Post by logic on Feb 23, 2010 22:52:25 GMT -5
Okay, this is an E-mail that I am dying to send to Pastor, but my wife & friends are asking me not to so that God may vindicate us.
My wife and I are being labled as heretics, trouble makers, and the like.
It started by an evangelist named Jacob Prasch comming to the church and the Pastor asking hum to behind in and tell the church to "beware" of us & not to fellowship whith us because we are a "threat" & have "the spirit of error"
He says that I am unteachable, because I wouldn't take what he has to say about my commentary of 1Corinthians 15.
This is a letter which Pastor sent out to the Church & I just want people to here my side since I am not going to send it to him.
Pastor Bill ignores the logical conclusion of his theology which I am stating in all my arguments.
He may not believe the logical conclusions of his theology, but that doesn’t mean his theology does not come to those conclusions.
I think it is a good explanation for him to understand me better.
Pastor Bills words are emboldened to distinguish mine from his.
This is why I defend my beliefs so ardently.
And I will explain my part also.
If you actually take the time to read & understand my replies, you will see that my theology/doctrine is not a threat at all, but worthy to be considered.
All I do is look at the Scriptures from a different angle, keeping the justice of God on top.
I still hold to the apostle’s creed and such, and you should find that I am not any threat that you would have to warn the church about.
Now, concerning the “distortions” of your teaching; all I am doing is taking them to their logical conclusion.
So, you do agree that that people "must sin of necessity", and that "sin is inevitable" because of the sin nature, but only for the unsaved.
It doesn’t matter if they who must sin of necessity are “unregenerate person”, my point remains of what you claim.
Why would you say, “Not true?”
Then why do you think that Jesus was born from a virgin?
Even Jacob Prasch said, “If Christ was biologically descended from Adam, He could not save us because He would have been tainted with sin Himself.”
You claim that it the virgin birth is so He wouldn’t have the sin nature. If sin nature is not a genetic condition, then your reason for the virgin birth is wrong.
How would Christ be “tainted” if sin isn’t genetic?
It is not a “tactic”, but a fact, Augustine started the doctrine.
Even though you do not follow Augustine does not mean that your theology is not Augustinian.
You read into the Scriptures the concept of “original sin” because you start with that premise.
I do not see anything about “original sin” in the Scriptures because I do not start with that premise.
If we our sin is caused by anything else but that we wanted to sin, we have an excuse.
The doctrine of “original sin” claims that it is the cause of our sin, therefore we have an excuse.
Furthermore, you claim that it is impossible to live a sinless life from birth; why is that?
It would have to be from the cause of our nature making it impossible to not sin. Therefore, from the necessity of our nature to sin comes our excuse for sin.
Furthermore, you cannot blame our nature for our decisions; that we choose to sin because of our sin nature. This would still give us an excuse for sin.
There are so many versions of the doctrine of original sin, there are many who actually do believe that we are guilty of the sin of Adam; I’ve heard them claim it. So it doesn’t matter if you think so or not, but that you continue to hold to that doctrine of original sin.
Some in the Church just might come to that conclusion, for it is not far off.
As for Romans 5:19 Just as through the one man’s disobedience, [in like manner of disobedience] the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, [in like manner of obedience] so shall the many be made righteous.
Or
So by way of the same manner as one man’s disobedience, the many were made sinners, this way also through the obedience of the one, so shall the many be made righteous.
With the Greek words “as by” meaning “by way of the same manner as” & “even so” meaning “in this way” we see the verse telling us something which others misinterpret.
Being “made” sinners by way of the same manner as Adam was; this is by disobedience.
It must be this way, otherwise you get universal salvation.
If the many were made sinners involuntarily without choice, the many must be made righteous involuntarily without choice.
However, we know the truth that we are made righteous by the obedience of faith, therefore, we are made sinners by the disobedience of unfaithfulness or sin.
Where is the doctrine of 'original sin ' in the scripture?
Among whom also we all had our behavior in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
The correct way to understand this verse is that the cause of being by nature children of wrath is that we had our behavior in times past in the lusts of our flesh...
You’re making the cause of our behavior in times past to be that we were by nature the children of wrath.
This would give us an excuse for our behavior.
If our behavior is because we are by nature children of wrath, then we had no choice in the matter of our behavior.
This gives us an excuse for out behavior.
“Why are you behaving in such a way?”
It is because we are by nature to act this way.
If David is saying that he had a sin nature, he would basically be saying this:
Psalm 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight: that you might be justified when you speak, and be blameless when you judge.
