Justin Adams Posted July 28, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.95 Reputation: 7,798 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, Glory To God said: Anyway,the topic is the nature of man let's no stray away from that. It has been adequately answered. Have a nice day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReneeIW Posted July 28, 2020 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 42 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 780 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/06/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted July 28, 2020 2 hours ago, Glory To God said: If you agree humanity has a sinful nature,then the question really should be an easy one to answer-humanity by nature is bad and corrupt. I think this view may be supported by these verses: John 2:23-25 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. Sorry if this was already mentioned, I have not yet read through the entire thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Mclees Posted July 28, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 158 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 1,915 Content Per Day: 0.80 Reputation: 910 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/15/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Glory To God said: Well these people who you condemn all used scripture to support their belief which is more than what you have done here Justin. Anyway,the topic is the nature of man let's no stray away from that. Human nature may not be the right wording to use. Might be better described as the sin nature. This could be a little complex. There was talk about infants who are not born guilty of the sin of Adam Yet all new borns will have the sin nature acquired by Adams sin, which was disobedience to do something against God's will . There is a mystery here which involves the conscious mind which is individuality. and i's perception of right and wrong according mans own will. The serpent enticed Eve by saying she could be as God, which is to decide right and wrong independent of God's will for them. Every infant has the seed of sin in them and will be disobedient . Remember God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree for in that day you will surely die. We will all age and die. We will know pain and sorrow , and we will struggle for physical life. To disobey God comes with consequences . To truly die is not physical death in this world but spiritual death forever from God. Still God loves us and gave His own son for us. We only have to believe and turn from our wicked ways. The human conscious mind is autonomous and is also the most powerful thing in the universe. The conscious mind of man strives for great knowledge independent of God our creator. Scientists run from God because God spoils their own glory. Soon technology will take one step to far. It may be here even now. Edited July 28, 2020 by Mike Mclees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory To God Posted July 28, 2020 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 66 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/21/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said: Human nature may not be the right wording to use. Might be better described as the sin nature. This could be a little complex. There was talk about infants who are not born guilty of the sin of Adam Yet all new borns will have the sin nature acquired by Adams sin, which was disobedience to do something against God's will . There is a mystery here which involves the conses mind which is individuality. and it perception of right and wrong according mans own will. The serpent inticed Eve by saying she could be as God, which is to decide right and wrong independent of God's will for them. Every infant hass the seed of sin in them and will no disobedience . remember God told adam and Eve not to eat of the tree for in that day you will surely die. We will all age and die. We will know pain and sorrow , and we will struggle for physical life. To disobey God comes with consequences . To truly die is not physical death in this world but spiritual death forever from God presence. Still God loves us and gave His own son for us. We only have to believe and turn from our wicked ways. mind The human conscious mind is autonomous It is in the conscious mind that man strives for great knowledge independent of God our creator. Scientists run from God because he spoils their own glory. Soon technology will take one step to far. You say ''Still God loves us and gave His own son for us. We only have to believe and turn from our wicked ways'' and so much could be debated about this. Well it's going to be difficult,nah,impossible to choose God if we are corrupt and have no understanding of how to be friends with him. Only a saving act of grace can redeem the lost and spirtually dead. Romans 3:11 ''There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.'' Romans 8:7 ''Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.'' Only a saving act of grace can redeem the lost and spiritually dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 29, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 29, 2020 23 hours ago, Justin Adams said: Read about Augustine: Original Sin is the principal notion in which the majority of modern day theology is supported. Understanding the origins of the doctrine of original sin is key in unraveling the theological mess in present day Christianity. This doctrine was blended into Christian teaching in third-forth century Rome. (NOT the Reformation!) There were several players involved and many theories expounded. Up to that time the free will of man was a given in Christian teaching. This is confirmed in the Scriptures