Truther
Well-known member
Death. Exactly why the flesh must die
Your views on human beings having a sin nature
- Thread starter Obadiah
- Start date
101G
Well-known member
Truther
Well-known member
For the saint, first, death. For the unbeliever, both deaths. Born once die twice or twice die once.
101G
Well-known member
? or UNTIL ...... or before.
?
?
1 out of 4 not bad for starters, so ... THINK, and try again.
P.S. didn't 101G tell you to wipe your mouth after eating? .... lol, lol, lol.
101G.
There are only two basic men on the earth now. One is the natural man and the other is the spiritual man. There are some categories in each class but there are only two kinds of men. The one man does not necessarily have a sin nature but he is by nature without strength against sin. He is born in Adam, that is in Adam's family, by a woman. He is physical through the body he receives by this natural birth. Natural laws are involved. There is a spiritual part of this man. It is his soul that dwells in his body. All of who he is dwells in the body that is called in scriptures the tabernacle of the soul. It is not eternal but the soul is eternal. Like all things that are created it must occupy a single place at any given time. The soul cannot occupy a place on the earth without the body so it cannot stay here in that state when death occurs.
This natural man is in the image of the head of the family, Adam after his fall. The difference between the natural man and the spiritual man is the additional person who dwells in the body. This person is the Spirit of God. Those who have only a physical birth do not have the Spirit indwelling their bodies along with their souls. There were a few OT persons who had the Spirit come into their bodies for certain enablement's but none as a matter of a birth that is permanent like is the case with the spiritual man. This of course would have been impossible before there was a blood sacrifice that could wash away a man's sin and the bodily resurrection of the sacrifice. The reason given in scripture why Adam died spiritually is because sin entered in and God cannot dwell with sin. That separation of the indwelling Spirit from the body of Adam was spiritual death. Death in the scriptures is defined as a separation or departure and that is all it is. If that hurdle of sin in a man can be overcome by God then it will be possible to renew a man to the trinitarian image of God by giving him the indwelling Spirit in his body. Our Bibles says without the shedding of blood is no remission of sin and that kind of sin cleansing blood was not available for men until the God-Man, Jesus Christ, shed his perfect blood on the cross and the application was made to the sinners heart by the hyssop of faith. From this point this man is spiritual because he has experienced the new birth, the Spirit indwelling his body eternally and making him a new creature in Christ. He in Christ and Christ in him and now his soul, the Spirit of God, the life of God, lives in his body, putting him in the image of Christ who is the image of God, a tri-partite creature awaiting the resurrection and glorification of the body, at which time all traces of the family of Adam will be erased. Our mortal bodies are the only thing we receive from Adam. Our soul, which is eternal, comes from God. The Spirit of God and of Christ is THE gift of God when the sinner trusts God for his salvation from the penalty of sin, which is the second death in the lake of fire for eternity.
God has provided a wonderful salvation through Christ and I have described it here. There is some more I could say about it but this should be enough to make a Presbyterian shout when he gets a hold of this truth. I am just going to quote some verses that will help you see some of these truths.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there [is] liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Ro 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it (righteousness) shall be imputed, if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him (of God V9) that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he (the Spirit of God) that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
The spiritual man is the man who has been born again of the Spirit.
Re 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Truther
Well-known member
Great post, but I think we adopt a sin nature when we commit our first official sin, kinda like Adam did.
Wilber
Active member
Interesting I never would have thought Free Will had anything to do with it.
GeneZ
Well-known member
Why did Jesus go to the Cross?
For all he had to do?
Would be to tell everyone to get to heaven? Not to sin.
In that case... That was dumb going to the Cross.
