Olivet Discourse revisited

[Davy]

Absolutely correct.
Another poster said: Jesus was talking to His disciples, therefore Matthew 24:33-34 must apply to them. This is extreme foolishness and means that none of what Jesus said was for Christians thru the age and today.

There is no doubt that we are 'this generation', who has seen the return of Jewish Israel to a small part of the holy Land and will see the earth changing and dramatic events, leading up to the glorious Return of Jesus as King.

We are now very close to the Day when the Lord will send His vengeance and wrath to commence all the Prophesied end time events.
Denial of these graphically stated Prophesies, is a bad mistake and just leaves one in the dark.

Right, and to prove that Lord Jesus was not... just speaking His Olivet discourse for His Apostles at His 1st coming, those SIGNS He gave there are the Seals of Revelation 6.
And Christ's Book of Revelation was given through His Apostle John to WHO? To His Church.

 

[MatthewG]

Davy, you were the one who stated it my friend. I was just going off by what you stated.

 

[Davy]

Davy, you were the one who stated it my friend. I was just going off by what you stated.

I can't tell who you are addressing if you don't include a quote. In some of your previous posts I notice you did not quote, but just made statements. So which post of mine are you referring to brother?

 

[Davy]

What do people wait for when they are expecting JEsus to come back?
What are they expecting to experience?
And is that all the hope they have?

These are some of the deeper more personal questions I wonder about - considering I believe he already came back. My hope is something different than what those who may answer these questions are.

Study bro. The answers are in God's written Word, and for this particular topic about Lord Jesus' future return, there's a whole... LOT written, and it reveals why He must come back and what He is going to do when He does return.

1. Just because there exists some on earth today that have believed in our Heavenly Father YHVH and His Son Jesus Christ, and having established His Church here on earth by The Spirit, that still does not mean He has taken ALL rule over this earth and its peoples yet.

2. Christ's enemies are still here on earth, if you haven't noticed, and Satan and his workers are still loose to deceive many. Apostle Paul showed in 1 Cor.15 that Lord Jesus MUST come to reign putting all His enemies under His footstool, before He will deliver the Kingdom up to The Father.

3. We, Christ's servants, don't want a Kingdom of The Spirit only, while the wicked are still among us and working against Christ and His Church. Lord Jesus promised us a better Kingdom than that, one in which God will not be ashamed to call us the "sons of God". And this 'flesh' world, it is destined to perish by His consuming fire, as this present world is not how God intends His Eternal Kingdom. He has promised us a new heaven and a new earth, where there is no wickedness, no death, no sickness, etc., and that's what we want in Christ Jesus.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'll believe you, all you have to do is give evidence to your belief with book, chapter and verse.
You have a strong belief that what God has revealed in His revelation about the end of the world does not matter to Him. Therefore God is not concerned with how we divide the word.
Therefore God is not concerned if His word is wrongly divided.

Give scripture for your belief and I will believe also.
I'm a Bible believer therefore I only go by what the scriptures teach,
2Timothy 2:15,
- Be diligent to present yourself approved of God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed  rightly dividing the word of truth.

-

So, which cult are you part of which teaches that having the correct eschatological beliefs is a requirement for salvation then? Looks like you forgot to answer the question.

 

[MatthewG]

Just gonna leave and walk away.

 

[Titus]

Paul acknowledged that we do not see clearly.

1 Cor 13.12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Paul indicated that our development is progressive.

1 Cor 13.11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

Paul, in asking Christians to be agreeable, assumed that Christians do not always

I never addressed the maturity vs immaturity of individual Christians.

I never claimed that every single individual Christian will have the same level of knowledge

What I am saying is God expects us to know His revelation.
Since God has this expectation of us, this proves we are not to be ignorant but GROW in the grace and knowledge of our Lord.

Where God has revealed His will to us, example the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70
There is no good argument anyone can give that what can be known and understood, cannot be known by all Christians eventually through their walk with Christ.

Again I never said anything about immature babes in Christ where God expects from the the same level of knowledge God expects from mature Christians.

Another matter I never mentioned is the individual level of intelligence God gives to us.
My down syndrome Uncle cannot understand things that God blessed me with understanding.
This is not the point I'm making.
My point is those who God has given a mind with ability(talents) and does not use them are committing sin by staying willfully ignorant because of laziness or apathy.

Between us two, WE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE FOR NOT KNOWING GODS MESSAGE ON Matthew 24.
We can understand it if we put to use the gifts God has blessed us with.

This is true of the majority of adult men and women.
Gods word can be understood by those with average intelligence.

1Corinthians 3:2,
- I fed you with milk and not with sold food, for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal...

1Corinthians 3:1,
- and I brethren could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.

God demands that christians grow in knowledge!

2Peter 3:18,
- but  grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
To Christ be the glory both now and forever.

I don't at all believe God expects us all to be united in knowledge the way you're describing. We are all at different places in our experience and maturity

I dont know where you got the idea I expect babes in Christ to have the same knowledge as a 40 year christian?
I am saying God expects us to grow, that proves God does want all of His children to understand what He has revealed to us.

Look at the subject of this thread.
All of these folks(I cannot address them as Christian's until I know what gospel they believed and obeyed)
All the disagreement.
I can tell you without knowing these folks personally over a long term relationship WHY we dont agree.

The main cause of confusion when it comes to the scriptures is ignorance of the scriptures.
Most have not studied dillengently.
The Bible teaches to meditate on Gods word! Study the Biblical meaning of that word.
To chew the cud

Hosea 4:6,
- My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

I was raised up in a Christian home.
You know what I have observed based on my living day to day with my brethren that I know very well personally?

When someone is ignorant on a Bible subject 9× out of 10 it is because they have not buckled down and studied! It is almost always a lack of taking the time to read their Bibles.