:5 Behold, I was born this way, it was my nature to sin, I couldn’t help it.
However, David was not being “doctrinal” but he was very emotional and basically saying.
“My parents were sinners and I am only adding to the lot of them.”
If you take this verse as doctrine, then take the whole chapter as doctrine. Then must only use hyssop in order to be clean & be whiter than snow, & it is the way God forgives us: Psalm 51:7
Furthermore, you must believe that the world is flat having four corners (Rev 7:1).
You must believe that God actually spit water from His nose: Exo 15:8
You must believe that God actually blew smoke out of his nose: 2Sam 22:9, Job 41:20, Psalm 18:8
You must believe that ice came from a womb: Job 38:29
You must believe that frost is made by being born: Job 38:29
You must believe that the Sun & Moon revolves around the Earth: Joshua 10:12-13, Psalms 19:4-6, Ecclesiastes 1:5.
Why don't you use these versus the same way you are using Psalm 51:5?
Newborns are not wicked, they are innocent. The wicked cannot be innocent & the innocent cannot be wicked.
You must make a choice, are newborns innocent, or are they wicked?
Would you say that “Except you be converted, and become as little ‘wicked children’, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”? (Mat 18:3)
What is the distinction between the “wicked babies” and the innocent ones that we must be like to enter into the kingdom of heaven?
Furthermore, one must be somewhere to go astray. Where were the “wicked babies” before they went astray?
Are they really so wicked that they have poison of a serpent?
Question is, why would you take this verse as a proof of this so called “sin nature” when it is not even a literal Scripture.
The Scripture is only explaining the severity of the actual wicked adults, not that they are actually born that way.
Because they choose to plow wickedly, not that they have to plow wickedly.
The wicked plow the way they are.
One can say that the plowing of the righteous is good, because we choose to plow righteously.
We cannot be culpable of anything that isn’t of our own choice.
We choose to make our status as a sinner.
Sin is not a “state of being” but a dominion which we put ourselves under by choice (Rom 6:16).
If sin is a “state of being” we would need to have made ourselves to be sin in order to be culpable.
The “host of particular sins emerge” from that which we choose to put our affections on to obey and fill our heart to speak.
There is no answer for that because there is no place in Scripture which says that we need or even get a new nature.
2Corinth 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
The question is how are we a “new creation”?
We are a new creation in that we have a changed life, a new view on life, and a new motive for everything that we do. In these new aspects of our life will become actions or works that give a testimony of Christ in us.
Eph 4:22 That you put off concerning the former way of life the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
:24 And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
There is no mention of nature in these verses.
The “old man” is concerning the former way we lived that we “put off”.
The “new man” is concerning the new way of life we live that we “put on”
To put off & to put on is actually forsaking and adopting ways of life.
There is nothing about nature in this.
Yes, sharers of the Divine nature, not receivers of the divine nature.
This is the same as being “partakers of his holiness” (Hebrews 12:10) & this is only that we are yielding the peaceable fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:11) by living righteously and living in a godly way through the knowledge of him who has called us to glory and virtue, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust (2Pe 1:3-4).
Matthew 15:19-20 Jesus said: out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man.
Mark 7:20 And he said, That which came out of the man, that defiles the man.
:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Do not use these as your proof of this so called "sin nature".
God created our good heart and it is with the same things that God called "good" in the beginning (Gen 1:31).
When God called it "good" He only meant that it is useful, serving a defined purpose. This is what God meant by calling creation good.
God created our heart as good and it us who defile it. It isn't created for the purpose for which some use it.
Fact is that we are supposed to guard &/or to keep our heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life. (Proverbs 4:23)
Therefore, it is our fault for what proceeds out of it is evil...
We are the ones who are guilty of corrupting our heart.
Therefore, that which comes out of the heart is from what we let come into it. It is those things which we let in our heart to come out which defile us.
Do not enable blame of God who gave us our good heart by saying that we are born with a bad heart. It is our fault for polluting it. Do not enable blame to God who gave us our good heart when it is us who use it in a way that it was not designed for.
Furthermore, you are trying to say that our heart is defiled by default; having a defiled heart from birth. How are we culpable for that?
Eze 36:26 has the context of Israel needing a new heart because they chose hardened their own. They weren’t hard hearted by default as you seem to claim.
Israel should have had a heart of flesh to begin with, but they willfully hardened their heart.
Not all mankind needs a new heart.
Sarah Levinson (a ten year old who just got baptized) always had a soft heart, so God did not need to give her a new one. I pray that she keeps her heart with all diligence.
