|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 23, 2007 15:11:12 GMT -5
Watch this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEOqxibhCxUHere is my take on it: I watched that video and the Scriptures he used said NOTHING about babies being evil or depraved. Paul Washer is a good preacher, who preaches with passion and force, but that doesn't mean that his interpretation of the verses he used is correct. Let's look at some of the Scriptures he used, to see if they can be interpreted the way he says they should be: Genesis 6:5 says, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Does this statement include Noah and his family? If so, why did God not kill him and his family as well? If so, then what do you do with Genesis 6:9? This statement is obviously just saying that so much of the Earth was wicked that the small amount who weren't wicked (Noah and his family) are too few to even matter or mention. That may not be the best way to explain it, but I don't see any other explanation without contradicting Scripture. Can you? Then Paul says, "Don't tell me Scripture isn't right when it talks about all men having sinned because all men are sinners." The part in bold is what I am concerned about. Where does the Bible say this? What Scripture did Paul use to back-up this statement? It seems like he just slipped it in there without any backing from Scripture... Then Paul quotes Genesis 8:21, "And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, 'I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.'" It was kind of humorous how Paul slipped the word baby in there after he read the verse. That is NOT what it says and that is not what the Hebrew word means. I looked in 4 different lexicons and they all said the same thing. It means exactly what it says "youth." As far as age, it probably means the age of accountability for each individual person. One more thing I want to point out is that God says, "nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done." Did God destroy EVERY living thing? Nope, He sure didn't. He saved Noah and his family as well as at least two of each living kind. Then he goes into a cute little analogy that fits his theology, but it's NOT Biblical and it's NOT found in the Bible. I guess Hitler was God's fault, huh? I mean, if what he says is right, that we all could become Hitler if it wasn't for God restraining us, then why did God allow Hitler to become Hitler? I guess God wanted Hitler to kill 6 million Jews, huh? Then he makes more Bold statements like how the Bible says that we are ALL BORN EVIL, when he hasn't proved it yet. Then he uses the bad analogy that just because you don't have to teach a child to lie, that there MUST be something behind their will making them lie. Uh, where is this found in the Bible? Did Lucifer need something behind his will to make him prideful? Did Adam and Eve need something behind their will to make them sin? I don't think so... I will close my ears to any MAN who shouts, "You are born in sin!" unless he can prove it from Scripture. No man has done it thus far, including Paul Washer. I hate to tell you this, but my 8 month old doesn't "hate God." She will sin at some point, as Scripture confirms this (Romans 3:23), but because she has chosen to. Not because something or someone will make her sin. His statement, "some of the 'historical' beliefs about God" is kind of humorous. If he means by "historical" back to Luther, Calvin and then Augustine, then he'd be correct. BUT, if he means the ECFs, he would be dead wrong! Then he quotes the infamous Isaiah 64:6, which says, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." The question here is who are the "we." He is referring here to the Israelites and himself. How can you take this penitent prayer to God on behalf of the Israelites and apply it to all mankind universally? Calvinists due this with David's penitent prayer in Psalm 51:5 as well. BAD hermeneutics, BAD. If he means, by quoting Isaiah 64:6, that we can't save ourselves or that we can't be saved by our "works", then he is definitely true. We need the blood of Jesus to wash away our sins. That, by the Grace of God, is the only thing that can save us! God is Holy, and the only way we can be Holy is by the cleansing and forgiving power of Jesus' blood (Hebrews 9:22). In conclusion, we ARE totally depraved, but it is NOT because something within us, that we are born with, forces us to be that way. We have all chosen to go astray by our own free will! I think many people don't understand the ramifications of believing as the Calvinists do concerning this point. All five points of Calvinism stand and fall together...
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 23, 2007 15:18:37 GMT -5
Kerrigan, why will she sin at some point?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 23, 2007 15:22:30 GMT -5
Everyone sins because everyone faces temptation, not because everyone has a "sin" inside of them which forces them to sin.
Children cannot be born evil because evil is a freewill choice. Children can be born with temptation but not with sin. They can be born with an inclination, influence, bias, proneness, to sin. But that is temptation and not a sin.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 23, 2007 15:33:39 GMT -5
Kerrigan, why will she sin at some point? She will sin because she is tempted by the world, the flesh and the devil (or demonic forces anyway)...and she willfully gives in. The same reason that Adam and Eve sinned. Why did Adam, Eve and Satan sin? I mean, if Lucifer sinned with NO outward or inward temptation, why did he sin? If all the outward temptation Adam and Eve had was Lucifer, why did they sin. We now have a VERY sinful world, a depraved flesh and demonic forces to deal with. If they all sinned in circumstances where they had MUCH LESS temptation, who are we to say that we could do it under MUCH MORE temptation?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 23, 2007 15:40:28 GMT -5
You said it perfectly Kerrigan.
If they sinned with so little tempation, no wonder everyone else sins with so much temptation.
Universal sin does not prove the universal inheritance of "original sin". That is a logical fallacy and entirely begs the question. Universal sin proves the universality of temptation. You can have sin without "original sin" (Lucifer, Adam, and Eve did) but you can never have sin without temptation.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 23, 2007 16:01:03 GMT -5
So you guys don't actualy believe in freewill. Since you believe all people will eventualy sin. You must believe some sort of inherited impossibility of obedience to God.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 23, 2007 16:10:45 GMT -5
I think you have a wrong definition of free will there Alan. Free will means that a person has a choice and that they have the power to choose. No one makes them choose or forces them to choose. And that is exactly what happens with every person. Once again, you are equating everyone eventually sinning with something making them sin. PLEASE, show me this from Scripture brother...
