Pelagius & Pelagianism

Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty...Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the grailty of our own nature as an objectionto the one who commands us?

Can a man yield the fruit of the Holy Spirit in his own strength?

RobertW wrote:

Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty...Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the grailty of our own nature as an objectionto the one who commands us?

Can a man yield the fruit of the Holy Spirit in his own strength?

Your part from your own strength is to abide in the vine, His part is to bring the fruit.

"Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty...Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the grailty of our own nature as an objectionto the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing." Pelagius

Except for the whole "love the Lord thy God, and your neighbor as yourself."

Or any of the other commandments, that are broken by even God's people on a almost daily basis.

If you really stop to consider the depth of sin, and see how I do not love God every moment of every day, because there are times when my heart fixes itself upon other things. Things like my wife, what I will eat etc. Though these are not evil in themselves, they are breaking the commandment, and apart from Christ and His intercession for me, I would have no hope.

I know it is popular within modern Pelagian circles to not call sin sin, but rather mistakes, or some other name to avoid the truth that they sin. How horrible the bondage must be, to be constantly lying not just before man, but before the great and gracious God who would abundantly pardon every sin. Sadly many delude themselves into thinking that is some special holiness to be had here on Earth, as if glory were obtainable now, and they pass by the greatest gift, Christ Himself, because they can do it on their own.

Pelagius also believed that Christ was not the only man to have lived a perfect life too.

I posted this in another thread, but it seems to have some bearing upon this topic as well, so here you go.

Now I would like to put forth an illustration for you and logic(if he chooses)to look at and give feedback.

Let us suppose a man has fallen into debt. He cannot repay this debt as he has nothing to pay with, he is utterly poor.

A bill collector comes calling, and says to the man, "you must pay the debt or you shall be punished."

To which the man replies, "Sir, I have nothing to pay with, please let me go free."

Now, is the bill collector unjust for demanding that which is impossible for the man to pay?

Or is the bill collector just for seeking the justice of what was demanded by the law, and the man a law breaker for not doing what was required by the law?

Now I think we agree that every man is guilty before God through the Law, and thus God is not unjust to demand what men cannot do, for man could do it before the fall. The effects of the fall, and the imputing of sin are clear.

Just so we understand that sin is not just counted against us because of imitation alone, but because of imputation, I ask you to look at the following truth which is observed in our daily lives.

Infants are subject to the effects of sin. They feel pain, they suffer illness, and they also die. Yet what sin has an infant committed? If they are unable to commit sin, yet suffer sin's effects, are they not guilty as well? If they are guilty, not because they have committed sin, then why? Does this not show that Adam's sin has been imputed to the world?

Your feedback is appreciated, and I wish to thank you, and may God continue to bless you through Christ Jesus our Lord.

To follow this up, here is something else to consider-
If a judge sentences criminals to suffer the effects of the penalty for breaking the law, is that judge unjust?

Do not the effects of a broken law clearly show that there is guilt? For there would be no penalty if in fact there were no crime committed.

So we see that God is in no way unjust, nor is man untainted from Adam's sin imputed to him thus rendering him unable to perform what God commands because of his sin, not because of God being unfair.

Of course any man who had the desire to follow God would have received that desire from God Himself, and not from his own fallen nature.

roaringlamb wrote:

"Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty...Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the grailty of our own nature as an objectionto the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing." Pelagius

Except for the whole "love the Lord thy God, and your neighbor as yourself."

Or any of the other commandments, that are broken by even God's people on a almost daily basis.

roaringlamb wrote:
I know it is popular within modern Pelagian circles to not call sin sin...

roaringlamb wrote:
but rather mistakes, or some other name to avoid the truth that they sin. How horrible the bondage must be, to be constantly lying not just before man, but before the great and gracious God who would abundantly pardon every sin.

roaringlamb wrote:
Sadly many delude themselves into thinking that is some special holiness to be had here on Earth, as if glory were obtainable now,

roaringlamb wrote:
and they pass by the greatest gift, Christ Himself, because they can do it on their own.

roaringlamb wrote:
Pelagius also believed that Christ was not the only man to have lived a perfect life too.

jimdied2sin wrote:
Man is a fallen, spiritually dead, morally corrupt, sin loving, God hating creature. In the very core of his being he is as opposed to God as the devil himself. He can not change and has no desire to do so, he loves a lie, and will do everything in his power to restrain and supress any and every truth about God. [b]Because the more he knows about God the more he hates him, because God is rightouss and man is evil...[/b]

~Paul Washer

roaringlamb, your analogy is flawed. The man is not guily of not being able to pay the debt, he is guilty of getting in debt to start with. The command of the bill collector being violated is "pay your bills on time and don't get in debt." This is what we are guilty of...sin. We were commanded not to do it but we did. God has not commanded us to work our way out of debt. This would be an impossible command, for there is only ONE name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved...and that is by His grace through faith alone. It is our responsibility for getting into debt, not getting out of it.

This is most false. Because the more one knows about God the more one will love Him because HE is evidently beautiful and awsome!

Both scripture and experience deny this. Washer is correct. However...once you have been regenerated, your statement becomes true.

BeYeDoers wrote:

This is most false. Because the more one knows about God the more one will love Him because HE is evidently beautiful and awsome!

Both scripture and experience deny this. Washer is correct. However...once you have been regenerated, your statement becomes true.

roaringlamb, your analogy is flawed. The man is not guily of not being able to pay the debt, he is guilty of getting in debt to start with. The command of the bill collector being violated is "pay your bills on time and don't get in debt." This is what we are guilty of...sin. We were commanded not to do it but we did. God has not commanded us to work our way out of debt. This would be an impossible command, for there is only ONE name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved...and that is by His grace through faith alone. It is our responsibility for getting into debt, not getting out of it.

How would you re-phrase it brother?

I hope that it did not seem that I was hinting at man earning his salvation, but rather showing that it is not unjust for someone to demand payment even though there is nothing to pay with. That is of course in the instance of a man getting himself into the problem in the first place. :-D

The point I am trying to make is that Adam's sin has effected us all, and left us in debt, and without the ability to fulfill the commands of God. That is until a man's heart is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, then it becomes a joy to obey God, and misery to commit sin against Him. But the natural man does not posses such guilt because he is natural and acts according to his nature.

He may desire to be moral according to his own standards, but those fall well short of God's.

I look forward to seeing how you re-phrase this. Blessings to you brother.

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can you, except you abide in me.

Your part from your own strength is to abide in the vine, His part is to bring the fruit.

So the answer to the question is, NO.

The challenge in these types of discussions is to realize that the keeping of the Law by human effort is not the same as bearing the fruit of the Spirit. The Pharisees to a great degree kept the Law and even Paul said that touching the Law he was blameless; yet he did not have the Holy Spirit. The Law may restrain the thorns, but it cannot produce the Fruit of the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8)

If so, why do you think that God would command us the imposible?

Unless one takes a Quaker view of the universality of the indwelling Holy Spirit then the unregenerate need to 'begin' in the Spirit. There has to be this beginning in which the individual is baptized into Jesus Christ. If they are 'in' Christ they are a NEW creature. This is far more than repentance. this is more than a patch job- this is God working in us [i]both[/i] to will and to do His good pleasure. The primary sin of the Jews was that they did always resist the Holy Ghost. The tree needed to be changed constitutionally- not physically but spiritually.

RobertW wrote:

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can you, except you abide in me.

Your part from your own strength is to abide in the vine, His part is to bring the fruit.

So the answer to the question is, NO.

Your will is a slave to its desires. Man has the nature of Adam.. Adam desired to be his own god. Natural man desires himself above God. He always chooses according to his nature and according to the desires of his heart. Man is not just unwilling to choose God, he unceasingly desires the contrary. The problem is always with the heart, not the mind. Making a bootstrap change to the desires of his heart, a man is unable to do. He needs first and foremost a change of or a new heart, not a change of mind; that comes later. All men apart from God choose against God. None seeks after Him. Staggering odds for the free will crowd to overcome. If Adam and Eve in their moral purity couldn't overcome the devil and their own desires, please tell me how natural man and a little wooing are going to make you or me fare any better?

But, notice that is is our part to abide.

Brother have you ever heard or seen a branch striving to "abide" in the vine it is attached to?

The point is not so much that we maintain our grip on Christ(law), but rather that He has a grip upon us(gospel). It is liberating when one realizes this truth, and obeys from a childlike love rather than a slavish fear of reprimand.

If Adam and Eve in their moral purity couldn't overcome the devil and their own desires, please tell me how natural man and a little wooing are going to make you or me fare any better?

Excellent point brother? sister?

roaringlamb wrote:

If Adam and Eve in their moral purity couldn't overcome the devil and their own desires, please tell me how natural man and a little wooing are going to make you or me fare any better?

Excellent point brother? sister?

Bother, Brother.

Bother, Brother.

Just wanted to be sure :-D

whyme wrote:
Your will is a slave to its desires.

whyme wrote:
He always chooses according to his nature and according to the desires of his heart.

whyme wrote:
Man is not just unwilling to choose God, he unceasingly desires the contrary.

whyme wrote:
The problem is always with the heart, not the mind. Making a bootstrap change to the desires of his heart, a man is unable to do.

He needs first and foremost a change of or a new heart, not a change of mind; that comes later.

whyme wrote:
None seeks after Him. Staggering odds for the free will crowd to overcome.

whyme wrote:
If Adam and Eve in their moral purity [b]couldn't[/b] overcome the devil and their own desires...

whyme wrote:
please tell me how natural man and a little wooing are going to make you or me fare any better

roaringlamb wrote:

But, notice that is is our part to abide.

Brother have you ever heard or seen a branch striving to "abide" in the vine it is attached to?

It is liberating when one realizes this truth, and obeys from a childlike love rather than a slavish fear of reprimand.