John 1:13 “Which were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”
This doesn’t prove a sin nature.
How is it that Abraham argued against what God was about to do to Sodom & Gomorrah if he couldn’t measure God's justness or unjustness with our “human centered measuring stick”?
Gen 18:25 That be far from you to do after this manner…
… Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
What “measuring stick” is Abraham using in this verse?
Fact is, we as human beings; mankind in God’s image and after His likeness have the obligation to interpret Scripture to show the justice of God by the ONLY “measuring stick” of justice there is; God’s which He put in our hearts.
I am not sitting in judgment on the infinite God, but your biased theology/doctrine.
However, we do judge God. We use our “human centered measuring stick” every time we say that God is good.
When we say that God is good, we are judging Him to be attaining to our standard of good. However, no one can truly judge God as bad, because He truly isn’t.
There is no straw man, but your misunderstanding of my arguments.
Yes, I do know what the actual teachings are, and that is why I left, because they are what I claim. I do not “misrepresent the teaching of the church, but take it to its logical conclusion.
Yes, that is why I do it in the fear of God. I left out of respect and did not propagate my convictions within the walls of the church. But I used my right to freely post on Facebook, because I am not a threat. I claim nothing that is damnable, but that which may strengthen one’s faith.
No one was compelled by me to debate on Facebook, and those who did are the only ones to be affected; but they are mature enough to defend their faith without being "injured" (not that agreeing with me is injurious).
If you hadn’t used the pulpit to defend your doctrine, no one would have gotten hurt. Only they who were debating with me are the only ones who would have been affected in this. But you dragged the whole church into it by using the pulpit; especially when you urged Jacob Prasch to behind in.
If you would have been quiet on this matter, it would have stayed a friendly debate on Facebook. But no, you dragged your whole Church into it and made me look like the bad man. You thought that you needed to defend your flock when there was no threat.
The explanation for our actions of posting the things we did was for the reasons of edification and encouragement with all godly intent. We have many friends of Facebook who agree with us on the same things as we do, and we like to encourage them as they do the same for us with their posting on similar subjects. So, as you see, we do not post for the reason of contention, but for edification.
However, there are two opposite sides of our friends list on Facebook. The question is: Do we keep quiet about our convictions & beliefs and not edify those who agree with us, as they do for Darin & I when they post? Or do we proclaim our beliefs for the reason of edification but un-intentionally provoke those who disagree so that they feel the need to oppose and contend against it?
Thank God we both are not proud. The contention only started because you mistakenly thought that you needed to defend your flock when there was no threat.
My wife and I are being labled as heretics, trouble makers, and the like.
It started by an evangelist named Jacob Prasch comming to the church and the Pastor asking hum to behind in and tell the church to "beware" of us & not to fellowship whith us because we are a "threat" & have "the spirit of error"
He says that I am unteachable, because I wouldn't take what he has to say about my commentary of 1Corinthians 15.
This is a letter which Pastor sent out to the Church & I just want people to here my side since I am not going to send it to him.
Pastor Bill ignores the logical conclusion of his theology which I am stating in all my arguments.
He may not believe the logical conclusions of his theology, but that doesn’t mean his theology does not come to those conclusions.
I think it is a good explanation for him to understand me better.
Pastor Bills words are emboldened to distinguish mine from his.
To all concerned- this is a reply to an unsolicited mass e-mailing earlier sent out which included you . I am sending this to clear a few things up, I have no desire to draw you or anyone into this, therefore if this is an inconvenience, please disregard.
pas Bill Randles
CORRECTING THE DISTORTIONS OF OUR TEACHING
Recently, our church has been embroiled in a discussion about Pelagianism- that is, the heresy which denies the biblical teaching about the corruption of all human nature,brought about by the fall of our first parents.This discussion has raised by several direct challenges to the teaching of the church, and has been accompanied by several gross misinterpretations of what it is that we actually do teach.
I hope that these misrepresentations are not intentional, they are serious, in that a church is only valid to the extent that they are the custodians of the "Faithful Word", holding the "mystery of the faith", which was "Once and for all delivered to us by the apostles" of our Lord Jesus Christ. What is the church, after all, if not "the pillar and ground of the truth"?
pas Bill Randles
CORRECTING THE DISTORTIONS OF OUR TEACHING
Recently, our church has been embroiled in a discussion about Pelagianism- that is, the heresy which denies the biblical teaching about the corruption of all human nature,brought about by the fall of our first parents.This discussion has raised by several direct challenges to the teaching of the church, and has been accompanied by several gross misinterpretations of what it is that we actually do teach.