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 23, 2007 16:12:53 GMT -5
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Who do these scriptures apply to?
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 23, 2007 16:16:46 GMT -5
What outward temptaion did Satan have?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 23, 2007 16:21:16 GMT -5
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Who do these scriptures apply to? They apply to everyone who has come to the age of accountability or knowledge. Shall I tell my 8 month old to Repent? Once again, all doesn't always mean ALL. It means those "youth" who have willfully gone astray...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 23, 2007 16:21:17 GMT -5
"all have sinned" can only apply to those who are capable of sinning.
Those who are not born are not capable of sinning. Those who don't have the knowledge of good and evil aren't capable of sinning. "All have sinned" applies to, and can only apply to, those who are capable of sinning.
And to be capable of sinning, a person needs both knowledge and freewill. No man is guilty for anything that was not done because of his own consent and when he knew better.
That is why the bible says that unborn babies that are in the womb have not yet sinned - Romans 9:11. It is obvious that babies that don't exist cannot sin since they don't exist. And likewise, babies in the womb cannot sin because they haven't made any choices yet.
But just as Lucifer used his freewill to sin, and Adam used his freewill to sin, and Eve used her freewill to sin, so all the rest of us used our freewill to sin when we reached the age of accountability, or the age of reason, when we knew right from wrong.
Just as Lucifer, Adam, and Eve did not have to sin, nobody ever has to sin. But all voluntarily choose to sin, so everyone is truly guilty and all sinners are truly criminals who deserve hell.
But if men were forced or necessitated to sin by some inherited "sin" which lies behind their will, and forces their will to commit "actual sin"; if men were truly born with an inability to obey and therefore sin because they can't do otherwise, then sinners are cripples and not criminals.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 23, 2007 16:21:47 GMT -5
What outward temptation did Satan have? He had none! That is my point brother...he just chose to...
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 23, 2007 16:25:23 GMT -5
Where did his ability to sin come from?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 23, 2007 16:30:50 GMT -5
It should also be noted that Eve did not sin because she had a sinful nature. Rather, Even sinned to unlawfully gratify her God-given natural desires for wisdom and food.
"And when the women SAW that the tree was GOOD for FOOD, and that it was PLEASANT to the EYES, and a tree to be DESIRED to make one WISE, she took of the fruit, and thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat it." Genesis 3:6
Many sins, like adultery for example, are not caused by some sinful nature. Rather, men choose of their own freewill to unlawfully gratify their God-given natural desires.
So sin does not need to be caused by a sinful nature, but can actually be caused by freewill acting to unlawfully gratify natural desires given by God. Those desires can be gratified lawfully (God's way) or unlawfully (contrary to God's plan and design), depending on the persons freewill.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 23, 2007 16:35:16 GMT -5
God gave man a freewill so that man could have a moral character, so that man could use his freewill the same way that God uses His own freewill. God made us in His image when He gave us Intellect, Will, and Emotions. And God wants us to be in His own moral image, like Jesus said in Matt 5:48
No doubt, God took a risk when He gave man a freewill because man could use it to sin. But without a freewill, man could not be capable of love, which is why God created man in the first place. God wanted to have a universe of loving beings (like Himself) who love each other, who love Him, and whom He can love.
So freewill was necessary for the exists of love, but with it came the risk and possibility of sin (selfishness). Love is the right use of freewill, which was God's intention in granting it. But sin is the wrong use of freewill, which is contrary to God's plan.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 24, 2007 6:12:00 GMT -5
Kerrigan, why will she sin at some point? I second this statement. The moral government types make a big deal out of 1 Cor. 10:13 in trying to say that this means that all sin is "optional" and in trying to connect it to "free-will". But is the first sin of this little 8 month old optional? How do you know she will sin, since she has a choice, and since she is able to use her "free-will" (which, imho, doesn't exist) to choose not to sin, and instead to be perfect? If the little child IS GOING TO SIN, then how can you say her sin is optional? If she is the choice to sin or not sin, and therefore could theoretically go her whole life without sinning, then what do you do with the very verse from Romans 3 that you quoted?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 24, 2007 6:14:54 GMT -5
By the way, don't bother to state all of the nonsense MGT theories about love having to be free-will-grounded to be real, or the foundation of moral accountability... because as many times as you have tried to prove them, you have failed, and they have been shown to be unscriptural (in that they lack any kind of scriptural proof).
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 24, 2007 6:16:40 GMT -5
Wow, I wish you would keep this in mind when you are debating limited atonement.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 24, 2007 9:07:17 GMT -5
Wow, I wish you would keep this in mind when you are debating limited atonement. Yeah, I bet the Calvinists don't like it when I use their tricks, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 24, 2007 9:08:00 GMT -5
Kerrigan, why will she sin at some point? I second this statement. The moral government types make a big deal out of 1 Cor. 10:13 in trying to say that this means that all sin is "optional" and in trying to connect it to "free-will". But is the first sin of this little 8 month old optional? How do you know she will sin, since she has a choice, and since she is able to use her "free-will" (which, imho, doesn't exist) to choose not to sin, and instead to be perfect? If the little child IS GOING TO SIN, then how can you say her sin is optional? If she is the choice to sin or not sin, and therefore could theoretically go her whole life without sinning, then what do you do with the very verse from Romans 3 that you quoted? I think this was already answered...see above. What is your SCRIPTURAL answer?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Nov 24, 2007 9:10:34 GMT -5
By the way, don't bother to state all of the nonsense MGT theories about love having to be free-will-grounded to be real, or the foundation of moral accountability... because as many times as you have tried to prove them, you have failed, and they have been shown to be unscriptural (in that they lack any kind of scriptural proof). This is a typical tyler comment. "you have failed...shown to be unscriptural...nonsense...blah...blah" Brother, you haven't proven anything concerning Calvinism EVER on this message board, yet you think you have! Maybe you can show us again, o wise one, how smart you are and how stupid we all are. Come, little children, let us sit at the teacher's feet that we may learn from him, because he knows all and we know nothing!