It was like saying no one is good enough not to sin,.,,,
Yes but he actually thinks we all would sin anyway even without a sin nature. Makes it sound like God isn't very good at creating people if you ask me.
civic
Well-known member
History lesson
There are major similarities and yet subtle differences between Augustinianism and Gnosticism. While the Gnostics said that man’s nature was sinful and corrupt and that man didn’t have a free will because man was created by an inferior god, Augustine agreed with the Gnostics that man’s nature was sinful and corrupt and that man did not have a free will, but he said that God made it that way on account of Adam’s sin. While the Gnostics said that flesh was sinful and therefore Christ did not have a flesh, Augustine said that concupiscence in the flesh was sinful and that this sin was hereditary or transmitted from parent to child through the physical passions of intercourse, but that Jesus avoided this hereditary sin by being conceived without physical passion and being born of a virgin. Therefore, Augustine agreed with the Gnostics in principle, but he differed from them inexplanation. In this way, Augustinian theology was a modified Manichaeism or a semi-Gnosticism.
Consider the following facts:
- All of the Early Christians, before Augustine, believed in man’s free will and denied man’s natural inability.
- The Gnostics in the days of the Early Church believed in man’s natural inability and denied man’s free will.
- Augustine was a Gnostic for many years, in the Manichaeism sect, and converted to the Church out of Gnosticism.
- After joining the Church and being appointed a Bishop, Augustine began to deny the free will of man and to affirm the natural inability of man
- The Church, under Augustine’s influence, began to believe in the natural inability of man, which it never before held to, but which it formerly would refute.
The greatest contributors to modern Christian theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Augustine was influenced by Manichaean thought and Luther and Calvin were influenced by Augustinian thought. Therefore, it is no surprise that Augustine denied free will as the Manichaeans did, and Luther and Calvin denied free will as Augustine did. The Manichaeans influenced Augustine and Augustine in turn influenced Luther and Calvin.
There is no dispute over the fact that Luther and Calvin were influenced by Augustine. Luther was even an Augustinian monk. William Carlos Martyn said about Luther, “The study of the Bible and of Augustine theology… lead him to the Redeemer.”[59]In his historical account of Luther, Johann Heinrich Kurtz said, “Luther zealously studied the Bible, along with the writings of Augustine…”[60] Principal Tullock said that Luther “nourished himself upon Scripture and St. Augustine…”[61] Robert Dale Owen said, “Calvin’s ‘Institutes’ are based on Augustine’s ‘City of God’”[62] Thomas H. Dyer said in his biography of John Calvin, “The doctrine of predestination, which is generally regarded as that of which principally characterizes Calvin, is in fact that of St. Augustin…”[63] Oliver Joseph Thatcher explains why, “In theology he [Calvin] was a close follower of St. Augustine. His influence was to revivify the ideas of St. Augustine and, joining them to the main ideas of the Reformation, embody them in the Church he organized.”[64] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “Luther… Zwingli and Calvin, with minor divergences, agree in reverting to St. Augustine on the main issuesand in the supposed interests of evangelical piety…”[65] Luther referred to Augustine thirteen times in his book “The Bondage of the Will”[66], and twenty four times in the “Works of Martin Luther.”[67] John Calvin referred to Augustine two hundred and sixty five times in his “Institutes on Christian Religion.”[68]
Since Luther and Calvin were both students of Augustine and learned much of their theology from him, it is not surprising to find the remains of the Gnostic view of human nature in their theological writings. Martin Luther said, “…man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good… he sins and wills evil necessarily…”[69] He said, “Sin in his nature and of himself he can do nothing but sin.”[70] John Calvin said that man does not have a “free will” in the sense that “he has a free choice of good and evil,”[71] but denied this all together. Calvin paraphrases Augustine saying, “…nature began to want liberty the moment the will was vanquished by the revolt into which it fell… by making a bad use of free will, lost both himself and his will… free will having been made a captive, can do nothing in the way of righteousness… man at his creation received a great degree of free will, but lost it by sinning.”[72] The Christian Spectator said, “Augustine, and Calvin, and all of the reformers, taught the bondage, or moral impotence of the will.”[73] While the Early Church wrote about “the freedom of the will,” Martin Luther wrote an entire book called “The Bondage of the Will.” This shows a clear departure from the views of early Christianity.