Those who cannot understand, have nothing to do with God demanding those who can to grow.

These forums are full of folks who will discuss topics give opinions and even debate others on why their interpretation is correct.
Yet, they may not even read one complete book of the Bible.
How many on this thread have read the entire book of Matthew?
How many have read it more than once?
How about 20×!

No wonder we cant agree!!!

We are all at different places in our experience and maturity

Never said that we aren't

We've had good or bad teachers, full or limited resources to study the Bible, good or defective minds, etc. et

Those are in the past! What's stopping us today from beginning to do the work and be diligent Bible students.
Defective mind has nothing to do with Gods demand that we grow! Paul never demanded the mentally disabled grow in understanding of things God did not give them the ability to understand.

The unity we share is in the one Christ and the one God, which means we all have the same faith, although at different places in our faith.

You know better that Paul taught christian unity is more than just mental belief in Christ. Paul taught in all things we are to be of the same mind and of the same judgment.
That includes All of Gods revelation to mankind.

1Corinthians 1:10
- Now I plead with you brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING AND THAT THERE BE NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT.

You cannot make excuses that some are immature or mentally defective thus cannot know what a mature christian knows.
Paul would be silly if that is what he was saying.
It should be obvious this is misunderstanding Paul's point.

Paul indicated that even on some conventional beliefs there would be differences that God would resolve over time

That's Christian growth. Paul never said one could stay ignorant.

Remember that Paul and Barnabas had a different opinion over Mark?

Not a different opinion on Scripture!
Christians can have different opinions but not on what Gods will for man is.

If I get brethren together to evangelize in my community and one particular brother has an issue with another brother.
Then there could be disagreements among us if he should come along or not.

This is not a disagreement on Scripture.

14.5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind

This is a matter of each ones own conscience.
A brother that could be ignorant may have their conscience violated if they invole themselves in certain activities
While the more mature brother knows it is not a violation of Gods law therefore it does not violate their conscience.

You must be convinced that what you practise is authorized by Gods word.
If you violate your conscience, even if it is not a sin by Gods law,, you have commited sin.
Because you thought you were doing wrong.
James 4:17,
- therefore to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.
This is not a matter of having different interpretations of scripture.
This is a conscience issue.

There is indeed a unity of knowledge that should be apparent among Christians on matters of cardinal doctrines, doctrines such as faith in who Christ is and what he accomplished. He is Divine, and he is our exclusive source of atonement for sin. And he is the vine, while we are the branches--we derive our virtue from living by the gift of his Spirit. There are more.

However, certain matters of belief about eschatology, though important, are *not* critical to our Salvation. We should strive for peace and unity based upon our common spiritual experience in Christ. We need space to grow and to learn, and to get over the hump of our pride. That takes a lifetime

Where do you get this belief from? Give scripture that teaches God is not concerned with what christians believe on His revelation to man except who Jesus is

There is indeed a unity of knowledge that should be apparent among Christians on matters of cardinal doctrines, doctrines such as faith in who Christ is and what he accomplished

Where do you get this idea God only expects christians to believe the same on faith in Christ as the Messiah/Savior but not on the rest of new testament gospel? I have never found that taught by any of the apostles.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Where do you get this belief from? Give scripture that teaches God is not concerned with what christians believe on His revelation to man except who Jesus is


Where do you get this idea God only expects christians to believe the same on faith in Christ as the Messiah/Savior but not on the rest of new testament gospel? I have never found that taught by any of the apostles.

I've given you a reasonable number of reasons why Christian unity is not based on agreement on peripheral issues. It is helpful to come to agreement, when we can. But due to the presence of sin and flaws in the carnal nature of Christians, there are always going to be differences--sometimes, as you say "inexcusable differences." Often, it is just a matter of growing in Christ, and learning over time.

However, that doesn't mean we write even less-responsible Christians off as non-Christians. And it doesn't mean we can't have some disagreements and let the process move forward, either positively or negatively.

No sense arguing this one further....
I share your angst over people being unable to read things simply and acknowledge the obvious. But pride is an elephant that cannot be moved by a bulldozer. It can only be moved by setting an example of loving persuasion. Good luck!

 

[Titus]

But due to the presence of sin and flaws in the carnal nature of Christians,

Sir, a faithful Christian does not have a carnal nature.
Unfaithful lazy christians can become carnal. But true Christian's who are zealous for godly living are godly by nature not carnal.
1Peter 1:15-16,
- but as He who called you is holy you also be holy in your  conduct,
because it is written, be holy for I am holy

A Christian cannot have a carnal nature and please God.
Paul condemned his brethren for being carnally minded remember?
Paul would not condem them for something if it was their innate nature, that was out of their control.


-

I've given you a reasonable number of reasons why Christian unity is not based on agreement on peripheral issues. It is helpful to come to

You've given me your opinions.
Where is the scriptures that teach unity is not agreement on the word of God?

I dont know what you think unity is, if it isn't agreeing on the word?
How can there even be such a thing as unity if no brother or sister in Christ agreed what the other believed on the word of God.
This is a big reason why atheists think christianity is a bunch of confused people.
Also why believers lose their faith.
Sounds like a bunch of people contradicting one another on what is truth.

However, that doesn't mean we write even less-responsible Christians off as non-Christians

The Bible speaks of christians that are not responsible,
Revelation 3:15,16
- I know your works that you are neither cold nor hot, I could wish you were cold or hot
so then, because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot I will vomit you out of My mouth

No sense arguing this one further..

I agree if you are not going to give scriptural refutation to your arguments.

But pride is an elephant that cannot be moved by a bulldozer.

lol, amen

Good luck!