|
|
|
Post by bondslavenchrist on Nov 24, 2007 9:44:33 GMT -5
You know, I have read this whole thread and you guys are arguing over split hairs and semantics. The facts are, no matter who you are, YOU WILL SIN.There is NO PLACE IN SCRIPTURE that speaks of an age of accountability, that is a man made doctrine.(BTW, I am NOT CALVINIST that is a LIE, but then so is Arminianism) There is a previous corrupt moral condition that man contains. There is no doubt of it. EVERYONE WILL SIN. And this foolish dicussion means nothing as everyone will sin and NEED TO RECEIVE JESUS. We cannot choose to NOT SIN, we need Jesus. We cannot overcome sin, we NEED JESUS. If we attempt to NOT SIN in our own strength we will ALWAYS FAIL and will likely become no different than the Pharisees. WE NEED JESUS to remove the corrupt carnal nature with its passions and lusts and THIS HE WILL DO by faith alone. Col 2:9 For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature]. Col 2:10 And you are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--and reach full spiritual stature]. And He is the Head of all rule and authority [of every angelic principality and power]. Col 2:11 In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, but in a [spiritual] circumcision [performed by] Christ by stripping off the body of the flesh (the whole corrupt, carnal nature with its passions and lusts). Col 2:12 [Thus you were circumcised when] you were buried with Him in [your] baptism, in which you were also raised with Him [to a new life] through [your] faith in the working of God [as displayed] when He raised Him up from the dead. Col 2:13 And you who were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh (your sensuality, your sinful carnal nature), [God] brought to life together with [Christ], having [freely] forgiven us all our transgressions, This is what Jesus did. Without Him, we will sin. PERIOD! Does that mean we have a previous bent toward sin or a sin nature? I don't know and neither do you! NONE of us knows for sure and to argue one way or the other shows a decided LACK in the qualities of Christ Jesus in our lives. To argue about things that are not specifically spoken of in the scriptures is foolishness. 1Ti 6:1 LET ALL who are under the yoke as bond servants esteem their own [personal] masters worthy of honor and fullest respect, so that the name of God and the teaching [about Him] may not be brought into disrepute and blasphemed. 1Ti 6:2 Let those who have believing masters not be disrespectful or scornful [to them] on the grounds that they are brothers [in Christ]; rather, they should serve [them all the better] because those who benefit by their kindly service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. 1Ti 6:3 But if anyone teaches otherwise and does not assent to the sound and wholesome messages of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and the teaching which is in agreement with godliness (piety toward God), 1Ti 6:4 He is puffed up with pride and stupefied with conceit, [although he is] woefully ignorant. He has a morbid fondness for controversy and disputes and strife about words, which result in (produce) envy and jealousy, quarrels and dissension, abuse and insults and slander, and base suspicions, 1Ti 6:5 And protracted wrangling and wearing discussion and perpetual friction among men who are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit . From such withdraw. 1Ti 6:6 [And it is, indeed, a source of immense profit, for] godliness accompanied with contentment (that contentment which is a sense of inward sufficiency) is great and abundant gain. 1Ti 6:7 For we brought nothing into the world, and obviously we cannot take anything out of the world; 1Ti 6:8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content (satisfied). 1Ti 6:9 But those who crave to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish (useless, godless) and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction and miserable perishing. 1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have been led astray and have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves through with many acute [mental] pangs. 1Ti 6:11 But as for you, O man of God, flee from all these things; aim at and pursue righteousness (right standing with God and true goodness), godliness (which is the loving fear of God and being Christlike), faith, love, steadfastness (patience), and gentleness of heart. 1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith; lay hold of the eternal life to which you were summoned and [for which] you confessed the good confession [of faith] before many witnesses. I see far more debates on this site that refer to men's teachings instead of the scriptures. WHY listen to men? Why promote man who has need of salvation? It is enough that we go to the Lord ALONE and allow HIM to teach us HIS truth, NOT MEN's doctrines. Cease arguing over things that have little meaning. We need to LIVE LIVES JUST LIKE JESUS and if any think they can do so without Jesus Living HIS life through them, they are deceived. IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS and we all need Him and HIM alone! a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 24, 2007 10:12:29 GMT -5
I wrote a thorough article on what the scriptures teach regarding "The Necessary Conditions of Moral Accountability", which teaches that men are accountable according to their ability and knowledge. The two necessary conditions of accountability are: freewill (ability) and knowledge. No man will be judged for that which was beyond his ability and no man will be judged for something he didn't know. That article can be read in it's entirety here: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=1179957529The scriptures are so clear on this that it's amazing so many "theologians" have missed it, and have created the doctrines of men which are contrary to the word of God. So a new born baby does not deserve hell, because it hasn't made any choices yet and it doesn't have any knowledge yet. But once the child knows better, and chooses contrary to it's knowledge, then it has become guilty of sin. Infant children are morally innocent (2 Kings 21:16; 24:4; Joel 3:19) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Romans 9:11) until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:15-16; James 4:17), and choose to do wrong. Men are sinners by choice and not by birth, so sinners are to be blamed and not pitied. Inward sin or indwelling sin is completely voluntary, and has to do with the voluntary condition of their inward intention or heart (Job 11:14; Matthew 23:26; Romans 6:12).
