The 5 Articles of Remonstrance (Arminianism)

[synergy]

PS

@Eternally-Grateful and I are NOT stating that God creates sin.

Only Calvinists say or unwittingly do that.

It's difficult for me to realize that some Christians don't understand the FLESH,,,,,,or SINFUL NATURE,,,,or anything else one wants to call it.

The Word of God became flesh as mentioned in John 1:14. So if flesh is sinful then what does that make Jesus?

So let me ask this:

WHAT is it in mankind that makes him tend toward sin (before salvation)?

In Rom 7, Paul labels sin as "sinful passions", the "old man" as opposed to the good "inward man". So it's not our God-given nature that sins, it is we as free agent persons who sin.

Paul also mentioned being "in the flesh" as sinful. It's not that flesh is sinful otherwise Jesus would be sinful also. Being "in the flesh" is when you make flesh your idol and you cater to its passions. So it's not flesh itself that is sinful, it's what you as a person does with it that marks you either as a Christian or a Hedonist.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I believe it is human nature to not always obey God's law. Most of the times that we choose to disobey are in one way or another associated with the fact that we have desires of the flesh.

It might be easier to see it as when we sin, we are obeying our own nature or flesh. As apposed to saying we disobay.

It points to the reality of the issue. we are serving self (flesh nature) not Others (God)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Only Calvinists say or unwittingly do that.

You have calvin on your brain.

The Word of God became flesh as mentioned in John 1:14. So if flesh is sinful then what does that make Jesus?

lol. your nopt even trying to understand. so why should we bother. this is not what we said. I would suggest you look up when the words speaks of us acting in the flesh. or seeking after the things of the flesh

In Rom 7, Paul labels sin as "sinful passions", the "old man" as opposed to the good "inward man". So it's not our God-given nature that sins, it is we as free agent persons who sin.

Because we are born with the nature to sin

Paul also mentioned being "in the flesh" as sinful. It's not that flesh is sinful otherwise Jesus would be sinful also. Being "in the flesh" is when you make flesh your idol and you cater to its passions. So it's not flesh itself that is sinful, it's what you as a person does with it that marks you either as a Christian or a Hedonist.

Being in the flesh is serving self 9the flesh)

I know this is hard for you. because you are looking through a lens you hate calvinism and everyone is a Calvinist in your view if they do not agree with you.

But i have hope and confidence you can come out of your shell and open up to reality. that not everyone is calvinist. and its not all about calvinism.

 

[GodsGrace]

Just out of curiosity, why do you ask questions if your response to the answer is to explain why that is not what I really believe or mean? You asked a very specific question and I answered the question that you asked. This non sequitur is your response. Even if every word in the above is true (and it is not) it has nothing to do with the question you asked and I answered.

Sir,,,,
I am NOT telling you what YOU believe.

I am telling YOU what I believe.

This is how a debate works.

I ask a question:
You Reply....

I tell you why I do NOT agree.

I DO NOT AGREE with your REPLY to my very specific question.

You use the word NON SEQUITUR
Do you know what it means?
Of course you do,,,but you use it INCORRECTLY.

It means NOT FOLLOW

So, IOW,,,You wanted MY reply to FOLLOW YOURS?

Unfortunately, I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM...
so, by necessity, my replies to you WILL NOT FOLLOW what you post.

 

[GodsGrace]

Only Calvinists say or unwittingly do that.

Agreed.

The Word of God became flesh as mentioned in John 1:14. So if flesh is sinful then what does that make Jesus?

Oh for goodness sake synergy....
GOD BECAME FLESH means that GOD BECAME MAN.

Paul uses the word FLESH to mean that it is our BODY, SOUL that sins.....
He likens it to our meat...our flesh...that part of us that is NOT SPIRIT.

As I've said a few times now.....there is SOMETHING in us that makes us sin....
Some call it FLESH....some call it THE SIN NATURE or SINFUL NATURE....some call it concupiscense....

It is not our SKIN that sins...it's our SOUL that sins.
Our skin is dead...it's dead meat.

It's just a manner of making a doctrinal statement.

In Rom 7, Paul labels sin as "sinful passions", the "old man" as opposed to the good "inward man". So it's not our God-given nature that sins, it is we as free agent persons who sin.

Of course it's not our God-given nature that sins.
We, as free agents, sin.

The question is WHY do we sin?
Why don't we obey God (before salvation)
What is it in us that makes us WANT to sin?

The reply can't be because WE WANT TO SIN....
if the question is why do we sin.....
What makes us WANT to sin....

Paul also mentioned being "in the flesh" as sinful. It's not that flesh is sinful otherwise Jesus would be sinful also. Being "in the flesh" is when you make flesh your idol and you cater to its passions. So it's not flesh itself that is sinful, it's what you as a person does with it that marks you either as a Christian or a Hedonist.

Agreed.

But I fear that never the twain shall meet.

 

[atpollard]

The Word of God became flesh as mentioned in John 1:14. So if flesh is sinful then what does that make Jesus?