I hope that these misrepresentations are not intentional, they are serious, in that a church is only valid to the extent that they are the custodians of the "Faithful Word", holding the "mystery of the faith", which was "Once and for all delivered to us by the apostles" of our Lord Jesus Christ. What is the church, after all, if not "the pillar and ground of the truth"?
This is why I defend my beliefs so ardently.
Therefore it is urgent that we clearly respond to these misrepresentation of our teachings, point by point.
If you actually take the time to read & understand my replies, you will see that my theology/doctrine is not a threat at all, but worthy to be considered.
All I do is look at the Scriptures from a different angle, keeping the justice of God on top.
I still hold to the apostle’s creed and such, and you should find that I am not any threat that you would have to warn the church about.
Now, concerning the “distortions” of your teaching; all I am doing is taking them to their logical conclusion.
* We are said to teach that people "must sin of necessity", and that "sin is inevitable" because of the sin nature. This is not true; we have always taught that indeed the sinner (unregenerate person) must sin of necessity, in fact we believe that everything a person does, before they are born again, is a sin- because "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin"(Romans 14). But we have always insisted that a born again person has a choice not to sin, they don't have to sin now that they are partakers of eternal life-indeed just last summer we spent several weeks teaching out of Romans six that for the believer, “Sin shall not have dominion over you for you are not under law but under grace”. Jesus came to destroy sin in our lives- its power as well as its penalty!!
It doesn’t matter if they who must sin of necessity are “unregenerate person”, my point remains of what you claim.
Why would you say, “Not true?”
* We are accused of believing that the sin nature is a genetic condition- This is an absurdity! BIG has always insisted that sin is spiritual and moral, that the physical world was made by God and called "Good", even though marred by the fall, i.e. the bondage to corruption and decay(Romans 8:20-30) and that there can only be a spiritual solution to it.
Even Jacob Prasch said, “If Christ was biologically descended from Adam, He could not save us because He would have been tainted with sin Himself.”
You claim that it the virgin birth is so He wouldn’t have the sin nature. If sin nature is not a genetic condition, then your reason for the virgin birth is wrong.
How would Christ be “tainted” if sin isn’t genetic?
* We are called by our detractors "Augustinians"-Actually other than Augustine's testimony, I have never read Augustine, nor have I even once cited Augustine. My belief in "original Sin" is derived from the Word of God. Calling us Augustinians is a tactic, designed to debase our teaching. It would be easier to refute someone claiming Augustine's authority, than it would to honestly deal with our scriptural arguments. I am a Christian pastor, not a roman catholic.
Even though you do not follow Augustine does not mean that your theology is not Augustinian.
You read into the Scriptures the concept of “original sin” because you start with that premise.
I do not see anything about “original sin” in the Scriptures because I do not start with that premise.
* We are accused of citing original sin as an excuse that we give people for sin! This is preposterous to anyone who has heard the constant teaching of this church. We know that all men everywhere are accountable and without excuse for their own sin, sins, transgressions and iniquity. Anyone that has heard our teaching knows we don't excuse any man's sins, but solemnly warn all of the coming day of judgment.
The doctrine of “original sin” claims that it is the cause of our sin, therefore we have an excuse.
Furthermore, you claim that it is impossible to live a sinless life from birth; why is that?
It would have to be from the cause of our nature making it impossible to not sin. Therefore, from the necessity of our nature to sin comes our excuse for sin.
Furthermore, you cannot blame our nature for our decisions; that we choose to sin because of our sin nature. This would still give us an excuse for sin.
* we are accused of saying that we are held guilty of the sin of Adam- this is also a distortion. we will answer for our own personal sins, not Adam's. What we have insisted is that Adam's sin has affected us, in that there is a solidarity of the human race, "As in Adam, all die...". All men were "constituted sinners" by the sin of Adam, and they prove it by individually repeating the sin of Adam- by the disobedience of the one, the many were made sinners- this is the clear teaching of Romans 5.
Some in the Church just might come to that conclusion, for it is not far off.
As for Romans 5:19 Just as through the one man’s disobedience, [in like manner of disobedience] the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, [in like manner of obedience] so shall the many be made righteous.
Or
So by way of the same manner as one man’s disobedience, the many were made sinners, this way also through the obedience of the one, so shall the many be made righteous.
With the Greek words “as by” meaning “by way of the same manner as” & “even so” meaning “in this way” we see the verse telling us something which others misinterpret.
