Semi-Calvinism

i'm being patient with you. Can we NOT SIN THE ENTIRETY OF OUR LIVES without being BORN AGAIN????

 

No, you're not being patient....you're being angry and indignant actually.

You didn't ask that before....but that's what a "succinct" question is... but here goes:

So, what if you died at the age of 6 months????

I would say...yes...you could.

There aren't a lot of opportunities for a baby to shake their fist at God in rebellion which is what sin actually is....

The immediate answer is YES

YES you can:
I would have told you that had you asked it. Don't lose your temper.

Now, the obvious corollary to that is that no one actually DOES..........

That doesn't mean they "CAN'T".
Ability is a Modal Question.
Acutallity is something altogether different.

No one DOES...
Everyone CAN

Hence, they are condemned.

Not hard actually, and no doctrine of Original Sin, or Augustinianism required. :)

 

So i can live to the age of 40 without committing an offense to God and then Die without ever choosing to sin? (apart from being regenerated)

 

In Theory...............

In Theory, you could also have won the lottery jackpot 100 times in a row consecutively couldn't you????

So, what's wrong with you?
Isn't it mathematically possible?

Do you suffer from Adam's "Original Lottery Failure".....

Maybe the fact is, you just didn't so...you need a Saviour...hence Jesus Christ, again, couldn't be simpler.

Still, no need for Augustine.

 

Also....
You seem (unless I'm mistaken) to still hold some weird necessity of sinning even after one is converted...

How the heck does that work?
Or, more succinctly...
Since you seem to hold that man's constitution is so radically changed post-conversion...
Is there a Necessity to sin?
Why aren't redeemed Christians without sin?
Isn't their "Nature" changed?
Why do they fall into the same trap?
Why do all Christians.."Post-Conversion" still sin?

Now, you'll tell me that they still have the "sin-nature" in them.....

But, didn't they have that before?
And did it necessitate sinning?

You'd blanch at Wesley's "second blessing" I guess (I do too but for different reasons)...
But you still seem (like him) to think there's a Constitutional difference between a saved and unsaved person which makes one slightly more immune (but not totally) to this disease of Sin you inherited from Adam....

This gets SOOOO.............
Irredeemably thick, convoluted and impossible...

Get rid of Non-Passe-non-Pecarre......and the whole Bible gets so much simpler to read.
Augustine gave us that confusion...and he was just wrong.

I bet you think the whole "what about aborted babies going to heaven" question is complicated....and you wished God had made the answer clear.....

He did....
He didn't teach "Original Sin".

Get off Augustine John.
It's so simple and freeing.

 

I believe i am a new creation in Christ. I do not have "sin nature" :)

 

But...you still are incapable of living without sin right?
Why is that?

 

Quote me where i posted that, refresh my memory

 

Do you insist that a saved person can live sinlessly?
Do you agree with John Wesley that a person saved should and absolutely can live without sin?

 

I believe that after conversion, if we sin, it's our choice. We are not forced to sin.

 

You kept making a distinction, Jon, about saved and unsaved persons...

And, their ability to either sin, or not sin....

You would insist that the un-saved are naturally incapable of not-sinning, and yet you balk at thinking the saved can be sinless...

What do you want to do?

1.) Accept Wesley's wrong idea of the "Second-Blessing"
2.) Get rid of Augustines false Theology of "Original Sin" and let the whole Bible make ten times more sense than it ever did before?

It's your choice.

You don't want unsaved persons to be capable of not sinning...
You don't want saved persons capable of it either.....after all...none of them actually ARE sinless.

You want to make it a matter of Constitution...not choice...

I say, give up Augustine, and you escape that dilemma.

Allow the Bible to define Sin as a willful rebellion and disobedience to God (as it clearly defines it)
1Jo 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Or let sin be a matter of Constitution as Augustine claimed:
It's your choice. Augustine makes it ten times more confusing than it has to be.

 

So...To be clear then:
Before conversion, all persons are "forced" to sin?

That's your claim?

 

I believe that prior to conversion we like to sin.

 

So, you sin after conversion because you dislike it?

Is that what happens?
So, prior to conversion, you sin because not only is a facet of necessity but, also because you like it....but...
After conversion, when you have the option to do evil you do so because it's something you DISLIKE doing?

You're killing me Jon.

 

you're putting words into my mouth.

 

I didn't mean to....
I really thought you were saying something rather strange, and should have known you weren't being absurd.

I actually thought about what you said later, and I'm guessing you were referring to sanctification, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit being an active force in the life of the believer etc....or namely, that post-regeneration a believer isn't comfortable wallowing in the mud even if they fall into it....chastening by the Holy Spirit etc.
And that, I imagine is what you meant.
And it would make perfect sense.

I would of course agree, and perhaps I should have asked for more clarification.

B.T.W. I've rather enjoyed your conversation thus far. Thank you.

 

We have a sin nature still in us, an none can mantain sinless perfection state whil in our flesh!

 

How about the Biblical answer, that Jesus was God in silness human flesh, both fully Gof and sinless Humanity, and was foind in the likeness but NOT exactness of us, as He is God in th Flesh, had a human nature as Adam, not us now?

 

You and I have NO real idea what it means to perfectly keep the Law of God as He needs it to befor meriting salvation as you advocate! ONLY Jesus, because He is God, can do that!

 

It's always nice to hear people talk about me behind my back. Some on this board are so convinced they know what I believe. Some will even argue with me about what they think I believe. Even when I tell them they do not hear it, because they would rather form their own opinion, even if they know it's wrong.

Every Calvinist I ever met believes they were just regenerated with out faith so they could believe which also is not scriptural. They claim regeneration is all about understanding, but this isn't scriptural either..

Can anyone say that the Jailer who had Paul locked up wasn't willing to be saved. The Jailer just wanted to be saved and asked how.. The answer is;

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Being saved being dragged off kicking and screaming is what many Calvinist have told me. I don't believe them even for a moment.
MB