and clearly stated in early Christian writings passed down by second generation disciples. The original sin doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve's guilty consciences and wicked natures have been transmitted to their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. Thus Adam's sin has been "imputed" automatically to his descendants (with the exception of Jesus of course). His fall from grace resulted in the entire human race being utterly inclined toward evil. Mankind in his natural state is entirely disabled, opposite of all good and ferociously wicked to the core. Thus man is subject to punishment and death for Adam's (original) sin. He sins by necessity, NOT by choice and is born DEAD in his sins. Basically this doctrine is divided into two major camps of thought. Namely: Traducianism and Creationism. Traducianism teaches that the immaterial aspect of the (soul) is transmitted through nature generation along with the body (material aspect of man), meaning that each soul born is derived (not directly from God!) but DIRECTLY from the souls or (loins) of the parents. Therefore all souls were "in Adam" at the time of his creation by God. (God retired from the soul creating business after Adam so to speak.) Adam is the "Natural Head" of the entire human race by which the rest of us sprang by natural generation. (All infected by his original sin.) This is one early theory expounded in ancient times, but seldom embraced today. Creationism on the other hand teaches that God creates EACH soul individually for each body that is generated. (This is supported a hundred fold in the Scriptures!) Adam then was our representative and entered into a "Covenant" agreement with God (which cannot be found anywhere in scripture.) on condition of his continued obedience in the garden. Thus the penalty for violating this covenant would be Adam's corruption and death (separation from God) and that of his posterity. Since the fall of Adam, this sentence of condemnation causes God to immediately "impute" each soul He creates with Adam's sin and depraved nature. This is called the: Federal Headship Theory and is the basics of all reformed theology since the reformation. If the Jewish Rabbis did not teach the doctrine of original sin nor the early Christians who followed the Apostles, WHERE did it come from? Paul certainly did not teach it in Romans chapter 5, as is generally accepted by almost all modern scholars. Otherwise his disciples (who wrote extensively) would have expounded on it! On the contrary, they spoke against such teaching mainly because it is a GNOSTIC myth! The Gnostics were prevalent in the Roman Empire during the second-third and forth centuries and their teaching spread like wild fire through the populace by a cult named the Manicheans. Inevitably Manichean teaching became blended into Christianity as a result of MANY devote followers of the so-called Prophet: Mani (AD 210-276) considering themselves "Christians" because of their austere life styles. One prominent person in Rome at the time who followed this teaching was AUGUSTINE of Hippo. Although he is heralded in Christianity as one of the greatest theologians of all time, it is through his efforts that the doctrine of original sin is engrained into main-stream teaching to this day and has thus rendered the preaching of real repentance and faith null and void. Augustine concluded in his writings and teaching that Adam's sin (in the garden) is physically transmitted and genetically derived from parent to child through the concupiscence (lust) that accompanies sexual reproduction. For that reason the infection of Adam's sin is passed down through "sexual intercourse" to the entire human race (except for Jesus, who was born of the man-made doctrine of Immaculate Conception). Before you can even begin to unravel this mess and understand what the Bible really teaches concerning repentance and faith, you MUST grasp the impact of this doctrine on the nature of God. Augustine was a FALSE TEACHER! If you fail to see this in its proper light, you will remain in the dark concerning these things and none of this will make any sense to you. Clearly he converted to Christianity out of necessity (from Manicheanism) in 387AD, because of a royal edict by the Emperor who outlawed Manicheanism teaching in Rome. Because of his background in Gnostic teaching and influence of certain other Bishops, he immediately began to BLEND this teaching into Christian thought. Augustine was highly educated and a professor of rhetoric at a very early age, which gave him access to the high courts of Rome and entrance into high powered society. Basically Gnostic/ Manichean teach a DUAL NATURE of man. (Christian doctrine has NEVER taught this!) One side is a world of light, good and virtuous. The other (material world) is of darkness or inherently evil. Each world is presided over by a god. Everything material (man's flesh) is evil by nature from birth and drawn only toward sin. Only the immaterial soul is the light, pure and undefiled. Sins of the flesh cause the pure soul to be imprisoned in a corrupted body. Their way out was the hope of the re-incarnation cycle to move them closer to salvation. They also embraced "election". Hence, you have the teaching embraced by Christian doctrine of the "sinful nature", as taught in all the Churches today. Man in his converted (Born Again) state remains the "Chief of sinners" and "Roman's wretch". The old man is NOT crucified with Christ in repentance (where the sin stops!) but by a process of sanctification or by simple imputation (the moral transfer of Jesus' righteousness and obedience to the believer). This teaching is the PERFECT excuse for men to remain in bondage to sin and not be condemned by God. The fear of judgment