The Most Hated Truth

[nedsk]

Thank you for the welcome.

Yes, I agree—that’s exactly why I shared this on a Christian message board. Lately, I’ve come across more and more people in Christian spaces who deny that we owe a sin debt to God, which is deeply concerning. I wanted to see how others on this message board understand this, since Scripture is clear that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). The entire foundation of the gospel rests on the truth that Jesus paid the debt we could never repay. Thank you for your response—it's a good point, thank you.

So we owe a sin debt to God, then does that mean his grace is not a free gift? The prodigal son returns home. What debt did he owe to the father?

 

[bdavidc]

So we owe a sin debt to God, then does that mean his grace is not a free gift? The prodigal son returns home. What debt did he owe to the father?

Sin absolutely creates a debt before God, but that debt is not paid by us, it was paid by Jesus Christ. The Bible says, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Sin has a cost, and that cost is death, but salvation is not something we work off or earn. It is the free gift of God through faith in Christ.

The Bible makes it clear that we are guilty before God because we have broken His Law (Romans 3:23), and that guilt is like a record of debt we owe. But Colossians 2:14 tells us that Jesus took that record and nailed it to the cross. He didn’t ignore our sin, He paid for it with His own blood.

That’s what makes grace so amazing. It’s not that we don’t owe anything; it’s that Jesus paid everything. If we had to repay the debt ourselves, grace wouldn’t be a gift, it would be wages. But the Bible says salvation is “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:9). We don’t earn it, we receive it through faith.

As for the prodigal son, notice what he brought home, nothing. He had no money, no merit, just humility and repentance. And the father ran to meet him, embraced him, and restored him, not because the son earned it, but because the father was full of grace. That is exactly how God receives every sinner who repents.

So yes, our sin brings debt, but God’s grace is still free. It cost Jesus everything, but it costs us nothing to receive it, only that we repent and believe the gospel.

 

[Kokyu]

Well, what a terrible place to put yourself as a youth, that your faith in Christ is fully dependent on how others act out their faith.

It's in the nature of youth to have higher expectations of those in church leadership than they should have. And many of these youth, though they had grown up in the Church, were not, I believe, actually saved. They were making up their minds about this very matter, in part on the basis of what they saw - or didn't see - in the lives of deacons, pastors, elders, worship leaders, Sunday School teachers, etc. This may not be an entirely reasonable way to assess the Christian faith itself, but it is certainly not unreasonable to expect Christians to "walk the talk," either.

It's increasingly common, now, in my experience anyway, to hear Christians exempt themselves from criticism on the basis you've used in the quotation above, reversing criticism, even, and making a person's skepticism and disappointment with Church their problem, the consequence of some failing on their part, rather than a problem with the Church (ie. individual Christians).

That to me is a very empty kind of faith to have.

Maybe, but this observation does nothing to quell their skepticism. To them, as they've indicated to me, your response comes off as a sort of gas-lighting: "I'm not the one with the problem, you are."

I have never been one to be influenced in the faith by my peers, and in life generally.
I do not look up to heroes, model my own self after anyone else.

To each their own, I suppose. Is there some obligation others have to do as you have done? If so, wouldn't you be expecting others to do the very thing you refuse to do?

Anyone who does that better be prepared for a fall, because people fail all the time.

Nonetheless, Scripture indicates, again and again, that Christians are to be "salt" and "light," living manifestations of Christ, representatives of him, full of the fruit of the Spirit, holy, loving and wise, to the lost world around them, not just in word, but in deed. (Matt. 5:13-16; 2 Co. 3:2-3; 4:7-11; Ga. 5:22-23; Eph. 5:1-13, etc.). They may not be so, but their lack of perfection in this regard does not exempt them from doing all they can, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to be as much like Christ as possible.

 

[MatthewG]

Yes, some do. Mostly, though, at least among the unsaved, they appear to just ignore this doctrine of the faith. I find that it is professing Christians, actually, who are shying away, more and more, from this truth. A prominent example would be Joel Osteen (and his ilk). In general, though, the Christians around me are profoundly uncomfortable broaching this truth in conversation with one another, let alone the lost.



I'd suggest that sin isn't the corruption of the human heart but the effect of a heart corrupted by the natural selfishness of the unregenerated Adamic nature. All sins are just symptoms of the Old Self (Ro. 6:6) in control of one's mind and heart.



I'd be much more inclined to say that we are, by nature, deeply selfish, which always produces sin. I can't think of a Bible verse that actually says that our nature is one of sin. We have a fleshly/carnal nature, a self-centered, rebellious nature, an Adamic nature, a spiritually-unregenerate nature, but I'm not aware of Scripture that says my nature is sin. Yes, I commit sin, I enact sinful behaviors, and hold sinful thoughts and attitudes, but these are, I think manifestations, or symptoms, of something else, they are "sparks" from the "bonfire" of Self out from under God's control. A car engine is not the exhaust, noise and motion of the car that it produces, right? Though the engine and its effects are very closely related, they aren't identical. Likewise, it seems to me that the "engine" of my self-centered nature produces the "exhaust, noise and motion" of sin, but these effects aren't identical with what has produced them.



