Calvinism

[ScottAU]

The heresies of Pelagianism are rife today.
The following beliefs are commonly believed.

Infants do not need to be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.

Often an individual like Pelagius will advance a novel and controversial teaching and get a following and then his followers run off and add to it a great many more novel teachings that the founder never anticipated. This is why the church usually came up with a list of heresies that they oppose. Then when they confront the heresiarch he folds under the scrutiny of the council and recants or denies that he ever taught any of those things. However the cat is by then well out of the bag and the teachings and the movement continue to spread throughout the christian world.

So whether or not the heresiarch originally taught those things is almost irrelevant. I think it is far more constructive to oppose the Pelagianism as it flourishes today than to waste time trying to figure out whether Pelagius himself directly taught it.

Infants do not need to be baptised to be cleansed from original sin because there is no such thing as original sin (as it pertains to some corruption of nature passed down from Adam). All baptism does in such a case is make the infant wet.

Baptism is an outward observance which illustrates an inward change, the change is the circumcision of Christ whereby we put off the old man in order to put on the new. The ritual of Baptism is a way in which a new believer can exercise their new found faith immediately as well as testimonial to others. Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but rather a response in good conscience towards God.

Not that anybody read my post but I meant to say.
The heresies of Pelagianism are rife today.
The following heresies are commonly believed. That:

1. Infants do not need to be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
2. Children dying without baptism are NOT excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.

What an abominable doctrine to disbelieve those two points.

A denial of those things is truly to malign the character of God. To honestly believe that an infant is damned simply because they didn't get sprinkled in some ritual.

Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

 

[excubitor]

Infants do not need to be baptised to be cleansed from original sin because there is no such thing as original sin (as it pertains to some corruption of nature passed down from Adam). All baptism does in such a case is make the infant wet.

Baptism is an outward observance which illustrates an inward change, the change is the circumcision of Christ whereby we put off the old man in order to put on the new. The ritual of Baptism is a way in which a new believer can exercise their new found faith immediately as well as testimonial to others. Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but rather a response in good conscience towards God.



What an abominable doctrine to disbelieve those two points.

A denial of those things is truly to malign the character of God. To honestly believe that an infant is damned simply because they didn't get sprinkled in some ritual.

Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Like I said, the heresies of Pelagianism are alive and well in these last days

 

[dragonfly]

Hi excubitor,

I did read your post, and if I'm reading your meaning correctly, you are stating:

1. Baptism cleanses infants from original sin,

and therefore,

2. Children dying without baptism are excluded from the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.


Did I read you correctly?

If so, where do you find these ideas in scripture, please?




Hi Wormwood,

I'm aware I owe you a response, although the pages are flicking over quickly, and I hope to write more later.




Hi ScottAU,

I am still considering your thesis on man being born without sin, and am making some headway in understanding how to share my refined understanding, since I certainly don't (and never have) believed in 'original guilt', and your discussion on free will and choice, has been helpful.

What I am seeing so far, is that you (and possibly Mike DeSario), have hammered out a doctrine on the anvil of false doctrine, rather than on the anvil of the word of God alone, which others, who would not line up with Augustine wholly, have managed, without losing any scriptural truth.

I watched the youtube video 'Augustine and Original Sin', and I can see what the presenter explain is wrong with how Augustine arrived at his conclusions, but I have read nothing by Augustine, so am taking the presenter's word for it. I agree that the body and the natural appetites which enable it to survive, are not intrinsically sinful. But, there is no doubt that even these are fragile with respect to sin, apart from the grace of God.

Quote


Augustine was the real heretic for his doctrine necessitated the death of the repentance message. Instead of repentance bearing the fruit of the cessation of rebellion to God, it became an admission of sinfulness and inability.

I think the problem you are illuminating about the 'inability' issue, is worthwhile, but God can give repentance to those labouring under it, nevertheless.

On true and full repentance, and heart purity, and your insistence that the Christian should be able to walk in the light being cleansed from sin continuously, I agree with the apostle, also. The New Testament definitely supports not sinning as a lifestyle.

But in addition, the point ChristRoseFromTheDead makes about identifying with the death of Christ, is also valid in respect of transacting with God for the purpose of living free from sin - if that identification is whole-heartedly embraced, as true repentance must also be embraced.

I have noticed that the way the gospel is preached in some quarters, the emphasis is all on knowing that one's sins have been forgiven. And I can see that the message of taking up one's cross daily, can effectively take the place of Romans 6:3, 4, 5, 6 in the understanding of some people, although for me personally, I love the Romans 6 and 8 declarations, and find them a great help in walking in newness of life. That said, 'taking up one's cross daily' and what it feels like, is best expressed by Paul in 2 Corinthians 4 - 7:1. Both of these aspects of understanding the application of Christ's death to one's individual life, rest upon the truth of Hebrews 10:14. (Preceded by the import of Hebrews 9:15 and touching on Romans 2:14, 15)

In reality, repentance is a movable feast, because not everyone receives conviction for their sins at the same point in their journey towards God, even if they are constantly accused by their hearts' inner knowledge of distance from God, and unexplained, unexpiated guilt.