But, notice that is is our part to abide.
every day we must choose to walk after the spirit that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.

This is true, but this is not what Pelagius believed. This man denied the doctrine of Original Sin (pollution) and did not appreciate the inadequacy of the Law to achieve and restore the glory of God that man had fallen from in the Garden and since. Obedience to the Law does not restore man to the glory and image of God. Only regeneration can do that. The danger of Pelagius and Finney is that they taught that regeneration as it is known in the reformed tradition is unnecessary. It lends to the notion that men do not need regeneration- they only need repentance. But this does not square at all with John 3:3, Matthew 3:10 and a host of other passages that clearly teach that men stands in need of regeneration.

The reality is, Augustine and others over stated the depth of man's depravity so as to make man a slave to Sin in the absolute sense- like a person demon possessed or worse. the reaction to this was an [i]over-reaction[/i] and stated man could completely obey God so as to no longer fall short of His glory. What is [i]lost[/i] in the debate is the essential transformation required to make a thorn bearing tree a fruit tree. Whether one 'could' obey God is not the issue. the issue is that God needed to deal with the Sin that corrupted man's nature so as to cause a bent towards sinning.

(PS. Robert, both Pelagius and Finney denied a physical regeneration and taught a moral/spiritual regeneration by revelation, which is precisely the type of regeneration that the bible teaches. The Spirit reveals truth to us and it is our freewill choice to obey or resist.

Wow, they taught this in spite of Scripture teaching that revelation apart from the renewing of the heart only increases condemnation, and people actually listened to these guys!!!!

I'd like to see where Scripture teaches regeneration by revelation, because so far as I understand, the new birth is spiritual, and not natural, which makes it outside of what man can accomplish.

If the Spirit is even the slightest bit needed to re-birth a soul, then how can anyone say, "man is free to do as he will"?

But then again, Finney thought the cross was "divine child abuse", and that the Cross really did not redeem anyone, but only made it for men to get a clean slate that they were responsible to keep clean in order to be saved.

Jesse did your wedding only make marriage possible, or was it a certification of that marriage?

Does your wife have to maintain a legal standing with you in order for you to approach her as your wife, or because of your love for in the light of your marriage to her, do you grant her forgiveness? Is your relationship with her purely legal, or relational?

Interesting that God refers to Himself as Israel's Husband, and Christ is referred to as the Bridegroom.

roaringlamb wrote:

(PS. Robert, both Pelagius and Finney denied a physical regeneration and taught a moral/spiritual regeneration by revelation, which is precisely the type of regeneration that the bible teaches. The Spirit reveals truth to us and it is our freewill choice to obey or resist.

I'd like to see where Scripture teaches regeneration by revelation...

roaringlamb wrote:
Jesse did your wedding only make marriage possible, or was it a certification of that marriage?

therefore the fact that there is an atonement makes salvation possible.

Act 9:4-6

Hmmm, I don't see it(pun intended)

You cannot take that and apply it universally, especially when there are a host of verses that speak to the opposite.

therefore the fact that there is an atonement makes salvation possible.

Salvation may be possible, but it must be applied in order for it to be actual, and effectual. This work of application is done by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of Christ crucified and raised from the dead.

In the work of salvation there is a wonderful united work of the trinity-
-The Father has chosen those who will be saved

-The Son purchases that salvation for those whom the Father chose

-The Holy Spirit applies this salvation to those whom the Father has chosen, and those whom the Son has redeemed.

It is a glorious, and wonderful work!!!!!!!!

It must be clearly understood that sin is an abuse of freewill. Sin is not the lose of freewill or the corruption of your nature. It is willful rebellion against God. Sinners are criminals and not cripples!

I affirm that sinners are [i]both[/i] criminals and cripples. By His stripes we were [i]healed[/i] (Isaiah 53). 'Heal' here in the Hebrew means to make whole or to [i]cure[/i]. This is said to be the working of christ accomplished upon the Cross and is made available to us as we are baptized into Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

(PS. Robert, both Pelagius and Finney denied a physical regeneration and taught a moral/spiritual regeneration by revelation, which is precisely the type of regeneration that the bible teaches. The Spirit reveals truth to us and it is our freewill choice to obey or resist.

I would deny a physical regeneration also and affirm a future [i]resurrection[/i] instead. This is why we still die. There is somewhat yet to be dealt with after regeneration. However, men are by [i]nature[/i] the children of wrath (Eph. 2) prior to regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

As you know, Finney believed that there was a sense in which God, man and the truth are said to bring about regeneration or a 'new heart'(as he would say). I affirm that regeneration is a one time crisis event in which God reveals Himself to a person (generally through the preaching of the Gospel) and they respond rightly to Him. The person [i]receives[/i] the Holy Spirit and is made a 'new' creature. All old things pass away and all become new. This is the "ye must be born again" of John 3:3.

When we are baptized into Jesus Christ we are baptized into His death. This is what renders us dead to Sin. How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein? We are dead to Sin and alive unto God through our having been baptized into Him by the Spirit. Water baptism is the symbol of this event (and an act of obedience).

roaringlamb wrote:

I'd like to see where Scripture teaches [b]regeneration by revelation[/b]...

Act 9:4-6

Hmmm, I don't see it(pun intended)

Salvation may be possible, but it must be applied in order for it to be actual, and effectual. This work of application is done by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of Christ crucified and raised from the dead.

In the work of salvation there is a wonderful united work of the trinity-
-The Father has chosen those who will be saved

[b]1Tim 4:10[/b] [color=990000]For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.[/color]
Notice the distinction between all men and those that believe? Therefore, God is calling all men.

[b]Titus 2:11[/b] [color=990000]For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,[/color]

-The Son purchases that salvation for those whom the Father chose

[quote-The Holy Spirit applies this salvation to those whom the Father has chosen, and those whom the Son has redeemed.Salvation is not applyed, it is given by relationship with Christ.

by Lazarus1719 on 2007/10/31 21:08:54

You know, those who believe that regeneration is involuntary and physical do not and cannot believe that the gospel has any tendency at all to regenerate the soul? Preaching, in their view, is utterly useless.

Persuading, reasoning, and disputing like Paul did really has no influence to regenerate the heart! In their view.

Care to give examples of ministers - past and present - who have explicitly said such things?

"This doctrine is a stumbling-block both to the church and to the world, infinitely dishonorable to God, an abomination alike to God and the human intellect, and should be banished from every pulpit, and form every formula of doctrine, and from the world. It is a relic of heathen philosophy, and was foisted in among the doctrines of Christianity by Augustine, as everyone may know who will take the trouble to examine for himself."

It must be clearly understood that sin is an abuse of freewill. Sin is not the lose of freewill or the corruption of your nature. It is willful rebellion against God. Sinners are criminals and not cripples!

Obedience results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body." Pelagius

"those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead." Pelagius

"And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature." Pelagius

"Yet we do not defend the good of nature to such an extent that we claim that it cannot do evil, since we undoubtedly declare also that it is capable of good and evil; we merely try to protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault of our nature, when, in fact, we do neither good nor evil without the exercise of our will and always have the freedom to do one of the two, being always able to do either." Pelagius

"Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty...Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the grailty of our own nature as an objectionto the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing." Pelagius

"Grace indeed freely discharges sins, but with the consent and choice of the believer." Pelagius

"Our most excellent creator wished us to be able to do either but actually to do only one, that is, good, which he also commanded, giving us the capacity to do evil only so that we might do hi will by exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is also good - good, I say, because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity but free to decide for itself." Pelagius

"Is it possible then possible for a man not to sin? Such a claim is indeed a hard one and a bitter pill for sinners to swallow; it pains the ears of all who desire to live unrighteously. Who will find it easy now to fulfil the demands of righteousness, when there are some who find it hard even to listen to them?" An unknown Pelagian

"When will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice? It affords endless comfort to transgressors of the divine law if they are able to believe that their failure to do something is due to inability rather then disinclination, since they understand from their natural wisdom that no one can be judged for failing to do the impossible and that what is justifiable on grounds of impossibility is either a small sin or none at all." An unknown Pelagian

"Under the plea that it is impossible not to sin, they are given a false sense of security in sinning...Anyone who hears that it is not possible for him to be without sin will not even try to be what he judges to be impossible, and the man who does not try to be without sin must perforce sin all the time, and all the more boldly because he enjoys the false security of believing that it is impossible for him not to sin...But if he were to hear that he is able not to sin, then he would have exerted himself to fulfil what he now knows to be possible when he is striving to fulfil it, to achieve his purpose for the most part, even if not entirely." An unknown Pelagian

"Consider first whether that which is such that a man cannot be without it ought to be described as sin at all; for everything which cannot be avoided is now put down to nature but it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault." An unknown Pelagian

"How can it be proper to call sin by that name if, like other natural things, it cannot be avoided, since all sin is to be attributed to the free choice of the will, not the defects of nature." An unknown Pelagian

No one has prooved any of these quotes to be wrong.

Should I post the volumes that have been written since his lifetime showing him and his view to be heresy?

When Jesus tells unbelievers that the reason they do not believe is because they are children of the devil, I am theologically comfortable that the sinner is in much worse shape than a lack of clear thinking. When the Scriptures have us all as either slaves of righteousness or slaves of sin or servants of God or servants of the devil, and not in some man centered limbo, I am comfortable that something is required more than persuasion. When it takes the death of the Son of God to save me, then I am thoroughly convinced that my sin has affected me much more than temporarily marred my sensibilities. When God has to make me born again before I can "see" ( or understand ) the kingdom of God, I am persuaded that when saved I have passed from death to life and not just been illuminated to the truth. When an overwhelming supermajority of very holy evangelical saints believe that Jesus is God and that man inherits original sin, then I am certain that anyone who disagrees with those doctrines is in all likelihood heretical although that is ultimately within God's overriding sovereign judgement. So far this week, we have seen on the forum more than enough blindness as to who God is and the same blindness as to the true condition of natural man.