Love you Sir,
PM me anytime if you would like to have a private conversation on "Sirs, what must I do to be saved"

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sir, a faithful Christian does not have a carnal nature.

Rom 7.2.So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.... 8.12 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.

Paul treats sin as something that is in our flesh, leading to death. And yet he sees us as redeemed by Christ, who enables us to walk in his righteousness, having victory over our carnal nature.

You would be correct if you meant that the Christian is *supposed to* overcome his carnal nature. You are not correct if you're saying the Christian has no Sin, or Carnal, Nature.

Unfaithful lazy christians can become carnal. But true Christian's who are zealous for godly living are godly by nature not carnal.

The ideal Christian walks in victory over sin. Only an inexperienced Christian thinks there is no battle between making spiritual choices and carnal choices. I see it everyday on these kinds of forums.

You've given me your opinions.

Wrong, I gave you Scripture passages. It's up to you to interpret them your way. You already know what my way of interpreting them is. These are just corroborating Scriptures, which is what you asked for.

Where is the scriptures that teach unity is not agreement on the word of God?

I never said agreement is not based on the word of God. What I said is that not all have the same understanding of the word of God.

Some agreements are critical to our Salvation and to our righteousness. Other agreements are more peripheral and less concerning--more a matter of reasoning and pride, than sin.

Sometimes when we speak of sin, we speak of blatant rebellion against God's word, such as when Adam and Eve disobeyed God with the full knowledge that they were not supposed to. But other smaller sins exist of the kind that indicate someone is being rude, selfish, and unloving.

Those also are sins, I believe. But until they mature into full-blown rebellion, they are more like poor grades in a class you haven't flunked yet.

 

[Titus]

I never said agreement is not based on the word of God. What I said is that not all have the same understanding of the word of God

O, you admit that unity is agreement on the word of God now.
If all dont have the same understanding of what God is teaching us, then can that leed to unity in the gospel? You know the answer.
Ephesians 4:13-14,
- till we all come to the  unity of the faith(gospel) and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the statue of the fulness of Christ,
that we should no longer be children(immature) tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting.

Rom 7.2.So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin

That translation is a perversion
NKJV renders it correctly,
Romans 8:12-13
- Therefore brethren we are debtors not to the  flesh, to live according to the flesh
- For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the  body, ye shall live.

Nowhere in these passages does Paul refer to his nature being carnal.
The word nature is not even used in these passages.
Your translation is a preconceived theology that has been inserted into the text.

Ephesians 2:3,
- among whom also we all  ONCE conducted ourselves in the lusts of the  flesh, fulfilling the desires of the  flesh and of the mind and were by  NATURE children of wrath, just as the others.

Paul does use the word nature here in Ephesians 2:3.
Notice Paul said christians no longer live by the carnal lusts of the flesh.
That way of living was BEFORE we became servants of God.
That before we were walking after Christ, we were by nature slaves of our carnal desires.

Notice: when Paul uses the word nature, nowhere does he say anything about being born wicked/evil.
Never once does Paul infer that our flesh is by nature totally wicked.

This idea is a ideology that is not christian. It is Gnosticism.

The gnostics believed flesh was defiled/dirty, unclean.
They rejected Jesus is God because He was flesh.
In their religion God could not become flesh because flesh by its INNATE nature was defiled.

The refused the idea God could be "clothed" in flesh that was corrupted.

The Bible does not teach our flesh is innately by nature carnal.
The fleshly side of man, our body can become carnal.

Otherwise if we are born carnal and totally depraved then Jesus because He was 100% flesh must also be totally depraved.

It is wrong to equate all passages that use the word flesh like in Romans 8:12-13 to carnal innate nature or sinful innate nature.

When Paul uses the word nature in Ephesians 2:3 the correct meaning is found in the greek.
This Greek word can mean innate. But it also can mean, by longstanding  habit.

Paul is teaching our physical side can become carnal and by practicing a sinful lifestyle, over time that becomes our habit our nature.

This term is used today,
TV show The Andy Griffith show,
Otis is the town drunk,
Otis is walking down the side walk drunk.
Men at the barbershop see Otis. One of them says, Otis is drunk again.
The other responds, " You know Otis, that's his nature.

Otis was not born a drunk. Otis developed a habit of being a drinker.

The Bible uses the word nature in the same sense.

In Romans 8:12-13,
Paul is teaching not to live after sinful desire of the flesh. To not be carnal!
Yes, christians sin but that is not by innate nature it is by CHOICE.
Paul is teaching not to give into the sins that we commit in our flesh.

So Paul never teaches Christians are going to sin by innate out of a natural self that we were just born that way.
Paul is actually teaching not to be that way. Resist sinful desires of the flesh.
The flesh is controlled by our mind. We can allow our mind to be controlled by the Spirit or by sinful desires.
If we are led by the Spirit then our flesh will not desire sin.
If we allow ourselves to ignore the Spirits teaching, we will become carnal led by sinful desires of the flesh.
The flesh can be used to commit sin or used to serve God. Paul says be led by the Spirit.

So carnal christians is never approved by Paul as our innate nature.
Christians were that way before they were led by the Spirit.

1Corinthians 3:1-2
-
And I brethren could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as babes in Christ
I fed you with milk and not with meat, for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are not able.
For you are still carnal, for where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men

Romans 8:12-13,
- Therefore brethren we are debtors, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh,
For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

O, you admit that unity is agreement on the word of God now.

Please quote me saying that agreement is not based on the word of God? You are defining "the word of God" in a different sense that I use it, which is irresponsible and provocative. Perhaps that's your aim?

If all dont have the same understanding of what God is teaching us, then can that leed to unity in the gospel? You know the answer.
Ephesians 4:13-14,
- till we all come to the  unity of the faith(gospel) and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the statue of the fulness of Christ,
that we should no longer be children(immature) tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting.