Through this discussion, I'm chewing on the possibility that you are adding a doctrinal interpretation to true repentance because of your experience of repentance, and your rejection of Augustinian 'original sin', and that the reality from God's point of view, is slightly different in places, because of what happened in the garden of Eden, which did definitely change Adam and Eve permanently, such that their offspring were affected in the same way. The questions I am wrestlng are how to define that change, and what scripture is there to define it more accurately?

The other difference we might discuss, which has not really played a part in this discussion, (but I saw 101G asserting that man is not born in sin in the current 'bloodline' thread), is that God created Adam and Eve mortal. Where is that affirmed in scripture?

Do you see that that could be an assumption rather than a fact, and that it might alter your interpretation of some verses if it's untrue?



I hope you can receive the foregoing thoughts with equanimity, and we will continue to seek a clearer understanding of God's word, together.


PS The Greek in Colossians 2:11 supports 'were circumcised' rather than present continuous circumcision. Amen.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I agree that the body and the natural appetites which enable it to survive, are not intrinsically sinful. But, there is no doubt that even these are fragile with respect to sin, apart from the grace of God.

Let's stop focusing on intrinsic sinfulness of the body. That reeks of gnosticism. The whole being is intrinsically sinful due to it being separated from GOD. That happened in the garden, remember? Since sin by definition is not doing GOD's will, man who is separated from GOD cannot know GOD's will, and is therefore incapable of doing it. He is by definition then a sinful being.

 

[Rex]

Let's stop focusing on intrinsic sinfulness of the body. That reeks of gnosticism.

Yep....... Eph 2:3-5
Romans 5:13-14

 

[dragonfly]

Let's stop focusing on intrinsic sinfulness of the body. That reeks of gnosticism. The whole being is intrinsically sinful due to it being separated from GOD. That happened in the garden, remember? Since sin by definition is not doing GOD's will, man who is separated from GOD cannot know GOD's will, and is therefore incapable of doing it. He is by definition then a sinful being.

With respect, I did not say the body is intrinsically sinful.

One of the points Scott is making, is that 'the body', separate from the spirit, is deemed 'intrinsically sinful' by much doctrine, and he is asking us to consider whether that is really what the Bible teaches, because of its emphasis on the power of man to make choices - by 'free will'.

Please look at my questions to Scott, and share how you would answer them from your biblical perspective? Many thanks.

1. Infants do not need to be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
2. Children dying without baptism are NOT excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.

What an abominable doctrine to disbelieve those two points.

Hi Scott,

Too many negatives there, for me! Um..... Which is doctrine, and which is heresy? What should one believe or disbelieve? Thanks!


Hi Rex,

It is great to see you back online. You must have had a long week working, so I don't know if you've been able to follow the detail of the discussion. Your comment seems to suggest that you agree with Scott that believing into Christ's victory at the cross enables a Christian to live overcoming sin. Yes?

 

[Rex]

Infants do not need to be baptised to be cleansed from original sin because there is no such thing as original sin (as it pertains to some corruption of nature passed down from Adam). All baptism does in such a case is make the infant wet.

Well ScottAu is simply full of it, the consequence of sin was death and death was inherited by all of Adams descendents

It is great to see you back online. You must have had a long week working, so I don't know if you've been able to follow the detail of the discussion. Your comment seems to suggest that you agree with Scott that believing into Christ's victory at the cross enables a Christian to live overcoming sin. Yes?

There is only one way we will be completely free from sin or the effects of our fallen condition inherited from Adam and that is to put on the new body.
Good luck trying to convince yourselves you are destine or capable of living a perfect life by the regeneration of the inter-man.


Your still tied to a dead man or body that must die, it will never be compliant or compatible to complete holiness.
Your flesh will be in rebellion until it dies

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Rex,

Romans 6:4 and Romans 8:11, 13 seem to indicate that Paul was more hopeful than you are, about our life in this body. Do you disagree with him?

 

[ScottAU]

Thanks for your thoughtful response dragonfly.

Hi ScottAU,

I am still considering your thesis on man being born without sin, and am making some headway in understanding how to share my refined understanding, since I certainly don't (and never have) believed in 'original guilt', and your discussion on free will and choice, has been helpful. Sin is a "choice" and not a "substance" thus one simply cannot be born "with sin." It is not a "thing" but an "act." Paul does "personify" it to make an illustration but the context is in regards to the "actions/choices" of the man who lives according to the base desires. The human body at the base level seeks gratification, when an individual with reasoning capacity yields to those base desires in discordance with not loving their neighbour it is sin.