2Pet 2:20

Nothing here about natural ability. This is written of those who were false teachers.

1Pet 1:22

Written to believers, who had been regenerated by the Spirit. nothing here about natural ability to change oneself from natural to spiritual.

2Pet 1:2-3

The "us" is Christians, the promises mean absolutely nothing to natural men.

John 6:63

Here's a great passage supporting monergism, and the need of God revealing truth to man, and creating spiritual life in him.

John 6:45

You forgot the verse before it, "no man can come to me unless the Father which has sent me draw him."

Again monergistic revelation, and renewing of the heart produces faith to believe in Christ.

John 8:32

Yes, but look at the response after Jesus says this., "we are Abraham's children and have never bee in bondage." Christ would go to tell these people, "ye are of your father the devil, and his deeds you desire to do."

These did not convert themselves, nor did they become regenerate of their own will.

Titus 2:11-12

Again, this does not imply anything about man regenerating himself through natural revelation. the grace of God has been revealed to all men, but not all men receive the grace that brings about conversion. Natural man hates the light, and is an enemy of God, and as such, he would rather spit upon God's truth, or nail it to a cross.

1Tim 2:4

Again, we must understand that either "all" means every single human being ever created, or we must allow common sense, and Scriptural truth to prevail, and thus see that "all" does not mean "all" all of the time.

For example when we read Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that [b]all the world[/b] should be taxed, does this mean that India, Mexico, and the United States payed taxes too? of course not, it means all the Roman world.

Now on the opposite view, I would say that[b]all have sinned[/b]. But you would say, infants have not sinned, so the "all" cannot mean "all".

If God willed that all men be saved, then every single person would be saved, as His will cannot and will not be thwarted.

1Cor 4:15

Again, Paul did not create the birth in these whom he was writing, but rather God regenerated them through the words which Paul spoke to them.

Ps 17:7

Written by David who knew God already, so it would be similar to a Christian praying for God to show us His lovingkindeness.

An unregenerate person would never pray this, as he wants nothing to do with God.

James 1:18

If anything, this verse actually supports what I have been saying, that God alone is the One who gives the new birth.

"Of His own will, begat He us with the word of truth..."

This word is Christ, or the Gospel. The Gospel is the means the Spirit uses to create faith in men.

1Pet 1:23

Again, here we see the word as the means by which God births life into men, and if anything this shows that God and God alone births this life.

So far there has not been any mention of natural men being birthed through revelation apart from the word of God through the Spirit.

James 1:21-22

This is written to Christians, not unbelievers. Those who would by the Spirit be able to fulfill this. It's not given to natural men as command to pull one's self up by their boot straps.

Rom 2:8

This explains the reward for those who do not obey the truth, nothing about ability, or revelation.

2Thes 1:8

Again, same thing as before. No mention of ability or being regenerated by natural revelation.

John 15:3

Spoken to the apostles, who were Christians, this is not to unbelieving people. It has to do again with the word, its effect upon people. Of course the word without the Spirit is dead, however the Spirit quickens, or gives life to whom He will through the preaching of the word.

1Pet 4:17

No mention of ability, or regeneration by revelation. Again written to believers, not unbelievers.

John 17:17

The "them" is those whom the Father has given to the Son. Nothing at all to do with unbelievers, or regeneration through revelation.

Rom 6:17

Written to Christians, who had received faith, and had been justified by faith. Not written to unbelievers. Again, no mention of natural ability or regeneration.

Acts 9:4-6

If anything this passage supports monergistic salvation. God reveals Christ to men, and as we see, God says that Paul is a "chosen vessel"(v.15), and Paul later writes, "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:" (Gal 1:15-16)

You know, those who believe that regeneration is involuntary and physical do not and cannot believe that the gospel has any tendency at all to regenerate the soul? Preaching, in their view, is utterly useless. Persuading, reasoning, and disputing like Paul did really has no influence to regenerate the heart! In their view.

I don't know who says there is a physical change? The Spirit uses the proclamation of Christ, and Him crucified, and resurrected for the sins of men to give faith.

A natural man will not believe this message, as it is foolishness, or a stumbling block to him. The simplicity of the Gospel is an offence to those who seek wisdom, or who want a savior other than the Christ revealed in Scripture.

whyme wrote:
I am comfortable that something is required more than persuasion...

When God has to make me born again before I can "see" ( or understand ) the kingdom of God, I am persuaded that when saved I have passed from death to life and not just been illuminated to the truth.

However, you must aknowledg the fact that you are a sinner and repent and put your faith on the correct object(Christ) before you can be saved. That does not require some special so called "regeneration".

So far this week, we have seen on the forum more than enough blindness as to who God is and the same blindness as to the true condition of natural man.

(The whole concept of "your own strength" is absurd. No strength is our own. Any strength we have is strength God has given us.)

And any faith we have is not from ourselves, but rather is the result of a new heart, as is any ability to obey God's commands.

Your statement above contradicts the Pelagian thought you are defending here.

This is what I was trying to draw out from your own words. You yourself admit that a man cannot convert himself, so why do you continue to push this type of theology? I do not understand.

When you preach, do you believe the Spirit must produce faith in the hearers, or that He must convict them of their sin? Or do you expect them on their own to believe the Gospel?

God: Why didn't you have faith as I commanded?

God is not going to ask this question brother.

Again you operate from a democratic egalitarian view in which God must deal with all men equally, or He is unfair. Did Israel receive greater things than the nations around them? Absolutely.

Did the Philistines receive the revelation that Israel did? No. Is this unfair, or does God have the right to do with His creation as He sees fit?

God works with His people in ways that He does not work with others. This is not unfair, but rather the promise of being His people, and receiving the blessing of His promises.

Fair is damnation as we all have sinned against God. Unfair is receiving grace to believe in Christ.

Why are you all who disagree, denying your moral responsability?
If one is incapable to come to Christ when presented with the truth, then one can not have a moral responsability to do it, for there is no responsability for incapabilities.

You all are denieing that you can come to Christ when presented with the truth, and you will not admitt that it is because of unwillingness or plain rebelion; y'all keep saying that you can not because of your nature is incapable.
You are denying your moral responsability to the call "commanding all men everywhere to repent"(Act 17:30)

"if a man cannot be without sin, then something which is the result of that incapacity will no longer be a sin, because the incapacity is attributable to his nature; yet it is not to his nature but to his will that sin is to be ascribed, in order that the author of nature may not be adjudged to be to blame."

Then why do we need Christ to die for us?

If man has the wherewithal to be perfect, the man does not need a perfect obedience to be imputed or placed to his account.

This of course is what you find so contrary to both your flesh and your theology, that in Adam, all men died, and that was imputed to all men everywhere. We see this in every day life.

So if you deny the representation of Adam for us, then in essence, you must also deny Christ's representation of us on the Cross bearing our sins, and raising us up with Him to new life. That is if you are consistent with your theology.

So then a man is justified by faith, but not because of its object(Christ and His work), but rather the faith itself is deemed a justifying work done by man. If that is the beginning, then man must maintain his works, and hope that he keeps his obedience perfectly until he dies, as he is the one who determines his fate.

Like I asked you earlier Jesse, after your wife became your wife, how often have you made her keep up her duties to prove her love to you, or also, if she fails in one point of your law of what a wife should be, do you divorce her, and then when she is obedient, you remarry her?

This is the theology you are putting forth. That God marries Himself to a sinner, and justifies them through Christ and His sacrifice, but then divorces them and removes His approval every time they sin, or do not keep the law perfectly.

I do hope this is not how it is in your marriage, but if your theology flows over into your life(as it should), then it would be a simple assumption.

I will complement Finney in that he stuck to errors and never really did back down from them, or blur them, as Wesley did. Yet Finney is nothing more than a "Christianized" version of Emmanuel Kant and ends up simply being ethics.

Quote:

by Lazarus1719 on 2007/10/31 21:08:54

You know, those who believe that regeneration is involuntary and physical do not and cannot believe that the gospel has any tendency at all to regenerate the soul? Preaching, in their view, is utterly useless.

Persuading, reasoning, and disputing like Paul did really has no influence to regenerate the heart! In their view.

Again, I ask: Who has taught this?

You are denying your moral responsability to the call "commanding all men everywhere to repent"(Act 17:30)

No I am not, I am denying his ability to do so.

Now, let me bring up your illustration that you love to use, the two year old being told to mow the lawn.

If in fact this was close to the Scriptural view of man's fall, then it would make sense on it sown, but I will fit it to Scripture.

Let us say there is a two year old who was able to mow the lawn, or not mow the lawn, and is told that if he mows the lawn, then he will please his father, and have fellowship with him. But if he does not mow the lawn, he would die(not only physically, but spiritually).

So this two year old, refuses his father's command and brings death into all two year olds as he was the representative of all two year olds. Thus now all two year olds cannot mow the lawn because they lack the ability because of the death brought in in the fall of the first two year old.

However in the grace of the father, he before this all happened had a remedy. He would come in the form of a two year old, and mow the lawn to set free the two year olds who would admit their need of a substitute who did what they could not do.

This fulfillment was placed in the account of all the two year olds who believed this, the father gave ability to the two year olds, and they now could mow the lawn by his strength, and by his grace.

Hope this helps brother. Because this is more Scriptural, and is a wonderful picture of what God has done in Christ for us.

But how came Adam by a sinful nature? Did his first sin change his nature? Or did God change it as a penalty for sin? What ground is there for assertion that Adam's nature became in itself sinful by the fall? This is a groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdiy. Sin an attribute of nature! A sinful substance! Sin a substance! Is it a solid, a fluid, a material, or a spiritual substance?"