Umm... sin is a debt? Scripture says my sins incurs a debt, of sorts, but my sin isn't itself a debt, its disobedience to God.



Submission to God is vital, yes. But He also says to us in His word that, along with faith in Christ as Savior and submission to him as Lord (Ro. 10:9-10), there must also be repentance and confession of our sin. We won't trust in, and submit to, Christ as we should unless and until we first change our minds (repent) about ourselves, our sinfulness, God and our need of a Savior. When we have truly done so, it is natural and necessary to confess, or admit to, our sinful rebelliousness toward God and indicate our wholehearted agreement with the truth of the Gospel (1 Jn. 1:9; Ro. 10:9-10). In consequence of doing these things, submission to God, to Christ, is obvious and natural (and commanded of God, therefore - Ja. 4:6-10; 1 Pe. 5:6; Ro. 6:13-22; Ro. 12:1).

But, you know, in my experience, what primarily makes the Gospel so uninteresting to the lost, and its hard truths doubly offensive to them, is the profound lack of evidence of the supernatural life and work of God in those who claim to be His. I don't mean the hysteria, sensuality and blasphemy of the hyper-charismatics (Todd White, Kenneth Copeland, Mike Bickles, Benny Hinn, etc.), but the radical holiness, peace, love, joy, gentleness, wisdom and grace of the Holy Spirit within them (Ga. 5:22-23; Eph. 5:9; Ja. 3:17-18). There are few things more persuasive of the Christian's claims concerning the Gospel than the supernatural life of Jesus filling them and flowing out of them (Ro. 8:29; 2 Co. 3:18; 4:7-11).

When I worked with Christian youth, years ago now, this was their biggest problem with their faith. They watched adults who claimed to be indwelt by God's Spirit (and professed to have been so for many decades) and saw no evidence of the Spirit's supernatural presence and work in those adults. These "mature" believers were, essentially, just like the unsaved adults in their manner of living, afflicted by the same desires, attitudes, distractions and values of the unsaved world. What disappointment and doubt - and deep cynicism - these youth often took up in the vacuum of concrete evidence of the supernatural life and work of the Spirit in the "senior" (spiritually-speaking) members of the faith. And how reluctant this vacuum made the Christian youth I was working with to share their faith with the lost! It wasn't the hard truth of sin that silenced them but the profound absence of any clear proof of the presence of God within those who had already responded to the Gospel and "walked with God" for decades.

I absolutely agree about selfishness. I know I am selfish. That looks bad, some of the writing I write to some people look bad. But what is bad, but ones perception of what is good or not good for them. Some of the things I say, don't look good. But the truth doesn't ever feel good either. I'm amazed at some peoples they never look in the mirror and realize, their own evil they have inside of them. This is something I am thankful for. Because at one point in time, I was a true murderer in every since of the word because over time I became a misanthrope. But then again, maybe that philosophy still remains with in me sometimes due to my abuse of my own self.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” ~ Romans 3:23

In modern times the most hated truth is Christians refuse to believe they can't live in sin and still be saved.

 

[Kokyu]

That might sound clever, but it’s not biblical. The Bible doesn’t describe sin as just a symptom or byproduct of something else. It says our very nature is sinful apart from Christ. Ephesians 2:3 says we were “by nature the children of wrath.” That’s not just behavior, that’s who we were at the core.

Actually, it is very biblical to recognize that the Old Self (Ro. 6:6) is the Ultimate Source of all our sin, as Paul clearly indicated. And the Old Self, as the Bible plainly describes, is profoundly self-centered, "seeking its own" above all else (Phil. 3:18-19; Ga. 5:19-21; Ro. 8:5-8, etc.).

Ephesians 2:3 doesn't actually say "our very nature is sinful apart from Christ."

Ephesians 2:1-3
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

See? Verse 3 says the unsaved are by "nature" wrathful (Tit. 3:3) and, actually, the word translated "wrath" in the verse may also be translated "impulse" which fits really well with the biblical teaching that a fleshly-minded, unsaved person is acting often on the basis of their fleshly impulses (their "god is their belly" - Phil. 3:18-19). We all, prior to being saved, were by nature "children of (fleshly) impulse." This seems pretty obvious to me, the impulses of our flesh being many and necessary (to eat, drink, sleep, procreate, etc.). But such impulses aren't necessarily/intrinsically evil, given to us by God as they are.

Even if we all are, apart from Christ, "naturally wrathful children" this fact doesn't necessarily entail an intrinsic sinfulness. Not all wrath is unjustified, or evil, as God Himself demonstrates (Jn. 3:36; Ro. 2:5). Like our fleshly impulses, our emotions and attitudes, unregulated by God, inevitably grow exaggerated and distorted. But though the exaggeration/distortion is wrong, the impulses, emotions and attitudes themselves in proper, God-confined proportion, may be entirely right and good.