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Nov 24, 2007 11:18:52 GMT -5
I have to admit that through some of the dialogue here I've become pretty uncomfortable with the doctrine of original sin, but I haven't been able to discard it. One of the texts that seems pretty convincing to me is Romans 7. In verse 20 Paul speaks of "sin which dwells in me" (NASB). In verse 8 he says that this "sin...produced in me coveting of every kind..." (NASB). He says in verse 14 that he was "sold into bondage to sin" (NASB). And when he talks about doing what he does not want to do he says in verse 17 "So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me." I believe in Romans 7 that Paul is speaking of his pre-regenerate state. He speaks of indwelling sin that is prior to his actual acts of transgressions. How then can this indwelling sin be voluntary? This sin (singular) enslaved Paul and caused him to commit actual transgressions. If this is not talking about inherited depravity, then what is it talking about?
Any thoughts?
Here's a kind of commentary that I wrote a while back on Romans 7 if what I wrote above seems confusing:
A STUDY OF ROMANS 7
The seventh chapter of the book of Romans is one of the most disputed passages in all of Scripture. I offer here some of my thoughts on Romans 7. I will be working from the ESV translation.
“Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?” (1)
In this first verse Paul states a principle which he will illustrate and apply in the subsequent verses. The principle: “The law is binding on a person only as long as he lives”. He next points to marriage as an illustration of this principle.
“Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.” (2-3)
Paul’s application of this principle for the believer is a bit confusing. The key is to keep in mind the principle Paul is applying (The law is binding on a person only as long as he lives). The illustration from marriage is meant to make that point alone. It is not a point for point comparison with the application to the believer.
“Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.” (4)
In Paul’s application the believer is the one who dies and the one who still lives! The believer has “died to the law”. That is to say that the law is no longer binding on the Christian because he has died. Thus he is released from the law and is now free to belong to another – Jesus Christ. His union with Christ enables him to do what he could not do under the law – “bear fruit for God”. In the next two verses Paul contrasts life in the flesh under the law with life in the Spirit released from the law.
“For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.” (5-6)
Verses 5-6 are a key to understanding this chapter. The pre-regenerate life described in verse 5 is expounded on throughout Romans 7. If you keep these verses in mind when reading the chapter it becomes clear that Paul is speaking of one who is: (1) Living in the flesh, (2) Under the law, and (3) Held captive by sin. There is no question that this is the pre-regenerate person in Romans 7:5-6.
Next Paul expounds on verse five. There he spoke of the Christian’s pre-regenerate life described as “living in the flesh”. He says that “our sinful passions” were “aroused by the law” and “were at work in our members to bear fruit for death”. In the next several verses he expounds on this.
“What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead.” (7-8)
Paul is zealous to not impugn the character of the law and so he explains how “our sinful passions” were “aroused by the law”. The law did not show Paul what coveting was. It showed Paul what it was to covet. For when the commandment came to Paul his “sinful passions” were “aroused” and he began to covet. The law did not produce theses “sinful passions”. It simply brought these dormant passions to life in Paul. He says that “sin” used the commandment and “produced in me all kinds of covetousness.” Thus Paul can answer that the law is by no means sin.
Take note of Paul’s use of “sin” in Romans 7. Here he says that “sin… produced in me all kinds of covetousness”. Paul says that “sin” was the cause of his coveting. “Sin”, therefore, is prior to the coveting here. This is a key point in understanding the entire passage. Paul speaks continually in this chapter of “sin” as an internal principle within that is the root of actual transgressions. This Paul later expresses as “sin that dwells within me” (20) and “the law of sin that dwells in my members” (23). It was this “sin” that had enslaved Paul. He thus says that he is “sold under sin” (14).
Paul next continues to describe the way that “sin” used the law of God to bring death.
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.” (9-13)
Paul makes it absolutely clear that it was not the law of God but “sin” that brought death to him. It is clear that Paul has been describing thus far the unregenerate life or one who is “living in the flesh” (5). Thus it is plain that the description here of one who is in the flesh is one who is enslaved by “sin”. In fact, Paul virtually speaks of the two as synonymous in the next verse when he says, “I am of the flesh, sold under sin”. To be in the flesh is to be enslaved by sin. In context this is not sins committed, but the indwelling principle of sin. This is made clear in the subsequent verses.
“For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” (14-20)
Paul is clear that the problem is not within the law of God, but within himself. He wants to obey the law but he cannot because he is enslaved by “sin”. Thus he says, “For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out” (18). Once again the context makes it clear that he is not speaking of his personal sins, but the indwelling sin that is the root of actual sins. The context also connects this section with the unregenerate life described in verse 5. There Paul speaks of his past life as “living in the flesh”. Here he says “I am of the flesh”. The context is certainly that of an unregenerate person. He now concludes the chapter reiterating the bondage of sin and the deliverance in Jesus Christ.