It is certain that [u]S[/u]in did by [i]one man[/i] enter the world as some alien corruption of man's nature and [i]not[/i] as a mere transgression. The fact is proven first by knowing that what the Serpent did in bringing temptation and lies to the Garden were in fact the first sins (transgressions) recorded upon the earth. Surely we would all affirm this fact?

(Romans 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The proof that Sin did in fact enter is that both spiritual and physical death passed upon ALL men- even those that did not sin (transgress) in similar fashion to Adam. Death (dying thou shalt die) was the penalty for sinning (Gen. 2:17 Lit). Death also became the instrument by which God would bring separation between Sin and man; not just any death, but the death of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.

(Romans 6:3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized [u]into[/u] Jesus Christ were baptized [u]into his death[/u]?

(Romans 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The question in verse 3 is worth asking ouselves. Do we know this? We were dead towards God (Ephesians 2) but alive unto Sin. These are two master's. If there be no Sin that entered to corrupt human nature, then there is no reason for us to be baptized into Christ's death. If our slavery to Sin is merely a matter of a change of mind and heart- truly God [i]could[/i] have accomplished a new heart and mind merely by the application and impression of truth brought to bear upon it by the Holy Spirit. But, clearly, there was somewhat that we needed to [u]die[/i] to- some [i]real[/i] slavery.

Now, I wish not to be understood to say that our slavery to sin is absolute. Sin 'worketh' in the unregenate just as God 'worketh' in those that have His Spirit. Neither are slaves in the absolute sense.

(Romans 6:6,7) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Slaves are free from bondage at death or emancipation. IF a person has been baptized into Christ- they have been baptized into His death. This frees them from slavery to that alien spirit that works in the children of disobedience we might term as 'Sin' (Ephesians 2:1, 2); at teh same time, having been freed from Sin they became the servants of righteousness by the Holy Spirit that now indwells them.

(Romans 6:16-18) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

How were we made free? Through baptism into Christ that makes the death of Christ effectual to us. [i]How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein?[/i](6:1) This is more than glorified repentance (change of mind and heart); it is an actual liberty from a slavemaster and subsequent freedom to serve Christ unthwarted. This is the wonder of the New Covenant. This is God coming into the Temple and throwing out the enemy and taking up residence Himself.

Our bodies are [i]a[/i] temple- if I could say it that way and must become THE Temple of the Holy Spirit. Sinners are not abandoned residences; they are the habitation of the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience. The law that 'that' spirit agrees with is the law of Sin. It is a rebellious law that opposes God and seeks to exalt itself above God or be like God.

God did not create man with a natural desire to rebel. Nor is the temptation to rebel a creation of God. The desire or temptation to rebel, that does not have to be taught, comes from [i]within[/i] man. Adam and Eve sinned ONLY because there was a temptor. They were tempted from without. Satan did not stand there and tell Cain to kill his brother. Why? He was able to fill his heart from [i]within[/i].

Jesus Christ was born utterly sinless and had to be tempted as was Adam by the devil face to face. He could not do an 'inside job'. The error of Pelagius and Finney is that they both lend one to think that we are all born as sinless as if we were immaculately conceived of a virgin. In Adam all die. In Christ shall all be made alive. We are either in Adam or we are in Christ. The only thing that matters on this earth is if we are IN Christ. If we are IN Christ we are new creatures. Not creatures like unto Adam- but like as the second Adam which was Christ. We find our way INTO Jesus Christ through our having been baptized into Him by the Holy Spirit. This is more than a mind change towards obedience- it is a new creature with a new Spirit.

We were not born under the Mosiac Law, but we were still subject to the [i]law of Sin and death[/i] that was in our members. The Law of Moses exposed the law of sin, but not completely. The Sermon on the Mount reveals man's inability to [i]naturally[/i] attain to the Glory of God.

Perhaps we should look at what the Church at large thought of Pelagius and his teachings.

Here are some excerpts from the Council of Orange, which was convened to discuss Pelagius and his doctrine in 529 AD.

It is important to look at what the Church fought against in the past so that we do not repeat the errors in the future. To equate this to modern days, it is much as if in 100-200 years, the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons were considered true to Scripture. Our children would be able(hopefully) to look back and see that this was not always the case, and why it was not.

The Canons of the Council of Orange 529 AD
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13)

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

The rest can be read here
[url=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/councilorange.html]Council Of Orange Canons[/url]

I agree with both roaringlamb and logic. I believe these 2 truths are one truthin that i begin repentence of my own and yet i am not able to properly repent until the Holy spirit reveals my wretchedness and i see the awesome holiness of God.
I know after I got saved About a week later the lord suddenly said to me "You are not your own"

...David

roaringlamb wrote:

"if a man cannot be without sin, then something which is the result of that incapacity will no longer be a sin, because the incapacity is attributable to his nature; yet it is not to his nature but to his will that sin is to be ascribed, in order that the author of nature may not be adjudged to be to blame."

Then why do we need Christ to die for us?

roaringlamb wrote:
If man has the wherewithal to be perfect, the man does not need a perfect obedience to be imputed or placed to his account.

roaringlamb wrote:
This of course is what you find so contrary to both your flesh and your theology, that in Adam, all men died, and that was imputed to all men everywhere. We see this in every day life.

roaringlamb wrote:
So if you deny the representation of Adam for us, then in essence, you must also deny Christ's representation of us on the Cross bearing our sins, and raising us up with Him to new life.

roaringlamb wrote:
So then a man is justified by faith, but not because of its object(Christ and His work), but rather the faith itself is deemed a justifying work done by man.

roaringlamb wrote:
If that is the beginning, then man must maintain his works, and hope that he keeps his obedience perfectly until he dies, as he is the one who determines his fate.

roaringlamb wrote:
This is the theology you are putting forth. That God marries Himself to a sinner, and justifies them through Christ and His sacrifice, but then divorces them and removes His approval every time they sin, or do not keep the law perfectly.

roaringlamb wrote:

You are denying your moral responsability to the call "commanding all men everywhere to repent"(Act 17:30)

No I am not, I am denying his ability to do so.

Let us say there is a two year old who was able to mow the lawn, or not mow the lawn, and is told that if he mows the lawn, then he will please his father, and have fellowship with him. But if he does not mow the lawn, he would die(not only physically, but spiritually).

So this two year old, refuses his father's command and brings death into all two year olds as he was the representative of all two year olds. Thus now all two year olds cannot mow the lawn because they lack the ability because of the death brought in in the fall of the first two year old.quote]That makes no sence at all.
Why is that two year old a representative of all two year olds?
How is Adam my representative?
Why can't man do what God commands in Act 17:30?
Is it a willful refusal or an inability?
If it is an inability, then all men are excused from from the call.
Would you call a command of mowing the law for a new born(not a two year old) justifide?
Or would the new born be excused from the command because of the inability?

to cover our rebeion, not our crippeledness.
Obediance was not imputed to us, but righteousness was.

Then, who makes up for the lifetime lack of obedience until we are born again? God must have a perfect righteousness to forgive us. Therefore someone must live perfectly for us, and also die to pay the penalty of sin.

Imputation is found in the OT as well. The sacrificial system was completely about imputation. As the sinner laid their hand upon the head of the spotless animal, his guilt was transferred to the animal. The scapegoat clearly portrays one dying in the place of another, and the taking away of sin.

If your going to be using Scriptural fraizes, please get them correct;1Corinth 15:22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be made alive.
This is a physical death because the verse before it is physical:
1Corinth 15:2-12 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

No brother this is clearly showing the difference in each of the representatives. Everyone in Adam will die, are dying, suffer the effects of that death(spiritual and physical).

Compare this to the parallel passage in Romans 5-
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

This clearly shows that everyone in Adam dies, and suffers the implications of sin. All those in Christ will live.

One of the key points of Paul's theology is the headship of Adam and Christ and how men fall in one group or the other. Those in Adam must be re-born into Christ.

Now consider when Adam sinned and what God said to him, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

Now the structure of this is literally, "dying you shall die", it was not a death that happened just physically, as there was also an immediate separation between Adam and God. This why we also are separated from God.

How so?

Because you cannot simply pick and choose when the headship and imputation is ok, and when it is not. Either man has fallen in Adam, and must be re-made a new race(not literally) in Christ, or there is no universal guilt, and man may use whatever is in him to basically save himself when he chooses. By the way this is nothing more than a Roman Catholic idea of salvation.

The notion that God in His grace makes salvation possible, if we would just believe is Roman, but not Biblical. The RC believes that God infuses grace, that a sinner must co-operate with to be saved.

The Bible clearly shows that God saves men, He changes their hearts to believe.

Both are true.

James cannot contradict Paul brother. The verb form for justification that Paul uses clearly shows that it is a declaration that is a one time event with ongoing effects, and since it is in the passive mood, it happens "to us", not "by us".

As I have said before, the faith that justifies also produces works of sanctification.

More like man must maintain his relaitionship with Christ as He is doing the same; it is as a merriage, both partners need to give 100%

Really? Have you given your 100% all the time to your wife? to Christ?

If it were based upon my work, or my faithfulness brother God would never have chosen me, as He would have foreseen failure, and unfaithfulness. So if it is based upon anything, it based upon His choosing me, and sustaining me, working in me to will and to do His good pleasure.

Furthermore, that is not love which you describe; Love suffers long, and is kind; love envies not; love vaunts not itself, is not puffed up, does not behave itself rudely, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, keeps no record of evil; rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

But that is the theology of Finney, and Wesley brother. There is no room for mistake, because if you sin, you are not saved, and the merciful God who desires to pull the beggar from the dunghill, now casts him back there time and time again.

I was commenting on Finney who believes a man must be perfectly obedient in order to prove his salvation or else he is not saved at all.

If one has no ability to do so, then one is excused from the moral obligation.

Man had ability in Adam, but lost it when he sinned. Even if you do not believe this, you must at least admit that upon the first sin committed, a man forfeits ability, and falls into condemnation, and then must seek someone to rescue him.

