sinned? If he didn't, why did he sin? Most people think he was something above human before he sinned. I don't see a big difference between his flesh when he was created and mine when I was born. Other than thousands of years of corruption handed down through the gene pool resulting in various deformities, weaknesses, etc., what difference do you think there is between him prior to "the Fall" and us? In other words, what happened to Adam's flesh when he sinned?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP's remarks on Psalm 58:3

If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is DHK holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate and DHK wrongly assumes.

 

[Darren]

You cannot twist that Scripture to mean anything else.

You're the one twisting scripture here. Psalm 58 is a short Psalm, anyone with the slightest notion could go read it and see it has nothing to do with this subbject matter.

I did. You didn't even attempt to give a meaning to the verse because you cannot. The meaning is so clear that you cannot deny it. Man has a sin nature. Say it. That is the teaching.

I was waiting for you to tell me what the chapter is about... but you honestly don't know do you?

The entire chapter talks about destroying wicked men in favor of righteous men. It alledges the EXISTENCE of righteous men, might I point out, but it is not about a sin nature, and I think you know it. That verse is expressive and actually refering not to the whole of mankind. May I be so bold as to say its only talking about David's enemies?

I suppose though... that is, it can't be expressive. Why, now I remember all the venomous lies I heard last time I heard an ultra sound of a fetus.

Like I said, you abused scripture.

On John 8, the theology of being born again isn't even mentioned, anyone who reads with will not see the words. Jesus declared the Pharasees to be under the devil, not the whole world, and so they were.

It also wasn't literal. You see, one cannot be a "slave to sin" sin is not a creature but a series of actions. As you create a habit of sinning, so you become a slave to that habit. This is logic. By commmitting to the Lord, one can break that habit.

In fact, were I you:

23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[a] you will indeed die in your sins."

I'll just preempt the arguement though, rather than avoid it.

I believe He was speaking to and ABOUT those he was speaking to.

Might I also point out, this was rejection based on knowledge. He told them everything, yet they hardened their hearts and stiffened their necks. They rejected the word of God, no matter how simply it was explained, and even tried to kill the messenger. This is NOT the definition of a simple non-believer.

This is what the Bible literally says about you. It says it about all men, before they are saved.

Romans 8, Paul had a sin nature after he was saved.

From another thread that you have started, I will assume that you do not know him.

Who is this, "him"? Oh... I see. Try capitalizing.

I accepted Jesus using the sinners prayer at 13. Yep, meant every word of it. Guess what, I still believe in the sacrifice of Jesus being the only thing that can wash away sins. (I've changed the view that those whom don't believe in it are not washed as well.) Guess what else. I still repent to Him when I transgress. Guess what else. I also still consider my life committed to Him and His cause. Guess what. You're assumptions serve only to discredit you.

Therefore you have no excuse, and the wrath of God remains on you until you believe.

I think you just tried to condenm me based on the fact that I don't agree with... you. That is only God's place.

If one is not born again he is left with a sin nature that controls his natural flesh. But if one is not born again, no matter how many times he reads John 3, he will never understand it, so I can see where your confusion comes from.

So then I suppose, by your reasoning, repenting, committing your life to God, and believing in Jesus's name are all fools gold. You just declared that I am not born again, yet that's how I was born again in this life, or so I thought.

Now I know that the Baptist plan of salvation is false, you just explained so, congratulations. Things are so much clearer now.

Either that, or it looks like you need to think more before you post.

Also, I guess, since only the born again can understand John 3... then how does it lead anyone to Jesus?

I will admit, I don't completely understand John 3 either. The main problem I have is that, according to Jesus, Nicodemus should already have known what he was talking about.

Of course, I wonder, will we have you admit you do not fully understand it either? I doubt you do.

 

[Don]

He means that were are the Sons of God. As it says in the song

"God our Father Christ our Brother All who live in love are thine"

I think the song is titled, Joyful Joyful.

It's not herisy, it's just true. Did you not know you were in God's family?

Oh, please. That was the weakest argument I've seen you make yet. Yes, the saved are part of the family of God; but to call Jesus "brother" puts us equal with Him. And since scripture tells us Jesus is God, then calling Him "brother" puts us equal with God.

Surely you're not placing yourself on God's throne?

I'd love to see more scripture that supports this thought process (not logic, nor lyrics to a song; but scripture that says Christ is our brother; I'm looking, but haven't found it yet).

-----

Edited to add: Y'all don't visit a website called TheologyOnline, do you? I think y'all would fit in nicely there.

 

[DHK]

You're the one twisting scripture here. Psalm 58 is a short Psalm, anyone with the slightest notion could go read it and see it has nothing to do with this subbject matter.