“So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” (21-25)
Here we see the depth of despair and bondage and the height of joy and liberty. The unregenerate person enslaved by sin cries out “Who will deliver me from this body of death?”, and the resounding response is “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” Once more a view of verses 5-6 will make this clear. There Paul wrote, “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.” Here Paul makes it clear that the pre-regenerate life is one of captivity, but the regenerate life is one of liberty. This “new life of the Spirit” is expounded on in chapter 8. Can anyone doubt that the life describe in Romans 7 is the pre-regenerate while that described in Romans 8 is the regenerate? Look at these glorious words:
“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (8:1-4)
In Romans 7 Paul is enslaved in the flesh, but in Romans 8 he is set free in Christ. This is unquestionably equivalent to what Paul described in Romans 7:5-6. It is also obvious from the persons relationship to the law. The unregenerate person cannot fulfill the requirements of the law because they are in the flesh / sold under sin. The regenerate person can fulfill the righteous requirements of the law because they are in the Spirit.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 24, 2007 11:31:45 GMT -5
Romans 7 is Paul talking about a man under the conviction of the law, so he is in a struggle between his corrupted flesh and his convicted mind. But Romans 8 is about the one who chooses to walk after the Spirit instead of the flesh.
When Paul was talking about "sin that dwelleth in me" he was using hyperbole to express the strong desires of his corrupted flesh, which were contrary to the desires of his convicted mind. The two "wants" which were at war were his flesh and his mind.
But the bible says that inward sin or indwelling sin (in the literal sense and not speaking in hyperbole) is completely voluntary, and has to do with the voluntary condition of their inward intention or heart (Job 11:14; Matthew 23:26; Romans 6:12).
----------------------------------------------
Here is a tract I wrote on the topic which gives LOTS of scriptural references. We should look at the WHOLE counsel of God on this topic, to see what the bible consistently says throughout. This little tract would make for a great bible study.
SINNERS BY CHOICE OR BY CONSTITUTION?
May you know the truth and may the truth set you free! (John 8:32)
Merriam-Webster’s 11th collegiate dictionary defines:
Choice: “the act of choosing: selecting; power of choosing: option.”
Constitution: “the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body. The structure, composition, or physical make up, or nature of something.”
Do individuals become sinners by their own personal, moral choices? Or do individuals become sinners by their inherited physical constitution? The answer to such a theological question is of vital importance, as it directly affects the way we view sin and sinners; God and His government; the wisdom or reasonableness of God‘s requirements and the justice of His wrath.
Choices are voluntary, inherited constitutions are involuntary. Choices are optional, inherited constitutions are unavoidable. If it’s by inherited constitution that individuals become sinners, then it’s not by choice. If it is by choice that individuals become sinners, then it is not by constitution. If it’s by necessity, then it is not by liberty. And if it is by liberty, then it is not by necessity.
Those who have advocated a constitutional sin often attempt to use Ephesians 2:3 in support of their doctrine: Eph 2:3 “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the others.”
Here is some awesome information. The Greek word for “by nature” is “phusis”. The English translations divide “phusis” into two words, “by” and “nature” but in the Greek it is one word. Strong’s says “phusis” can properly and accurately be translated as “use constitution” or “usage nature“ or simply “by nature“.
In context of the whole verse this passage means that those who choose to walk after “the lust of our flesh“, to gratify “the desires of the flesh“, are therefore children of wrath “by nature”, that is, they are children of wrath because of their usage of their constitution, because of the usage of their nature. “Children of wrath” (Eph 2:3) are very simply “children of disobedience” (Eph 2:1) who are wrongly using their constitutions.
Only what is physical, our fleshly bodies, is hereditary. (Gen 1:21, 1Cor 15:38-39, Heb 2:14) While we inherit our physical bodies from our parents, which are now subjected to death and disease because of Adams sin (1Corinthians 15:21-22), we do not inherit our parents guilt. (2Kings 14:6, Deu 24:16, 2Chr 25:4, Eze 18:2-4, Eze 18:19-20) Neither do our souls come from our parents but rather our souls come directly from God in it’s spiritual condition. (Ezekiel 18:4) That is why a child is neither guilty of evil nor praiseworthy of good until he himself is born and make’s his own choices. (Rom 9:11) And so each man is responsible for “the things done in his body”, and is judged “according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad”. (2Cor 5:10) In punishment or reward, it is all according to their own works. (2Cor 11:15, Rev 22:12)
The flesh has lusts, cravings, or desire, which can be gratified through the forbidden means of sin. (Gen 3:6) These lusts are at first involuntary lusts, cravings, or desires, being strictly physical and not moral. There are involuntary physical desires and then there are intentional committals of the will. One is involuntary while the other is intentional. The former is physical, the latter is moral. But involuntary physical impulses do not bring forth moral (or immoral) sin until the will selfishly serves them supremely (James 1:15) instead of self sacrificially serving the highest well-being of others. (Luke 10:27). Physical temptation becomes immoral sin when the will yields itself to it.
It was the natural, physical lusts, cravings, or desires of the flesh which were the source of temptation for Eve in the Garden. (Gen 3:6) She “saw that it was good for food”, “pleasant to the eye”, and “desired to make one wise”. These were all natural, physical appetites for food and wisdom which she sought to gratify through sin or disobedience to God. This was the first case in history when a human being submitted their will to serve their flesh supremely rather then submitting their will to the truth of God revealed to their minds. This was the first case in the history of a human individual doing what feels good over against what she knew was good. And this is exactly what every sinner does.