And so, Paul doesn't actually write of our "natural sinfulness" which implies an intrinsic, congenital wickedness, but of the result of our natural (and necessary) self-centeredness left unregulated by the Holy Spirit. I say this self-centeredness is necessary because if we don't attend to our natural impulses to, say, eat, drink, and sleep, we will soon expire; we have to be self-interested, then, regarding these things if we are to survive. It is in our nature, though, to exaggerate and distort that necessary self-interest and our natural, God-given, fleshly impulses. And when we do, then we are guilty of sin. Of course, this means the newborn is innocent of sin, though with the innate inclination toward it.

Anyway, as I pointed out, there is no "our very nature is sinful" in what Paul wrote in the Ephesians 2 passage, nor is it implied, as far as I can see.

Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” That means sin isn’t just something we pick up along the way, it’s wired into us from the start.

No, this is a Calvinist distortion of what David wrote, I'm afraid.

Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

David here speaks of two things: the manner in which he was "brought forth" and the character of his mother at his conception. He says nothing about himself and his intrinsic nature in the verse above. The manner in which he was brought forth was "in iniquity" and the character of his mother was "in sin," but David nowhere in this verses says, or implies, that he was himself sinful as a newborn.

Romans 7:18 says, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing.” You can’t separate the engine from the exhaust like you’re trying to do here. The Bible doesn’t make that distinction.

I don't have to do any separating, I just read Scripture as its given without any Calvinist distortion and see very plainly what I've pointed out. If you want to assert from Romans 7:18 that Paul was teaching a Gnostic view of his body (his flesh) as intrinsically evil, you'll have to explain how, without Paul's mind and soul, his body was sinful.

When Paul was asleep, was his body doing evil things? When Paul had been stoned in Iconium, for instance, and was lying unconscious upon the ground, was his body enacting evil behavior, fornicating, perhaps, or robbing folks who passed by, or murdering someone in a dark alley? No, only when Paul was conscious, when his mind and soul were awake and actively in control of his body, would his body enact anything sinful. What's the "no good thing" dwelling in Paul's flesh, then? Apart from the consciousness called "Paul" his flesh, his body, would be just a completely inert, morally-neutral lump of tissue.

In any case, so long as Paul was not under the control of the Holy Spirit (Ro. 8:5-8), he would be inclined to self-centeredness, to self-will that inevitably grows exaggerated and distorted, producing sin. This is the Adamic nature, the spiritually-unregenerated, self-willed, selfish nature we all possess apart from the authority, direction and regulation of God. Without His control, we become progressively overly selfish, overly self-centered and this results in sin. This sin, though, is an effect of our selfish nature, not that nature itself.

What’s not biblical in your response is the idea that the lost are uninterested in the gospel mainly because they don’t see enough supernatural behavior in Christians. That’s not what Scripture teaches.

You're "tilting at" your own Strawman here. Where did I write what you imply I did in this quotation? I don't see in any of my posts where I wrote, "The lost are uninterested in the Gospel mainly because they don't see enough supernatural behavior in Christians," nor do I imply this. Instead, I wrote more modestly that, in my experience, the "biggest problem" the Christian youth had with the spiritual leaders in their churches was a lack of supernatural evidence of the indwelling Holy Spirit in their living. I didn't say anything about the lost generally, nor about their main reason for being disinterested in the Gospel.

It is biblical to call believers to walk in holiness and show the fruit of the Spirit. But it’s not biblical to imply that unbelievers would flock to Christ if only Christians lived better. That puts the blame for unbelief on us, not on the sinner’s rebellion. The Word of God is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), not our performance.

See above. I never wrote of unbelievers generally or their primary reason for rejecting the Gospel.

How interesting it is, though, to see how quickly you reject the idea that Christians bear no blame for the lost's rejection of the Gospel. See my post to @Scott Downey. Some Christians sure like to point the finger at the unsaved. But how they bristle when the finger is pointed at them!

 

[Behold]

The most "hated Truth".......is Jesus.

He is "The Truth"......John 14:6, and He was so hated that they hung Him on The Cross for being : GOOD and True.

This shows you clearly just how evil is the = Devil's world.

 

[nedsk]

Sin absolutely creates a debt before God, but that debt is not paid by us, it was paid by Jesus Christ. The Bible says, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Sin has a cost, and that cost is death, but salvation is not something we work off or earn. It is the free gift of God through faith in Christ.

The Bible makes it clear that we are guilty before God because we have broken His Law (Romans 3:23), and that guilt is like a record of debt we owe. But Colossians 2:14 tells us that Jesus took that record and nailed it to the cross. He didn’t ignore our sin, He paid for it with His own blood.

That’s what makes grace so amazing. It’s not that we don’t owe anything; it’s that Jesus paid everything. If we had to repay the debt ourselves, grace wouldn’t be a gift, it would be wages. But the Bible says salvation is “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:9). We don’t earn it, we receive it through faith.

As for the prodigal son, notice what he brought home, nothing. He had no money, no merit, just humility and repentance. And the father ran to meet him, embraced him, and restored him, not because the son earned it, but because the father was full of grace. That is exactly how God receives every sinner who repents.