Because the third verse of Psalm 58 is couched in the context of an imprecatory psalm does not take away from the truth that it is teaching. It still teaches that we are sinners from birth. You may want to deny that. But you cannot deny that from context alone. You cannot simply allegorize it away. It is a truth taught in Scripture. It is there for a reason.

I was waiting for you to tell me what the chapter is about... but you honestly don't know do you?

I told you what it is about. It is an imprecatory psalm. If you don't know what that means then you need to find out. That is all I need to say on the subject. The rest is self-explanatory. As for verse three, I have explained that verse in detail to you, and you have offered no other explanation other to say that it can't mean that. That is quite lame, isn't it?

The entire chapter talks about destroying wicked men in favor of righteous men. It alledges the EXISTENCE of righteous men, might I point out, but it is not about a sin nature, and I think you know it. That verse is expressive and actually refering not to the whole of mankind. May I be so bold as to say its only talking about David's enemies?

What you say may be true, about the context being the psalmist's enemies), but that doesn't negate certain truths that are taught within the Psalm. The parallel to that is the passage where the Lord speaks about the specific wickedness of the people of Noah's time. And yet he does make this statement that is applicable not only to the people of Noah's time but for people of all generations:

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Speaking of the generation of Noah, the Lord makes a statement that is applicable to all men: "that every imagination of the thoughts of all men are evil continually.
This is what one may call a timeless truth. It was applicable back then, and applicable today. It speaks to the depravity of man, and man's sin nature.
The same is true of Psalm 58:3. It is a timeless truth. The truth is timeless in spite of what the rest of the context says. We don't throw out truth just because the psalmist is speaking of his enemies. The truth is still there. Man is still a sinner with a depraved nature as soon as he is there.

I suppose though... that is, it can't be expressive. Why, now I remember all the venomous lies I heard last time I heard an ultra sound of a fetus.

How many children have you had? And do you still call your children fetsuses? The expression is "as soon as they be born."

Like I said, you abused scripture.

I know many mothers that can attest to the veracity of that verse.

On John 8, the theology of being born again isn't even mentioned, anyone who reads with will not see the words. Jesus declared the Pharasees to be under the devil, not the whole world, and so they were.

You don't have to see the actual words to understand the theology being taught.
You don't have to see the word "trinity" to know when it is being taught. The same is true in John 8. The new birth is referenced. It is rejected by those who are called "children of the devil." They have not been born again.

It also wasn't literal. You see, one cannot be a "slave to sin" sin is not a creature but a series of actions. As you create a habit of sinning, so you become a slave to that habit. This is logic. By commmitting to the Lord, one can break that habit.

The words of both Paul and Jesus are very literal. The meant what they said. They were children of the devil. And so is every person born into this world; thus the necessity of being born again. One is born with a sin nature. He sins, not only because he wants to sin, but because his nature gives him the desire to sin. Man is not born "good." He is born "evil." Jesus said: "There is none good but God." Paul said: "There is none that doeth good, no not one." One doesn't become a slave to sin; he already is one--as soon as he is born, just as Psalm 58:3 teaches.

Might I also point out, this was rejection based on knowledge. He told them everything, yet they hardened their hearts and stiffened their necks. They rejected the word of God, no matter how simply it was explained, and even tried to kill the messenger. This is NOT the definition of a simple non-believer.

There is no difference between a "simple" non-believer, and a "complicated?" non-believer as you would have one to believer. An unbeliever is one who has rejected Christ no matter how much knowledge he has received. He is a child of the devil that needs to be born into the family of God. It is that simple. Nicodemus needed to be born again. Jesus told him that three different times, and he tells us the same thing.

Romans 8, Paul had a sin nature after he was saved.

Very true. We all have a sin nature--both before we are saved and after. The difference is: that after I am saved, I am a sinner saved by grace. But I still am a sinner. The sin nature is not eradicated and never will be until the resurrection and Christ gives me a new body.

Who is this, "him"? Oh... I see. Try capitalizing.

I accepted Jesus using the sinners prayer at 13. Yep, meant every word of it. Guess what, I still believe in the sacrifice of Jesus being the only thing that can wash away sins. (I've changed the view that those whom don't believe in it are not washed as well.) Guess what else. I still repent to Him when I transgress. Guess what else. I also still consider my life committed to Him and His cause. Guess what. You're assumptions serve only to discredit you.

I will accept your testimony on face value. But when you deny the omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnipresence of God, it makes it difficult to see how one can be a believer. When one denies the very essence of who God is, how can they be a believer? You use the arguments of an atheist, and then claim to be a believer in Christ. You have me confused. So don't be offended if I thought that you were not saved.