Sin is a corruption of yourself or a personal choice to corrupt yourself. (Exo 32:7, Deu 9:12, Deu 32:5, Jdg 2:19, Hos 9:19) Sin is a corruption of what was meant to be good. (Gen 1:31) Walking in the flesh bears fruit unto death. (Rom 7:5) The fleshly lusts wage war against the soul. (1Peter 2:11) To be carnally “minded“ (phronema = purposed), is death. But to be spiritually “minded“ (phronema = purposed), is life and peace. (Rom 8:6) Those who are carnally purposed, “do mind [phroneo =interest oneself in] the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit [interest themselves in] the things of the Spirit. (Rom 8:5)
The lust of the flesh, or desires of the sensibilities, are the source of temptation for sin. (Rom 7:21) Sin consists in selfishness which is being self-purposed, self-interested, self-serving or self-willed. (Isaiah 14:13-14, 2Peter 2:10) This is when one’s will is for their own happiness supremely. But the revelation of moral truth presented to the mind or intelligence, as revealed by the Spirit of God, is an influence towards obedience and submission. (Rom 7:12-13) Obedience consists in being self sacrificial, God-purposed, God-interested, God-serving, or God-willed. (Luke 9:23) This is when one’s will serves God and not self. (2Cor 5:15)
The demands of the flesh as imposed by the sensibilities and the demands of the Spirit as presented to the intelligence are contrary on to another, being hostile towards each other, being at an antithesis. (Rom 7:23) The former demands self indulgence and self-service supremely, the latter demands self denial and God-service supremely. (Rom 7:25)
“Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” (Rom 6:13) The physical constitution of man is a mere tool or an “instrument” without any inherit moral character in and of itself. The body is properly and strictly neither moral nor immoral, good nor bad, sinful or holy, in and of itself apart from it’s usage as controlled by the human will. As a tool or “instrument“, the body or “members” can be an “instrument of sin” or an “instrument of righteousness“, depending on what the human will “yields” it to. (Rom 6:13)
“As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” (Rom 6:19) “For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” (Gal 6:8)
Christians still live “in the flesh” (2Cor 10:3), but they do not live “according” to it. (2Cor 10:2) The physical body that Christians have is the same exact physical body they had when they were children of wrath (Php 3:11-12), and it will remain the same exact body until they die (2Peter 1:14) until the resurrection when they receive a glorified body. (1Cor 15:53-54) While the constitution itself is the same, the usage of the constitution has changed. Christians have obeyed the command to “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom 12:1). “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.“ (Gal 5:24) Christians are those who “let not sin reign in” their “mortal body” to “obey it in the lusts thereof”. (Rom 6:12) Christians have gone from being governed by the flesh (Col 3:7) to being governed by Christ. (Col 1:13) They have cleansed themselves from the filthiness of the flesh. (2Cor 7:1)
Sin is when the will is submitted to the sensibilities, to the lusts, desires, or affections of the flesh (IJohn 2:16), over against the moral demands of God clearly perceived by the mind. (John 1:9, John 16:8) Sinners do what “feels good,” seeking their own pleasure and happiness as the end in which they are in pursuit. But obedience is when the will is submitted to what is “logikos“ or “reasonable“ or “rational“, when the will performs it‘s “reasonable service“. (Rom 6:13) This is when a sinner comes unto God to “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18), when he comes to his senses (Luke 15:17), when the sinner “considers and turns” (Eze 18:28) when the will submits to the intellect, or to the moral truth of God which the Spirit reveals to the Mind. (Acts 17:11)
Christians do what they “know is good” for the glory of God and the well-being of others. (Matt 22:37) Those who walk in the Spirit do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. (Gal 5:16) A single individual cannot serve both the flesh and the Spirit, serve both self and God, or serve any two Masters at the same time. (Matt 6:24, James 3:11) It is by willfully escaping “the corruption that is in the world” that comes by obeying “lust“, by yielding unto the moral demands presented by the Spirit, that we become “partakers of the divine nature“. (2Peter 1:14)
The bad nature (or old man, Rom 6:6, Col 3:8-9) is when you submit your will to the sensibilities (Eph 4:22), when you use your body as an instrument for sin. (Rom 6:13) But the divine nature (or new man, Eph 4:24, Col 3:1-2, Col 3:12-14) is when you submit your will to your intellect (Col 3:10), when you use your body as an instrument for righteousness. (Rom 6:13) This is when a person “does by nature the things contained in the law.” (Rom 2:14)
The mind was designed to receive revelation or moral truth from the Spirit of God. (Rom 2:15) The will was designed to be under submission or obedience to the mind, to obey it‘s moral demands. (Rom 6:17) And the sensibilities were meant to serve the will and mind, to wholesomely and wonderfully experience and enjoy life. (Ecc 5:18, 1Tim 6:17) The will was always suppose to rule over the sensibilities. (Gen 4:7) But sinners have established the gratification of the sensibilities as supreme, having subjected the will to be in submission or obedience to the impulses and pleasures of the sensibilities. (Php 3:19) And they have suppressed in unrighteousness the truth of God as revealed to the mind. (Rom 8:1, 2:8; 2Thes 2:10, 2:12). And so sinners have “perverted that which was right” (Job 33:27), using for evil what was intended for good.