A young child cannot sin, even though they may be living in accordance with their base desires, because there has not developed the sufficient reasoning capacity to knowingly suppress the light of truth. This is why "sin takes occasion by the commandment" (Rom 7:8).

We are not "born corrupted" which is the central tenet of the "Original Sin" or "Born in Sin" doctrine.

Look at these scriptures...

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Deu 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

Adam did not corrupt his descendents. Adam brought sin into the world and it was through Adam's sin that God initiated the curse. Yet that curse did not include a corruption of nature. Human beings corrupt their own nature when they CHOOSE to sin and over time a pattern is internalised whereby one is found to be "by nature" a child of disobedience. It is for this reason that God is perfectly just in holding people accountable for their sin because they CHOSE to sin freely. They may not have understood the consequences of their actions but the nevertheless, ignorant of the consequences is not an excuse. Cain may not have realised the consequences of murdering his brother but that did not absolve him from the crime.

What I am seeing so far, is that you (and possibly Mike DeSario), have hammered out a doctrine on the anvil of false doctrine, rather than on the anvil of the word of God alone, which others, who would not line up with Augustine wholly, have managed, without losing any scriptural truth. Which doctrine to you perceive has been hammered out? That the rebellion to God must cease in repentance? I am not quite sure what you mean here.

I watched the youtube video 'Augustine and Original Sin', and I can see what the presenter explain is wrong with how Augustine arrived at his conclusions, but I have read nothing by Augustine, so am taking the presenter's word for it. I agree that the body and the natural appetites which enable it to survive, are not intrinsically sinful. But, there is no doubt that even these are fragile with respect to sin, apart from the grace of God. I completely agree. The flesh is weak which is why we need to be spiritually connected to God. Without the grace of God in the picture we would be no better than any other animals. Yet due to the fact that the grace of God has been made manifest to all it leaves us with no excuse knowingly act in an unrighteous manner.

I think the problem you are illuminating about the 'inability' issue, is worthwhile, but God can give repentance to those labouring under it, nevertheless. No person is labouring "under inability." There are people labouring under a perceived notion of inability but they are deceived. There are also those who God has given over to a reprobate mind, yet I wouldn't think they labour at all due to being completely in darkness.

On true and full repentance, and heart purity, and your insistence that the Christian should be able to walk in the light being cleansed from sin continuously, I agree with the apostle, also. The New Testament definitely supports not sinning as a lifestyle. I don't view 1Joh 1:7 as referring to a "continual cleansing" at all because the cleansing I see illustrated in Heb 9:14 and Heb 10:22 is the cleansing we receive when we approach God through repentance and faith. When our consciences are purged of our previous rebellion it is not something that is meant to be repeated (hence 2Cor 7:10 where it says repentance is not something to be repented of, ie. go back). Thus whilst walking in the light the Holy Spirit may make us aware of something we need to correct, the correction is not in the context of the rebellion which previously defiled us which was purged by the blood.

We have an "advocate" IF we sin (1Joh 2:1) but not a sacrifice we can keep going back to for a continual purging of ongoing rebellion. That would be treating the grace of God with contempt and treating the blood of Christ like the blood of animals which cannot purge sin once and for all.

Over and over in the New Testament we have Paul admonishing believers to be clean before God and to make sure they have forsaken all known wickedness. He does not preach with an attitude that Christian's will "slip up and sin occasionally."

But in addition, the point ChristRoseFromTheDead makes about identifying with the death of Christ, is also valid in respect of transacting with God for the purpose of living free from sin - if that identification is whole-heartedly embraced, as true repentance must also be embraced. ChristRoseFromTheDead CLEARLY views being "identified with Christ" as being PURELY in an ABSTRACT SENSE. This is why he views Romans 7:14-25 and 1Joh 1:8 is indicative of ongoing sinfulness in a Christian. Being "identified with Christ" IS NOT an abstraction, it is a PRESENT ACTIVE STATE of walking in the light as He is in the light. There is NO REBELLION in such a state, a single act of rebellion will put one out of that state and defile the conscience once again.

It took ONE SIN for Adam and Eve to bring condemnation upon their heads and it is no different today. The wages of sin really is death. The whole plan of salvation is a method by which sinners can be reconciled to God, having their former rebellion washed completely away, and thus given a fresh start. Not a fresh start in order that one can go and disobey God again, no way! It is a false understanding to perceive the life of a Christian as walking in and out of the light again and again. I am not saying you teach that dragonfly but in the context of how you are identifying with ChristRoseFromTheDead's view of "identifying with Christ."