I think you just tried to condenm me based on the fact that I don't agree with... you. That is only God's place.

Don't become easily offended. From now on read the "you" as generic, meaning you as in all people. "The wrath of God abides on you (all who have not received Christ.) This is what the teaching of John 3:36 teaches. Rejection of Christ is the sin that condemns one to Hell.

So then I suppose, by your reasoning, repenting, committing your life to God, and believing in Jesus's name are all fools gold. You just declared that I am not born again, yet that's how I was born again in this life, or so I thought.

Go back and read again. I deliberately used the pronoun "one" thus not referring to you personally.
And you are correct. Repenting and committing your life to God does not get you to heaven. You must be born again. But you (one) must understand what it means to be born again.

Now I know that the Baptist plan of salvation is false, you just explained so, congratulations. Things are so much clearer now.

I haven't taken time to explain what it means to be born again, so how would you know that?

Also, I guess, since only the born again can understand John 3... then how does it lead anyone to Jesus?

Paul writes in 1Cor.2:12 that only the saved can understand the things of the Spirit of God. He then writes in verse 14 that the unsaved cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. The Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8 was reading the Scriptures and could not understand them until Philip came and explained them to him. An unsaved person needs one who has already been born again to tell them how he can be born again. The unsaved will not be able to do this on his own.

I will admit, I don't completely understand John 3 either. The main problem I have is that, according to Jesus, Nicodemus should already have known what he was talking about.

The only reason Nicodemus should have known about these things is because he was a Rabbi, a teacher of the Jews. He had much of the OT committed to memory. He was well acquainted with the OT, and what it already said about the new birth. Jesus rebuked him for not applying the OT teaching of the Messiah to what he had come to know about the Messiah that he knew he was standing before him.

Of course, I wonder, will we have you admit you do not fully understand it either? I doubt you do.

I do not fully understand all that is written in the Bible. But I do understand the theology behind the New Birth. I am fully capable of explaining that doctrine to anyone who asks.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The truth is timeless in spite of what the rest of the context says

HP: Now that is certainly a telling statement. Forget the context when it does not fit the presupposition that DHK brings to the text.

 

[Darren]

Why I said fetus:
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies (13B)

Psalms and proverbs are not usually literal and have to be taken for their intent, which is usually appearent. It's easy to know what they mean... I will point out, if sin nature is so, why even bother to write Proverbs, as though such knowledge could actually be used... but I alledge it could and can.

I give up on Psalm 58, because I don't see any point in continuing to give you bait to drag it and other passages through the mud.

I'll just skip to where you're actually using them right.

The words of both Paul and Jesus are very literal. The meant what they said. They were children of the devil. And so is every person born into this world; thus the necessity of being born again. One is born with a sin nature. He sins, not only because he wants to sin, but because his nature gives him the desire to sin. Man is not born "good." He is born "evil."

I don't think it is speaking literally. But I suppose we are at an impass. I must admit, the case salvation by faith ONLY is strong. I take most passages that speak that way as expressive, which considering their language, is not so difficult. However, if you wish to get to the meat of it, I'll have to concede, they can indeed be taken literally. I didn't want to admit this, but not admitting it is dishonest if I know it to be so. So I'll admit, I cannot prove that those passage are not literal.

Nor do I know of any passage that say directly those who do not believe will be saved. I can easily find passages talking about believers being condemned, and easily find passages where salvation and God's consideration, was based on faith based on an understanding of God that was VERY incomplete.

It is fact, that Jesus Himself, declared people forgiven that knew almost NOTHING about Him. But, the case can be made that knew Him, just not about Him. Yes, they had no understanding of who He was, but they knew Him. They knew Him from rumor, from seeing His face, from being talked to about something they ultimately couldn't understand. I'm guessing you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I still believe that rejection of what one knows to be the truth is worse than simple ignorance. If your son says "I hate you" is it not worse than a man you've never met saying, "I don't know you"?

Lets also be clear. The Bible was written BY men, TO men, FOR men. God inspired it yes, but to get to the meat of it, it wasn't for His own benifit. If man literally can't understand it, it is of no use.

But I do understand the theology behind the New Birth. I am fully capable of explaining that doctrine to anyone who asks.

Really? Okay, so tell me, where is it in the old testiment, since Nicodemus should already have known of it? Also, I would like to put forward, that being born again, sounds like it's talking about the second life. You know, where we'll be given new bodies.

I haven't taken time to explain what it means to be born again, so how would you know that?

Because I was raised in the Baptist church. I know what the Baptist plan of salvation is. Believe, committ, repent. They preach it as a one time deal, like signing on the dotted line.