So yes, our sin brings debt, but God’s grace is still free. It cost Jesus everything, but it costs us nothing to receive it, only that we repent and believe the gospel.

So if Jesus paid the debt there is no debt. Unless of course continued sin on our part creates a new debt which must be repaid.

 

[FredVB]

Those who are covered by Christ's atonement, that pays the "debt", are those responding to God with essential faith, which is with repentance, that they are in Christ. All those never coming to repentance and so not with real needed faith are not covered and are subject to the fair judgment that will come.

 

[Scott Downey]

So if Jesus paid the debt there is no debt. Unless of course continued sin on our part creates a new debt which must be repaid.

Who is there that does not sin again in some matter?
What and when was the last sin you committed?
These sins saved people commit in the flesh, but not in the spirit.
We answer to God and Christ for the deeds committed in the body.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

 

[nedsk]

Who is there that does not sin again in some matter?
What and when was the last sin you committed?
These sins saved people commit in the flesh, but not in the spirit.
We answer to God and Christ for the deeds committed in the body.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

That makes no sense. When we sin that separates us from God, that needs to be reconciled. That Jesus died on the cross for us doesnt release us from the responsibility for our choices.

 

[Scott Downey]

That makes no sense. When we sin that separates us from God, that needs to be reconciled. That Jesus died on the cross for us doesnt release us from the responsibility for our choices.

Hmmm, then does this scripture make sense to you ?

1 John 1

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can the thread discussion even be reconciled with the above verses?
I don't think so.
Some people are saying here there is no more sin as Christ took away the sin, and that seems to me to be an error.

 

[bdavidc]

Actually, it is very biblical to recognize that the Old Self (Ro. 6:6) is the Ultimate Source of all our sin, as Paul clearly indicated. And the Old Self, as the Bible plainly describes, is profoundly self-centered, "seeking its own" above all else (Phil. 3:18-19; Ga. 5:19-21; Ro. 8:5-8, etc.).

Ephesians 2:3 doesn't actually say "our very nature is sinful apart from Christ."

Ephesians 2:1-3
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

See? Verse 3 says the unsaved are by "nature" wrathful (Tit. 3:3) and, actually, the word translated "wrath" in the verse may also be translated "impulse" which fits really well with the biblical teaching that a fleshly-minded, unsaved person is acting often on the basis of their fleshly impulses (their "god is their belly" - Phil. 3:18-19). We all, prior to being saved, were by nature "children of (fleshly) impulse." This seems pretty obvious to me, the impulses of our flesh being many and necessary (to eat, drink, sleep, procreate, etc.). But such impulses aren't necessarily/intrinsically evil, given to us by God as they are.

Even if we all are, apart from Christ, "naturally wrathful children" this fact doesn't necessarily entail an intrinsic sinfulness. Not all wrath is unjustified, or evil, as God Himself demonstrates (Jn. 3:36; Ro. 2:5). Like our fleshly impulses, our emotions and attitudes, unregulated by God, inevitably grow exaggerated and distorted. But though the exaggeration/distortion is wrong, the impulses, emotions and attitudes themselves in proper, God-confined proportion, may be entirely right and good.

And so, Paul doesn't actually write of our "natural sinfulness" which implies an intrinsic, congenital wickedness, but of the result of our natural (and necessary) self-centeredness left unregulated by the Holy Spirit. I say this self-centeredness is necessary because if we don't attend to our natural impulses to, say, eat, drink, and sleep, we will soon expire; we have to be self-interested, then, regarding these things if we are to survive. It is in our nature, though, to exaggerate and distort that necessary self-interest and our natural, God-given, fleshly impulses. And when we do, then we are guilty of sin. Of course, this means the newborn is innocent of sin, though with the innate inclination toward it.

Anyway, as I pointed out, there is no "our very nature is sinful" in what Paul wrote in the Ephesians 2 passage, nor is it implied, as far as I can see.



No, this is a Calvinist distortion of what David wrote, I'm afraid.

Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

David here speaks of two things: the manner in which he was "brought forth" and the character of his mother at his conception. He says nothing about himself and his intrinsic nature in the verse above. The manner in which he was brought forth was "in iniquity" and the character of his mother was "in sin," but David nowhere in this verses says, or implies, that he was himself sinful as a newborn.



I don't have to do any separating, I just read Scripture as its given without any Calvinist distortion and see very plainly what I've pointed out. If you want to assert from Romans 7:18 that Paul was teaching a Gnostic view of his body (his flesh) as intrinsically evil, you'll have to explain how, without Paul's mind and soul, his body was sinful.

When Paul was asleep, was his body doing evil things? When Paul had been stoned in Iconium, for instance, and was lying unconscious upon the ground, was his body enacting evil behavior, fornicating, perhaps, or robbing folks who passed by, or murdering someone in a dark alley? No, only when Paul was conscious, when his mind and soul were awake and actively in control of his body, would his body enact anything sinful. What's the "no good thing" dwelling in Paul's flesh, then? Apart from the consciousness called "Paul" his flesh, his body, would be just a completely inert, morally-neutral lump of tissue.