Paul is *not* talking about "perfection," which is what your argument is predicated upon. We will *never* come to *perfect agreement* on our understanding of biblical doctrine. We can, however, come to an essential spiritual unity based on a rudimentary, but essential, understanding of cardinal doctrine.

For example, we can maintain unity in love between one another simply by the conversion of our will to the will of God. To obtain that understanding there are relatively few basic doctrinal understandings that are required, and certainly not every belief about what the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation means?

We don't have to have complete understanding of the Olivet Discourse to be converted to Christ. But we do have to know who Christ is as God and Redeemer. We do have to know that he is perfect Deity in the form of Man.

That translation is a perversion
NKJV renders it correctly,
Romans 8:12-13
- Therefore brethren we are debtors not to the  flesh, to live according to the flesh
- For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the  body, ye shall live.

Nowhere in these passages does Paul refer to his nature being carnal.
The word nature is not even used in these passages.
Your translation is a preconceived theology that has been inserted into the text.

So you conceive of yourself as superior to the NIV translators? I see!

Rom 7.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

In the footnotes (d) I read that "sinful nature" in English is the equivalent of "in the flesh."

But I would completely disagree with you that Paul does not refer to his nature as being carnal. He is not, of course, saying that living his Christian life is a "carnal" life. But he is saying that when he capitulates to the "flesh," then he is acting in a "carnal" way, ie living according to his "flesh nature."

Ephesians 2:3,
- among whom also we all  ONCE conducted ourselves in the lusts of the  flesh, fulfilling the desires of the  flesh and of the mind and were by  NATURE children of wrath, just as the others.

Paul does use the word nature here in Ephesians 2:3.
Notice Paul said christians no longer live by the carnal lusts of the flesh.
That way of living was BEFORE we became servants of God.
That before we were walking after Christ, we were by nature slaves of our carnal desires.

Notice: when Paul uses the word nature, nowhere does he say anything about being born wicked/evil.
Never once does Paul infer that our flesh is by nature totally wicked.

I would dispute this also. Of course, Paul is not here defining the word "nature," but rather, using the word to denote that the "flesh is indeed corrupt. Paul *everywhere* denotes that the "flesh nature" is corrupt!

This idea is a ideology that is not christian. It is Gnosticism.

The gnostics believed flesh was defiled/dirty, unclean.
They rejected Jesus is God because He was flesh.
In their religion God could not become flesh because flesh by its INNATE nature was defiled.

Yes, dualists knew for a fact that human nature was corrupt, and that the competition for material things created injustice and evil. And so, they sometimes thought asceticism was the answer. Others thought the answer was to outflank materialism by indulging in it in a way that depreciated it in favor of philosophical pursuits.

The refused the idea God could be "clothed" in flesh that was corrupted.

The Bible does not teach our flesh is innately by nature carnal.
The fleshly side of man, our body can become carnal.

Completely wrong. The material world and the human body were created in perfection. It is our souls that have been corrupted. Our spiritual nature has been corrupted, and we have inherited from our fallen parents the original DNA of rebellion against God's word.

From the time we're born we have a resistance to obeying God's word. Our carnal nature wishes to do things independent of God. And this is the essence of the Sin Nature we all have. Paul identified it as his *flesh nature.*

When our souls were infected by sin we leaned towards autonomous living, independent of God and His word. And so, our independent nature became associated with our bodies, with our Self. And so, Paul called this corrupted self-nature, the "Flesh."

Sorry, but I can't disagree with you more on this subject. You don't believe in Original Sin? You are a Pelagian then, which the historic Church condemned as a heresy!

 

[Titus]

Please quote me saying that agreement is not based on the word of God? You are defining "the word of God" in a different sense that I use it, which is irresponsible and provocative. Perhaps that's your aim?

Paul is *not* talking about "perfection," which is what your argument is predicated upon. We will *never* come to *perfect agreement* on our understanding of biblical doctrine. We can, however, come to an essential spiritual unity based on a rudimentary, but essential, understanding of cardinal doctrine.

For example, we can maintain unity in love between one another simply by our conversion of our will to the will of God. To obtain that understanding there are relatively few basic doctrinal understandings that are required, and certainly not every belief about what the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation means? We don't have to have complete understanding of the Olivet Discourse to be converted to Christ. But we do have to know how Christ is as God and Redeemer. We do have to know that he is perfect Deity in the form of Man.

So you conceive of yourself as superior to the NIV translators? I see!

Rom 7.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

In the footnotes (d) I read that "sinful nature" in English is the equivalent of "in the flesh."
But I would completely disagree with you that Paul does not refer to his nature as being carnal. He is not, of course, saying that living his Christian life is a "carnal" life. But he is saying that when he capitulates to the "flesh," then he is acting in a "carnal" way, ie living according to his "flesh nature."

I would dispute this also. Of course, Paul is not here defining the word "nature," but rather, using the word to denote that the "flesh is indeed corrupt. Paul *everywhere* denotes that the "flesh nature" is corrupt!

Yes, dualists knew for a fact that human nature was corrupt, and that the competition for material things created injustice and evil. And so, they sometimes thought asceticism was the answer. Others thought the answer was to outflank materialism by indulging in it in a way that depreciated it in favor of philosophical pursuits.

Completely wrong. The material world and the human body were created in perfection. It is our souls that have been corrupted. Our spiritual nature has been corrupted, and we have inherited from our fallen parents the original DNA of rebellion against God's word. From the time we're born we have a resistance to obeying God's word. Our carnal nature wishes to do things independent of God. And this is the essence of the Sin Nature we all have. Paul identified it as his *flesh nature.*

Sorry, but I can't disagree with you more on this subject. You don't believe in Original Sin? You are a Pelagian then, which the historic Church condemned as a heresy!

