|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 25, 2006 19:52:37 GMT -5
Is repentance neccesary for salvation, and if so how much repentance? How much sin does it take to be seperated from God? Was Adam seperated from God over one sin, and we can have a relationship with God and have many or any sins in our lives?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 25, 2006 20:31:50 GMT -5
I think it's important to clarify your terms. What exactly do you mean by complete repentance? Does this imply that you will never need to repent again? I would state the case as complete and continual repentance. By that I mean complete repentance at the time of conversion and any sin comitted after that must be completely repented of. I believe any sin that is not confessed and forsaken will send you to hell.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 25, 2006 22:14:42 GMT -5
I think your clarification Steve is good.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 25, 2006 22:32:59 GMT -5
How much sin can a Christian commit and still be a Christian?
How much sin can a Christian commit and still go to heaven?
What types of sins is it tolerable for a Christian to commit and what types of sin are intolerable?
If salvation is not salvation from sin then what is it salvation from?
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 25, 2006 23:29:25 GMT -5
answer to first question: none
answer to second question: none
answer to third question: all are intolerable
answer to fourth question: salvation is salvation from sin (Matthew 1:21)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 25, 2006 23:49:28 GMT -5
I've asked questions like that before and nobody ever answered me.
Anyone else got any answers?
|
|
|
Post by Evangelista on Jan 26, 2006 7:55:39 GMT -5
Jesse's questions/Evangelista's answers:
How much sin can a Christian commit and still be a Christian? A Christian is not supposed to commit sin.
How much sin can a Christian commit and still go to heaven? Sin will not allow a Christian to enter heaven.
What types of sins is it tolerable for a Christian to commit and what types of sin are intolerable? No sin is tolerable.
If salvation is not salvation from sin then what is it salvation from? We are saved from our sin, not that we should continue in sin. Jesus died to save us from sin and hell.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jan 26, 2006 8:32:37 GMT -5
How much sin can a Christian commit and still be a Christian? - None
How much sin can a Christian commit and still go to heaven? - None
What types of sins is it tolerable for a Christian to commit and what types of sin are intolerable? - None
If salvation is not salvation from sin then what is it salvation from? Salvation is from sin.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 26, 2006 14:24:08 GMT -5
Guys I dunno, I just can't get away from Romans 7. You would say that Paul is speaking of before he was saved but he says "i DELIGHT in the law of God after the INWARD man" v22 - he has to be speaking of the present. I just not logical to say otherwise and so I would say
How much sin can a Christian commit and still be a Christian? - whatever - "we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"
How much sin can a Christian commit and still go to heaven? - whatever - "that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life"
What types of sins is it tolerable for a Christian to commit and what types of sin are intolerable? - None "let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof"
If salvation is not salvation from sin then what is it salvation from? Salvation is from the bondage of sin "being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness"
|
|
|
Post by rsmportland on Jan 26, 2006 14:32:13 GMT -5
I clicked no, here's why...
I don't think we can comprehend or manage the amount of sin that is around us. I don't think there's anyway to confess all your sins of omission. I think sin should burn us up from the inside, and I'm sure most of us repent on the spot. But once we're saved, aren't we sealed by the holy spirit for good? None of us would make any excuse for sin, and I think that's the line we need to cross. I know many Christians who are not saved, who can come up with reason after reason why something isn't a sin.
Christians fall into sin, they don't look forward to it. By saying that a Christian commits no sin actually go's against God's word, because we've all fallen short, and we're being continually sanctified. Not one Christian can say he hasn't sinned while being a Christian.
No sin is tolerable. No matter if your a Christian or not.
Salvation is two fold, saved from our seperation from God while on earth by a restored relationship through Jesus Christ, and salvation from from sin and it's reprecussions.
So for these reasons, I believe we can only partially repent, due to our saturated sinful nature and inability to comprehend its magnitude.
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 26, 2006 15:09:06 GMT -5
1 John 3:8-He that commits sin is of the devil.
1 John 3:9-Whosever is born of God does not commit sin...
1 John 5:18-Whosever is born of God sinneth not
How is saying a Christian does not commit sin against the Word of God? Actually saying a Christian commits sin is against the Word of God.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 26, 2006 15:22:26 GMT -5
Armen,
Paul did not stay in Romans 7, he went on to Romans 8. Read Romans 6,7,8 until the breakthrough happens. Until you are sanctified by faith.