In any case, so long as Paul was not under the control of the Holy Spirit (Ro. 8:5-8), he would be inclined to self-centeredness, to self-will that inevitably grows exaggerated and distorted, producing sin. This is the Adamic nature, the spiritually-unregenerated, self-willed, selfish nature we all possess apart from the authority, direction and regulation of God. Without His control, we become progressively overly selfish, overly self-centered and this results in sin. This sin, though, is an effect of our selfish nature, not that nature itself.



You're "tilting at" your own Strawman here. Where did I write what you imply I did in this quotation? I don't see in any of my posts where I wrote, "The lost are uninterested in the Gospel mainly because they don't see enough supernatural behavior in Christians," nor do I imply this. Instead, I wrote more modestly that, in my experience, the "biggest problem" the Christian youth had with the spiritual leaders in their churches was a lack of supernatural evidence of the indwelling Holy Spirit in their living. I didn't say anything about the lost generally, nor about their main reason for being disinterested in the Gospel.



See above. I never wrote of unbelievers generally or their primary reason for rejecting the Gospel.

How interesting it is, though, to see how quickly you reject the idea that Christians bear no blame for the lost's rejection of the Gospel. See my post to @Scott Downey. Some Christians sure like to point the finger at the unsaved. But how they bristle when the finger is pointed at them!

Let’s cut through the fog and stick to what the Bible actually says, because your arguments are not rooted in Sola Scriptura, they’re dressed-up philosophy. You’re twisting Scripture instead of reading it the way God actually meant it.

You said Ephesians 2:3 doesn’t actually say our very nature is sinful apart from Christ. Yes, it absolutely does. It says, “we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” That word nature (Greek phusis) doesn’t mean “we had a few bad habits.” It means our condition from birth is one of rebellion. Romans 5:12 backs this up: “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” You’re trying to separate sin from the sinner, like it floats out there disconnected from who we are. But Scripture says sin dwells in us (Romans 7:17–20), it doesn’t just visit now and then. That’s not Calvinism, that’s the Word of God and by the way I am not a Calvinist.

You also butchered Psalm 51:5. David isn’t talking about his mom’s sin life, he’s confessing his own corruption from the womb. He says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Not “my mom was in sin,” but I was. That’s not poetic fluff. That’s divine revelation about the depravity of man.

Then you tried to reduce Romans 7:18 into some weird Gnostic strawman. Paul’s not saying flesh is evil because it exists, he’s saying in his flesh dwells no good thing. That’s what it says. You can try to redefine “flesh” to avoid the conclusion, but Paul isn’t talking about unconscious tissue. He’s talking about the fallen human nature, the same nature that wars against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17). You say sin is only the “effect” of our selfish nature. But that is the sin. Romans 8:7 says, “The carnal mind is enmity against God.” Not just influenced by sin, hostile to God. You don’t need to invent a neutral human nature that just gets misdirected. That’s not in the Bible.

As for your comment on Christian conduct being the key to unbelief, you’re backpedaling. You said, “the biggest problem” for youth was the lack of supernatural evidence in their leaders. That’s putting the blame on us for their unbelief. But Scripture says the world loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19). They don’t come to the light because of their own evil deeds. The gospel is rejected not because we aren’t sparkly enough, but because people are dead in sin unless God opens their heart (Acts 16:14).

Lastly, you keep accusing others of Calvinist distortion, but I’m not a Calvinist, and your obsession with that label is a deflection. The issue isn’t whether it sounds Reformed, it’s whether it’s biblical. And based on how you’ve misused multiple passages to downplay sin nature, redefine wrath, and sanitize Psalm 51, it’s safe to say you’re not handling Scripture with honesty or fear of God.

You’re not just wrong, you’re teaching falsely. Whether that’s from pride, confusion, or rebellion, only God knows. But you’ve been corrected with Scripture. What you do now shows what kind of teacher you really are but you are sure looking like a false teacher.

 

[Behold]

That makes no sense. When we sin that separates us from God, that needs to be reconciled. That Jesus died on the cross for us doesnt release us from the responsibility for our choices.

"God made Jesus to be sin for us"........so, once He becomes our sin, we become "Christ's righteousness".

So, a born again Christian's "sin" is resolved, forever, = by the "one time eternal sacrifice of Jesus on The Cross".

Now when you read Romans 4:8 .. or 2 Corin 5:19.......you read that God does not charge sin against you.
This verse is not directed at an unforgiven sinner, as the demonic Gospel "Universalism" teaches......
The verss are talking to the FORGIVEN.... who have trusted CHRIST and been FORGIVEN, while they are ALIVE.

Now WHY does God not charge "sin" against a Christian?........Its becaue of 3 situations.

1.) "God hath made JESUS to BE SIN...for us".........as "the ONE TIME.... ETERNAL Sacrifice for sin"..

2.) "where there is no LAW....there is no Sin (Transgression)"". found.