How is Adam my representative?

Well, here is where "all" actually means all, and you and I are part of the all of mankind. Thus, in Adam all die, we all sin, we all reap the repercussions of sin daily. You and I were both in Adam, just like we were in Christ when He took our sins to the Cross, and when He rose to Heaven, that is why we who believe are now seated with Him in Heavenly places.

Would you call a command of mowing the law for a new born(not a two year old) justifide?

No, because the new born has ability to do it. But this is not the case in our discussion, and which ever type you use, you must start with one who could forfeiting that ability for those who followed.

Like a man who could walk, yet lost his legs, and then from him came nothing but legless people who could not walk. Then One comes and says, "stand up and walk!" and gives them the ability to walk.

I am responding to an earlier comment by Jim:

Because the more he knows about God the more he hates him, because God is rightouss and man is evil...

This is the danger of preaching a lopsided view of God. It is why it is important to bear witness to Christ! (Acts 1:8) If our preaching and our lives do not exalt the pre-eminence of Christ, we end up presenting an unapproachable God, a God who can’t possibly love and forgive the sinner or set him/her free from sin. Our ministry will be one of condemnation more than conviction. Many, many souls have been driven from God because they received a distorted view of God, and all the while the preacher assumed he was preaching the gospel. He probably preached a gospel of works: a do-it-yourself religion. He preached condemnation. The thread [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=20317&forum=35&9]Conviction or Condemnation[/url] explains better what I am trying to drive at.

While the above statement may contain truth, it may also be used as a handy excuse for bad preaching. Repentance on the part of the preacher would draw many more to God. After all, you can’t give what you don’t have.

Diane

Lazarus1719 wrote:
The Early Church Fathers all affirmed freewill and the doctrine of original sin is not found in their early writings. But around the time of Augustine, during a time when men would not endure sound doctrine, the doctrine of original sin ended up replacing the doctrine of freewill.

This is what Finney said about the doctrine of original sin. All who believe in Augustinianism would be wise to read it:

"This doctrine is a stumbling-block both to the church and to the world, infinitely dishonorable to God, an abomination alike to God and the human intellect, and should be banished from every pulpit, and form every formula of doctrine, and from the world. It is a relic of heathen philosophy, and was foisted in among the doctrines of Christianity by Augustine, as everyone may know who will take the trouble to examine for himself."

Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, Lecture on Moral Depravity, page 263

It must be clearly understood that sin is an abuse of freewill. Sin is not the lose of freewill or the corruption of your nature. It is willful rebellion against God. Sinners are [i]criminals[/i] and not [i]cripples[/i]!" end quote.

Yes, [b]AMEN[/b] to that!

roaringlamb said: "Imputation is found in the OT as well. The sacrificial system was completely about imputation. As the sinner laid their hand upon the head of the spotless animal, his guilt was transferred to the animal. The scapegoat clearly portrays one dying in the place of another, and the taking away of sin."

Yes, AMEN. The sacrificial system was completely about imputation ~ imputation of [i]guilt[/i] ~ that is, the wages of sin.

YHWH, in His great mercy, then forgave the sinner by this act of faith and obedience. It was then up to this forgiven person to 'go and sin no more'. He could not rely on the sacrificial lamb/goat to keep the commandments for him, he had to sincerely demonstrate his repentence by seeking to walk in all of YHWH's commandments and ways.

As YHWH had said: [b]"For this commandment which I command you this day is[i] not too hard for you[/i], neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that [i]you can do it.[/i]"[/b] (Deuteronomy 30:11-14}

Yeshua the Messiah demonstrated to us a perfect life of devotion and obedience to His God and our God.....He then told us to walk as he walked, while promising us grace to do so as our lives are empowered by the Spirit of God.:-)

If man chooses to suprress the truth in unrighteousness because he loves the darkness rather than the light, why doesn't God just honor that choice and stop shining the light on that man and forcing him to see the light? Choosing isn't the issue at all. It's not that man hasn't seen the light, he sees it everywhere, he just loves the darkenss. You tell me how someone who has seen God in every part of Creation and still loves the darkness is going to get "persuaded" by more light. Paul makes it clear that we are all without excuse, whether we are the pagan in Africa who sees God's hand in creation or Paul who is blinded by the very presence of God himself. Logic and Lazarus, you argue implicitly that those who believe in elective mercy think man should be punished even though he isn't responsible. We don't believe that. All men are responsible for their own sins. All men have a sinful nature. The Bible says so. Mankind isn't just being punished for sinful acts but for a sinful heart that hates God and loves himself. Did a man choose to be born that way? No. Why was he born that way. The only explanation that we have is the explanation Paul gives in Romans 9? Who are you to say to the Potter.........

Pelagius (ca. 354 - ca. 420/440) was an ascetic monk and reformer who denied the doctrine of Original Sin from Adam and was [b]declared a heretic[/b] by the [b]Roman Catholic Church[/b]. His interpretation of a doctrine of free will became known as Pelagianism.

There are a wide range of false doctrines that have been taught about Mary (Miriam), the mother of Yeshua, because of the false doctrine of inherited sin.

The practice of Infant Baptism, Confirmation, the worship of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, ...etc all sprung up because of this formulation of the doctrine of "inherited sin".

They had to do some fast 'backtracking' in making Mary absolutely pure, (and her mother), to cover the obvious faults in the doctrine of Mary being born a sinner, as she was of course later called by the same people, "Mary, the Mother of God. So Mary had to have an 'immaculate conception' in the womb of St Anne (Hannah),her mother, so as not to be born with the stain of Adam's sin.

Mary is then held to have had no other children (contrary to Scripture), and to have been a "perpetual virgin".:-o

~~Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive~~Sir Walter Scott

Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited:

“. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (Ezek. 18:20);

every person is responsible for his own conduct (Rom. 14:12).

Human sinfulness commences in that period of one’s life that is characterized as “youth” (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25).

A child must reach a certain level of maturity before be is able to choose between evil and good (Isa. 7:15, 16).

The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14), and for those already in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:2O). Surely Yeshua was not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!

The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, it is given by God (Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 12:9). Hence, at birth it must be as pure as the source from whence it comes. We are made in the [b]image of God[/b]

Our Father is loving, kind and most merciful!. That he would destroy a little child who dies before he has heard the Gospel is to make Him into a monster, requiring the impossible from His creation.

Through Adam sin came into the world....but it is crouching at the door, and we must overcome it by Choice.

We live in a totally corrupt and depraved society...the outcome of sin having entered the world through Adam. It is our choice to embrace it; or reject it, as Messiah did.

"For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. [u]It is not in heaven[/u], that you should say,

You probably know that once the pharisees had fully rejected Christ they set about to establish their own righteousness (but not submitting themselves to the righteousness of God) at the academy of Yavneh (Jamnia). Here they started Rabbinic Judaism. It was here that they began to declare [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1959]IT IS NOT IN HEAVEN. [/url]

The Rabbi's followed a similar patern to both Pelagius and Finney in that they reject the need for a true regeneration as it is understood in Protestant Christian Orthodoxy. They reject their need for a 'Savior'. They can follow God's commands in of themselves and have no need for Christ. Interestingly they even found a way around the need for a sacrificial system declaring tzedikah as the substitute for the Temple.

RobertW:

For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say

Right. It is not in heaven as something too high for us.

The Council of Yavneh did indeed see the beginnings of rabbinic Judaism in an attempt to define the way forward without the Temple and sacrifices, and, sadly, without the knowledge of Messiah.

Because some group or individual has reinterpreted that verse does not mean that it no longer stands with all the full intent with which YHWH had declared it.

both Pelagius and Finney in that they reject the need for a true regeneration

[b]Obedience[/b] and [b]grace[/b] are not mutually exlusive. One of my favorite sayings is: [i]We seek to follow and obey the commandments of God, not to enter the Kingdom, but because we [b]are in the Kingdom[/b].[/i]

“. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (Ezek. 18:20);

Yes but right before this, it says that the soul that sins shall die. All have sinned, therefore all die.

I don't believe anyone said anything about inheriting sin, but rather that sin and its effects are imputed to man from the womb. This is clearly seen by the fact that even infants suffer illness, pain etc.

every person is responsible for his own conduct (Rom. 14:12)

Here is the verse you use-
Romans 14:12 So then each one of us will give account concerning himself to God.

Again, we must be careful in applying passages written to Christians to unbelievers. Paul is saying that we are not to judge other brothers or sisters in what they eat, or do not eat. Of course this may have a different application to day, but this in no way means that unbelievers are going to give an account before God.

A child must reach a certain level of maturity before be is able to choose between evil and good (Isa. 7:15, 16).

This passage does not apply to people in a "general" sense, but rather is a prophecy stating that before the child reaches a certain age, the kings of Samaria and Syria would be destroyed. So it would be difficult to make a doctrine from it.

The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, it is given by God (Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 12:9). Hence, at birth it must be as pure as the source from whence it comes. We are made in the image of God

A child comes from sinful flesh, as it is created by sinful flesh.

If indeed children are born pure as you say, then when do they commit their first sin that allows them to be subject to death, sickness, pain and other effects of sin, or rather symptoms that spring forth from the guilt of man?

The image of God has been so terribly corrupted that man must be born again to even have any semblance of Christ, and even this treasure is held in clay pots which are not that great to look at. :-)

Our Father is loving, kind and most merciful!. That he would destroy a little child who dies before he has heard the Gospel is to make Him into a monster, requiring the impossible from His creation.

I do not think anyone said anything about children being damned, for I believe because of God's goodness, these are His elect and He regenerates them and brings them to Heaven.

However we must face the facts that infants die before hearing the Gospel. So does this mean that God is not loving? Absolutely not, it is the effect of sin upon man, and in an instant God could remove sin forever. He however has not chosen to do so.