Robert,
Some of what you said was great. About how we are to repent on the spot if we sin, and that no sin is tolerable. But I had a few concerns with some of what you said. Here they are:
But is that the teachings of Christ, the one who said "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" Luke 13:3.
Just to clarify, I do not believe you need to confess every single particular sin you've ever committed in your whole life. Rather sin as a whole is to be confessed and forsaken, and that of course is not impossible.
Ac 20:32 - and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Ac 26:18 - and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
1Co 1:2 - to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus
1Co 6:11 - ye are sanctified
Heb 2:11 - For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one
Heb 10:10 - we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:14 - For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Jude 1:1 - Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ
(All scriptures are from the KJV because more modern translations have added being in italics before sanctified. When a translation adds an italic word, it's because it wasn't there to begin with)
Is the exceedingly sinful nature the only reason one cannot be free from sin, as Paul said he was? Well, there is hope even for that.
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world
And so we have our sinful nature taken away, and a new nature given to us! Others say that we can't obey God because our hearts are sinful and wicked. But at the new birth do we not recieve a new heart?
I heard an audio of Ravenhill preaching recently and he said, "it's not the inability of a Christian to sin, but it's the ability for him not to sin."
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 26, 2006 15:27:36 GMT -5
I listened to Romans today on recording and the past tense caught my attention.
Is Paul talking about the present here?
It has to be that he was saying some of this about his past. Was Paul carnal, or was Saul?
I guess the real question is when does he start talking about his present? Verse 15 or verse 25?
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 26, 2006 15:41:33 GMT -5
"Saturated sinful nature"
This is one reason why I oppose the doctrine of original sin so much.
First, I do not think it is biblical at all. There are a handful of verses where if you have been taught all your life that we are born sinners, and take those verses out of context, it can make it sound like we are all born sinners.
Second, once people are indoctrinated with that teaching, it is impossible for people to believe they can live without sin. They think they are always sinning, will always sin no matter what.
Robert, I am sorry, I am not trying to give you a hard time, or trying to debate with you. I am just using something you said to point out reasons why I oppose the doctrine of original sin.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 26, 2006 15:44:16 GMT -5
I picked up on Pauls literary techneque too in Romans 7. Paul was describing his conversion, and being slain by the law. It was during his explaination of being convicted by the Law that he said what he wanted to do (be righteous) he didn't do and what he did do (be sinful) was what he didn't want to do.
And so it is with men convicted by the Law. They start hungering and thirsting after righteousness but realize that they can't feed themselves. And so Paul said "Oh wretched man that I am. Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" And then he gives us the wonderful answer "I thank God through Jesus Christ the Lord." And thus Paul was delivered from sin and goes on to Romans chapter 8.
Great books I recommend on biblical sanctification would be:
Wholly Sanctified by A B Simpsion (Founder of The Christian and Missionary Alliance) Heart Talks on Holiness by Samuel Brengle (leader of the early Salvation Army)
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 26, 2006 16:02:57 GMT -5
Amen to that Jesse!
|
|
|
Post by rsmportland on Jan 26, 2006 16:16:06 GMT -5
Great stuff Jesse, I believe in repentance as the hinge of salvation. I misread the question. Just to clarify, I believe that Christians should forsake all sin.
|
|
|
Post by rsmportland on Jan 26, 2006 16:20:56 GMT -5
"Saturated sinful nature" This is one reason why I oppose the doctrine of original sin so much. First, I do not think it is biblical at all. There are a handful of verses where if you have been taught all your life that we are born sinners, and take those verses out of context, it can make it sound like we are all born sinners. Second, once people are indoctrinated with that teaching, it is impossible for people to believe they can live without sin. They think they are always sinning, will always sin no matter what. Robert, I am sorry, I am not trying to give you a hard time, or trying to debate with you. I am just using something you said to point out reasons why I oppose the doctrine of original sin. It's all good, I'm still a newbie for the most part. I definitly need some tuning up. I see what your saying about being able to stop sinning. Please, feel free to give me any reproof.
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 26, 2006 17:18:03 GMT -5
It was not a reproof at all. I am sorry. I sure appreciate your humility and openness to learn. I think the majority of Christians believe in the doctrine of original sin.