3.) The born again, are "Not under the law, but under Grace".......so, there is no Law over the Born again, that can define them as a sinner.


"well behold, what happens to the Christian, who commits works of the flesh on occasion, choosing to do it, on occasion"?

A.) The law of ""sowing and reaping"" is going to hurt you., as the consequences of your deeds.

"well behold what happens if a Christians, just willfully keeps on sinning, after Hebrews 12:6 corrects them and corrects them?

Paul says...."they will die".

 

[ShineTheLight]

"God made Jesus to be sin for us"........so, once He becomes our sin, we become "Christ's righteousness".

So, a born again Christian's "sin" is resolved, forever, = by the "one time eternal sacrifice of Jesus on The Cross".

Now when you read Romans 4:8 .. or 2 Corin 5:19.......you read that God does not charge sin against you.
This verse is not directed at an unforgiven sinner, as the demonic Gospel "Universalism" teaches......
The verss are talking to the FORGIVEN.... who have trusted CHRIST and been FORGIVEN, while they are ALIVE.

Now WHY does God not charge "sin" against a Christian?........Its becaue of 3 situations.

1.) "God hath made JESUS to BE SIN...for us".........as "the ONE TIME.... ETERNAL Sacrifice for sin"..

2.) "where there is no LAW....there is no Sin (Transgression)"". found.

3.) The born again, are "Not under the law, but under Grace".......so, there is no Law over the Born again, that can define them as a sinner.


"well behold, what happens to the Christian, who commits works of the flesh on occasion, choosing to do it, on occasion"?

A.) The law of ""sowing and reaping"" is going to hurt you., as the consequences of your deeds.

"well behold what happens if a Christians, just willfully keeps on sinning, after Hebrews 12:6 corrects them and corrects them?

Paul says...."they will die".

And then there's this 1 John 1:8. If you say you have no sin, you deceive yourself, and the truth is not in you.

 

[Behold]

And then there's this 1 John 1:8. If you say you have no sin, you deceive yourself, and the truth is not in you.

Many have not been taught that the Apostles were preachers......they were ministers of the Gospel.
What does that mean?
It means that sometimes, you read a verse, and the Apostle is talking to unsaved people, who have no concept of sin, and once they are informed that they need to be forgiven by the Apostle, they will say...>"we are not sinners, we have no sin".
And the Apostle will tell these unbelievers that "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves".

So, that is not the Apostle claiming to have sin..as any real Christian, can understand........ that is the Apostle ministering to sinners, as any Pastor will do it.

Let me give you an example.
So, if i am found preaching to a crowd, i know that in the crowd there are Hell bound sinners........so, i will say...."""Now we all need to be saved....we all need to be forgiven""""".......= yet im already saved and forgiven........and i just told them "WE".

See that?

That is 1jn 1:9

 

[Kokyu]

Let’s cut through the fog and stick to what the Bible actually says, because your arguments are not rooted in Sola Scriptura, they’re dressed-up philosophy. You’re twisting Scripture instead of reading it the way God actually meant it.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion...

I disagree, of course. And I think, if there is "fog," it's on your end, not mine.

By the way, there is no thinking of any kind that is not in some sense "philosophy." I wonder, then, about your remark about "dressed-up philosophy." Understanding Scripture requires philosophy and if you think otherwise, well, you understand neither Scripture nor philosophy.

You said Ephesians 2:3 doesn’t actually say our very nature is sinful apart from Christ. Yes, it absolutely does. It says, “we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” That word nature (Greek phusis) doesn’t mean “we had a few bad habits.” It means our condition from birth is one of rebellion.

Ephesians 2:1-3
2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

I don't see any statement here to the effect that people are born sinful. This guilty-of-sin-from-birth idea must be imported into this passage, for it cannot be drawn out of it. All that verse 3 indicates is that those who walk as the first two verses of the chapter describe come naturally under God's wrath. Apart from God, apart from the regulation of His Spirit, we migrate into sin and into bondage to the world, the flesh and the devil. In such bondage, separated from God's control (i.e. "dead"), we cannot avoid being objects of God's holy wrath. This is all I see indicated in the above passage. There is certainly nothing in it about being born guilty of having committed sin (which is, obviously, a silly idea).

Romans 5:12 backs this up: “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” You’re trying to separate sin from the sinner, like it floats out there disconnected from who we are. But Scripture says sin dwells in us (Romans 7:17–20), it doesn’t just visit now and then. That’s not Calvinism, that’s the Word of God and by the way I am not a Calvinist.

Romans 5:12-14
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

I'm not seeing the "born sinful" doctrine stated in this passage. All the passage says is that Adam sinned and thus death entered the world. This death spread to all men because, like Adam, all men sin, too. Where is the "born sinner" doctrine in this? Again, it seems you're imposing such a reading onto the passage.