Through Adam sin came into the world....but it is crouching at the door, and we must overcome it by Choice.

What if your choice is a slave to its passions, and only wants to choose sin?

Even if you could "choose" not to sin, then why would you need a Saviour? You could in effect save yourself by not sinning. Then you would have a religion similar to other false religions that say if you deny yourself, or choose to do the right things, you can reach heaven. Then it becomes all about what you have done, and Heaven is a reward for your good works.

This is not Christianity at all. Christianity is not about us working to achieve Heaven, but rather about the Christ who has died to open Heaven to those who are justified before God by faith in Him. Even this faith is a gift from God, so as to keep us from boasting that we had done something to merit our salvation.

We live in a totally corrupt and depraved society...the outcome of sin having entered the world through Adam. It is our choice to embrace it; or reject it, as Messiah did.

Our natural choice is to embrace sin, not to hate it, that is why a man must be born again. He must Have his heart changed, so that he would now desire to please God rather than himself, and so that he would hate sin rather than crave it.

Christ was without sin, thus though He was tempted, He never would have fallen. We however are not, and never have been without sin, thus we cannot "choose" to be like Christ.

Finney rejected the need for true regeneration???

Finney rejected the notion that Sin is anything other than an act of the will or a transgression. He did not distinguish between sins (the act) and Sin (the dynamic). He saw sin as only a verb and not a noun. He believed that regeneration was the result of the truth brought to be upon the mind by the Holy Spirit. This is not regeneration it is [i]repentance[/i]. Repentance is a change of mind. Regeneration is a change of our corrupted nature.

The problem that exists with the Rabbi's is their rejection of the need to be bron again by the Spirit. They are blinded to this need and at Yavneh and beyond set up a systematic rejection of the prophetic voice of God. Many Messianic's hold a view that rejects original pollution also. I think this is due to their rejection more of the book of Roman's than of Augustine. Sure, Augustine had trouble enough. But a cursory read of the New Testament makes it plain enough.

Death has passed upon all men- even upon men that did not sin after the similitude of Adam. Why? because when Sin (the dynamic) entered- death followed right behind it. I pelagius is right a man can be immortal if he just maintains a sinless life. The proof that it is impossible to live a sinless life apart from Christ is certainly proven by the surity of death. Either man sinned and therefore died or death is a dynamic that has passed upon all men through Adam. In either case- death is still 1 per person.

roaringlamb wrote:

to cover our rebeion, not our crippeledness.
Obediance was not imputed to us, but righteousness was.

Then, who makes up for the lifetime lack of obedience until we are born again?

Your theological theory that the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours on the ground that he obeyed for us, or imputed obedience for righteousness, or of that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience; this is founded on a false assumption. Christ’s obedience could do no more than justify himself.

It can never be imputed to us. It is naturally impossible for him to obey in our behalf as a proxy.

This doctrine intends that Christ owed no obedience to the law, and therefore his obedience to the law was superfluous.
Would not Christ have sinned had he not been perfectly obedient? If he would have sinned, it follows that He owed obedience to the law, just as any other man.

Furthermore, if Jesus obeyed the law as our substitute, our own return to personal obedience would not be insisted upon as an essential part of our salvation?

Imputation is; we have faith, righteousness is imputed - we rebel or disoey willingly - sin is imputed. Imputation never comes without our part.

roaringlamb wrote:

If your going to be using Scriptural fraizes, please get them correct;1Corinth 15:22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be made alive.

No brother this is clearly showing the difference in each of the representatives. Everyone in Adam will die, are dying, suffer the effects of that death(spiritual and physical).

Compare this to the parallel passage in Romans 5-

[b]Romans 5:12[/b] [color=990000]just as by one man sin entered into the world, And because of sin, death also entered into the world; so also death passed upon all men, upon whom have sinned:[/color]
"upon whom have sinned" is a confirmation that all men sin.
Physical death passed upon all men, desicribed here:
[b]Romans 8:20a-21a[/b] [color=990000]For the creation was made subject to vanity(inutility, transientness), not willingly, but...
:21a Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption...[/color]

[b]Romans 5:17-18[/b] [color=990000]For if by one man's offense [physical] death reigned by one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in [physical] life by one, Jesus Christ.
[b]:18[/b] Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.[/color]
I am barrowing this analogy from another on this forum:
Lets follow the analogy of verse 18:
1.
by the offence
by the righteousness

2.
of one
of one

3.
judgment came
the free gift came

4.
upon all men
upon all men

5.
to condemnation
unto justification of life

Therefore, in whatever way that judgment cam upon all men, so also justification came upon all men.
If Justification is not forced upon all men, then is condemnation not forced upon all men.
However, both have come upon all men: condemnation through Adam, and justification through Jesus.
It is the individuals choices that determine whether they are condemned or justified.
If you live in sin, which all men will choose to do starting with Adam, you will be condemned.
If you live in God, which some men will choose to do by Jesus,you will be justified.

[b]Romans 5:19[/b] [color=990000]For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners[/color][by the same manner of disobediance][color=990000], so by the obedience of one shall[/color][by the same manner of obediance][color=990000] many be made righteous.[/color]

It must be meant this way, otherwise you have people bing saved involentarily just as being made sinners involentarily.
Furthermore, if all were made sinners then the same way there is universal salvation.

[b]Romans 5:20[/b] [color=990000]Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,[/color]
Because they saw their offence to be a so very great in contrast of the law.

[b]Romans 5:21[/b] [color=990000]that, even as sin dominates in death, thus Grace also should be dominating through righteousness for eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.[/color]
The contrast between the righteous and those whi are not righteous

How so?

Because you cannot simply pick and choose when the headship and imputation is ok, and when it is not.

Either man has fallen in Adam, and must be re-made a new race(not literally) in Christ, or there is no universal guilt, and man may use whatever is in him to basically save himself when he chooses.

The notion that God in His grace makes salvation possible, if we would just believe is Roman, but not Biblical.

The Bible clearly shows that God saves men, He changes their hearts to believe.

More like man must maintain his relaitionship with Christ as He is doing the same; it is as a merriage, both partners need to give 100%

Really? Have you given your 100% all the time to your wife? to Christ?

If it were based upon my work, or my faithfulness brother God would never have chosen me, as He would have foreseen failure, and unfaithfulness. So if it is based upon anything, it based upon His choosing me, and sustaining me, working in me to will and to do His good pleasure.

But that is the theology of Finney, and Wesley brother. There is no room for mistake, because if you sin, you are not saved, and the merciful God who desires to pull the beggar from the dunghill, now casts him back there time and time again.

I was commenting on Finney who believes a man must be perfectly obedient in order to prove his salvation or else he is not saved at all.

If one has no ability to do so, then one is excused from the moral obligation.

Man had ability in Adam, but lost it when he sinned. Even if you do not believe this, you must at least admit that upon the first sin committed, a man forfeits ability, and falls into condemnation, and then must seek someone to rescue him.

I never forfeit ability, I am always intentionaly being disobediant, otherwise it is not a sin. I must seek someone to forgive me not resue me.

Well, here is where "all" actually means all,

How is Adam my representative?

Would you call a command of mowing the law for a new born(not a two year old) justifide?

No, because the new born has ability to do it.

Your theological theory that the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours on the ground that he obeyed for us, or imputed obedience for righteousness, or of that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience; this is founded on a false assumption. Christ’s obedience could do no more than justify himself.

(II Corinthians 5:21), "He [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

It is because a person is IN CHRIST that they are safe from the wrath of God. Having been found IN HIM, not having mine own righteousness which is by the law, but that which is of the fith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith. It is a hard saying, but it seems to me that the Cross, the blood, justification by faith, and a whole list of essential Christian doctrines are under wholesale attack here. There are many impressionable minds watching these forums. We do well to give heed and understand that God is going to require an account of us.

This doctrine intends that Christ owed no obedience to the law, and therefore his obedience to the law was superfluous.

Brother you are suggesting that Christ had to fulfill the Law so He would be accepted by God. This is not true at all. He fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf, and He had to or else, we must do it now.

If that is true, then Paul is a liar for saying that a man is justified by faith, and not the works of the law.

What would be the purpose of Christ needing to keep the Law for Himself, He was and is fully God and fully man. If He must keep the Law for Himself as a means to be accepted by God, then Christ must only be man, for only man was given the Law as a means to prove his inability to come to Heaven and to point to Christ as the way to the Father.

Be careful brother, you are getting into dangerous waters here.

Also, did you write this, or is this from Finney? it has a definite Finney-esque quality to it.

Furthermore, if Jesus obeyed the law as our substitute, our own return to personal obedience would not be insisted upon as an essential part of our salvation?

Obedience is not the basis of salvation, faith is. Obedience is the process of sanctification, but our obedience is not what merits our salvation, faith in Christ's work is what does.

I feel for you brother if you do not believe that Christ dies for you, and in your place fulfilled all that the Law demanded, because you must do it on your own to be accepted by God.

This is not the Gospel. The law said "do this and live", the Gospel says, "you have been given life now live."

Would you tell a person that they may come to Christ and be forgiven, but then they must uphold their end of the bargain for them to get to Heaven? So then a man would be justified by their works, but not by faith?

If Justification is not forced upon all men, then is condemnation not forced upon all men.

Condemnation is not forced upon men at all, by the natural birth man is born condemned, and in the new birth a man is born justified.

Strangely, I think we kind of agree on this. Condemnation is the state of all in Adam, and justification is the state of all in Christ.

It is the individuals choices that determine whether they are condemned or justified.

Really, so what choice does an infant make to suffer the effects of sin? Did they choose to be born?

A man may choose all he wants, but without faith in Christ, he will remain condemned even though he keeps every precept of the law.

I am not picking and choosing, I am saying that there is no headship with adam at all, just a linieage.