You are not giving any scriptural refutation.
That is a serious problem
Why should I believe you are speaking the oracles of God?
1Peter 4:11 ; Colossians 3:17.

You are defining "the word of God" in a different sense that I use it, which is irresponsible and provocative. Perhaps that's your aim?

I never desire to misrepresent others.
What good would it do?
I only need the word of God to prove my position is the truth.
Putting Jesus' words in red letters has done more harm than good.
Some only believe they must obey the red letters and the rest is mens opinions.
Gods word is the entire 66 books of the Bible.
What sense do you understand this,
2Timothy 2:15,
- Be diligent to present yourself approved unto God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.

God said His word must be rightly divided. Therefore it can be wrongly divided.
God said what He means and means what He said.
Any other interpretation other than what God is revealing to man is false teaching.
2Peter 1:20,
- knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
How much of Gods word can be disagreed on a different interpretation? None!
NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION
2Peter 2:1,
- But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies even denying the Lord who bought them and bring on themselves swift destruction

Completely wrong. The material world and the human body were created in perfection. It is our souls that have been corrupted. Our spiritual nature has been corrupted, and we have inherited from our fallen parents the original DNA of rebellion against God's word.

I agree we were created perfect.
Born sinless.
Created in the image of God.

Give scripture how our DNA has inherited a sinful nature from our parents.
I'm assuming you are referring to Adam and Eve?
The consequence of your belief is our parents are guilty for our sin, not ourselves for our own sins.
Where does the Bible teach we inherit another person's sinful nature?
If I commit murder should my child inherit that sinful nature/desire to murder others?
Book, chapter and verse please?

From the time we're born we have a resistance to obeying God's word.

Give one Bible passage that teaches Babies by innate nature go against God?
Do you think Jesus taught His disciples are to be like wicked rebellious, sinfull, anti-christs, babies?
"vipers in diapers"?
Matthew 18:3,
- and said, Assuredly I say to you unless you are converted and become as little children you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven,
whoever humbles himself as this little  child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

So you conceive of yourself as superior to the NIV translators? I see!

Are you not aware how many times the NIV has been corrected because of the personal opinions of the men involved in its work ?
Show the Greek word nature in Romans 8:12?
I cant!
I can show you it in Ephesians 2:3.

You are a Pelagian then,

No, just a Bible believing christian only.
If Calvin taught something God taught in His word. I'd agree and teach that also.
That does not make me a calvinist, that makes me a follow of Gods word.
If Pelagian taught some truth, spoke the oracles of God on a subject.
I'd speak the same! Doesn't make me a Pelagian. It makes me a christian who only speaks the oracles of God.

 

[Christian Gedge]

I don't suffer any illusions about being able to change many minds, but I still think it's worth the effort. I've been studying this many years, and it really seems to be a headache in the study of biblical prophecy. Way back in the early 70s I read Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and really enjoyed it. He saw amazing coincidences between the news of our time and biblical prophecies that seem to be coming to precise fulfillment.

Unfortunately, Lindsey did something that I believe has been disastrous to the understanding of biblical prophecy. And I'm sure he's not the only one. He had a tremendous desire to convert biblical prophecies that had already been fulfilled into future prophecies. Why waste time reading prophecies that had already been fulfilled, such as prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon? Why not focus on prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled so that we can show people how God's word is still relevant in our own day?

And so, Lindsey converted what Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse from being about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to being an endtime prophecy of the generation in which Israel would be reborn as a nation. The passage reads, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." This prophecy was actually being spoken about Jesus' own generation--"this generation" referred to the generation in which Jesus lived.

But Lindsey converted this into a prophecy of the last generation. "This generation" was, for Lindsey, the generation that saw the rebirth of the Israeli nation. The generation that sees the rebirth of Israel would not pass away until the Rapture of the Church takes place first.

Well sadly, when many like myself who like to point out this error do so we are called "Preterists" as a name of insult. Preterists was a particular school of thought that arose in history to declare not just that "this generation" was fulfilled in the Roman conquest, but also that the *entirety of the book of Revelation* was fulfilled in the Early Church.

I don't believe that--I'm not a Preterist. But I do believe that Preterists were at least partly right, in particular the part about "this generation" referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome. I believe that the book of Revelation does refer to the endtimes, when the Antichrist will arise and reign for 3.5 years.

So we have this battle between the choice between an historial fulfillment or a future fulfillment. Can we know the difference? Of course we can, but often a person is taught a particular position when he is moldable, and is not likely to change his or her position without a firm conviction that the person they trusted was not entirely trustworthy. Since Lindsey has been a faithful Christian throughout his life, and has done a lot of good, it is difficult to break trust in him in areas where he has been wrong.

My purpose here is not to disparage teachers like Lindsey, but only to point out that good people can at times be wrong. Once you begin with a wrong point of view, a lot of the picture gets muddied, and a lot of rationalization takes place. In the end, the Olivet Discourse can become nearly incomprehensible. Even trying to look at it correctly finds obstacles because so many of the points have been corrupted along with the main point. What is the "great tribulation?" What are "all these things?"

All of these questions can be quite easily answered, but not if one has been indoctrinated in a false position, and has therefore corrupted his view on all of the points necessary to make his picture consistent. "All these things" becomes "the Rapture." The "great tribulation" becomes "the reign of Antichrist."

In reality, "all these things" in context was only ever meant to refer not to Christ's return but to the main point, referring to all the things connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the destruction of the temple, and the initial signs that presaged that event. The "great tribulation" explicitly described the fall out from the destruction of Jerusalem in an age-long exile of the Jewish People.