Being “made” sinners by way of the same manner as Adam was; this is by disobedience.
It must be this way, otherwise you get universal salvation.
If the many were made sinners involuntarily without choice, the many must be made righteous involuntarily without choice.
However, we know the truth that we are made righteous by the obedience of faith, therefore, we are made sinners by the disobedience of unfaithfulness or sin.
* we are accused of "proving original sin by referring to the doctrine of original sin"- in other words 'circular reasoning'. This is very exasperating because we have cited numerous scriptures which those who wish to challenge the validity of the teaching of this church have never been able to answer.
* Paul tells us that we were "By nature children of wrath" in Eph 2:3
The correct way to understand this verse is that the cause of being by nature children of wrath is that we had our behavior in times past in the lusts of our flesh...
You’re making the cause of our behavior in times past to be that we were by nature the children of wrath.
This would give us an excuse for our behavior.
If our behavior is because we are by nature children of wrath, then we had no choice in the matter of our behavior.
This gives us an excuse for out behavior.
“Why are you behaving in such a way?”
It is because we are by nature to act this way.
David testifies to us that "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin that my mother conceived me" in Psalm 51,
Psalm 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight: that you might be justified when you speak, and be blameless when you judge.
:5 Behold, I was born this way, it was my nature to sin, I couldn’t help it.
However, David was not being “doctrinal” but he was very emotional and basically saying.
“My parents were sinners and I am only adding to the lot of them.”
If you take this verse as doctrine, then take the whole chapter as doctrine. Then must only use hyssop in order to be clean & be whiter than snow, & it is the way God forgives us: Psalm 51:7
Furthermore, you must believe that the world is flat having four corners (Rev 7:1).
You must believe that God actually spit water from His nose: Exo 15:8
You must believe that God actually blew smoke out of his nose: 2Sam 22:9, Job 41:20, Psalm 18:8
You must believe that ice came from a womb: Job 38:29
You must believe that frost is made by being born: Job 38:29
You must believe that the Sun & Moon revolves around the Earth: Joshua 10:12-13, Psalms 19:4-6, Ecclesiastes 1:5.
Why don't you use these versus the same way you are using Psalm 51:5?
And in Psalm 58 we are assured that "The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray from birth, speaking lies in hypocrisy".
You must make a choice, are newborns innocent, or are they wicked?
Would you say that “Except you be converted, and become as little ‘wicked children’, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”? (Mat 18:3)
What is the distinction between the “wicked babies” and the innocent ones that we must be like to enter into the kingdom of heaven?
Furthermore, one must be somewhere to go astray. Where were the “wicked babies” before they went astray?
Are they really so wicked that they have poison of a serpent?
Question is, why would you take this verse as a proof of this so called “sin nature” when it is not even a literal Scripture.
The Scripture is only explaining the severity of the actual wicked adults, not that they are actually born that way.
The very plowing of the wicked is sin according to Proverbs. If Sin is always a choice to break God's law, why is the very plowing of the wicked sin?
The wicked plow the way they are.
One can say that the plowing of the righteous is good, because we choose to plow righteously.
Sin is more than a choice, it is also a status, a state of being, out of which the host of particular sins emerge.
We cannot be culpable of anything that isn’t of our own choice.
We choose to make our status as a sinner.
Sin is not a “state of being” but a dominion which we put ourselves under by choice (Rom 6:16).
If sin is a “state of being” we would need to have made ourselves to be sin in order to be culpable.
The “host of particular sins emerge” from that which we choose to put our affections on to obey and fill our heart to speak.
Jesus told us that we must be born again, (John 3) we must receive a new nature- why?
2Corinth 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
The question is how are we a “new creation”?
We are a new creation in that we have a changed life, a new view on life, and a new motive for everything that we do. In these new aspects of our life will become actions or works that give a testimony of Christ in us.
the old nature is "corrupt according to deceitful lusts" Eph 4.
:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
:24 And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
There is no mention of nature in these verses.
The “old man” is concerning the former way we lived that we “put off”.
The “new man” is concerning the new way of life we live that we “put on”
To put off & to put on is actually forsaking and adopting ways of life.
There is nothing about nature in this.
By believing in God's promises, we become "partakers of the Divine nature" according to Peter.
This is the same as being “partakers of his holiness” (Hebrews 12:10) & this is only that we are yielding the peaceable fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:11) by living righteously and living in a godly way through the knowledge of him who has called us to glory and virtue, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust (2Pe 1:3-4).