How does that differ? Did we not all come from Adam? Is he not the head, or beginning of the human race?

Man falls on his own, not universal guilt. If there is universal guilt then there must be universal guilt salvation.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

This sounds pretty universal to me. Those outside of Christ shall suffer the wrath of God, just as those outside of the Ark suffered the flood. It is because they are sinners, and they act out what they are by nature.

There does not need to be universal salvation simply because God does need to save any at all. The fact that He saves any is more than man deserves.

How do you thinks He saves them?

By imputing the righteousness of Christ to them, and clothing them in His righteousness. By crediting them with both the active and passive obedience of Christ, this being the keeping of every point of the law, and the substitutionary death upon the Cross.

Apart from these God would have no ground to deal with us, as someone must fulfill the law, and someone must also pay the penalty we owe before God can deal with us.

It is based upon Grace! However, You can not deny it is based on relationship.

Brother it is all grace!!! His opening my eyes to see my need of Christ, His revealing wonders from
His word, His adopting me so I can have relationship with Him.

Our relationship is through Christ alone.

Adam can not throw anyones ability out, man must willfuly rebell out of his ability in order for it to be sin.
I never forfeit ability, I am always intentionaly being disobediant, otherwise it is not a sin. I must seek someone to forgive me not resue me.

Brother when could you keep the Law perfectly?

Did you ever lie? or lust? Could you keep this all the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

This proves your inability to keep what God has commanded, and only when we despair of ourself and our righteousness can we truly appreciate the grace of God in Christ. Only then can we see the beauty that He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

See brother it is as some have termed it- "The Great Exchange" or my filth for His beauty, my death for His life, my crime for His obedience. This is grace, and mercy poured out to us in and through Christ.

This is were you pick and choose when all means all.

Simply by "logic" :-P

No really, common sense usually works pretty well.

Like the example I used earlier that spoke of the declaration to tax the world. Obviously this did not mean America, China etc. In a similar way, we must understand that the Greek word for all, can mean individuals making up a group as well as a totality. So when we read something like, "all men will be saved", we know that not every single humans being ever created will be saved, so it cannot mean that.

Quit joking, please.

I wasn't joking brother, simply bringing Scriptural truth to bear upon the illustration.

There are many impressionable minds watching these forums. We do well to give heed and understand that God is going to require an account of us.

Amen!

roaringlamb asked: "If indeed children are born pure as you say, then when do they commit their first sin that allows them to be subject to death, sickness, pain and other effects of sin, or rather symptoms that spring forth from the guilt of man?"

Well, the Bible says in James : ..."but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire....then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death".

It also says: "Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; [i]sin is lawlessness[/i]. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 1 Jn 3:4-5

That should answer your question.;)

roaringlamb also asked: "What would be the purpose of Christ needing to keep the Law for Himself, He was and is fully God and fully man."

We should keep the following verse in mind: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered". Hebrews 5:8

So, Yeshua learned obedience. He kept His Father's law perfectly, thus overcoming sin as the spotless second Adam. In so doing, he became the sinless lamb of God. HalleluYah!:-D

Yeshua also said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That should answer your question.;)

No, because you have not addressed why infants suffer the symptoms of sin, though you say they are pure.

The symptoms show the illness, so thus no matter how cute and cuddly babies are, they are still sinful.

We should keep the following verse in mind: "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered". Hebrews 5:8

Yes, but at the same time we must be careful to think that He could have sinned, or not obeyed completely as He even said, "I always do the will of the Father."

I understand that there were painful events in Christ's obedience to His Father, the worst of all the Cross, yet He would not have failed to do what He came to do.

I find these lyrics from the old musical "Camelot" to be fitting of the natural man and Pelagian ideology. These definitely sound like the Pharisee that Jesus speaks of, who says that he is not like other sinners, and then lists the works he does.

If you remember, this is not the one who went away justified.

[b]C'est Moi(It is I)[/b]

The soul of a knight should be a thing remarkable,
His heart and his mind as pure as morning dew.
[b]With a will and a self-restraint
That's the envy of ev'ry saint
He could easily work a miracle or two.[/b]
To love and desire he ought to be unsparkable,
[b]The ways of the flesh should offer no allure.[/b]
But where in the world
Is there in the world
A man so untouched and pure?
(C'est moi!)

C'est moi! C'est moi, I blush to disclose.
I'm far too noble to lie.
That man in whom
These qualities bloom,
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I.
I've never strayed
From all I believe;
[b]I'm blessed with an iron will.
Had I been made
The partner of Eve,
We'd be in Eden still.[/b]
C'est moi! C'est moi!
The angels have chose
To fight their battles below,
[b]And here I stand, as pure as a pray'r,
Incredibly clean, with virtue to spare,
The godliest man I know![/b]
C'est moi!

Good musical, poor theology, and sadly Goulet recently passed away.

Brother logic, I wish to break this down into a simple wording-

I am guilty because of what Adam did

I am redeemed because of what Christ did

roaringlamb wrote:

This doctrine intends that Christ owed no obedience to the law, and therefore his obedience to the law was superfluous.

Brother you are suggesting that Christ had to fulfill the Law so He would be accepted by God. This is not true at all. He fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf, and He had to or else, we must do it now.

roaringlamb wrote:
What would be the purpose of Christ needing to keep the Law for Himself, He was and is fully God and fully man.

roaringlamb wrote:
If He must keep the Law for Himself as a means to be accepted by God, then Christ must only be man, for only man was given the Law as a means to prove his inability to come to Heaven and to point to Christ as the way to the Father.

The Law is also used to show us that we cannot consistently uphold it without the help of the Holy Spirit. The Law not only shows us that we sin, it also shows us that we need a whole difernt motivation and intent of our hearts.

roaringlamb wrote:
Be careful brother, you are getting into dangerous waters here.

roaringlamb wrote:
Also, did you write this, or is this from Finney? it has a definite Finney-esque quality to it.

Furthermore, if Jesus obeyed the law as our substitute, our own return to personal obedience would not be insisted upon as an essential part of our salvation?

roaringlamb wrote:
I feel for you brother if you do not believe that Christ dies for you, and in your place fulfilled all that the Law demanded, because you must do it on your own to be accepted by God.

roaringlamb wrote:
Would you tell a person that they may come to Christ and be forgiven, but then they must uphold their end of the bargain for them to get to Heaven?

roaringlamb wrote:

If Justification is not forced upon all men, then is condemnation not forced upon all men.

[b]Condemnation is not forced[/b] upon men at all, by the natural birth [b]man is born condemned[/b], and in the new birth a man is born justified.

roaringlamb wrote:
Strangely, I think we kind of agree on this. Condemnation is the state of all in Adam, and justification is the state of all in Christ.

roaringlamb wrote:

It is the individuals choices that determine whether they are condemned or justified.

Really, so what choice does an infant make to suffer the effects of sin? Did they choose to be born?

roaringlamb wrote:
How does that differ? Did we not all come from Adam? Is he not the head, or beginning of the human race?

roaringlamb wrote:

Man falls on his own, not universal guilt. If there is universal guilt then there must be universal guilt salvation.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

This sounds pretty universal to me. Those outside of Christ shall suffer the wrath of God, just as those outside of the Ark suffered the flood. It is because they are sinners, and they act out what they are by nature.

roaringlamb wrote:
There does not need to be universal salvation simply because God does need to save any at all.

roaringlamb wrote:

How do you thinks He saves them?

By imputing the righteousness of Christ to them, and clothing them in His righteousness. By crediting them with both the active and passive obedience of Christ, this being the keeping of every point of the law, and the substitutionary death upon the Cross.

roaringlamb wrote:
Apart from these God would have no ground to deal with us, as someone must fulfill the law, and someone must also pay the penalty we owe before God can deal with us.

roaringlamb wrote:
Our relationship is through Christ alone.

roaringlamb wrote:

Adam can not throw anyones ability out, man must willfuly rebell out of his ability in order for it to be sin.

Brother when could you keep the Law perfectly?

roaringlamb wrote:

Quit joking, please.

I wasn't joking brother, simply bringing Scriptural truth to bear upon the illustration.

roaringlamb stated:
quote: "No, because you have not addressed why infants suffer the symptoms of sin, though you say they are pure.
The symptoms show the illness, so thus no matter how cute and cuddly babies are, they are still sinful"

Roaringlamb, Let us not forget how Yeshua viewed the little children:

....."At that time the disciples came to Yeshua and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are [i]converted[/i] and become [i]like children[/i], you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea"...

Are you saying that Christ could have broken evry law and sayed sinnless?

It was never even a possibility.

Christ was the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world, therefore He was ordained to be sinless, and it was God's will that He redeem men by His sacrifice for them.

The law was not to prove man's inability to come to Heaven.

The law requires a man to keep every point to be righteous, and only the righteous will inherit eternal life. So a man must have a perfect righteousness in order to inherit eternal life.

This righteousness must be form something even greater than the law, as the law cannot justify men, only condemn them and show them their guilt.

Said by a man who worships a tyrant.

Brother I will leave this alone

Finney ain't all bad.

Any man, no matter who he is, or how popular he is cannot be considered a Christian if he denies that Christ died for sinners, and that Christ alone saves men.

This is why the Roman Catholic Church has ceased to be a true Church, because they deny that justification is by faith through Christ's merit given to us by grace.

Christ dies in my place of wrath, not obediance. I am able to fulfill all that the Law demanded because I walk after the spirit(Rom 8:4)

Brother don't forget what comes before this

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Also, do you always keep the Law now, or are you just before God because of Christ?

I would tell them to keep a relationship with Christ.

What of those who are weak, and struggle to do this, what hope do you offer them?

Do you throw them back to the law, or do you show them Christ for them, and His righteousness imputed to them, and His intercession for them?

Also, how does one start this relationship? Is repentance the "work" they must do to make God look upon them? Of course faith is what justifies a man, and that faith and repentance are products of the new birth.