for ungodly conduct is eliminated entirely! Augustine (who himself had a huge problem with sexual lust) LOVED this doctrine and expounded on it in his writings significantly. Consequently, his influence has spread through the ages and planted the seeds of Calvinist-Lutheran heresy in the 1500's and framed main-stream reformed theology to this day (all this can be easily confirmed by some historical research, ie: History of the Church 1 Henry Chadwick). What this doctrine boils down to is the elimination of free will. If man is born, already imputed with Adam's sin by reason of his birth, he no longer has a CHOICE but becomes a sinner by NECESSITY. His sin is a malady over which he has absolutely no control whatsoever. Humans are born incapable of doing anything good without the "gracious influence" of Divine Grace bestowed randomly as God wills on certain individuals. By rejecting this concept the house of cards that supports all the other doctrinal fallacies immediately crumbles. Original sin necessitates election, moral transfer, pre-forgiveness of sins, limited Atonement, irresistible grace, and eternal security! ALL of which make it IMPOSSIBLE for man to turn to God, truly repent of his sins (be cleared of his wrong doing!), and be purged by the Blood of Christ and made pure by faith working by love! Much of the foundation of these false doctrines can be traced directly back to Augustine. Failure to see this is the main reason most people in the churches remain in bondage to sin and blinded by lies. History clearly shows that this 'dual nature' teaching was blended into Christian doctrine in forth Century Rome and Augustine was one of the major players in promoting it. He wrote huge volumes advocating just war, the Church militant on earth and the dual nature of man. They are studied considerably in modern seminaries and sold in Christian book stores. Any teaching that exposes these things as false is suppressed, difficult to find and highly suspect of error among today;s so-called scholars (but you can find them at on-line book sellers). The "sinful nature" teaching has also infected many modern translations of the Bible including the New International Version, which translates the word "flesh" (Sarx 4561) to: "sinful nature" in Romans, but NOT in other passages such as in 1st and 2nd John. There are two main New Testament passages that are used by those who have embraced the Augustinian Tradition in order to provide a measure of support and to prove there beloved theory of original sin. They are as follows: "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive" (1 Co. 15:21-22). This passage is used to support the representation theory that ALL (spiritually and physically) die due to the transmission of Adam's original sin. However, this passage is strictly speaking of physical death, being the context is referencing the future (physical) resurrection of the dead (1 Co. 15). Hence, "even so in Christ all SHALL BE (future) made alive". According to Paul, physical death is a consequence springing from the man (Adam), just as a glorified body shall come in the future through the Man, Jesus Christ. Now, how is it man dies on an account of Adam's sin? I believe Adam was created mortal, that is, flesh and blood (Gen. 2:7; 3:19; 1 Co. 15:45-50). Through his personal act of disobedience he lost for himself (and descendants) physical access to the "Tree of Life" which he (and we) must eat from to "live forever" (Gen. 3:22). As follows, man physically dies due to being separated from this tree, but can regain physical access to its fruit (in the future) through Jesus Christ (Rev. 22:14). "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all have sinned" (Ro. 5:12). Clearly, this passage is speaking of personal sin by imitation ('because all sinned') rather than inherited sin through imputation (Gen. 2:17; Ro. 5:12). In fact, Paul reports there were some individuals who lived after Adam, who sinned NOT according to the "likeness" of his original transgression (Ro. 5:14)! The word "have" indicates an activity on every individual's part. Sin is voluntary. All that have sinned are the ones who have sinned. As follows, sin is not a physical substance that is inbred in your flesh, rather, sinfulness is a result of living out aimless conduct received by tradition (or long practiced habit) from your fathers. (1 Pe. 1:18). Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and (spiritual) death through sin, and thus (spiritual) death spread to all men, BECAUSE ALL SINNED" (Gen. 2:17; 3:6; Ro. 3:23; 5:12; 1 Co. 10:13; Jas. 1:13-16)! It should be noted that Augustine relied on the translation of the Latin Vulgate, (Catholic translation of the Bible) because he was unable to read Koine Greek. So, when he came to Romans 5:12 he read, "As sin entered the world by one man and death because of sin, so death spread into all men, IN WHOM all sinned." Thus, we arrive at another aspect that influenced the notion of the doctrine known as, 'original sin'. In the Latin Bible, the last part of Romans 5:12 passage is translated "in quo", meaning, "in whom" all sinned, which does NOT agree with the original Greek or the English which expresses the conclusion of Romans 5:12 as follows: "for that all have sinned" (AV), "because all men sinned" (RSV) and "because all sinned" (NKJV). Does the Bible teach that all men are automatically made righteous by Christ apart from repenting and believing in the Gospel (Mk. 1:15; Acts 17:30-31; 20:21)? Of course not! Then why is it automatically assumed that all men are automatically made sinners by Adam apart from choice (Ro. 5:18)? The idea of original sin being hereditary is contrary to many parts of the Bible. For instance, Deuteronomy 24:16 states, "Fathers shall NOT