civic
Well-known member
continued :
Luther defended his position against free will by saying, “Augustine… is wholly on my side…”[74]Calvin, like Luther, appealed to Augustine to support and defend his position. Calvin said, “Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest” Calvin be charged with “being opposed to all antiquity…”[75]Calvin tried to dismiss the charge of being opposed to the Early Church by saying, “Augustine hesitated not to call the will a slave…”[76] Charles Partee said “In his teaching on total depravity and bondage of the will Calvin is essentially following Augustine and Luther and not creating a so-called Calvinistic doctrine.”[77]
While Calvin tried to say that he was not “opposed to all antiquity” when it came to free will, what he meant was that he was not opposed to Augustine. Augustine was the only exception. He was opposed to all of the Early Church fathers before Augustine on this topic. John Calvin said, “…all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings…”[78] Calvin believed that men like Clement of Rome and Ignatius, who personally knew the Apostles, did not understand the Epistles of the Apostles; while Augustine, who did not know the Apostles, apparently did understand them. Calvin admitted, “It may, perhaps, seem that I have greatly prejudiced my own view by confessing that all of the ecclesiastical writers, with the exception of Augustine, have spoken too ambiguously or inconsistently on this subject, that no certainty is attainable from their writings.”[79]
The reason that John Calvin rejected all ancient theologians and dismissed all of their writings on this matter, except for Augustine, is because all ancient theologians affirmed the freedom of the will in their writings, except for Augustine. Gregory Boyd said, “This in part explains why Calvin cannot cite ante-Nicene fathers against his libertarian opponents…. Hence, when Calvin debates Pighuis on the freedom of the will, he cites Augustine abundantly, but no early church fathers are cited.”[80] That is why George Pretyman said, “…the peculiar tenets of Calvinism are in direct opposition to the Doctrines maintained in the primitive Church of Christ…” This we have clearly seen, but he also said, “…there is a great similarity between the Calvinistic system and the earliest [Gnostic] heresies…”[81]
The Reformers sought to return the Church to early Christianity, but actually brought it back to early heresies, because it stopped short at Augustine. The Reformers did not go far back enough. Rather than returning the Church to early Christianity, the Reformation resurrected Augustinian and Gnostic doctrines. The Methodist Quarterly Review said, “At the Reformation Augustinianism received an emphatic re-enforcement among the Protestant Churches.”[82] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “…it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine… the Reformation came, seeing that it was, on its theological side, a revival of Augustinianism…”[83] The Reformation was to a great extent a resurrection or revival of Augustinian theology and a further departure and falling away from Early Christianity.
Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God.
This view has been held in both Catholic and Protestant Churches, taught by both Arminian and Calvinist theologians. Augustine taught many false doctrines such as the sinless life of Mary, praying to the dead, persecuting heretics, infant damnation, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Yet it is his false teaching in regards to human nature and free will that has spread beyond the Catholic Church into the Protestant realm.
Consider these facts that have been shown:
hope this helps !!!