It is false, I believe, to an extent. I'm not saying a simple prayer can't committ you to God, there is no real other way to committ, but it's not so simple as saying it one time, and then just moving on. You're life should actually change.

But when you deny the omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnipresence of God, it makes it difficult to see how one can be a believer.

So because I don't think God, takes up residency in Pluto (IN, not just on, that's what Omnipresence means), I can't have faith like you? Because I believe God died on the cross because He needed to, not because He wanted to, obviously I have no faith. Because I'm not so sure God really knows the numer of grains of sand on the beach and how that number will shift in 1000 years, I can't possibly believe I atonement.

Yea, arguements like that are usually why I don't go for "special soveriegnty". This is WAAAAY off subject, and I'm pretty sure you had a feeling it was before you brought it up.

 

[Darren]

Oh, please. That was the weakest argument I've seen you make yet. Yes, the saved are part of the family of God; but to call Jesus "brother" puts us equal with Him. And since scripture tells us Jesus is God, then calling Him "brother" puts us equal with God.

Surely you're not placing yourself on God's throne?

I'd love to see more scripture that supports this thought process (not logic, nor lyrics to a song; but scripture that says Christ is our brother; I'm looking, but haven't found it yet).

I was actually wavering on whether to say something about that to Don, but that's not what the guy meant. He was probably just quoting the song, which I know, many have a problem with it to.

It means to refer to Christ as our brother, since we are all in the family of God and He is the Son of God. Indeed we are the sons of God, so it says in the Bible, however not in the same sense that He is the Son of God.

Seriously though, if I already know that someone meant something be benign, and meant one thing, but said it in a way that CAN BE construed to mean something else bad... I'm sorry, that's just rude to nit pick like that. Especially when you start accusing people of Blasphemy. I would consider what's actually being said before throwing that around.

 

[Don]

I was actually wavering on whether to say something about that to Don, but that's not what the guy meant. He was probably just quoting the song, which I know, many have a problem with it to.

It means to refer to Christ as our brother, since we are all in the family of God and He is the Son of God. Indeed we are the sons of God, so it says in the Bible, however not in the same sense that He is the Son of God.

Good. We agree that Christ is not actually our brother, and that we shouldn't be placing ourselves on the same level as Him.

Seriously though, if I already know that someone meant something be benign, and meant one thing, but said it in a way that CAN BE construed to mean something else bad... I'm sorry, that's just rude to nit pick like that. Especially when you start accusing people of Blasphemy. I would consider what's actually being said before throwing that around.

Oh, puh-leeze. I asked, didn't I? Gave an opportunity to explain? While calling it as I saw it? Don't tell me you do anything less; you're the one that lets people know straight up that you believe they're misinterpreting scripture and using it out of context, no holds barred.

Look at the tone of your posts to DHK and others, and then remove the mote from your own eye. Don't ask for politeness while you're insulting others.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[DHK]

Why I said fetus:
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies (13B)

You are trying to squirm your way out of your own misconceptions. The Bible never referred to a fetus. When the child came out of the womb, when it was born as the Scripture specifically says. then it is not a fetus, it is a child. There is nothing said about a fetus. You are caught in your own deceptions and misunderstandings.

Psalms and proverbs are not usually literal and have to be taken for their intent, which is usually appearent. It's easy to know what they mean... I will point out, if sin nature is so, why even bother to write Proverbs, as though such knowledge could actually be used... but I alledge it could and can.

Actually, both Psalms and Proverbs are very literal.
Psalms are prayers. When a man prays his plea to God is quite literal in that he is pleading and interceding with God on behalf of himself and others. How much more literal can one be! Do you pray? Do you ask God to answer your prayers? Are your prayers specific? Do they have meaning? The psalmist didn't just pray: "God bless all the people of the world." He prayed with intent and meaning, and his prayers were quite literal.

The Book of Proverbs is a book of wise sayings meant to be taken literally inasmuch as in the truth that they teach. There are many adages and wise sayings, timeless truths, etc. The truths are simple and easy to understand. But you should be able to see that for yourself. Besides all that, I never quoted from the Book of Proverbs anyway. So concerning this book, your objection is a red herring.

I give up on Psalm 58, because I don't see any point in continuing to give you bait to drag it and other passages through the mud.

I would be better if you just gave up.

I don't think it is speaking literally. But I suppose we are at an impass. I must admit, the case salvation by faith ONLY is strong. I take most passages that speak that way as expressive, which considering their language, is not so difficult. However, if you wish to get to the meat of it, I'll have to concede, they can indeed be taken literally. I didn't want to admit this, but not admitting it is dishonest if I know it to be so. So I'll admit, I cannot prove that those passage are not literal.