We don't "identify with Christ" so much as we ABIDE IN HIM. We identify with His sufferings, we identify with His walk, we identify with the cross in that we have died WITH HIM and been raised up WITH HIM. There is absolutely nothing "positional" about it although we do count ourselves dead indeed to sin by faith, thus we are completely persuaded in the mind and thus walk in accordance to that mindset, which is the faith of Abraham.

I have noticed that the way the gospel is preached in some quarters, the emphasis is all on knowing that one's sins have been forgiven. And I can see that the message of taking up one's cross daily, can effectively take the place of Romans 6:3, 4, 5, 6 in the understanding of some people, although for me personally, I love the Romans 6 and 8 declarations, and find them a great help in walking in newness of life. That said, 'taking up one's cross daily' and what it feels like, is best expressed by Paul in 2 Corinthians 4 - 7:1. Both of these aspects of understanding the application of Christ's death to one's individual life, rest upon the truth of Hebrews 10:14. (Preceded by the import of Hebrews 9:15 and touching on Romans 2:14, 15)

In reality, repentance is a movable feast, because not everyone receives conviction for their sins at the same point in their journey towards God, even if they are constantly accused by their hearts' inner knowledge of distance from God, and unexplained, unexpiated guilt. There is a distinct difference between INITIAL REPENTANCE (Rom 6:4-7, 2Cor 7:10-11) and later correction (Heb 12:6, Eph 4:12). Inititial repentance is meant to be the one off occurrence that deals with the guile within the heart once and for all. After that is the time of growth as the babe in Christ adds to their faith and puts on the mind of Christ. There is no such thing as forgiveness IN rebellion. The rebellion must cease once and for all.


Through this discussion, I'm chewing on the possibility that you are adding a doctrinal interpretation to true repentance because of your experience of repentance, and your rejection of Augustinian 'original sin', and that the reality from God's point of view, is slightly different in places, because of what happened in the garden of Eden, which did definitely change Adam and Eve permanently, such that their offspring were affected in the same way. The questions I am wrestlng are how to define that change, and what scripture is there to define it more accurately?

The other difference we might discuss, which has not really played a part in this discussion, (but I saw 101G asserting that man is not born in sin in the current 'bloodline' thread), is that God created Adam and Eve mortal. Where is that affirmed in scripture? It is clearly inferred by this reference...

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Nowhere in the Scripture (as far as I am aware) does it teach that "flesh is immortal." The very nature of having to eat clearly demonstrates that the flesh needs sustenance. Adam was told that he could eat of any tree in the garden except for one.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

If Adam had of refused to eat would he have starved to death? Or was eating simply unnecessary because he was created immortal?

I think by using our reason and the inference of Gen 3:22 it is clearly evident that Adam was created mortal. Yet had he not disobeyed God he would not have been cursed with physical death due to being denied access to the Tree of Life.


Do you see that that could be an assumption rather than a fact, and that it might alter your interpretation of some verses if it's untrue? I understand your point but I think to imply that Adam was created immortal and thus the death "the day of" due to sin is in the context of "physical death" is very unreasonable. I clearly see how a misunderstanding of this fed the idea that human beings are "born sinful" due to "physical death" being connected to being "born condemned." Romans chapter 5 cannot be studied in isolation of what Paul teaches in other places, especially in Romans 7 as it relates to sin being able to kill through the law.


I hope you can receive the foregoing thoughts with equanimity, and we will continue to seek a clearer understanding of God's word, together. I really do appreciate everything you say and I yearn to be challenged. Our opinions are not sacred, only the truth is sacred, and we have to be very diligent to make sure we are aligned with the truth.

I do not want to be deceived.


PS The Greek in Colossians 2:11 supports 'were circumcised' rather than present continuous circumcision. Amen.

 

[Rex]

Hi Rex,

Romans 6:4 and Romans 8:11, 13 seem to indicate that Paul was more hopeful than you are, about our life in this body. Do you disagree with him?

The new internal man born of the Spirit is immortal the flesh is not, does that make it clear. Nor will this flesh be made immortal

Romans 7:22-24


So the complete understanding of what Paul is teaching is this our inter new man puts on immortality but it still dwells within a vessel of flesh that will not be in compliance with the internal new man until we are "changed in the twinkling of an eye" or the dead are raised up into a new immortal body.

That is why we are told to endure to the end to finish the race our war with-in our selves will never end until we are taken from our fleshly tent and given or raised up in a new tent. Jesus himself was in the likeness of mortal flesh and raised up in immortality. The difference was he drove a perfect race in this flesh condemned to death, he defeated death by not yielding to the temptations of the flesh. But even in that he had to give up the mortal flesh and put on immortality.


Gen 2:17 Is mankind's inheritance from Adam and Eve "death" and death will be the last to be overcome 1 Cor 15:54-55

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

With respect, I did not say the body is intrinsically sinful.