I'm not at all disconnecting a person from their sin. Since Adam, all human beings are out from under God's direct regulation and as a result grow increasingly selfish which leads to sin. This inordinate self-interest is something into which humans migrate over time, hardening into it more and more; sinfulness is not a congenital condition. And so, there is no place in all of the Bible where you will read that a person is born guilty of having committed sin, or has inherited the guilt of someone else's sin.

Ezekiel 18:19-20
19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

You also butchered Psalm 51:5. David isn’t talking about his mom’s sin life, he’s confessing his own corruption from the womb. He says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Not “my mom was in sin,” but I was. That’s not poetic fluff. That’s divine revelation about the depravity of man.

This doesn't even begin to address what I pointed out from the verse, but just flatly contradicts and then denies it. Well, flat contradiction and denial don't constitute a good argument. These things are the stuff of playground arguments among children. You'll have to do a sight more than just say I'm mistaken about the verse. Show how what I pointed out it is in error.

Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

"I was brought forth IN iniquity" not "I was brought forth iniquitous." In other words, in the circumstance of iniquity David was born, NOT David himself was born iniquitous. This what the preposition "in" implies. Sin characterizes all of human existence, its "curse" resting upon the entire world. It's into this situation that David - and all of us - are born.

"In sin my mother conceived me." Where is there any indication that David was conceived as a sinful being, here? Nowhere. As in the first part of the verse, the statement is about the condition/circumstance/situation in which David's mother conceived him, not about David himself.

Then you tried to reduce Romans 7:18 into some weird Gnostic strawman.

No, I pointed out that investing the physical body with a moral quality (sinful) is a Gnostic idea, not a biblical one.

 

[Kokyu]

Paul’s not saying flesh is evil because it exists, he’s saying in his flesh dwells no good thing. That’s what it says.

Again, when Paul wrote "in me, that is, in my flesh dwells no good thing," he could not have meant that his actual bodily tissue carried evil in its DNA. If Paul fell unconscious, his body would do NOTHING. Without the soul called Paul, Paul's body would be an inert lump, incapable of doing anything moral or immoral. It's important to keep this in mind lest one take to thinking one's flesh is evil, as Gnostics believe.

You don’t need to invent a neutral human nature that just gets misdirected. That’s not in the Bible.

Yes, it is. We are not made to direct ourselves and when we do, we cannot maintain the proper proportion of our natural self-interest God intends He should regulate and so, we inevitably migrate into sin. Read the story of the Fall. Read the course of human history that followed ending in the Great Flood. Read the record of the OT detailing the awful mess the Israelites made, again and again, when they strayed from God's direction.

As for your comment on Christian conduct being the key to unbelief, you’re backpedaling. You said, “the biggest problem” for youth was the lack of supernatural evidence in their leaders. That’s putting the blame on us for their unbelief. But Scripture says the world loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19). They don’t come to the light because of their own evil deeds. The gospel is rejected not because we aren’t sparkly enough, but because people are dead in sin unless God opens their heart (Acts 16:14).

No, there's no backpedaling on my part. This is just your antagonistic distortion of my remarks. In my experience, youth growing up in the Church do often grow deeply cynical about the Christian faith as they see a profound and widespread lack of any real, direct, transformative experience of God in the life of those in spiritual leadership in the Church. This doesn't mean that John 3:19 isn't true, however. Why should it? The cynicism these youth take up and the natural resistance all human beings have to being exposed as sinful are not mutually-exclusive things.

Lastly, you keep accusing others of Calvinist distortion, but I’m not a Calvinist, and your obsession with that label is a deflection.

Whether or not you assign this label to yourself, your arguments have too much in common with Calvinist teachings for me to make your views distinct from the Calvinist systematic. If you don't like this, then take greater pains to distinguish your beliefs from that of Calvinism.

The issue isn’t whether it sounds Reformed, it’s whether it’s biblical.

Obviously. And Reformed doctrine (aka Calvinism) is, in a number of important respects, quite unbiblical. So, if you wax Reformed in the flavor of your posts, you can be sure I'll consider your thinking unbiblical, too.

And based on how you’ve misused multiple passages to downplay sin nature, redefine wrath, and sanitize Psalm 51, it’s safe to say you’re not handling Scripture with honesty or fear of God.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

You’re not just wrong, you’re teaching falsely. Whether that’s from pride, confusion, or rebellion, only God knows. But you’ve been corrected with Scripture. What you do now shows what kind of teacher you really are but you are sure looking like a false teacher.

This is all just ad hominem which is the last resort of one whose arguments have failed. In fact, all of your post is just one poorly grounded harangue against my post that doesn't actually rebut my assertions but merely contradicts, denies and offers "my view is obvious" dismissals. And so, your opinions here don't deserve to be given any weight at all. They conclude what amounts to a playground retort, not a well-reasoned argument for your own views, or a proper refutation of mine. Such a reply to my post hardly qualifies you as a good judge of what is and isn't a good teacher.

 

[bdavidc]

Again, when Paul wrote "in me, that is, in my flesh dwells no good thing," he could not have meant that his actual bodily tissue carried evil in its DNA. If Paul fell unconscious, his body would do NOTHING. Without the soul called Paul, Paul's body would be an inert lump, incapable of doing anything moral or immoral. It's important to keep this in mind lest one take to thinking one's flesh is evil, as Gnostics believe.