be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers...every man shall be put to death for his own sin", while in Ezekiel 18:4 God confirms, "All souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sins, it shall die". This being the case, why would God allow the transmission of sin? The 'sin nature' doctrine plainly contradicts other parts of the Bible and erroneously makes God the author of sin. Under this teaching, sin becomes a calamity (instead of a crime) and consequently places ALL un-baptized and aborted babies into hell. This doctrine has handicapped Ministers ability to call sinners to repentance and effectively preach against immoral behavior. Consequently, the Churches have been overrun with double-minded professing Christians who are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth! This teaching is utterly absurd, unfounded, unscriptural and promotes other false doctrines. For example, If the notion of original sin was valid, then it must be just as true that Jesus was born of a woman who was infected with this disease and thus shaped our sinless Lord in her very iniquity (Psa. 51:5 & Heb. 4:15)! The only way to avoid this blasphemes predicament is to embrace the Roman Catholic Dogma termed 'Immaculate Conception' which was invented to remedy the issue of Christ being infected with original sin. Original sin is Gnostic and utterly false! Truly, this teaching is the Devil's masterpiece! By it, Satan has taken himself OUT of the picture completely! Man's bodily desires are now to be blamed for its constant wrong doings in the world, rather than the Devil's tempting and influential schemes. Because man's own nature (according to original sin) is wholly corrupted and entirely incapable of virtuous actions in thought or deed, Satan need NOT prowl anymore to seek and devour all who would submit to his influences. (Jas. 1:13-16; 1 Pe. 5:8; 1 Jn. 2:15-16)! Why? Because the inevitable consequences of all man's actions are already wicked and depraved from birth. No longer does Satan need to launch his fiery darts or lay in wait to deceive, instead, the (inherited) sinful nature will do it for him! He can just sit back and wait for the preachers to keep telling their lies and the so-called Christians to keep coming forth in their sins, thinking they are save! There is a lot more of this here: http://www.dividingword.net/Original Sin/index.htm Original Sin is supported by Genesis 3, Romans 5, and “20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” (Romans 8:20-23) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 29, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 29, 2020 7 minutes ago, Josheb said: Not only so but due to modern scientific research (the kind to which the ECFs did not have knowledge of or access) we now know the events of Eden would have had a profoundly substantive physiological effect at a cellular level. Neurological research on the physiological changes in the brain that occur in traumatic events irrefutably demonstrate a causal response in neural pathways that literally program an individual away from more diverse experiences and toward repetition of prior and limited cognitive, affective, volitional, and behavioral responses. Memory, a record of everything that ever happens to us gets recorded in the cells of the brain. Through the process of cellular reproduction (it takes about three years for the entire body's cells to be replaced) the record gets transmitted to every cell in the body. That record then gets transmitted through the chromosomes (into the DNA) into the trauma victims progeny. Nothing in human history has been as traumatizing as humanity's collective fall from grace. Half of Eve's record and half of Adam's record - half the damage each experienced - got transmitted to their progeny. That progeny, in turn, subsequently becoming sinful in their own manner through their own conduct transferred that damage on to their progeny. If the Eden event is true then there is literally a record of it in the cells of every human born thereafter. It is a marker, a "stain" on the perfect humans God once made. Every single one of the seven billion people currently living on the planet bears that evidence and God, Who can look into every cell of the human instantly recognizes the imperfection. "That is NOT the way I made you." And we're oblivious to that fact. The early debate over organic or genetic effect raged during a time when there was little known or understood about the matter but we now know some really messed up stuff happens. Not that I think we should based doctrine first on science. I complete affirm what you and I both posted from scripture but the fact is science is in complete agreement with scripture. The fact is the facts agree with God's word. This brings a whole new meaning to, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidgeminden Posted July 31, 2020 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/01/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 31, 2020 I believe that fallen mankind is capable of making free will choices to accept or reject the gospel message. I believe in the inherent free will ability of fallen unsaved mankind to accept/believe or reject God’s call/drawing/convicting/convincing/persuading teaching work using the creation, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:18-20; Rom. 10:8-17; 1Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12; Luke 8:21; Jn. 15:26, 16:13; 2 Thess. 