One of the points Scott is making, is that 'the body', separate from the spirit, is deemed 'intrinsically sinful' by much doctrine, and he is asking us to consider whether that is really what the Bible teaches, because of its emphasis on the power of man to make choices - by 'free will'.

Please look at my questions to Scott, and share how you would answer them from your biblical perspective? Many thanks.

I know you didn't. You doubt that it is. My point is you cannot separate the body from the mind, so talking about the sinfulness of the body (alone) is a waste of time and just facilitates this unending discussion. The bible clearly teaches that man's Adamic nature is separated from GOD. There can't be any question about that. If separated, then how is man able to know GOD's will, much less do it? He isn't. He is by nature an inherently sinful being. To argue otherwise is just indulging in philosophical speculations.

Don't try to drag me into discussions with Scott. I consider the man to be a reprobate, an enemy of the cross, and an enemy of the faith.

 

[Butch5]

So you're a dispensationalist. I can see why your eyes only see blurry. Ask the Lord and he may grant to you eyes fully open. So that you may escape from this heresy.


... instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2 Tim 2:25

I'm not a dispensationalist. I'm a Christian who reads the Scriptures in context. My eyes are not blurry as I said, I read the Scriptures in context. Just because
God said something to Moses doesn't mean it applies to all Christians.

I'm not a dispensationalist. I'm a Christian who reads the Scriptures in context. My eyes are not blurry as I said, I read the Scriptures in context. Just because God said something to Joshua doesn't mean it applies to all Christians.

 

[Rex]

To add to this topic and see where the misunderstanding of the nature of man born from Adam leads, is in the thread entitled " Do Demons dwell within Christians"
This belief has no scripture referance and it usually includes within those that teach "yes demons dwell within christians" a belief that christians can overcome the inheratnt nature were born into. This would include being prefect or being made perfect in the flesh by the regeneration of the inter man.

In reality it's the flesh that wars against the Spirit that will never change, you can keep it in check, but it will never give up being contrary to the Spirit, this is the demon that many would believe you must be delivered from. Some deny that an inherant nature exsist, some others believe it can be overcome, still others lable it a demon dwelling within a Spirit filled christian, the reality is your stuck with it until the seed dies "your body". just as our bodies are a seed that when germinated with the HS must die to give birth to a new life in eternaty. The seed that is never germinated with the HS will never break out of the shell or body to put on a new.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Scott,

Thank you for your detailed replies to my comments. I am not able to reply as fully, as I have a very early start tomorrow, but so... please let me leave you with these three verses to add to 1 John 1:7, to explain the continuous access to the cleansing effect of the blood of the Lamb which is part of the gift of God to every earnest believer. Hebrews 13:20, Revelation 5:6 and Revelation 7:14.

The very nature of having to eat clearly demonstrates that the flesh needs sustenance.

Please think about this event, and consider that it is possible that Adam and Eve's bodies were like the immortal body which we shall receive when we are raised (or changed at Christ's return).

Luke 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.


Here is another thought for if Adam and Eve were immortal: that the tree of life was their natural food, and once they had eaten of that forbidden tree, they were, by being expelled, barred from all the trees in the garden, not just the tree of life. But we also know there were trees outside the garden.




Hi Rex,

The new internal man born of the Spirit is immortal the flesh is not, does that make it clear. Nor will this flesh be made immortal

Yes, thanks. I see what you're saying. But I put it to you that the flesh was/is always a servant to the inner man, or we would not be able to 'do the will of the Father' at all, even after we've been born again, circumcised in heart, baptised in the Spirit and having our mind renewed. ACTually, we can obey God after we are saved, whereas before we were saved we could not obey Him 'to save ourselves', no matter how keen we were to please Him.

That is why Paul says we can 'mortify' the deeds of the body (soma) and in Romans 8:11, that by the Spirit dwelling in us, our mortal body (soma) will be made alive/quickened/revitalised. I would like you to think about that.

So the complete understanding of what Paul is teaching is this our inter new man puts on immortality but it still dwells within a vessel of flesh that will not be in compliance with the internal new man until we are "changed in the twinkling of an eye" or the dead are raised up into a new immortal body.

Sarx, translated from Greek into English as 'flesh' in the NT, is really indicating a heart-state/mentality which permits, or encourages the gratification of physical desires in a way unrestrained by God's precepts, commandments and laws, such as Paul mentions at the end of Romans 1.

Clearly, Paul is teaching that having been born from above, we now have power over our bodies, and can choose to neglect-to-death sarxy desires. He actually says we can put them to death with the Spirit's help, and the Spirit dwelling in us will revitalise our body while we are still living in it.