That is progress.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Nor do I know of any passage that say directly those who do not believe will be saved. I can easily find passages talking about believers being condemned, and easily find passages where salvation and God's consideration, was based on faith based on an understanding of God that was VERY incomplete.

1. No believer will ever be condemned.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)
2. Salvation is based on faith. Faith always has an object; it is not some nebulous thing. The object of our faith is Jesus Christ and what he has done for us. Faith is confidence; trust in the word of another; in this case it is confidence in the word of God that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

It is fact, that Jesus Himself, declared people forgiven that knew almost NOTHING about Him. But, the case can be made that knew Him, just not about Him. Yes, they had no understanding of who He was, but they knew Him. They knew Him from rumor, from seeing His face, from being talked to about something they ultimately couldn't understand. I'm guessing you know exactly what I'm talking about.

No, I am not sure what or who you are speaking of.
The Bible says that Jesus knew the hearts of all men. Those that were saved received the message that Christ was the Messiah, the OT message "God with us," the One that came to save us from our sins. These are OT truths about Jesus Christ.

I still believe that rejection of what one knows to be the truth is worse than simple ignorance. If your son says "I hate you" is it not worse than a man you've never met saying, "I don't know you"?

If my son says: "I hate you," he is still my son. That will never change. Even believers stray from God at times. They sometimes get discouraged. But that doesn't mean they lose their salvation; their status with God. But as long as man never comes to know Christ he is condemned. Rejection of Christ is the most serious sin a man can commit. It is the only sin that will condemn a man to Hell.

Lets also be clear. The Bible was written BY men, TO men, FOR men. God inspired it yes, but to get to the meat of it, it wasn't for His own benifit. If man literally can't understand it, it is of no use.

The Bible is very clear on this subject:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--Your argument is with God, not with me.
Paul states that the unsaved man cannot understand the Word of God.
Luke records that the Ethiopian Eunuch could not understand the Word of God without someone else's help.
It is also recorded many other times how the eyes of others were opened when the Word was preached to them. The unsaved man cannot understand the Word of God on his own.

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Really? Okay, so tell me, where is it in the old testiment, since Nicodemus should already have known of it? Also, I would like to put forward, that being born again, sounds like it's talking about the second life. You know, where we'll be given new bodies.

Start another thread on the new birth, and I will be glad to explain it to you. To do it now would derail this thread.

Because I was raised in the Baptist church. I know what the Baptist plan of salvation is. Believe, committ, repent. They preach it as a one time deal, like signing on the dotted line.

What you were taught wasn't necessarily the truth; or perhaps you misunderstood what they were teaching which is more likely the case. Committing your life to Christ has nothing to do with salvation.
Repenting of all your sins won't get you to heaven.
Belief, in and of itself, will not save you.
You have many false assumptions regarding salvation.

It is false, I believe, to an extent. I'm not saying a simple prayer can't committ you to God, there is no real other way to committ, but it's not so simple as saying it one time, and then just moving on. You're life should actually change.

What is false? Being born again is false? I don't think so!
A simple prayer won't save you. Saying words don't save. Commitment means nothing when it comes to salvation.
It is true that there needs to be change when one is saved. That is one thing you have straight.

 

[DHK]

So because I don't think God, takes up residency in Pluto (IN, not just on, that's what Omnipresence means), I can't have faith like you? Because I believe God died on the cross because He needed to, not because He wanted to, obviously I have no faith. Because I'm not so sure God really knows the numer of grains of sand on the beach and how that number will shift in 1000 years, I can't possibly believe I atonement.

1. I don't believe you know what faith is.
2. God is omnipresent, and that means that he can be found on the moon (just as believing astronauts said), and on Pluto (if man should ever get there), or where ever man goes. God is everywhere.

Psalms 139:7-10 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
--One cannot escape the presence of God; He is everywhere.

3. God did not "need" to die on the cross. He did so because he loved us enough to take the penalty of our sin upon himself so that we wouldn't spend the rest of eternity in hell. "For the wages of sin is death (eternal separation from God in Hell).

4. Yes, God knows all things--the very number of hairs on your head, even as they change from year to year, the number of stars in the universe, the number of grains in the sea, the ocean, in all the bodies of waters everywhere. He knows all things. If he didn't, he wouldn't be God.

Yea, arguements like that are usually why I don't go for "special soveriegnty". This is WAAAAY off subject, and I'm pretty sure you had a feeling it was before you brought it up.

Wno is God?

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 44:24-25 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

And finally take heed to this verse:

Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?