But I'm not going to convince many people, although I would wish to. Understanding historical prophecies have great value in teaching moral lessons, quite apart from proving prophecies are still coming true today. The Babylonian Judgment teaches us how we need to remain faithful to God's moral laws, unlike Israel who committed gross idolatry in the days before their capture and exile.

We do not need to make the Olivet Discourse entirely about the future, including the rebirth of Israel and the rise of Antichrist. There is plenty in that discourse that describes both historically-fulfilled prophecy and future prophecy. We do not need the Abomination of Desolation to be about the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation to be about the Reign of Antichrist. The exile of the Jews described in that Discourse is still taking place today, until the nation of Israel is restored to faith at Christ's return.

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948). We're way overdue to look at this errant interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And we need to get past the name-calling and false association with Preterism. The Early Church Fathers held to the historical interpretation of this Discourse, and I think we should too, even if certain terms continue to represent some headaches. Thanks for listening.

A thoughtful article.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are not giving any scriptural refutation.

On its face, that is false. I began by quoting you the Scripture on how Paul views our Sin Nature.

Rom 7.2.So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.... 8.12 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. Also...

Rom 7.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

I never desire to misrepresent others.

Some people have a sadistic desire to see righteous people fall. I'm glad you do not see yourself in that group!

I was talking about the term "the word of God." That can be used in many ways, depending on context. When I say we don't all have to agree on the meaning of every part of the word of God, I'm not say our agreement is not based on the word of God.

Give scripture how our DNA has inherited a sinful nature from our parents.

What I said is that we inherited a *spiritual* DNA from our parents. This has caused our physical DNA to be corrupted, as well. The deterioration of our "programming" causes us to produce malformed or degenerated DNA. As such, children inherit from their parents both good genes and defective genes.

Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

I'm assuming you are referring to Adam and Eve?
The consequence of your belief is our parents are guilty for our sin, not ourselves for our own sins.
Where does the Bible teach we inherit another person's sinful nature?
If I commit murder should my child inherit that sinful nature/desire to murder others?
Book, chapter and verse please?

Rom 5.19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

While it is plain that God does not judge as sinners people whose parents are sinful, simply because their parents are sinful, it is equally plain that all of humanity suffer the consequences of living in a sinful world, filled with sinful people.

We may inherit a spiritual tendency towards violence, or towards lust, when our parents have had and indulged in those tendencies. However, we are given the capacity to overcome these tendences by the gift of Christ.

Give one Bible passage that teaches Babies by innate nature go against God?
Do you think Jesus taught His disciples are to be like wicked rebellious, sinfull, anti-christs, babies?
"vipers in diapers"?
Matthew 18:3,
- and said, Assuredly I say to you unless you are converted and become as little children you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven,
whoever humbles himself as this little  child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Children are innocent due to a lack of maturity. They are not, however, innocent of sin. Their sin is in an undeveloped state. Their human nature has yet to degrade to the extent a mature sinner would degenerate.

The real point here is that little children tend to show their positive human qualities before their Sin Nature has had time to corrupt them more fully. Jesus would have us show more of our good human qualities, and not allow the Sin Nature to fully corrupt us.

Are you not aware how many times the NIV has been corrected because of the personal opinions of the men involved in its work ?
Show the Greek word nature in Romans 8:12?
I cant!
I can show you it in Ephesians 2:3.

Every Bible version needs correction because of human error. But the total product has been phenomenally accurate and reliable, due to the many corroborating scholars checking and rechecking, and due to the honesty of some who maintain their integrity and wish to sustain true biblical understanding through an accurate presentation of what the apostles believed and taught.

If Pelagian taught some truth, spoke the oracles of God on a subject.
I'd speak the same! Doesn't make me a Pelagian. It makes me a christian who only speaks the oracles of God.

You do speak the same as a Pelagian! That makes you a Pelagian, whether you acknowledge that or not. And it was declared by the historic Church to be a heresy. It is! It is not only unbiblical, but it is untrue to nature, to simple observation.

 

[Titus]

You do speak the same as a Pelagian! That makes you a Pelagian,

Like I said, all false teachers, teach some Biblical truth.
Since this is a fact. We all could be accused of following...you name the teacher!
I cannot be a Pelagian and heres why. I DO NOT BELIEVE HE IS EVEN SAVED! PELAGIAN TAUGHT A FALSE GOSPEL. HE UNFORTUNATELY DIED A FASLE TEACHER. Maybe he found the truth but all i know as of now is he died lost.
Pelagian was right that Augustine and his doctrines were unbiblical error. Thus, Orginal sin/inherited sin/total depravity/inborn sin nature is Heresy!

Every Bible version needs correction because of human error.

Agreed. I'm not a KJV only if you were wondering. I dont know of any English translations that are perfectly translated. But the errors are so minor that Gods message is still clearly revealed and understood. The proof of this is we are able to point out every error in the KJV for example.
The NIV was biased at the get go and is still to this day a biased translation. It does not accurately represent the word of God. It was written by a Baptist society publishing group who were 5 point calvinist's.

The best English translations are the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and my least favorite the ESV.
Unfortunately you cannot get a copy of the ASV anymore which is a shame.
Used copies are difficult to find and cost is inflated.

Rom 7.2.So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin

Friend God(Holy Spirit)never used sinful nature ever! The apostles only used flesh, nature, carnal,
Never inborn sinful nature! That is a preconceived theology of men inserted into the text!
The NIV is trash!
btw friend you have accidentally used the wrong chapter and verse. It's not Romans 7:2.

Romans 7:2 reads - for the women who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
No big deal. I'm also gulity.

