You did almost affirm it with your idea that man has a "sin nature". Scripture does not actually use that term, but it does use "sin" as a "power" and as a "master" and as an enslaving force (my view).
That said, I never said that the rejection of God was not a moral sin (it is not, by definition, a "transgression"....if we are taking our definition of "transgression" from Romans).
You say that sin is a moral transgression.
I say that sin is a moral transgression, and an enslaving principle. Why should I have to deny passages that speak of sin as such a power in order to affirm it's moral implications???? Why should I have to deny that those who are condemned are condemned because they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son in order to affirm that the lost are "left in their sins"????
You do not have to deny one passage in order to affirm another. They all work together. This is my point. You do not have to limit the Atonement only to its judicial aspects because Scripture does not limit the Atonement only to its judicial aspects (Christ can mediate because He knows our suffering; Christ is the Head and we are the body; God was in Christ reconciling the World to Himself, etc).
Take a lesson from Spurgeon - let your answer not be "yes, nay" to Scripture but "yes, yes". Don't be Spurgeon's "Nelson".
The plausibility of John 3:18
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Mar 24, 2019.
Page 14 of 17
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If your only tool is a hammer, it is not surprising if every problem looks like a nail. If you have come to the prior belief that the only sin is lack of faith it is not to be wondered at if you decide that men are condemned for unbelief. And it is only to be expected that you will find one text that seems to support you and then bounce up and down on it like a trampoline. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin - "faith".
It is the cause of Adam's rebellion - he surrendered to his will or his desires. He did not just flip a coin. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
My initial comment is that the idea is not so different from my use of the idea that we were "mastered" or "enslaved" by sin. What I do not entirely understand is why my wording seemed so offensive to some as they are the words Scripture uses. -
The more you make sinful choices the more you are apt to make those sinful choices, Degenerating to worse and worse.
Same with good choices except we call that Christian maturity or growth -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If someone dies never hearing about the Christ, he died lost because he died in his sins. -
The difference depends on whether or not one believes that God is revealed to all men (even the Godhead) through Creation (Scripture says the "invisible" things God has made known.
The Gospel is NOT that Jesus exists but that the Messiah has come. God's redemptive nature is manifested - the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world has ushered in a new covenant.
Those who do not believe, who have never heard the Gospel, are nontheless guilty of not believing in the name of the only begotten Son.
This was Adam's failure. He chose disobedience, relying on his own will instead of God. I belueve this is why Scripture informs us of the nature of the "fruit" (to make one wise, to be like God). It was then an issue of misplaced faith (a faith in ourselves) just as much as it is now. -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I am bowing out now, and giving you the last say. -
It is impossible to "empty the gospel of the cross" (that is just an insult some toss around).
The gospel is that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is near (if you doubt this, read your Bible).
The Cross is central as without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. But it is wrong to concentrate on one aspect of Scripture at the expense of another. ALL of Scripture us "God-breathed". It ALL matters.
The reason we are (or should be) able to speak of the Gospel as "the Gospel of Christ" is because Scripture does. -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
My comment means that this is what the Bible says - if you doubt that the gospel of Christ is that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is near then read your Bible. Do not imply what is not written. My comment is that it is IN THE BIBLE. Stop being childish. -
SovereignGrace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
My comment was that the gospel being the "gospel of Christ" that the Messiah has come and the Kingdom is at hand IS in the Bible. If you do not believe it then read your Bible. You will find it in the "Gospels" (usually the first four books of the New Testament). Somehow you went off the reservation by thinking I was suggesting you did not read your Bible. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I believe we are sinners. You will do well to contemplate the text you quoted above: James 1:14-15.
What people have rejected is that sin is a 'power.' It may be that you can define that more clearly to clear away the objections.
Sin, a I said before, is a missing of the mark, a falling short, a lack of conformity to the righteous commandments of God.
'.........Sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in HIm there is no sin' (1 John 3:4-5). Christ did not come, first and foremost, so that we would be saved by believing in Him. He came to rake away our sin, which He did at the cross. -
I am saying that you have argued strongly against my view (not just what I deny of yours, but of what I believe to be true).
My argument is that sin is lawlessness. But my argument is that sin is also a power that has enslaved mankind. My comment is that there does not seem to be very much difference between your idea of a "sin nature" (although you don't use the term) and the biblical term that sin is a power under which mankind has been enslaved.
Page 14 of 17