Yes, it is. We are not made to direct ourselves and when we do, we cannot maintain the proper proportion of our natural self-interest God intends He should regulate and so, we inevitably migrate into sin. Read the story of the Fall. Read the course of human history that followed ending in the Great Flood. Read the record of the OT detailing the awful mess the Israelites made, again and again, when they strayed from God's direction.



No, there's no backpedaling on my part. This is just your antagonistic distortion of my remarks. In my experience, youth growing up in the Church do often grow deeply cynical about the Christian faith as they see a profound and widespread lack of any real, direct, transformative experience of God in the life of those in spiritual leadership in the Church. This doesn't mean that John 3:19 isn't true, however. Why should it? The cynicism these youth take up and the natural resistance all human beings have to being exposed as sinful are not mutually-exclusive things.



Whether or not you assign this label to yourself, your arguments have too much in common with Calvinist teachings for me to make your views distinct from the Calvinist systematic. If you don't like this, then take greater pains to distinguish your beliefs from that of Calvinism.



Obviously. And Reformed doctrine (aka Calvinism) is, in a number of important respects, quite unbiblical. So, if you wax Reformed in the flavor of your posts, you can be sure I'll consider your thinking unbiblical, too.



Well, you're entitled to your opinion.



This is all just ad hominem which is the last resort of one whose arguments have failed. In fact, all of your post is just one poorly grounded harangue against my post that doesn't actually rebut my assertions but merely contradicts, denies and offers "my view is obvious" dismissals. And so, your opinions here don't deserve to be given any weight at all. They conclude what amounts to a playground retort, not a well-reasoned argument for your own views, or a proper refutation of mine. Such a reply to my post hardly qualifies you as a good judge of what is and isn't a good teacher.

Your entire reply rests on the same issue I originally called out: you refuse to let Scripture speak for itself. You keep trying to explain away plain verses by filtering them through your own logic and definitions instead of letting the Bible define its own terms. That is not sound handling of the Word, that is inserting your own philosophy under the label of “exegesis.”

Let’s deal with the real issue. Ephesians 2:3 says, “we were by nature children of wrath.” The Greek word for “nature” there is phusis, which means inherent condition, not behavior developed over time. Paul is saying the reason we were under wrath wasn’t just because we did bad things, but because of what we are apart from Christ—fallen, corrupted, spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). You keep trying to reframe it as circumstantial, but Paul is making a statement about identity, not just action. No one “migrates” into wrath slowly, we’re born into it because we’re born separated from God (Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12).

You quote Ezekiel 18:20 to try and deny inherited sin, but that verse is talking about individual responsibility for personal sins, not the sin nature inherited from Adam. Romans 5 is the clearest passage on that. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). That’s not talking about imitating Adam, it’s talking about the whole human race inheriting the consequence and corruption of Adam’s sin. That’s why infants die. They haven’t personally sinned, but they’re still subject to the curse of death because of inherited corruption. That’s not a “reading into” the text, it’s what the text says plainly.

As for Psalm 51:5, you try to reduce it to David commenting on his surroundings, but he says “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” That’s not about his mom’s sin or societal circumstances. David is confessing that his sin problem goes all the way back to conception. The Hebrew preposition “in” (בְּ) expresses condition, not just environment. He’s not talking about a sinful delivery room, he’s talking about himself being sinful from the very beginning. That’s not poetry, it’s repentance, and it agrees with the rest of Scripture about the fallen condition of man (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10–12).

Then you try to dismiss Romans 7:18 by accusing Paul of Gnosticism if he says his flesh is sinful. That is a false accusation. Paul is not saying physical tissue is moral. He is saying the fallen human nature, which Scripture often refers to as “flesh,” is corrupted and incapable of producing righteousness. “In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” If Paul meant what you claim, he would have said “nothing dwells in my flesh” or “flesh has no power.” But he said nothing good dwells in it. That’s a moral statement, not just a functional one. And it’s consistent with the rest of Scripture that says the flesh lusts against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17) and that those who are “in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8).


You claim I haven’t “refuted” your arguments, but what I’ve done is quote Scripture directly while you keep interpreting around it. You say we need philosophy to understand Scripture, no, we need the Holy Spirit and a submissive heart. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17), not “Thy philosophy is truth.”

I’ll end with this: you’ve twisted multiple clear Scriptures to fit a theology that softens the reality of man’s depravity. That is dangerous. Whether it is pride or confusion, only God knows. But what is clear is that you are teaching something Scripture does not teach, and you have been corrected with the Word. “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10). You’ve had more than that. I pray you’ll humble yourself to the Word, not argue your way around it.

 

[Scott Downey]

Jesus told the people they are evil
If there are non-righteous, do some here think people are then neutral?

Things Jesus stated
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew 12
30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 7

6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Keep Asking, Seeking, Knocking​

7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

The Narrow Way​

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14 [c]Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.