Fruit of the Immaculate Conception and the Second Adam? [Just offering options ... hypostatic union is hard enough to try and fully grasp - for me.]

 

[GodsGrace]

Fruit of the Immaculate Conception and the Second Adam? [Just offering options ... hypostatic union is hard enough to try and fully grasp - for me.]

It means that Jesus was ONE PERSON, but had TWO NATURES.

This might help:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hypostatic Union

A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human

www.newadvent.org

 

[GodsGrace]

Fruit of the Immaculate Conception and the Second Adam? [Just offering options ... hypostatic union is hard enough to try and fully grasp - for me.]

Those nasty Catholics are GREAT at explaining things.

 

[atpollard]

Couplet 3:

– No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him or her.
– Every person whom the Father has given to Jesus will come.

These statements did not originate with Calvin, Augustine, or even the apostle Paul, but with Jesus himself (John 6:37, 44). The assurance that God is in control should stimulate courage rather than contention; it should inspire hope and not harangues. To know that God has a plan and a people emboldens us to proclaim the gospel to every person we meet (Acts 18 : 9-10) . What God initiated in eternity he will consummate in his own good time (Eph. 1:1-14; Rom. 8:28-31).
If we recoil at the prospect of divine sovereignty, as though God’s gracious choice of some requires his unilateral rejection of others (a notion sometimes described as “double predestination”), we may rejoice that Scripture here is “splendidly illogical,” to borrow a phrase from biblical commentator A. M. Hunter. For, as Hunter notes, “the opposite of election is not predestination to destruction; it is unbelief a self-incurred thing.” Many Calvinists urge the same point. Instead of charging them with “doublespeak,” Arminians should welcome the unexpected common ground and rejoice. Until one claims to know everything personally, there is room to tolerate paradox in others. The hallmark of a Christian is not logic, but love. The proclamation of God-who-acts-to-save is as old as Exodus and as relevant as next Sunday’s sermon in our day of positive-attitude platitudes and self-help schemes. It ignites holy boldness even as it smites our pride. That God is sovereign means that none can come to Jesus — despite our clever phrases, latest methods, and polished salesmanship — unless the Father draws him or her. At the same time, it assures us that every person the Father has given to Jesus will come — without exception, and despite our own faulty choices and often bumbling work. If prophets are mute, donkeys can speak. If disciples remain silent, the stones can cry out. If the church should prove unfaithful or disobedient, God’s plan still will see its intended end.

@civic

If I had a dime for every time someone denied this couplet.

The first half of the couplet is the HEART of the doctrine called "Total Inability" (by Calvinists) and "Human Inability" (by Arminians). Hats off to A.M. Hunter and his well articulated claim: "we may rejoice that Scripture here is 'splendidly illogical,' to borrow a phrase from biblical commentator A. M. Hunter. For, as Hunter notes, 'the opposite of election is not predestination to destruction; it is unbelief a self-incurred thing.' "

The second half of the couplet is the HEART of "Irresistible Grace" ... the efficacy of divine sovereignty. Those God draws WILL come.

TULIP may not have gotten all of the details correct, but it did not get all of the broad truths wrong (as some would argue).
TULIP is just used by too many as an excuse to underestimate HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY to respond once God has "gifted" the ability (drawn to the Son).

 

[synergy]

Fruit of the Immaculate Conception and the Second Adam? [Just offering options ... hypostatic union is hard enough to try and fully grasp - for me.]

Very good observation of what the Catholics were up against when they had to defend their sinful nature inheritance doctrine. One error begot another error (the immaculate conception of Mary).

 

[synergy]

Agreed.

Oh for goodness sake synergy....
GOD BECAME FLESH means that GOD BECAME MAN.
Paul uses the word FLESH to mean that it is our BODY, SOUL that sins.....
He likens it to our meat...our flesh...that part of us that is NOT SPIRIT.
As I've said a few times now.....there is SOMETHING in us that makes us sin....
Some call it FLESH....some call it THE SIN NATURE or SINFUL NATURE....some call it concupiscense....
It is not our SKIN that sins...it's our SOUL that sins.
Our skin is dead...it's dead meat.
It's just a manner of making a doctrinal statement.

One has to be very concise so that one does not fall into more errors like the Catholics did with the immaculate conception of Mary. That was to compensate for their sin nature error.

Of course it's not our God-given nature that sins.
We, as free agents, sin.

The question is WHY do we sin?
Why don't we obey God (before salvation)
What is it in us that makes us WANT to sin?

The reply can't be because WE WANT TO SIN....
if the question is why do we sin.....
What makes us WANT to sin....

Gluttony, Lust, Sloth, Vainglory, etc...Making idols of our flesh and catering to our flesh.

Agreed.
But I fear that never the twain shall meet.

God can work miracles.

 

[GodsGrace]

One has to be very concise so that one does not fall into more errors like the Catholics did with the immaculate conception of Mary. That was to compensate for their sin nature error.