Much like a new born does not work to bring itself into the world, yet the breathing and crying are signs of life.

I don't think so, I say man is not born condemned to hell, he condemns himself.

Brother the Scriptures are clear that all those who do not believe in Christ are already condemned, and apart from Spiritual revelation, they will not believe.

Man's actions proceed from the heart which is what Christ Himself said, that adulteries, fornication is, etc proceed from the heart. If a man's heart is unchanged, he will never have a desire to be godly, or to follow God's word.

The effect of sin is spiritual death and that must be by one own choice to sin.

Brother you cannot compare animals, and trees to humans who have souls, and you still have not answered the question, if infants die(which is an effect of sin) what choice did they make?

Also, I am glad to see that you know say the fall produced a spiritual death as well. This is why we need to be made spiritually alive.

But is does not mean that his sin condemns the rest of all mankind to hell.

Yes our sin will condemn us, but we sin because we are sinners. From our natural heart flows sin, and desire for sin because of the fall of Adam.

Adam's sin brought hell as the place of all men outside of Christ, and our acts of sin confirm that this is so. If God did not intervene, that is where every one of us would go.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Rom 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil
Your interp would have this:
God takes pleasure in creating hated children in the womb, before having done any good or evil He conemns them to hell without giiving the a chance to repent by putting the guilt of sin on them before they even sin.

God does not condemn brother, we are condemned from the beginning, and if God had not stepped in, we all would be lost.

But notice this does not say anything about infants perishing. It does say that God chose before they were born, but God also knew they wold grow into men. Psalm 139 speaks of God knowing everything about us brother, every word we speak, the members of our body, our thoughts, He knows all things.

He chooses who will be saved, and who will not, but we do not know what that number is. It is probably more than we think, and only in eternity will we know.

The righteousness comes from our faith in/on HIM.

What if my faith is weak, then is my justification weak too? Or is it the object of my faith(Christ) which makes of any value at all? Thus in every trial, and every storm of life, I may approach God because He is faithful, not because of anything in me or from me, it is all grace, and I contribute nothing but my sin and weakness.

HE forgives our past disobediance and because of our love for HIM

What about my present disobedience? What if I don't love my neighbour as myself, what if I said a harsh word to my wife, what then?

What of the times where I do not love Him, or my love is cold towards Him? Does He cast me off, even though He has married Himself to me as He did with Israel?

Brother, where in all of this is Christ's intercession for us(not just prayers), or His mediatorial work. Is He not a priest who appears before the throne of grace offering His prayers for us?

The focus is not me and what I have or have not done, it is Christ and what He has done, and is doing. Anyone who has been given faith to believe this work for them is justified, and will not face condemnation, and they will persevere to the end as He sustains them.

The relationship is an emotional and Father/son Brother/brother connection between us: the relationship between us must be two sided, not by one alone. Please get theology correct.

Our relationship with God is based upon Christ's righteousness, and His intercession for us. If it were not for Him, we would have no relationship with God, as we would have no means of being able to have a relationship with God.

Christ is last Adam who is also a life giving spirit, that is how we have fellowship with the Father, and by the Spirit.

I could have once I reached the age of accountability by comming to HIM to help me to walk after the spirit.

When was this age brother? Had you never told a lie to your parents, or never not loved your friends enough to share your toys with them?

Did you always love God with all your heart, do you now?

Don't you see how much this is focussed upon you, and what you have done? In effect, you are saying that God must accept you because you are not that bad, and you only need Him as a helper when you cannot keep His requirements.

But isn't this what the Jews though as well? They were proud of their supposed righteousness, because they thought they had or could keep the law.

This why Christ magnified the Law by pointing out that the heart was the issue, not the outward keeping of precepts, but the inward corruption that needed to be done away with.

roaringlamb wrote:

Are you saying that Christ could have broken every law and stayed sinless?

It was never even a possibility.

The law was not to prove man's inability to come to Heaven.

The law requires a man to keep every point to be righteous, and only the righteous will inherit eternal life. So a man must have a perfect righteousness in order to inherit eternal life.

This righteousness must be form something even greater than the law, as the law cannot justify men, only condemn them and show them their guilt.

Any man, no matter who he is, or how popular he is cannot be considered a Christian if he denies that Christ died for sinners, and that Christ alone saves men.

Christ dies in my place of wrath, not obedience. I am able to fulfill all that the Law demanded because I walk after the spirit(Rom 8:4)

Brother don't forget what comes before this

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Also, do you always keep the Law now, or are you just before God because of Christ?

I would tell them to keep a relationship with Christ.

What of those who are weak, and struggle to do this, what hope do you offer them?

Do you throw them back to the law, or do you show them Christ for them, and His righteousness imputed to them, and His intercession for them?

I don't think so, I say man is not born condemned to hell, he condemns himself.

Brother the Scriptures are clear that all those who do not believe in Christ are already condemned, and apart from Spiritual revelation, they will not believe.

Man's actions proceed from the heart which is what Christ Himself said, that adulteries, fornication is, etc proceed from the heart. If a man's heart is unchanged, [b]he will never have a desire to be godly, or to follow God's word.[/b]

...you still have not answered the question, if infants die(which is an effect of sin) what choice did they make?

Yes our sin will condemn us, but we sin because we are sinners.

From our natural heart flows sin, and desire for sin because of the fall of Adam.

Adam's sin brought hell as the place of all men outside of Christ, and our acts of sin confirm that this is so.

Your interp would have this:
God takes pleasure in creating hated children in the womb, before having done any good or evil He condemns them to hell without giving the a chance to repent by putting the guilt of sin on them before they even sin.

God does not condemn, brother, we are condemned from the beginning, and if God had not stepped in, we all would be lost.

But notice this does not say anything about infants perishing. It does say that God chose before they were born, but God also knew they would grow into men.

He chooses who will be saved, and who will not, but we do not know what that number is. It is probably more than we think, and only in eternity will we know.

The righteousness comes from our faith in/on HIM.

What if my faith is weak, then is my justification weak too?

HE forgives our past disobedience and because of our love for HIM

What about my present disobedience? What if I don't love my neighbour as myself, what if I said a harsh word to my wife, what then?...blah, blah, blah...

The focus is not me and what I have or have not done, it is Christ and what He has done, and is doing.

Anyone who has been given faith

The relationship is an emotional and Father/son Brother/brother connection between us: the relationship between us must be two sided, not by one alone. Please get theology correct.

Our relationship with God is based upon Christ's righteousness, and His intercession for us.

I could have once I reached the age of accountability by coming to HIM to help me to walk after the spirit.

When was this age brother?

Did you always love God with all your heart, do you now?

Don't you see how much this is focused upon you, and what you have done?

In effect, you are saying that God must accept you because you are not that bad.

and you only need Him as a helper when you cannot keep His requirements.

But isn't this what the Jews though as well?

were proud of their supposed righteousness, because they thought they had or could keep the law.

Yeshua also said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

You will likely know that the Jews believed in first the (7) Noachide Laws, then the Decalogue (10 Commandments) and then codified the Law into 613 Laws (365 don't and 248 do's). MANY of these laws are impossible to fullfil today because they have already been fulfilled by Christ; especially the ceremonial laws and laws that deal with the Levitical priesthood, etc.

A person that has truly been born again of the Holy Spirit and that WALKS in the Spirit they will do by [i]nature[/i] the things that are contained in the Law (Romans 2:14). This is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:33,

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, [i]I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;[/i] and will be their God, and they shall be my people..

This is built upon also by Ezekiel in chapter 36:

For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. [u]Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.[/u] And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you. And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen. Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

This is an Old Covenant discription of the Holy Spirit regenerating a person and changing their sinful nature to have the nature of God. If this process was needed it is because a problem existed. Those who deny Orignal pollution must reckon with this. God said that He would do this because the people were in [u]need[/u] of it. [i]A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.[/i] This is God declaring that He was going to radically transform a person. He would give them the Holy Sprit that they [u]will[/u], by nature, fulfill the Law (Romans 2:14). These are people who have more than a theology- they have had a real experience in God. They are not just talking about it- they [i]live[/i] in it. It is their experience.

(Romans 3:31) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Paul then goes on to explain in great detail how salvation by grace through faith plays out in God's design. It is NOT, nor has it ever been a license to sin. One must listen to Paul and not jump to their own conclusions. Justification when rightly preached may well lead a person to Romans 6:1 and ask if we should sin that grace may abound as Ron B. has said in the past. We must not alter God's plan and Gospel to deal with this concern. We need to KEEP READING until we grasp what the full Gospel and salvation is.

(Romans 8:3-6) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Notice that the Law [i]could not bring about God's purpose[/i]. It did not have the power to deal with all of the issues that man faced. Understand that God's objective was NOT to bring man into conformity to a code of laws; but restore man to the image of God that He created man in in the beginning. The Law could not accomplish the task. The Law could show man his need and even 'contain' them in their sinful tendency; but it could NOT restore man to the image and likeness of God. Man man keep the Law out of fear of the penalty of breaking the Law or even some love for God; but man would never under the Law do by nature those things contained in the Law.

The PROOF that the Jews (or Gentiles) did not have such a nature was the need for a Law in the first place. Would a people that from the heart loved God and their neighbor as themselves (the two great commandments) need 613 laws to TEACH them how to love God and their neighbor? Does a man naturally love God and cherish Him as does a mother her child? Perhaps some direction is needed for a mom- but the [i]point[/i] is; there is a 'stergos' or natural family love that exists in mothers. Why then did so much law and threatenings needs be that men would love God and themselves? Simle; because they had fallen from that NATURAL love that was found in the original image and glory of God that Adam was created in. GOD, through Christ, the Cross, and baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit restores that nature. And with that new heart and His Spirit within- we will by nature do those things that please Him.