Sinners are enemies of God through wicked works (Col 1:21), because they are obeying the “lust of the flesh” or wrongly using their natures, constitutions, or faculties (Eph 2:3). Because sinners have indulged the flesh, rather then mortify it’s members, they have come under the wrath of God. (Col 3:5-6)
All sin in essences consists in a wrong moral choice (1John 3:4) to serve self as opposed to serving God‘s glory and the well-being of others (Luke 10:27). This is why there is no scriptural reason for any sort of “physical” regeneration in this life in order to be saved, because there is no such thing as “physical” sin, but only a physical temptation which attempts to direct the will. (Gal 4:14, James 1:14) The flesh, with it’s lusts, is the source of temptation, but it is not sin itself. And so the body does not need to be removed before we can be saved, or before we can have victory over sin in this life (Gal 1:4), but rather God’s grace teaches us to ‘deny ungodliness and worldly lust” that we would be “godly in this present world”. (Titus 2:12) And so Christians are to glorify God while in their physical bodies. (1Cor 6:20) Whether absent or present in the body they are to be acceptable unto God. (2Cor 5:9)
Rather then a physical regeneration, the Spirit of God brings about a “moral” regeneration at conversion (2Cor 4:16), because all sin is a moral choice, all sin consists in sinning. (1John 3:4) Sin is willful rebellion against what the mind knows is right, against perceived moral knowledge. (Heb 10:26, James 4:17) Sin is always avoidable, always being optional. (1Cor 10:13) The Spirit changes our will (Eze 18:31, 36:26), not by force or by might, but through the influence of truth upon the mind by the Spirit (John 6:44, John 12:32, John 17:19, Titus 3:5), so that we can be saved in this life. (1John 3:14) And when God changes man's will, the whole man is changed and he is a new creature! (2Cor 5:17)
But the Spirit does not change our physical bodies, in this life, in order for us to be saved. Conversion is not the reception of any new faculties, but it is the proper use of the present faculties. (Rom 6:13, 6:19) Christians are spiritually, not physically, transformed in this life. (Rom 12:2) This is truly what it is to be “born again” (John 3:3) or to be “born of the Spirit”. (John 3:6) And we will receive a glorified body, which is not subjected to death and disease, in the next life. (1Cor 15:42, Php 3:21)
The choice to serve the lust of the flesh unto death or to obey the truth of the Spirit unto life is freely yours. (Deu 30:19, Gal 6:8) Turn from the idol of self unto the living God! (Thes 1:9) If you turn away from all wickedness and do what is lawful and right, God will forgive you instead of punished you. (2Chron 2:14, Eze 33:13-14) If you repent, God will give you mercy and grace because of Jesus Christ. (Acts 2:8) Those who submit their will to the Spirit, rather then the flesh, have no condemnation in Jesus Christ. (Rom 8:1) Those who obey Christ from the heart have eternal salvation. (Heb 5:9, Rom 6:17) Christ was crucified for you and rose from the dead that you might be forgiven. (Matt 16:21, 1Peter 2:24) But you must “obey the truth” to have forgiveness in Christ. (Gal 3:1) You must die to self-will. (1Cor 15:31) You must crucify your flesh. (Gal 2:20, Gal 5:24) You must forsake all. (Luke 14:33) You must deny yourself. (Matt 6:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) And you must follow Christ. (John 10:27) Choose you this day who you shall serve! (Joshua 24:15)
|
|
|
Post by bondslavenchrist on Nov 24, 2007 12:03:34 GMT -5
AND STILL it matters NOT because man WILL INDEED SIN. Whether or nor an infant "deserves" to go to hell the Bible is SILENT on! Again, there is NO PLACE in scripture that refers to an age of accountability neither does the Bible say specifically one way or the other. The WHOLE POINT of why I wrote is I Tim 6. If people INSIST on arguing one way or the other it is foolishness because the end result is the same>>>>> Man needs a savior regardless. By the time someone can understand that they need Jesus. Does the Lord send babies to hell? NO, I do not believe that BECAUSE I KNOW HIM. Jesus paid the penalty for the WHOLE WORLD and that includes babies. If they were able to understand, then the Lord would NOT hold them guiltless but as it is Jesus paid the penalty. To argue whether or not one is BORN with INANTE SIN, a sin nature or will always sin even though NOT born with that nature is absolutely FOOLISH! It does NOT matter as the ONLY way to Enter the Kingdom is THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. And for that matter, David tells us how it is>>>> Psa 51:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David; when Nathan the prophet came to him after he had sinned with Bathsheba. HAVE MERCY upon me, O God, according to Your steadfast love; according to the multitude of Your tender mercy and loving-kindness blot out my transgressions. Psa 51:2 Wash me thoroughly [and repeatedly] from my iniquity and guilt and cleanse me and make me wholly pure from my sin! Psa 51:3 For I am conscious of my transgressions and I acknowledge them; my sin is ever before me. Psa 51:4 Against You, You only, have I sinned and done that which is evil in Your sight, so that You are justified in Your sentence and faultless in Your judgment. [Rom. 3:4.] Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; my mother was sinful who conceived me [and I too am sinful]. [John 3:6; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:3.]
If you wish to argue with David, please do so. But I will not argue about it as it says in Timothy it is FOOLISHNESS!
a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Nov 24, 2007 12:04:03 GMT -5
Jesse, Paul says in Romans 7:8 "But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; apart from the Law sin is dead." It's very clear that Paul says that "sin" produced in him covetousness. You said that this indwelling sin is just hyperbolic language for the strong desires of the corrupted flesh. The above Scripture could thus be paraphrased as: "But the strong desires of the corrupted flesh... produced in me coveting of every kind..." According to The American Heritage College Dictionary the word covet means: "To feel blameworthy desire for (that which is anothers)" You thus have Paul saying that the strong desires of his corrupted flesh produced strong desires of his corrupted flesh! It seems that the reason you say this is hyperbole is because otherwise it could be understood to be teaching an inward depravity that is not the result of voluntary choice. I encourage you to consider whether you are reading your theology into the text or are you letting the text dictate your theology. Steve
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 24, 2007 12:13:53 GMT -5
It should be understood that emotional desire is not a sin. James said that each man is "tempted" when he is drawn away from his own lust and is enticed. But when "lust" has "conceived" it then brings forth sin.