Part of my testimony is that God has adjusted my DNA in its effects on my 'body', which (over a long period of time) has considerably altered how my 'body' feels and 'thinks'. Undoubtedly, I have also been delivered from demons, which is one of the reasons I am qualified to disagree with your interpretation of what has been shared in the thread mentioned in your last post. There is a world of difference between what happened at the Fall, and having a permanently present entity complete with its own mentality, occupying a part of one's physical BODY. But from what you've said, you don't believe the Holy Spirit has any effect on the body at all, in which case, there is no conflict between having a born again spirit and a tormented body-part.

But so, how does prayer for healing work, if the body cannot be affected by the Spirit? Brother, I think you've over-simplified something...

Hi ChristRoseFromTheDead,

I know you didn't. You doubt that it is. My point is you cannot separate the body from the mind, so talking about the sinfulness of the body (alone) is a waste of time and just facilitates this unending discussion. The bible clearly teaches that man's Adamic nature is separated from GOD. There can't be any question about that. If separated, then how is man able to know GOD's will, much less do it? He isn't. He is by nature an inherently sinful being. To argue otherwise is just indulging in philosophical speculations.

Don't try to drag me into discussions with Scott. I consider the man to be a reprobate, an enemy of the cross, and an enemy of the faith.

Far be it from me to alter your theology! Still, you could join in the discussion about what the Bible actually says, without losing your personal perspective. Let me affirm that I agree that something happened to all of Adam's descendants, which is related to his sin in the garden. So far, no-one has been able to define 'the sin' in terms which refute Scott's carefully thought-through, current thinking. If we are so right, why can none of us show from scripture the precise details of what is wrong with Scott's doctrine. There is no need for us to slam one another, or him, when we are all on the same quest for truth. As I asked Arnie in the thread on dispensationalism, would you be willing to die for what you teach? I ask it of myself, too.

Again, I was not talking about the sinfulness of the body, which Paul repeatedly exhorts is not a permanent state of being after salvation. If Paul had believed the body was always sinful, there would be no way any of us could cease from sin. Clearly, that is not what he, nor Peter, nor John, taught.

You said,

then how is man able to know GOD's will, much less do it? He isn't.

So are you at variance with what Jesus taught in Matthew 7:21? If you aren't, then shouldn't you alter your theology to match His?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That is why Paul says we can 'mortify' the deeds of the body (soma) and in Romans 8:11, that by the Spirit dwelling in us, our mortal body (soma) will be made alive/quickened/revitalised. I would like you to think about that

He's talking about the resurrection, DF.

So far, no-one has been able to define 'the sin' in terms which refute Scott's carefully thought-through, current thinking. If we are so right, why can none of us show from scripture the precise details of what is wrong with Scott's doctrine. There is no need for us to slam one another, or him, when we are all on the same quest for truth.

Scott's arguments are not carefully thought-through. They are riddled with fallacies. They are only carefully thought-through in the sense that they are extraordinarily deceitful. If you are of a mind to spend your time trying to reason with someone who IMO is a deceiver, that's your business. I told you what I think he is, so I consider it a waste of time.

Again, I was not talking about the sinfulness of the body, which Paul repeatedly exhorts is not a permanent state of being after salvation. If Paul had believed the body was always sinful, there would be no way any of us could cease from sin. Clearly, that is not what he, nor Peter, nor John, taught.

You making that statement tells me that you really don't know what the faith of Christ is. The body is always sinful; that's why it must be mortified and put to death. It is still as sinful as it ever was, but it is not allowed to sin through the rule of the mind of Christ.

Are you suggesting the faith of Christ improves the flesh?

So are you at variance with what Jesus taught in Matthew 7:21? If you aren't, then shouldn't you alter your theology to match His?

Of course I don't disagree with that verse. Please don't be obtuse with me.

Without the knowledge of Christ no man is able to know what GOD's will is, and therefore unable to do his will, and therefore a sinner by nature. And that is every man's state before the new birth comes to him.

 

[Rex]

Hi Rex,

That is why Paul says we can 'mortify' the deeds of the body (soma) and in Romans 8:11, that by the Spirit dwelling in us, our mortal body (soma) will be made alive/quickened/revitalised. I would like you to think about that.

Well If you would have read the next verse you would have seen this, Paul is still talking bout the effect of the flesh.

Romans 8:12
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

Clearly, Paul is teaching that having been born from above, we now have power over our bodies, and can choose to neglect-to-death sarxy desires. He actually says we can put them to death with the Spirit's help, and the Spirit dwelling in us will revitalise our body while we are still living in it.

No hes not, not in the complete victory your referring to, even If God changed your DNA are you still a sinner?
Or are you going to now say you have complete victory over every part of your mind and body?

If so I have some news for you. But no man can tame the tongue.