A few of the problems I have with this doctrine are:
Babies must then go to hell if they are born sinners.
Men are punished by God for being the way He made them.
Men are punished for what Adam did.
Sin is made a disease rather than a choice (1 John 3:4, Romans 6:16). Sin must be a choice.
Man should not be guilty for doing something he was created to do.
Jesus could not have been tempted in all points like we are if we are born with a sin nature and He is not.
God is unjust for sending men to hell for something they cannot help doing.
Why should man be guilty and deserve punishment for sinning when he cannot help sinning since he was born with a sin nature?
There are many other problems I have with this doctrine but these are just a few. There is no clear evidence at all that the bible teaches men are born sinners.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 26, 2006 17:36:52 GMT -5
Because of the MASSIVE importance of this subject brethren, i am going to give myself to further study, not to equip myself against those who object eternal security, but to seek God with an open mind to see what He reveals. This may take 1 day or 1 year, I don't know but I would ask those of you who are sincere, to pray that God shows me His truth (don't pray for him to show me YOUR particular belief). This doctrine moulds my future in many ways. For one, as I am planning on entering our church Bible College I must sort this out in my heart first as it the college is Calvinistic in doctrine (not hyper by-the-way).
God bless!
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 26, 2006 17:52:57 GMT -5
It was not a reproof at all. I am sorry. I sure appreciate your humility and openness to learn. I think the majority of Christians believe in the doctrine of original sin. A few of the problems I have with this doctrine are: Babies must then go to hell if they are born sinners. (Not so - they are granted mercy till the age of understanding) Men are punished by God for being the way He made them. (Not so - answer given below) Men are punished for what Adam did. (He was the federal head of all mankind Rom 5:12) Sin is made a disease rather than a choice (1 John 3:4, Romans 6:16). Sin must be a choice. (disease in the sense that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked...") Man should not be guilty for doing something he was created to do. (God MADE man perfect and holy, the corruption has been passed down, we are "shapen in iniquity" Jesus could not have been tempted in all points like we are if we are born with a sin nature and He is not. (he was tempted as Adam was tempted, our federal head) God is unjust for sending men to hell for something they cannot help doing. (is God unjust for electing a people and leaving others out? "elect according to the foreknowledge of God.) Why should man be guilty and deserve punishment for sinning when he cannot help sinning since he was born with a sin nature? (This is human reasoning brother, not scriptural statement. Like eternal torment for a few years of sin doesn't seem fair to some people) There are many other problems I have with this doctrine but these are just a few. There is no clear evidence at all that the bible teaches men are born sinners. (huh? does the bible not say that we are "born in sin"?)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 26, 2006 18:29:05 GMT -5
I asked Winkie Pratney, (Author and Popular Speaker) about origional sin because David Ravenhill recommended that I speak to him about theology.
Winkie said, "well, is sin physical or is it spiritual? If it's physical, and we sinned in Adam because we were physically in Adams loins, then when you bleed a little bit of sin comes out. If you chop of your arm you are chopping off some of your sin. If it's physical, then you could put it under a microscope and see it."
But of course if sin is NOT physical, then how could we have sinned in Adam because we were in Adams loins as Augustine taught? Rather, sin is a spiritual choice men make to rebel against God. "Sin is transgression of the Law" and how could a new born baby be personally guilty of choosing to break God's Law? Winkie said that Augustine was influenced by Eastern thinking which teaches that all things physical are evil, and only the spiritual is holy.
I suppose on the doctrine of origional sin, I would have to side with Pelagius on this one point and say that Augustine was wrong. I haven't studied indepth on Pelagius, I do know men call him a heretick. But remember, he was called a heretick by the Roman Catholic Church, who would also call all the Christians on this board hereticks as well!!
Men such as Charles Finney, William & Catherine Booth, and even Winkie Pratney today do not believe in Augustines doctrine of origional sin.