Rom 7.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

NIV perversion!
New King James,
Romans 7:25,
- I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord, so then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul never said he had by inborn nature that he was born sinful. Paul says with the  flesh not nature! Is how he sins. Paul did not have a carnal nature sinful nature. Paul was a righteous sin hating Christian!
Paul sinned yes, we all do. But that was out of his normal character. His true nature was godly, he loved righteousness and hated wickedness just like David.
Psalm 119: 104,
- Through your precepts I get understanding, therefore I hate every false way.
David sinned big time! But that was not his innate nature.
David spent the majority of his life loving God, loving the truth, hating wickedness, a totally devoted true servant of God!
You could say it was David's nature to be righteous.
Paul said the same about certain gentiles that were without the law of Moses.
Guess what kind of nature they had?
Romans 2:14,
- for when gentiles who do not have the law, by  nature do the things in the law, these although not having the law are a law unto themselves
Who show the work of the law written in their hearts,their conscience also bearing witness and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them.

John Calvin, needs to explain how it is possible for gentiles who are not born again are by nature obey Gods commandments in the law of Moses despite being bound by the law of Moses!
That goes directly against this supposed depraved inherited sinful nature we are supposedly born with.

people have a sadistic desire to see righteous people fall. I'm glad you do not see yourself in that group!

I love you to death! My only desire for being on this website is, I love my neighbor and want you and everyone else to be best friends with me forever together in heaven with our Almighty God.
I dont like the idea of anyone not coming with me to heaven. I hate the thought.
Part 1
Cont. To part 2

 

[Titus]

What I said is that we inherited a *spiritual* DNA from our parents. This has caused our physical DNA to be corrupted, as well. The deterioration of our "programming" causes us to produce malformed or degenerated DNA. As such, children inherit from their parents both good genes and defective genes

Part 2

Friend, this is nothing but speculation from mens imaginations.
You could not give me Scripture for this belief because it is nowhere taught in the bible.
Spiritual dna?
Nowhere does the bible ever even mention such an idea.
Friend sin is never spiritual.
The Bible never speaks that way.
Sin is from the desires of the flesh.
We sin with our flesh not our spiritual side.
Sin is against what is spiritual it is carnal.

1John 2:16,
- for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life is not of the Father but of this world.

This is the only avenues through which mankind commits sin. It's all done through the flesh.

While it is plain that God does not judge as sinners people whose parents are sinful, simply because their parents are sinful, it is equally plain that all of humanity suffer the consequences of living in a sinful world, filled with sinful people

We the human race did not inherit anything from Adam.
We suffer the CONSEQUENCES of Adam's sin which is physical death.
If Adam had never sinned he would have had access to the tree of life and lived forever.
Adam's sin is not inherited.
But we do suffer its consequence physical death.

Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

This is not teaching Adam's sin is inherited/charged to our account.
Nor is it teaching we have some "DNA" that is magically wicked transferred to us.

12,
- Therefore just as sin entered the world.

Adam brought sin into the world.

- and death through sin

This is PHYSICAL death not spiritual death. Remember the consequence of Adam's sin.

- and in this way death came to all people because all sinned.

Physical death because of Adam's sin came to all people WHY? Because we also have sinned like Adam.
Our sin.
If it was Adam's sin inherited by us the passage would read,

- Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
and thus death spread to all men, BECAUSE ADAM SINNED.

It does not say because Adam sinned but because we sinned! That is why we also suffer the consequence of Adams sin i.e. physical death.
If we inherited Adam's sin it would have said so, instead it put our own sins as the blame for why we also die physically.

5.19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous

How? How do we become sinners by Adam's sin?
Calvin wrongly teaches this verse as Adam's sin itself is inherited by us, and by Adam's own sin we become sinners.
Paul is not teaching this,
Paul is teaching we become sinners by Adam's sin because God gave us a law that all are under.
The law was given because of Adam sinning against God.
That is the true context!
Romans 5:13-20,
-For until the  law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no law
- Therefore as through one mans offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift come to all men, resulting in justification of life.
- for as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so also by one Mans obedience many will be made righteous,
- Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. but where sin abounded grace abounded much more.

The true context is not Adam's own sin being charged to us making us guilty sinners.
Adams sin brought forth the law of God and by this law when we sin, we are made sinners like Adam.

Nowhere does Paul teach inherited sin.
It is error.
Do you know the Bible actually teaches the opposite.
It teaches God will not change the son for his fathers sins!

Ezekial 18:20,
- the soul who sins shall die
The son shall not bear the guilt of the father
nor the father bear the gulit of the son
the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself
and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Like I said, all false teachers, teach some Biblical truth.
Since this is a fact. We all could be accused of following...you name the teacher!
I cannot be a Pelagian and heres why. I DO NOT BELIEVE HE IS EVEN SAVED! PELAGIAN TAUGHT A FALSE GOSPEL. HE UNFORTUNATELY DIED A FASLE TEACHER. Maybe he found the truth but all i know as of now is he died lost.
Pelagian was right that Augustine and his doctrines were unbiblical error. Thus, Orginal sin/inherited sin/total depravity/inborn sin nature is Heresy!

Friend/brother, I'm not calling you a Pelagian to insult you or to manipulate you. I'm just saying that you teach the same heresy that Pelagius taught. That's what makes you a "Pelagian"--the fact you teach there is no original sin.

From Wikipedia: "Pelagius c. 354–418) was a Romano-British theologian known for promoting a system of doctrines (termed Pelagianism by his opponents) which emphasized human choice in salvation and denied original sin.

Agreed. I'm not a KJV only if you were wondering. I dont know of any English translations that are perfectly translated. But the errors are so minor that Gods message is still clearly revealed and understood. The proof of this is we are able to point out every error in the KJV for example.
The NIV was biased at the get go and is still to this day a biased translation. It does not accurately represent the word of God. It was written by a Baptist society publishing group who were 5 point calvinist's.