Furthermore Jesus told us that it is man's heart that is evil, not just his actions-Mark 7-
Mark 7:20 And he said, That which came out of the man, that defiles the man.
:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Do not use these as your proof of this so called "sin nature".
God created our good heart and it is with the same things that God called "good" in the beginning (Gen 1:31).
When God called it "good" He only meant that it is useful, serving a defined purpose. This is what God meant by calling creation good.
God created our heart as good and it us who defile it. It isn't created for the purpose for which some use it.
Fact is that we are supposed to guard &/or to keep our heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life. (Proverbs 4:23)
Therefore, it is our fault for what proceeds out of it is evil...
We are the ones who are guilty of corrupting our heart.
Therefore, that which comes out of the heart is from what we let come into it. It is those things which we let in our heart to come out which defile us.
Do not enable blame of God who gave us our good heart by saying that we are born with a bad heart. It is our fault for polluting it. Do not enable blame to God who gave us our good heart when it is us who use it in a way that it was not designed for.
Furthermore, you are trying to say that our heart is defiled by default; having a defiled heart from birth. How are we culpable for that?
man needs a new heart, which can only be given him by God Ezekiel 36
Israel should have had a heart of flesh to begin with, but they willfully hardened their heart.
Not all mankind needs a new heart.
Sarah Levinson (a ten year old who just got baptized) always had a soft heart, so God did not need to give her a new one. I pray that she keeps her heart with all diligence.
and John 1:12-13.
This doesn’t prove a sin nature.
* we are accused of "criminalizing God" by teaching that though men's nature has been corrupted in the fall, men are still held fully accountable for their individual sins against God .I believe brother Jason Schmidt has given the best response to this calumny, in his response to the charge-
“This is the foundational error of the arguments that I have heard in our discussions and in what I have read about Pelagianism. It presumes that we can somehow measure God's justness or unjustness with our human centered measuring stick, and then comes up with conclusions and reinterpretations of the scripture for the purpose of denying that our sense of justice might be off base.”
“This is the foundational error of the arguments that I have heard in our discussions and in what I have read about Pelagianism. It presumes that we can somehow measure God's justness or unjustness with our human centered measuring stick, and then comes up with conclusions and reinterpretations of the scripture for the purpose of denying that our sense of justice might be off base.”
Gen 18:25 That be far from you to do after this manner…
… Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
What “measuring stick” is Abraham using in this verse?
Fact is, we as human beings; mankind in God’s image and after His likeness have the obligation to interpret Scripture to show the justice of God by the ONLY “measuring stick” of justice there is; God’s which He put in our hearts.
We finite mortal beings cannot reasonably sit in judgment on the infinite God who is so much more than we will ever know.
However, we do judge God. We use our “human centered measuring stick” every time we say that God is good.
When we say that God is good, we are judging Him to be attaining to our standard of good. However, no one can truly judge God as bad, because He truly isn’t.
Anyone can set up a straw man, and then knock it down, pretending to be a defender of faith- but God knows what is in men's hearts.
It is not fair to misrepresent the teaching of a church, and hard to accept coming from people who know all too well what the actual teachings are.
It is a serious thing to seek to undermine the teaching of a Christian church, challenging the very validity of the church.
No one was compelled by me to debate on Facebook, and those who did are the only ones to be affected; but they are mature enough to defend their faith without being "injured" (not that agreeing with me is injurious).
If you hadn’t used the pulpit to defend your doctrine, no one would have gotten hurt. Only they who were debating with me are the only ones who would have been affected in this. But you dragged the whole church into it by using the pulpit; especially when you urged Jacob Prasch to behind in.
If you would have been quiet on this matter, it would have stayed a friendly debate on Facebook. But no, you dragged your whole Church into it and made me look like the bad man. You thought that you needed to defend your flock when there was no threat.
The explanation for our actions of posting the things we did was for the reasons of edification and encouragement with all godly intent. We have many friends of Facebook who agree with us on the same things as we do, and we like to encourage them as they do the same for us with their posting on similar subjects. So, as you see, we do not post for the reason of contention, but for edification.
However, there are two opposite sides of our friends list on Facebook. The question is: Do we keep quiet about our convictions & beliefs and not edify those who agree with us, as they do for Darin & I when they post? Or do we proclaim our beliefs for the reason of edification but un-intentionally provoke those who disagree so that they feel the need to oppose and contend against it?
Especially is it so, when the teaching is distorted. Alas, as it is written, “Only by pride cometh contention".
Grace and Peace-Pas Bill
Grace and Peace-Pas Bill