Luther defended his position against free will by saying, “Augustine… is wholly on my side…”[74]Calvin, like Luther, appealed to Augustine to support and defend his position. Calvin said, “Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest” Calvin be charged with “being opposed to all antiquity…”[75]Calvin tried to dismiss the charge of being opposed to the Early Church by saying, “Augustine hesitated not to call the will a slave…”[76] Charles Partee said “In his teaching on total depravity and bondage of the will Calvin is essentially following Augustine and Luther and not creating a so-called Calvinistic doctrine.”[77]
While Calvin tried to say that he was not “opposed to all antiquity” when it came to free will, what he meant was that he was not opposed to Augustine. Augustine was the only exception. He was opposed to all of the Early Church fathers before Augustine on this topic. John Calvin said, “…all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings…”[78] Calvin believed that men like Clement of Rome and Ignatius, who personally knew the Apostles, did not understand the Epistles of the Apostles; while Augustine, who did not know the Apostles, apparently did understand them. Calvin admitted, “It may, perhaps, seem that I have greatly prejudiced my own view by confessing that all of the ecclesiastical writers, with the exception of Augustine, have spoken too ambiguously or inconsistently on this subject, that no certainty is attainable from their writings.”[79]
The reason that John Calvin rejected all ancient theologians and dismissed all of their writings on this matter, except for Augustine, is because all ancient theologians affirmed the freedom of the will in their writings, except for Augustine. Gregory Boyd said, “This in part explains why Calvin cannot cite ante-Nicene fathers against his libertarian opponents…. Hence, when Calvin debates Pighuis on the freedom of the will, he cites Augustine abundantly, but no early church fathers are cited.”[80] That is why George Pretyman said, “…the peculiar tenets of Calvinism are in direct opposition to the Doctrines maintained in the primitive Church of Christ…” This we have clearly seen, but he also said, “…there is a great similarity between the Calvinistic system and the earliest [Gnostic] heresies…”[81]
The Reformers sought to return the Church to early Christianity, but actually brought it back to early heresies, because it stopped short at Augustine. The Reformers did not go far back enough. Rather than returning the Church to early Christianity, the Reformation resurrected Augustinian and Gnostic doctrines. The Methodist Quarterly Review said, “At the Reformation Augustinianism received an emphatic re-enforcement among the Protestant Churches.”[82] The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics said, “…it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine… the Reformation came, seeing that it was, on its theological side, a revival of Augustinianism…”[83] The Reformation was to a great extent a resurrection or revival of Augustinian theology and a further departure and falling away from Early Christianity.
Gnosticism, Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism have much in common. Augustinianism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism teach Gnostic views of human nature and free will but under a different name. It’s the same old Gnosticism in a new wrapper. Other doctrines also seem to have originated in Gnosticism, from Basilianism, Valentianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism, such as the doctrines of easy believism, individual predestination, constitutional regeneration, a sinful nature or a sinful flesh, eternal security or once saved always saved, and others. But no Gnostic doctrine has spread so widely throughout the Church, with such great acceptance as the doctrine of man’s natural inability to obey God.
This view has been held in both Catholic and Protestant Churches, taught by both Arminian and Calvinist theologians. Augustine taught many false doctrines such as the sinless life of Mary, praying to the dead, persecuting heretics, infant damnation, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Yet it is his false teaching in regards to human nature and free will that has spread beyond the Catholic Church into the Protestant realm.
Consider these facts that have been shown:
- Augustine’s mind was highly influenced by the teachings of Manichaeism on the topic of human nature and free will; and in his views on the subject, he clearly departed from the views of the Early Church.
- The minds of Martin Luther and John Calvin were highly influenced by the teachings of Augustine on the topic of human nature and free will and admitted to departing from the views of the Early Church.
- The greatest contributors to modern theology have been Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.
hope this helps !!!
101G
Well-known member
yes interesting, as with everything else we must LEARN, to CHOOSE. as with "HATE", it's a learned behavior, or driving a car, which must be Learned.... ect........ once Taught one choose what they desire to do with the KNOWLEDGE.
101G.
Thanks Truther, We are not left to wonder how one becomes a sinner. We are told here:
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
This assumes that a man has intellect, reason, will, and ability to choose in spite of knowing the result.
Truther
Well-known member
Yes, a case in point, a baby or toddler does not sin against God, but their parent is their “god”. They have to develop into a mature person to be able to have a God. God will not send babies to hell, nor will he send little toddlers to hell. He is just. Jesus said, blessed are the children for such as the kingdom of heaven. Maturity plays a big factor. Just like people that are mentally retarded. God is merciful.
brightfame52
Well-known member
Gods indictment on mans nature following the Fall or sin of Adam Gen 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.