And so I believe that sin is a choice, and one which men must stop choosing! Yes, complete repentance of all willful disobedience to God, all known sin must be completely and entirely abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 26, 2006 19:06:44 GMT -5
I'm not sure how every thread turns into original sin, ( MESSENGER MICAH!!! ), but I read Finneys "Total Depravity" today and I'm not really sure I agree with him. I definitely need to study more here. I've also been working my way through Wesley's works on original sin (300 + pages) as well. Wesley was a strong advocate of original sin, as was Arminius. One of Finney's main arguments is that for something to be considered sin it must be a free choice and not coerced by a sinful nature. He believed we sin because of a combination of temptation and physical depravity that effects moral choices. Sin is yielding to the excited senses. He relates this to Adam and Eve saying that we all sin in the same way as they.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 26, 2006 19:19:27 GMT -5
If we all sin as they did then how come no one has ever experienced their innocence in the state they were before the fall?
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 26, 2006 21:36:05 GMT -5
Sorry Steve. I have found by experience that when you start talking about living holy, above sin, without sin, free from sin, etc. the issue of original sin always comes up. I think it is an important doctrine.
You have been causing me to spend more time on the computer lately by bringing up these hot doctrinal issues.
Armen,
I am not sure I understand what you are asking.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 27, 2006 7:51:41 GMT -5
Well steve quoted finney as saying that we all sin in the same way as adam and eve. i dont know how this can be said as adam and eve experienced a period of innocence from creation to the fall and if we sin as they did then we are apparently born in innocence too, but no one can say that this is so as it is clear as you watch a toddler that they already show signs of swaying towards sin rather than righteousness.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 27, 2006 11:48:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 27, 2006 12:57:39 GMT -5
Yes. God showed me clearly last night that the Rom 7 passage is indeed Paul prior to conversion. I went through 6, 7, and 8 with my wife there about 30 mins ago and she agrees.
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 27, 2006 12:58:49 GMT -5
It was not a reproof at all. I am sorry. I sure appreciate your humility and openness to learn. I think the majority of Christians believe in the doctrine of original sin.
A few of the problems I have with this doctrine are:
Babies must then go to hell if they are born sinners. (Not so - they are granted mercy till the age of understanding)
Chapter and verse for that one please. If God is just and must punish all sin, then babies go to hell because they are born sinners.
Men are punished by God for being the way He made them. (Not so - answer given below)
Men are punished for what Adam did. (He was the federal head of all mankind Rom 5:12)
So we inherited sin. We had no choice in it but are damned before we do anything. You did not disprove anything I said. I still do not see in that passage where it says what you are making it say. Ezekiel 18:20 and many other places say the son will not be punished for the father's sins but for his own sins.
Sin is made a disease rather than a choice (1 John 3:4, Romans 6:16). Sin must be a choice. (disease in the sense that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked...")
No according to original sin doctrine it is a disease because it is passed down inherently. Yes after man chooses to sin His heart becomes deceitful and desperately wicked.
Man should not be guilty for doing something he was created to do. (God MADE man perfect and holy, the corruption has been passed down, we are "shapen in iniquity"
Much of Psalm 51 is figurative. David also said purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean. Next time you sin are you going to rub a hyssop branch on yourself. He also talked about his bones being broken. Were his bones broken also? Not a good example to base a whole doctrine on.
Jesus could not have been tempted in all points like we are if we are born with a sin nature and He is not. (he was tempted as Adam was tempted, our federal head)
That is not what Hebrews 4:15 says. It says He was in all points tempted like as WE ARE yet without sin.
God is unjust for sending men to hell for something they cannot help doing. (is God unjust for electing a people and leaving others out? "elect according to the foreknowledge of God.)
Another doctrine that needs to be refuted. That will be another post. Yes He would be unjust if He did that.
Why should man be guilty and deserve punishment for sinning when he cannot help sinning since he was born with a sin nature? (This is human reasoning brother, not scriptural statement. Like eternal torment for a few years of sin doesn't seem fair to some people)
It certainly is fair because it was their choice. Since it was a choice there is guilt, responsibility, punishment, and also an opportunity for mercy. No need for mercy if it was something that could not be helped.
There are many other problems I have with this doctrine but these are just a few. There is no clear evidence at all that the bible teaches men are born sinners. (huh? does the bible not say that we are "born in sin"?)
See above comments on Psalm 51.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 27, 2006 13:38:55 GMT -5
I've heard some say that David was born in sin ie out of wedlock and that is why Jesse did not want to show him to the prophet.
I'm not really sure about it....
|
|