Regardless of your denominational name, translation work is based on the ability to handle the original languages honestly. The NIV, like most modern versions, attempt to integrate all of the existing manuscripts, including older ones that weren't part of the Majority Text.

For example, the Alexandrian manuscript was considered. Kurt Aland, who initiated the Critical Text approach, is highly respected, and I don't know his denomination. Even the modern KJV considers the Critical Text, by way of comparison, as I understand it. And many versions--not just the NIV, take Aland's "eclectic approach."

Generally, the Byzantine text type comes down to us from numerous sources in the Orthodox tradition. And Erasmus' NT Greek Bible, after which the KJV was crafted, was based on only a few manuscripts, largely of the Eastern kind.

But it seems reasonable to look at all available manuscripts, particularly the oldest ones. That's what the NIV does.

The variances among versions are hardly significant doctrine-wise. And the NIV likely contains footnotes to explain any significant variations from other important versions.

The best English translations are the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and my least favorite the ESV.
Unfortunately you cannot get a copy of the ASV anymore which is a shame.
Used copies are difficult to find and cost is inflated.


Friend God(Holy Spirit)never used sinful nature ever! The apostles only used flesh, nature, carnal,
Never inborn sinful nature! That is a preconceived theology of men inserted into the text!
The NIV is trash!

A non-scholar shouldn't rate Bible versions. It requires knowledge of the original language. Paul said just what the text indicated. You just don't wish to believe it.

btw friend you have accidentally used the wrong chapter and verse. It's not Romans 7:2.

Pin the tail on the donkey?

Paul never said he had by inborn nature that he was born sinful. Paul says with the  flesh not nature!

As I said, they "flesh" is used synonymously with our sense of a "Sin Nature." That is how Paul describes it.

One can translate the word as "nature" or "flesh," and the result is the same. We have a "Sin Nature." We have a carnal nature.

We can be moved by the Flesh, which is the instinct to do our own thing, instead of capitulate to the Holy Spirit. We can be driven by what our eyes want, or by what our bodily appetites desire.

But that is called "Sin," if what we desire does not comport with the love and will of Christ. I do what God wills, and not what my flesh wills!

John Calvin, needs to explain how it is possible for gentiles who are not born again are by nature obey Gods commandments in the law of Moses despite being bound by the law of Moses!
That goes directly against this supposed depraved inherited sinful nature we are supposedly born with.

I'm not here arguing Calvinism--a different subject. I'm arguing for a Sin Nature. I discuss the matter of Predestination and Free Will elsewhere, and you're welcome to join in. I think "Luther" is in the subject line.

 

[ewq1938]

Friend/brother, I'm not calling you a Pelagian to insult you or to manipulate you. I'm just saying that you teach the same heresy that Pelagius taught. That's what makes you a "Pelagian"--the fact you teach there is no original sin.

And you have beliefs that are Partial Preterist but you often strongly object to being called that, claiming name calling so you are being hypocritical here especially when being a PP is not considered official heresy but you are charging the other person with heresy. No one calls you a PP to insult you either and yes, I always know there are some differences between you and some PP's. Doesn't change anything.

 

[Titus]

Friend/brother, I'm not calling you a Pelagian to insult you or to manipulate you

I believe you.

I'm just saying that you teach the same heresy that Pelagius taught. That's what makes you a "Pelagian"--

Ezekial 18:20 refutes inherited sin.
This idea that we inherit someone else's sins come from Augustine not Jesus or the apostles.

That's what makes you a "Pelagian

The doctrine of Original sin/Inherited sin began with Augustine was then adopted by the Catholic church later popularized by John Calvin who was a follower of Augustine's teachings.

Since you are convinced you are born a wicked reprobate who only desires to sin against God because that is the nature God gave you.
You are a Russelite, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses also teach Original Sin/ inherited sinful nature.

You are falsely accusing me of following a man I dont believe in.
I can do the same to you. By using your logic you are a Russelite. You believe what Taze Russel believes and you teach his heresy.

I'm just making a point. I dont believe this.
But I do believe you are following the false doctrines of men like Calvin.

The NIV, like most modern versions, attempt to integrate all of the existing manuscripts, including older ones that weren't part of the Majority Text.

There is not ONE manuscript that uses the term sinful nature as meaning inherited a sinful inborn nature from Adam.
The NIV inserts it into verses that don't even have the word NATURE let alone sinful nature!!!
It is not the word of God.

I've already told you, verses that use the word nature as a negative referring to the carnal flesh is not teaching INNATELY born that way. It is something that develops as a habit. Greek affirms this definition.

Paul said just what the text indicated. You just don't wish to believe it.

Poor Paul. So many put words in his mouth.

As I said, they "flesh" is used synonymously with our sense of a "Sin Nature

No it is not. Babies are not wicked little devils. "Vipers in diapers" as reformed sects refer to children.
Nature can be carnal or righteous as I have proven with the nature of the gentiles who were not saved!
That is impossible in the Original sin/Inherited Sin nature doctrine.

Questions Orginal sin advocates cannot answer with scripture
Explain why Adam's sin is transferred to us and not Eve's sin?
It must be a scriptural answer otherwise it is just mans opinions.

You keep telling me that Paul has a innate, inborn sinful nature and that is why we all desire to sin against God.
Yet you know Adam was not created by God with a depraved totally wicked innate/inborn sinful nature.
Genesis 1:27,
- So God created man in His own Image, in the image of God He created him, Male and female He created them.

Adam's nature was upright like God.
Explain why Adam sinned when he did not have a inborn sinful nature?
You claim Paul and everyone else desires to sin because we are born this way.
Then why did Adam desire to sin against God without a sinful nature?
Give a scriptural answer.