The plausibility of John 3:18

:rolleyes:

I use the term. You said you do not but that while not using the term you accept the idea as valid.

Here is what I actually stated: "your idea of a "sin nature" (although you don't use the term) ".

If you reject the idea of a "sin nature" (that men have a fallen, sinful nature) then I will apologize for my mistake.
If you just do not like the words I use then grow up.

Which is it? Do you believe that we have sinful natures or not?????

 

By "power" I mean how Scripture presents sin as an enslaving power.

 

Don't be silly. It is MY term. I was saying that you stated you affirmed the "idea" behind the term "sin nature" because you said that you affirmed the idea but never used the term.

IF you deny that natural man has a sin nature (a fallen nature, are "sinful") then I will apologize. If not, then you are acting like a child. Stop.

 

That is between you and God. I just referenced His terms that we were enslaved by sin, mastered by sin, that sin was crouching at our door. Tell God to purchase your dictionary and then He would know that "sin" is a "moral transaction" and never an enslaving power. If you want to critique the choice of words, ask Him why He spoke of "death" as a "power" as well.

For me, I just take it as God is God. If He says it, I believe it.

 

You know what. I will remove the post IF you deny the idea that men have a sin nature. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. Do you reject it too? The term Penal Substitution is not in the Bible. Do you reject it?

Now PLEASE stop being childish. You are making a fool of yourself. I said that you do not use the term and that the term is mine to refer to the idea of natural men being sinners (by nature). You already affirmed you believe the idea that men have a "sin nature" but don't use the term. Stop trying to be offended.

 

No. More like a person going off topic to insult and make false statements about people and then whining when their posts are edited or deleted. You know, the common foolishness some members that cannot accurately defend their position do. Often it is just a smoke screen (to be fair, sometimes it is "talking past" the other....but I don't think this is normally the case).

I'll tell you what we need - bro. We need men who can act like men (who don't go whining to the "teacher" but can address issues with other people. I think you are (may be) one of these (I hope....time will tell). But we are plagued with a bunch of whiners.

 

I like the term Scripture uses (sin as a "power" or "master" over man). We are by nature "enslaved to sin" or "sold under sin".

Sin nature is the same as saying we are sinners. Not much to it. And you are right, it often presents us as not choosing to sin (if pushed to its logical conclusions). Enslaved by sin can go both ways (because of the Gospel of Christ).

 

Truth is it was not. The problem then was when I said "wait, that is not what I believe" your reply was "that's your opinion".

Even you should be able to admit that was a childish reply. You can argue against my beliefs and I can argue against yours. BUT neither of us can tell the other what they believe. That is just wrong (morally and logically).

 

No. I never said I did not delete them. But it was not because I did not like them. I don't like a lot of things here. It was because you made an off topic comment that was a false accusation and then continued to discuss moderator actions on the open forum.

What you said was that I did not believe what is just is defined by God. I said that God is the ONLY standard for what is just and that your accusation was false. You said that was my "opinion".

We cannot define another person's belief for them. You believe what you believe, right or wrong. If you say you believe the sky is brown then I have to accept that you believe the sky is brown - regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

What is troubling is you know this. You know it from debates at Liberty. You know it from studying formal arguments. So the question is why you are choosing this line of interaction. I have my suspicions, but nothing I'll voice here. It is something you need to consider. You are behaving substandard to experience and education you present yourself as having. Not that I doubt you graduated seminary or that you serve in the ministry, but attributing to another person beliefs they claim not to hold does not match your testimony.

 

No, even here people can hold two opposing views (insofar as free-will I'm a compatibilist, which really holds two opposing things together).

In such cases you could, however, bring up the opposing views and ask the other to defend the position. That would be both fair and proper (we did this in debate...I guess, it's been a while since I've graduated....please tell me there are still debates where you have to defend your position).

If you want to revisit the contention then we can. I say that the measure of what is just is determined by God alone. You claimed that this is not what I really believe. What led you to that conclusion?

See how civil and nice I am.....now let me spit out this blood for biting my tongue :Laugh (kidding) but seriously, if you have a question of what I believe then ask me and I will tell you....but don't prescribe for me a belief I claim to reject and I won't you. Fair?