So according to James:
Lust = temptation not sin
And the process of sin is:
1. Lust exists (physical emotions, feelings, or desire) 2. lust is conceived (embraced by the will) 3. Then it is sin.
Physical emotions, feelings, and desires (the lust of the flesh) are only a sin if they are embraced by the will.
So the corrupted flesh brings forth sin, that is, when the will submits to the sensibilities sin has been committed.
Thus be paraphrased as: "But the lust of the flesh strongly influenced my will to sin." That is, the desires of the flesh have affected the want of the Will, inclining it and influencing it to sin.
So there must be a proper distinction between emotion and will. The emotions are the source of temptation but sin is of the will. And the emotions of the body (lusts of the flesh) are a strong influence over the will, and when submitted to, they produce all sorts of willful sin.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 24, 2007 12:20:28 GMT -5
Here are some charts I made that are relevant to this discussion:---------------------------------------------------------------------- And I thought I'd share these "Remarks" which are from the Commentary on Romans 5 and 1Cor 15:REMARKS: 1. It has been proposed by certain theologians of the Augustinian tradition that the freedom of the will to choose between good and evil was somehow lost when Adam sinned, and that men are born after the fall with only the “freedom” (so called) to sin. This would make sin a defect of the constitution rather then an abuse of the power of choice; it would make sinners mere cripples rather then criminals. It should be noted, however, that the loss of free will was nowhere mentioned in the list of consequences and punishments for Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:14-19). In fact, God addressed Cain after the fall as one who had the power of choice (Genesis 4:6-7), and Cain inherited the same nature as his righteous brother Abel. Many times after the fall God appeals to men to choose good over evil, and explicitly address them as those who have the power or freedom to do so (Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 1:16-20; 55:6-7; Hosea 10:12; Ezekiel 18:30-32; Jeremiah 18:11; 26:13; Act 2:40; 17:30; Romans 6:17; 1 Corinthians 7:1; 2 Timothy 2:21; James 4:2, 8-10; 1 Peter 1:22; Revelation 22:17). The freedom of the will, to choose disobedience or obedience, is a presupposition made throughout the entire Bible. So, no matter how strong the motive or temptation is, God never allows it to be above our ability, and He always makes a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). 2. Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3 have been interpreted by the Augustinians to teach that infant children are sinful and are sinners, before they make any choices at all. It should be noted that neither of those scriptures even mention Adam, Eve, or the fall at all. Connecting those scriptures to their doctrine of the fall is entirely prejudicial inference. They are “connecting the dots” out of bias. They also make the logical fallacy of proving a universal inheritance of original sin by pointing to universal sin, when that can be accounted for just as easily by universal temptation. Psalm 51:5 (KJV) says that David’s mother was in sin during the time of conception, and therefore he was conceived and born in sin, as opposed to sin being in him when he was conceived and born. This is a view certain orthodox Jews hold to. It also gives us more insight into why David might have been the embarrassment of the family when Samuel came around. (1Sam 16:10-11) Psalm 58:3 is a poetic psalm not to be taken in its literal sense, since it says that children start speaking lies from the womb. Obviously children cannot speak until some time after birth, so all this psalm is saying is that children learn to sin at an early age, and that the first sin that they commit is usually lying. So, let it be remembered that infant children are morally innocent (2 Kings 21:16; 24:4; Joel 3:19) and have not yet “done anything” morally “good or evil” (Romans 9:11) until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:15-16; James 4:17), and choose to do wrong. Men are sinners by choice and not by birth, so sinners are to be blamed and not pitied. Inward sin or indwelling sin is completely voluntary, and has to do with the voluntary condition of their inward intention or heart (Job 11:14; Matthew 23:26; Romans 6:12). 3. Some have suggested that Christ was born of a virgin to avoid the reception of “original sin.” To them, sin is some abstract entity which lodges itself behind a person’s will, so that the will is necessitated to commit what they call “actual sin.” They reason that since Christ did not commit any actual sins, Christ must not have any original sin inside of Him, and that must be because He was born of a virgin. However, scripture nowhere states that the reason of His virgin birth was to avoid inheriting original sin. This again is prejudicial conjecture, a “connecting the dots” out of bias. Rather, the bible says Christ was born of a virgin as a sign (Isaiah 7:14), and simply because God was His Father. It was not because some sort of sin stuff was hereditary, in the blood or in any other inherited part. Scripture says that Christ was made human, partook of the same flesh and blood that we have (Hebrews 2:14), and was made in all points like we are made (Hebrews 2:17), so He was tempted in all points like we are (Hebrews 2:15). Christ received the same type of body as those who use their bodies for sin, yet Christ condemned using the body for sin by not sinning (Romans 8:3). There is nothing sinful in and of itself in the human body, it is simply an “instrument” that can be used by free will (yielded) as an “instrument of righteousness” or as an “instrument of unrighteousness” (Rom 6:13).
|
|
|
Post by bondslavenchrist on Nov 24, 2007 12:27:16 GMT -5
AND STILL the point is, WE NEED A SAVIOR WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE BORN IN A SINFUL STATE OR WHETHER WE SUCCUMB TO SIN AS SOON AS WE HAVE UNDERSTANDING.
If that is not true, then the Bible lies.
If you wish to argue about the fine points of the LAW or the scriptures, satan will be happy to argue with you!
a bondslave in Christ Jesus, Dirk
|
|