James 3
3 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. 2 For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body. 3 Indeed,[a] we put bits in horses’ mouths that they may obey us, and we turn their whole body. 4 Look
also at ships: although they are so large and are driven by fierce
winds, they are turned by a very small rudder wherever the pilot
desires. 5 Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things.
See how great a forest a little fire kindles! 6 And the tongue is
a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members
that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature;
and it is set on fire by hell. 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by mankind. 8 But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God.

Or Phil 3:12 NKJV
Perhaps you have surpassed Paul

Phil 3:4-11

 

[Wormwood]

Yes it is true that Pelagius was deemed a heretic due to asserting that man had free agency and thus had the capacity to choose between good and evil. According to this view men are completely responsible for their own sin due to it being rooted in the free exercise of the will. I totally agree with this view.

Augustine viewed this assertion of free will as pure heresy because it contradicted his view of Original Sin which taught that man sinned by necessity due to being born with a corrupted nature.

Augustine thus won the day and thus took the honour of being the man who introduced the most insidious piece of leaven into church orthodoxy upon which an entire system of error has been constructed.

Augustine was the real heretic for his doctrine necessitated the death of the repentance message. Instead of repentance bearing the fruit of the cessation of rebellion to God, it became an admission of sinfulness and inability.

Pelagius never taught that Christ is not necessary to overcome sin. Pelagius taught that Jesus Christ does not have to offset some inability of man to not sin. We all need Jesus Christ because He is the light of the world, without Christ we would be stumbling around in the dark not knowing which way to go. Also due to having defiled our consciences due to sinning we need to be cleansed by the blood otherwise we would simply not be able to stand before God.

People condemn Pelagius without seriously having studied what he taught and they also study it from within the framework of Augustinian theology. If one holds to the inability doctrine of Augustine then of course Pelagius is going to be an arch heretic because he was opposed to such a notion.

The depravity of mankind does not impune them from responsibility for sin. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism teaches this. Also, his doctrine did not bring the death of the "repentance" method. Some of the greatest evangelists and revivals were spurred by Calvinists and Arminians. Christ is more than a moral example.

I think your views are not only highly historically and theologically inaccurate (you keep trying to make claims about the fruits of Calvinism and Arminianism that can easily be verified historically and theologically as completely misrepresentative) but also are highly reductive of of the cross by making Jesus little more than an example to follow. Furthermore, you keep speaking about Pelagius like we have a wealth of knowledge of what he taught. We really have very little of what he actually taught. Most of his teaching we have quoted from his opponents and a few things proposed by his followers. We do not have a wealth of knowledge on him. Although if you want to argue that he believed Jesus was merely a moral example for us to follow...then I would agree that this view is heretical and thus is rightly unChristian and should be denouced and rejected as false teaching.

 

[ScottAU]

The depravity of mankind does not impune them from responsibility for sin. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism teaches this. Also, his doctrine did not bring the death of the "repentance" method. Some of the greatest evangelists and revivals were spurred by Calvinists and Arminians. Christ is more than a moral example.

I think your views are not only highly historically and theologically inaccurate (you keep trying to make claims about the fruits of Calvinism and Arminianism that can easily be verified historically and theologically as completely misrepresentative) but also are highly reductive of of the cross by making Jesus little more than an example to follow. Furthermore, you keep speaking about Pelagius like we have a wealth of knowledge of what he taught. We really have very little of what he actually taught. Most of his teaching we have quoted from his opponents and a few things proposed by his followers. We do not have a wealth of knowledge on him. Although if you want to argue that he believed Jesus was merely a moral example for us to follow...then I would agree that this view is heretical and thus is rightly unChristian and should be denouced and rejected as false teaching.

It seems you have either not carefully read what I have so far written or you have ignored it.

I have never indicated that Jesus is "only" a moral example to follow. What I have indicated that not only did Jesus die on our behalf that we may be cleansed by the blood but that we are ALSO to die with Him. So the cross is more than an abstract provision we simply trust in, we actually partake in it as well.

It amazes me that when one contends that absolute obedience from the heart is of absolute necessity in Christianity that one is often accused of being reductive of the cross. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have not misrepresented Calvinism nor Arminianism. Both theological systems clearly teach that one is redeemed whilst still in a state of rebellion.

Reformed Theology clearly teaches that the defilement due to the sin of Adam remains in those who are regenerated and this corruption is recognised an properly sin.

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

Wesminster Confession, Article 6

I did not write the Westminster Confession, those who uphold Reformed Theology did and Reformed Theologians accept its statements to this very day. Reformed Theology CLEARLY confuses "being tempted" with a "corruption of nature."

Reformed Theology teaches that Jesus Christ did not have this "corruption of nature" either due to Him not having a human Father (Traducianism/Seminal Idenity/Natural Head Theory) or that the "corruption of nature" was not imputed to Him at birth (Federal Head/Covenantal Theory). Pastors like John MacArthur are Traducianist's while teachers like R.C. Sproul hold to Federal Headship.

