Featured The plausibility of John 3:18

That's fine. My only concern was that we allow each other to express and own our views.

I respect you and think that we could have a good conversation (if we can keep our cool). I like the university you attended (I like that they do not indoctrinate into one narrow camp...or at least didn't).

Except.....come to think of it....I went in a pretty decent fellow and came out a Calvinist. I'm not sure how that happened. But I got over it.

 

At least I'm not a democrat....I have that going for me.

 

That's why I was encouraging my son to go there.

Our beliefs are something that we have to work out and "own". You will see many here who have been indoctrinated into a belief that they do not truly know. That was what led me, initially, to change my degree to religion.

I've known people who could tell you the doctrine of eternal security was correct, and even give you a verse or two. But they could not defend the doctrine. That is the sad part about today's Christian environment.

Even here (I don't know why I said "even") you are going to find tares among the wheat.

 

I do not believe "sin nature" is true, so I don't really care so much either way. But I do believe that the lost are "mastered by sin"; "sin is their master", they are "enslaved by sin" simply because that is what the Bible says. Within that context I believe free-will exists for the lost.

 

Thread will be closed due to the number of posts by 11 am EST. Please feel free to start another and continue what topic remains.

 

And often biblical illiteracy.

The "Christian market" is saturated with study tools but too many do not know how to approach Scripture. This should be taught in churches but too often it is not.

 

Nah. Too much baggage with the idea.

 

Basically we were looking at things differently. One can say that man has a "fallen nature" or a "sin nature". I believe that man is enslaved by sin (slaves to sin, sin is their master). It is similar but also different. But the end result is the same.

Those who reject the idea that sin is a power which has enslaved mankind but hold to man has possessing a "fallen nature" or a "sin nature" typically consider sin as ontological to man (and as a power that determines man's action). Sin is a manifestation of one's sinfulness.

As far as the objection to my use of "sin nature", I have no idea why that was such a big deal. It was a very strange argument.

 

That conclusion is not honest to my argument, and I believe you know this. You are simply playing "word games" as I've repeatedly said that there is no one aspect that is more necessary than any other.

Again, look at what I said was accomplished at the atonement. Did I say that overcoming sin and death is the MOST important aspect, or did I agree with Scripture and say that it was an issue accomplished by the Atonement? I also said that redemption from sin (moral sin) was vital. And that the Atonement was purposed to defeat the works of the devil.

Your type of reply is one of the major problems we encounter on these topics. You seem to be more interested in "winning" than you are in honestly discussing the topic.