2:13). I believe it is more accurate to described fallen mankind as being born corrupted bipolar sinners [The unsaved old man (Rom. 6:6; Eph.4:22; Col. 3:9)] having bipolar spiritual hearts/natures (“the heart is deceitful above all things….” – Jer. 17:9) with two spiritual poles (good and evil) because of Adam’s and Eve’s sin; that is, fallen/corrupted/sinful mankind has a spiritually bipolar nature of good and evil, a good spiritual pole and an evil spiritual pole (Gen. 2:16-17; Gen. 3:1-7; Rom. 1:19, Rom. 2:14-15, Rom. 7:15-25) internally pulling on our free wills, rather than just externally pulling on our wills as took place with God’s external commands and instructions and the external temptation of the serpent that took place in the garden of Eden – thus, man knowing and doing good and evil is the result of the fallen bipolar spiritual nature received when Adam and Eve sinned by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because one pole of man’s bipolar fallen spiritual nature is evil, it inclines unsaved mankind and saved mankind towards sin and good, thus ensuring that morally capable people will sin and not be able to live a perfect sinless life. The new man (born again person) is a Christian born again (indwelt by the Holy Spirit and should be freely willingly walking in/after the Spirit); that is, the new man has a good spiritual pole, an evil spiritual pole and the indwelling Holy Spirit all pulling on our wills and we should be (of his/our own free will) willingly walking in/after the Spirit (Eph. 3:16, Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 7:24-8:26; Gal. 5:16-25) in order to have higher success rate of more consistently living Godly lives. I refer to myself as an “inherent-free-willer” Christian, which means I believe in the inherent free will ability of fallen unsaved mankind to accept/believe or reject God’s call/drawing/convicting/convincing/persuading teaching work using the creation, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:18-20; Rom. 10:8-17; 1Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12; Luke 8:21; Jn. 15:26, 16:13; 2 Thess. 2:13). My limited knowledge of early Christian history, so far, has led me to conclude that when the early Christians concluded that fallen mankind had only one single poled spiritual nature of evil, the door was opened for pagan unconditional determinism and unconditional predestination to be easily injected into Christianity (by saying man lost his free will capacity to choose good or evil when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) ultimately resulting in the development of an anemic puppeteering, bipolar good and evil spiritual nature of God concept in Calvinism/Augustinian-ism and Calvinism's no free will of man TULIP soteriology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory To God Posted August 1, 2020 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 66 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/21/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 1, 2020 15 hours ago, davidgeminden said: I believe that fallen mankind is capable of making free will choices to accept or reject the gospel message. I believe in the inherent free will ability of fallen unsaved mankind to accept/believe or reject God’s call/drawing/convicting/convincing/persuading teaching work using the creation, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:18-20; Rom. 10:8-17; 1Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12; Luke 8:21; Jn. 15:26, 16:13; 2 Thess. 2:13). I believe it is more accurate to described fallen mankind as being born corrupted bipolar sinners [The unsaved old man (Rom. 6:6; Eph.4:22; Col. 3:9)] having bipolar spiritual hearts/natures (“the heart is deceitful above all things….” – Jer. 17:9) with two spiritual poles (good and evil) because of Adam’s and Eve’s sin; that is, fallen/corrupted/sinful mankind has a spiritually bipolar nature of good and evil, a good spiritual pole and an evil spiritual pole (Gen. 2:16-17; Gen. 3:1-7; Rom. 1:19, Rom. 2:14-15, Rom. 7:15-25) internally pulling on our free wills, rather than just externally pulling on our wills as took place with God’s external commands and instructions and the external temptation of the serpent that took place in the garden of Eden – thus, man knowing and doing good and evil is the result of the fallen bipolar spiritual nature received when Adam and Eve sinned by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because one pole of man’s bipolar fallen spiritual nature is evil, it inclines unsaved mankind and saved mankind towards sin and good, thus ensuring that morally capable people will sin and not be able to live a perfect sinless life. The new man (born again person) is a Christian born again (indwelt by the Holy Spirit and should be freely willingly walking in/after the Spirit); that is, the new man has a good spiritual pole, an evil spiritual pole and the indwelling Holy Spirit all pulling on our wills and we should be (of his/our own free will) willingly walking in/after the Spirit (Eph. 3:16, Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 7:24-8:26; Gal. 5:16-25) in order to have higher success rate of more consistently living Godly lives. I refer to myself as an “inherent-free-willer” Christian, which means I believe in the inherent free will ability of fallen unsaved mankind to accept/believe or reject God’s call/drawing/convicting/convincing/persuading teaching work using the creation, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:18-20; Rom. 10:8-17; 1Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12; Luke 8:21; Jn. 15:26, 16:13; 2 Thess. 