Whether one subscribes to the Natural Head or the Federal Head view is really irrelevant for both teach...

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]

Thus they teach that an individual can be actively engaged in immorality and still maintain a state of salvation. It's what they teach, I am not twisting or misrepresenting anything.

They have totally twisted salvation into being a "forensic" or "positional" state APART from MANIFEST CONDUCT. This theology is clearly a direct contradiction of the Bible.

I have posted many passages already which refute this notion of an abstract/positional salvation and not a single person has been able to refute what I have posted. They reason they have not been able to is because they cannot. The deeds we do in the flesh are a reflection of our spiritual state. If we are engaged in willful immorality (ie. we know it is wrong yet still do it) then we are most certainly not in a saved and justified state. THIS IS THE KEY ISSUE.

Satan wants people to believe they can be justified IN rebellion. Reformed Theology teaches Satan's lie plain as day.

Arminian Theology on the other hand does not completely throw holiness out the window but unfortunately they still teach that a Christian remains in a double-minded state until "entire sanctification." Sure some preachers will SOUND like they are preaching against being double-minded but it's really double talk because they uphold that the "stain of original sin remains" after Regeneration.

The whole thing is very deceptive.




Modern theology has pretty much neutered the concept of the "old man being crucified" in the context of the "flesh being crucified WITH THE PASSIONS AND DESIRES."

Thus many people are being converted in a religion where they think they get justified whilst their old man is still alive and well. It is after conversion that they believe God is going to change them and that over time they will act carnally less and less. Thus there exists the double-minded state of the perceived service of two masters. These people are not actually serving two masters for the "Jesus" they believe in is a Jesus of their imagination. Thus they are in fact serving Satan and do not even know it.

To consider such a thing is highly disturbing and many will write such a contention off as nonsense. Yet I urge people to actually consider it.

The Bible does warn that massive deception would come.

Ancient Israel was apostate and did not even know it. God sent prophets to warn them yet they despised the message.

It was very similar in Jesus' day, the religious system was opposed to Jesus Christ and His message. They thought they had it all worked out and were content in their religious observances. It was all window dressing which was glossing over the defilement within.

Why would it be surprising if things were similar today?

Jesus did warn that MANY would cry out "Lord, Lord" and would be rejected as "workers of iniquity." Does the modern theology leave people "working iniquity"? Clearly it does. The whole premise of being "saved" is purely "forensic."

Workers of iniquity are professing they are saved. If their contention is challenged by someone that someone is deemed a heretic who denied the work of the cross.

Truth is stranger than fiction I tell you. The stakes in all this are very high.

Souls!

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Good words Axehead.

I find the best antidote to the false theological systems of men is to simply stop reading the doctrines of men and read the Bible plainly for what it says. Read the Epistles of Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude as letters as they were meant to be written.

The theologians construct their systematic theologies via isolating and proof texting verses whilst completely ignoring the actual context. This is why it is so easy to refute their contentions because all one has to do is provide the context to demonstrate their error.

Romans 9 is in the context of the nation of Israel having been presdestined and not that of individual salvation.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. We all begin with presuppositions and we need to align our thoughts and prejudices to the word of God. I believe that covenant understanding of scripture is more accurate than dispensationalism.

 

[Hepzibah]

Hi Scott

I`m just about 100% with you and am so pleased to hear you preach the truth in such a clear precise way.

We will indeed walk in perfection and know and be known fully after death, but that death must take place in this life, as we consent to crucifixion with Christ and be raised with Him in the here and now. Those who think they must wait until the end of their lives will never attain it and the scriptures do not promise it as death is not our saviour, it is the enemy. Christ saves in this life, that is saving from sin so that the Holy Spirit can dwell within, in a cleansed temple not made with hands.

The church has been led by Satan to think that we are saved from sin at the same time as committing it despite good intentions. Any man can avoid a sin with good intentions even the worst criminal. We cannot turn from all sin however without the power of God, who does not fall short in this power. His power is fully operational but only in those who are willing. If they are not delivered from all sin, including the sinful thoughts of the mind, they have not been willing to turn. They want it all - to hang on to their lives and place themselves mentally in the gates of heaven but scripture is clear - they will be refused entry at death and it will be too late. They were warned about the truth but they scoffed and derided the messenger. By that attitude of derision, they showed themselves for what they are - walking in darkness.

One question for you,why did Paul say that he delighted in the law of God after the inward man when it was the outward man that Jews were/are concerned with? Paul said that as far as the law was concerned he was faultless, but then we see him say in Romans 7 that to will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not?

I agree that a man who is saved cannot sin and crucifixion with Christ is salvation and sanctification.