I'm not so sure the Immaculate Conception is an error.
Why would God want to place HIS SON n the body of a sinful woman?
A woman that has the sinful nature in her? Just like we all do.

The sinful nature is accepted by Protestantism.
It is NOT a Catholic concotion.

Gluttony, Lust, Sloth, Vainglory, etc...Making idols of our flesh and catering to our flesh.

Yeah.
But where do THEY come from?

God can work miracles.

In making us agree on this?
It might take a miracle !

 

[GodsGrace]

Very good observation of what the Catholics were up against when they had to defend their sinful nature inheritance doctrine. One error begot another error (the immaculate conception of Mary).

Why do you believe the Catholics...or the early church....are responsible for the doctrine of the sin nature?
Do you base it on some writing of theirs?
Could you post it, if possible?
Thanks.

 

[synergy]

I'm not so sure the Immaculate Conception is an error.

So then it's not out of the question that we are all conceived without inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin. Granted we are all born with a body that decays and dies but that is a consequence of Adam's sin, not that we inherit Adam's sin

Why would God want to place HIS SON n the body of a sinful woman?
A woman that has the sinful nature in her? Just like we all do.

Exactly. You're making my point.

The sinful nature is accepted by Protestantism.
It is NOT a Catholic concotion.

Protestants came from Catholics so who was first to coin it?

Yeah.
But where do THEY come from?

Evil existed way before man was formed. Disobedience to God is the source.

In making us agree on this?
It might take a miracle !

Miracles do happen.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I'm not so sure the Immaculate Conception is an error.
Why would God want to place HIS SON n the body of a sinful woman?
A woman that has the sinful nature in her? Just like we all do.

A human woman to give him a human body?

 

[civic]

This is also for @Jim......

It's not up to the NIV to dictate doctrine.

The sin nature is that part of man's nature that has been affected by sin.
It is NOT a different nature...which would give to man TWO natures, and, of course, man has
only one nature...the human nature.

Flesh IS the sin nature.
Some call it flesh,,,some call it sin nature,,,some call it the sinful nature,,,some concupiscense, some call it the old self....etc.

It's ALL THE SAME....
It's that thing in us that let's us TEND TOWARD SIN before we are born again.

It's name is not what's important...."a rose by any other name" is still a rose.
What IS important is that we understand that we have a part of us that is what makes man tend toward sin.
(when we are walking in the flesh and not in the Spirit).

When Paul speaks of The Flesh....he is speaking of this part of us, which some call the sin nature.

Here is the deal, the bottom line. Natures do no sin, people sin, people choose to sin. We cannot blame any nature or the devil. We are to blame for our own sin. I here this excuse all the time from people who quote Paul in Romans 7 as an excuse for their sins and blame it on the flesh, sin nature. Romans 7 is Paul describing his struggle under the " law " not under the new man in Christ, the new creation in Christ, the born again man. These same people will also misquote Paul and identify themselves as the chief of sinners. Once again under careful exegesis and understanding Pauls point is that was him as a Pharisee under the law and persecuting the church, killing believers. That was a description of his former life in the flesh, void of the Spirit.

This will be my next devotion with our Thursday morning mens group at church the next time I lead it in June. In fact I'm talking about it tomorrow morning with the mens group that meets at my house.

 

[synergy]

Why do you believe the Catholics...or the early church....are responsible for the doctrine of the sin nature?
Do you base it on some writing of theirs?
Could you post it, if possible?
Thanks.

In a nutshell:

The doctrine of Original Sin was developed by Augustine of Hippo in the 3rd century. It posits that everyone is born with a sin nature. This hereditary passing down of sin affects all human beings from the moment of their conception.

 

[GodsGrace]

So then it's not out of the question that we are all conceived without inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin.

We do not carry the GUILT of Adam's sin.
Only it's consequences.
It's consequences are several...
one is having obtained the sin nature from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Granted we are all born with a body that decays and dies but that is a consequence of Adam's sin, not that we inherit Adam's sin

Agreed above.

Exactly. You're making my point.

Actually no synergy.
Mary was born sans the sin nature....
thus the IC....she was a special case.

Protestants came from Catholics so who was first to coin it?

Let's see what Catholics think of the sin nature...
I'm not reading it...I'm just linking it..
It DOES however sound like you believe everything Protestants believe came from Catholicism.
I'd have to strongly disagree.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Concupiscence

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason

www.newadvent.org

Evil existed way before man was formed. Disobedience to God is the source.

Where did the disobedience come from?

You're going to find that we'll be going around in the proverbial circle here.
Only understanding the sin(ful) nature of man will stop it.

Miracles do happen.

Sure.
If you can answer my questions...

 

[GodsGrace]

A human woman to give him a human body?

Sure.
But GOD placed in the body of a person with the sin nature??
I DON'T THINK SO!

I just can't debate this.

 

[civic]

In a nutshell:

The doctrine of Original Sin was developed by Augustine of Hippo in the 3rd century. It posits that everyone is born with a sin nature. This hereditary passing down of sin affects all human beings from the moment of their conception.

ditto