The word heart here is the hebrew word lēḇ:
inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding
Its only evil continually, there is no reprieve from being only evil.
This is taking in consideration mans good moral character as well, even then his heart is continually evil, his will.
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.
The word heart here is the hebrew word lēḇ:
inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding
- inner part, midst
- midst (of things)
- heart (of man)
- soul, heart (of man)
- mind, knowledge, thinking, reflection, memory
- inclination, resolution, determination (of will)
- conscience
- heart (of moral character)
Its only evil continually, there is no reprieve from being only evil.
This is taking in consideration mans good moral character as well, even then his heart is continually evil, his will.
Rockson
Well-known member
Oh no. So now you're going to spin off into the Hebrews seeking to look scholarly and convincing but leave your readers saying SO WHAT? You miss the application of how it's to be applied anyway.
You're trying to prove total depravity that man doesn't even have any capacity to respond to God since Day 1 after Adam and Eve sinned but the passage you're quoting from is from Genesis 6. It could be argued when Noah, was about 500 years old. Rom 1 probably talking about this time said the culture became darkened as they suppressed the truth. It doesn't mean even man is totally depraved even from birth! And you could have had culture in period of time which did served God in the 600 year span or at least they did so in a greater degree then in Noah's time.
And Jesus brought clarity to this as well by saying as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be in the time of the end. That implied things will grow darker and darker meaning things aren't always in one state all the time. Yes all men need saved from the time of Adam but such doesn't mean you can state that proves total depravity in the way you Calvinists put that forth is in any way a sound teaching.
brightfame52
Well-known member
Man by nature is dead to God Spiritually, naturally we are Spiritually dead. In this unregenerate, fallen state, man has no ability to do anything spiritually good.
This doctrine of total inability, which declares that men are dead in sin and are therefore unable to choose any good leading to salvation,
Rockson
Well-known member
Perhaps you need to set aside from your thinking what you think or percieve what men can do spiritually and center up on what he can do with his enlightened mind after he's heard the word of God. Can he choose to allow God to come in and make him spiritually alive? Of course he can.
Let's talk it this way. A man has a car with no battery. It'd dead. There's no movement with the car but that doesn't mean God can't speak to the living consciousness of the owner and where he says he wants to regenerate the vehicle bringing it to life. Surely you're not going to deny men have a living soul consciousness? So lets' say going down a road 100 miles an hour is good. It's impossible for a man to do this good mechanical thing. (that lines up with your statement man can't do anything spiritually good) He can however allow by an act of his will to give permission to the one who wants to regenerate the engine of the car. .
So my point is you keep going down this road of what you say people can or cannot do spiritually. The whole thing can be considered to be irrelevant anyway.
Your whole way of thinking can be considered irrelevant.
Manasseh
Member
“How does the world go on after sin’s entrance and how is it possible that ‘good’ things emerge from the hands of humans within and without a covenant relationship with God?
For instance, Here's a list of medal of honor recipients in World War II. We were able to accomplish good deeds, save lives, and become heroes. I believe there is good in man prior to salvation. I believe it's called "Common Grace".
en.wikipedia.org
For instance, Here's a list of medal of honor recipients in World War II. We were able to accomplish good deeds, save lives, and become heroes. I believe there is good in man prior to salvation. I believe it's called "Common Grace".
List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War II - Wikipedia
What's happening I think is that on the calvinist side you have people who have poor English grammar skills and because of that think that they must be zapped into belief. We're talking about a different category of believers, those that bank only on subjective experiential beliefs. Even after being regenerated they will refuse to acknowledge grammar because that's how their world is, plain and simple. It is a purely subjective world and no English grammar nor any logical argument can ever change that.
It's very rare that logic or English grammar can reach them because they bank heavily on their experience of being regenerated, whatever that means to them. What I get out of conversing with calvinists is a sharpened awareness of the coherence, logic, and consistency of the Gospel across all human history.
Last edited:
Similar threads
