The statement in Romans is a state not an act. Paul was not speaking of himslef as a saved person or he would be disqualified.
Romans 7:14 - Saved or Lost man?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Jul 16, 2014.
Page 2 of 4
-
-
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
If you doubt Spurgeon, then I have nothing else to offer you. But I don't believe you can successfully argue with him.
And I can't wait for the naysayers who will come along and try to explain that Spurgeon didn't say what he clearly said. :rolleyes: -
That message hit this whole issue head on! -
he would be labeled a "easy belieivism" preacher today! -
-
-
So once again. Paul is not speaking about himself as a saved person in the passage given. -
-
thisnumbersdisconnected said: ↑Then you are as wrong as everyone else on here who denies the dual nature.I will stick to the bible.Judith said: ↑It is Scriptural. It is biblical truth. Saying "I will stick with the Bible" and then denying its truth is futile. It is a paradoxical statement that doesn't even make sense.Then why would Paul write of the war between the flesh and the Spirit -- using the two words 13 times each in Galatians 5?It goes against the nature of God within him/her. It does not go against the nature of the flesh. That is where the deniers of the dual nature get it wrong. They do not understand that it is not the flesh that is put to death, but the corruption of the flesh inherited from Adam.So every time you sin, and you and I both know we both do, your lack faith and love? Really? You honestly believe that is the reason?You realize, of course, that the statements you make in that last quote argue for the dual nature, not against, right?
The refusal to believe the existence of the dual nature is the result of a simplistic understanding of "flesh" and "nature."Click to expand...
So tell me. Jesus was tempted in all manner of sin even as we yet without sin and He was born and had fesh and blood. Did Jesus have a sin nature? Also Adam was created sinless and it was very good. Adam who was flesh and blood Did Adam have a sin nature prior to the fall? Our flesh IS NOT our nature old or new. Spurgeon is WRONG! :DClick to expand... -
Judith said: ↑So tell me. Jesus ...Click to expand...Judith said: ↑... Adam was created sinless and it was very good. Adam who was flesh and blood Did Adam have a sin nature prior to the fall?Click to expand...
-
thisnumbersdisconnected said: ↑... was fully God the Son and fully man. Note: A dual nature!. And we are"conformed to His image." What does that tell you?Adam was created, not born. Prior to his sin, he was perfect. Read Genesis 5:3. He became a creature of dual nature by his sin, as did his son Seth and every man and woman since born.Click to expand...
As for Adam if in his creation he had no sin nature how/why did he sin? You are missing the point with Adam. We are born again without a sin nature just like what Adam had prior to his fall.
We do not have two natures. Not prior to salvatiuon and not after salvation. Paul is not saying He was carnal after he was saved. He would be a hypocrite and disqualified to write and teach if he were carnal. -
Judith said: ↑thisnumbersdisconnected said: ↑
So tell me. Jesus was tempted in all manner of sin even as we yet without sin and He was born and had fesh and blood. Did Jesus have a sin nature? Also Adam was created sinless and it was very good. Adam who was flesh and blood Did Adam have a sin nature prior to the fall?Click to expand...
Jesus did not have a sin nature because he was born of a virgin. The sin nature is passed down through man via Adam.
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:
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Through Adam we are all made sinners; through Christ we will be made righteous (if we believe).
In Post #25, a quote from Spurgeon was posted:
6. When we are born again there is dropped into our soul the living and incorruptible seed of the word of God, which lives and remains for ever. It is related to the divine nature, and cannot sin, because it is born by God: it has no tendency to sin, but all its appetites are heavenward and Christward. It never stoops from its high position; it is always aspiring towards heaven. It is at deadly enmity with the old nature, which it will in the end destroy; but, as I have said before, it has its work to do, and it is a work which, assisted even by divine strength, will not be accomplished all at once. It is a warfare which, when it seems ended has often to be renewed, since, after long and victorious campaigns, the routed enemy returns to the field.Click to expand...
However, "it is at warfare with the old nature which, when it seems ended as often to be renewed, since, after long and victorious campaigns, the routed enemy returns to the field."
From this we can conclude that those who deny the dual nature of man:
1. Deny the depravity of man.
2. Attribute sin to God.
3. Believe in sinless perfection, or that they cannot sin because God cannot sin. We know that this is impossible for all men sin.
4. Plus it leads into other doctrines which are not Biblical like the denial of carnality (the carnal Christian taught in 1Cor.3:1-5).
You don't find this denial in the Baptist Confessions of Faith.
You don't find it in older Baptist commentaries.
You do find it in the holiness movement and among Charismatics.
Why then is it starting to be found in Baptist circles who typically believe in the depravity of man?
Click to expand... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterDHK In Post #25 said: ↑
Note that the new nature never sins. It is born of God.
However, "it is at warfare with the old nature which, when it seems ended as often to be renewed, since, after long and victorious campaigns, the routed enemy returns to the field."
From this we can conclude that those who deny the dual nature of man:
1. Deny the depravity of man.
2. Attribute sin to God.
3. Believe in sinless perfection, or that they cannot sin because God cannot sin. We know that this is impossible for all men sin.
4. Plus it leads into other doctrines which are not Biblical like the denial of carnality (the carnal Christian taught in 1Cor.3:1-5).
You don't find this denial in the Baptist Confessions of Faith.
You don't find it in older Baptist commentaries.
You do find it in the holiness movement and among Charismatics.
Why then is it starting to be found in Baptist circles who typically believe in the depravity of man?
[/FONT]Click to expand... -
Iconoclast said: ↑strawman fest:thumbsup::thumbsup:Click to expand...
You probably don't know what one is.
Be a man. Answer the post. -
Spurgeon is wrong. Christians do not have two natures. We have one new nature and we battle the flesh. The flesh is not a nature. If the flesh were a nature then Jesus had a sin nature, but He did not.
-
Judith said: ↑So are you saying that Jesus the man had a sin nature? One of God and one of sin?Click to expand...
He was dual-natured in that He was fully God and fully man. Being fully man meant He was capable of sin, or else His sacrifice could not have been sufficient for our salvaton. But because He was also fully God, He held in check the potential nature to sin. He was born both in the image of His Father, and in the image of Adam. It is important to note, as DHK did, that while Adam sinned, Eve was merely deceived. That is not to say she could not sin, but she did not sin in the sense of deliberately acting against the nature of God within her.Judith said: ↑As for Adam if in his creation he had no sin nature how/why did he sin?Click to expand...Judith said: ↑You are missing the point with Adam. We are born again without a sin nature just like what Adam had prior to his fall.Click to expand...Judith said: ↑We do not have two natures.Click to expand... -
Judith said: ↑Spurgeon is wrong. Christians do not have two natures. We have one new nature and we battle the flesh. The flesh is not a nature. If the flesh were a nature then Jesus had a sin nature, but He did not.Click to expand...
But Jesus Himself admitted that he had flesh.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
And this is even after the resurrection!
The flesh, in and of itself, is not sinful. It is the old nature that resides within that is sinful. It has not been eradicated.
Page 2 of 4