2:13). My limited knowledge of early Christian history, so far, has led me to conclude that when the early Christians concluded that fallen mankind had only one single poled spiritual nature of evil, the door was opened for pagan unconditional determinism and unconditional predestination to be easily injected into Christianity (by saying man lost his free will capacity to choose good or evil when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) ultimately resulting in the development of an anemic puppeteering, bipolar good and evil spiritual nature of God concept in Calvinism/Augustinian-ism and Calvinism's no free will of man TULIP soteriology. Thanks for sharing your belief David. Well it's fine you saying ''I believe that fallen mankind is capable of making free will choices to accept or reject the gospel message'' but the problem I would have in accepting that claim is the scripture makes such a strong case for mans inability to seek out the creator and be the author of his own salvation. When I look at verses like this I have no choice but to accept humanity is in a complete separated state from God and only reconciles by a saving grace: Eph 2:3 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 Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidgeminden Posted August 2, 2020 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/01/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2020 On 8/1/2020 at 8:31 AM, Glory To God said: Thanks for sharing your belief David. Well it's fine you saying ''I believe that fallen mankind is capable of making free will choices to accept or reject the gospel message'' but the problem I would have in accepting that claim is the scripture makes such a strong case for mans inability to seek out the creator and be the author of his own salvation. When I look at verses like this I have no choice but to accept humanity is in a complete separated state from God and only reconciles by a saving grace: Eph 2:3 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 Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses My response to Eph. 2:3 --- To me, this verse can easily be understood from a free will perspective. That is, a mode of free will thinking and acting over a long period time became habit and nature/natural for them. To me, the verse is not specific enough to conclude inability of man to freely respond to God's call/drawing. Also, to me, this verse does not specifically say that God had unconditionally, magically transformed their will/mind into a will/mind that made them children of wrath. My response to Rom. 8:7 --- To me, this verse can easily be understood from a free will perspective. To me, this verse does not specifically say that God had unconditionally transformed the mind/will into a carnal mind/will. The carnal mind can easily be viewed as a free will choice. My response to Rom. 3:11 --- This verse is pulled from the context of Psalms 14:1-3 where David is talking about fools. To me, Psalms 14:1-3 and Rom. 3:10-11 does not specifically say that God had unconditionally made/transformed them into people that are living unrighteously, that do not understand and do not seek God. To me, this can easily be understood that they of their own free will chose unrighteous living, chose not to understand and chose not to seek after God. My response to Col.2:13 --- To me, the phrase (being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh) is hyperbole/exaggeration and figurative and can not be understood in a wooden literal way. To me, it can easily be understood that they of their own free will dug themselves deep into a hole of extreme habitual trespasses/sins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory To God Posted August 2, 2020 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 66 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/21/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 2, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, davidgeminden said: My response to Eph. 2:3 --- To me, this verse can easily be understood from a free will perspective. That is, a mode of free will thinking and acting over a long period time became habit and nature/natural for them. To me, the verse is not specific enough to conclude inability of man to freely respond to God's call/drawing. Also, to me, this verse does not specifically say that God had unconditionally, magically transformed their will/mind into a will/mind that made them children of wrath. My response to Rom. 8:7 --- To me, this verse can easily be understood from a free will perspective. To me, this verse does not specifically say that God had unconditionally transformed the mind/will into a carnal mind/will. The carnal mind can easily be viewed as a free will choice. My response to Rom. 3:11 --- This verse is pulled from the context of Psalms 14:1-3 where David is talking about fools. To me, Psalms 14:1-3 and Rom. 3:10-11 does not specifically say that God had unconditionally made/transformed them into people that are living unrighteously, that do not understand and do not seek God. To me, this can easily be understood that they of their own free will chose unrighteous living, chose not to understand and chose not to seek after God. My response to Col.2:13 --- To me, the phrase (being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh) is hyperbole/exaggeration and figurative and can not be understood in a wooden literal way. To me, it can easily be understood that they of their own free will dug themselves deep into a hole of extreme habitual trespasses/sins. Well by "free will" I assume you include the ability to choose salvation. Now it is going to very difficult to discuss this fairly with you David, because man's nature determines he capacity to choose God and if someone adds their own commentary into scripture, like this "they of their own free will dug themselves deep into a hole of extreme habitual trespasses" no counter-argument can be made because the scripture has been misrepresented. Man is dead in his sin says the Bible. So what are the chances of a dead man resuscitating himself and choosing God? Edited August 2, 2020 by Glory To God typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts