Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Is man not really capable of seeking God?
- Thread starter Walpole
- Start date
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Sorry JLB....been busy two days and there's too much to read.
Missed your explanation....I think.
The question was:
Were the sanctified once guilty?
And YOUR questions are:
WHO was sanctified?
WHAT were they guilty of?
So, I'd say YES,,,,those that are currently sanctified were once guilty.
Because man is born guilty and needs salvation.
1 Corinthians 6:11
11Such were some of you [the unrighteous]; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
The above answers all questions:
We were all guilty...we were all unrighteous.
THEN we became sanctified -- set aside to do God's work.
Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now
Bob Dylan
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Too tired to think hard.
Is the above saying what my post no. 382 is saying?
Do we know now what we don't know?
We are younger NOW....we know we know less.
??
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
FF....
will reply to your two posts tomorrow morning...
Been offline for two days. Sorry. (they require a lot of attention).
Nope, talk later about it.
Serving Zion
Member
That's not a fair thing to say, is it?
Yes it does. Have a look at this article:
English Word Series: Justice
The word ‘justice’, meaning ‘the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment’ is over 860 years old (c. 1140 AD). ‘Justice’ was once ‘justitia’ an Old French word that descended from Latin to mean ‘righteousness and equity’.
No, it is judgement that does that, which is why we are commanded to not judge others, because God is the one who has the ability to judge finally and without error.
See, now that is the human (fallen) way of thinking!
God's justice has been tarnished? .. what is that supposed to mean?
Nope. It truly in fact is not. It is -dogma- centred, otherwise it would be judging the issuing of the sacraments upon the visible sanctification of each person in their appearance and turning away those who don't belong to him on the basis of spirit rather than dogma (Romans 8:9), and it wouldn't be teaching that young children need to be baptised because it would acknowledge that the kingdom of heaven already belongs to them just as Jesus said also.
I'm still looking for one that takes me in, I've told you that. It has to be willing to produce the fruits of righteousness.
Last edited:
Walpole
Member
Concupiscence is not synonymous with original sin. Rather, concupiscence is itself an effect of original sin.
Additionally, it is important to remember that original sin is a deprivation; the lack of grace due to the fall of Adam. Yet this does not mean man has a sin nature. It simply means man is lacking something (grace). If man's nature itself was sinful, then the following would be the result:
1. God would be the creator of sin. For each time He created a new person, he would be bringing forth sin (and evil) into the world.
2. Man could not be held accountable for his sinful acts. For he would simply be acting as he was created, in accordance with his nature. His sins would be God's fault, not his own.
3. It would mean Christ Himself assumed a sinful nature.
I don't think this is well developed and thought out in modern Protestantism.
Last edited:
Wondering,
It gets us into the OSAS vs OSNS debate & we can't discuss it on CFnet.
Oz
A fetus or a very young child that knows not the difference between right or wrong yet can have no sin found in them, but what is found in all humans from the time they were just a fetus is the nature to sin. We didn't inherit Adams sin as that was his own, but since sin was introduced into the world by him it has become our nature in the flesh to sin.
Which person?
stovebolts
Member
I disagree.
Those of you who view this passage as such only use it to prop up your own theological argument in support of a dry and shallow doctrine.
Many don’t know their Old Testament well enough to pick up the nuances and understand the narrative.
if we look at the specific context, David is writing in a time we’re he is heavy of heart. David slept with the wife of another man and got her pregnant. But not only a man, but a righteous man. He then had that man murdered. In response, God is going to take his child once he’s born.
This is the overarching context. David is full of grief and is at a very low spot in his life. We even read how grieved David is. He is unkept and is fasting. Even his servants are concerned over his grief.
We do the scriptures injustice when we assign meanings that were never intended, especially for arguments sake.
Read Psalm 69 as well, and ask why David feels this way. Why has his family abandoned him? Ask yourself why he, as the youngest is alone tending the sheep without help? Ask yourself why the youngest is not thought of when Samuel visits. You will learn that David is an outcast in his own family because of who his Mother is, and who his grandmother Ruth was. This article may assist you.
Nitzevet, Mother of David - The bold voice of silence
He was Israel’s mightiest warrior, revered by friend and foe; yet for the first 28 years of his life he was a lowly outcast . . . The secret story behind the mysterious circumstances of King David’s birth.
www.chabad.org
The verse in question comes from a man who was looked down on his whole life by his family, including his father. A child is to be cherished and loved by his Father, yet Jesse wants nothing to do with him and turns his brothers in shame toward him.. David is a blemish to his Father. In David’s eyes, his own conception was purely a sexual act with disregard for any child. This runs parallel with the child Bathsheba is now carrying. Their union was purely sexual, and it turned into the murder of a righteous man.
In Gods eyes, sex is sacred. Children are sacred, without spot and without blemish.
Psalm 139:14
New International Version
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
I disagree.
Those of you who view this passage as such only use it to prop up your own theological argument in support of a dry and shallow doctrine.
Many don’t know their Old Testament well enough to pick up the nuances and understand the narrative.
if we look at the specific context, David is writing in a time we’re he is heavy of heart. David slept with the wife of another man and got her pregnant. But not only a man, but a righteous man. He then had that man murdered. In response, God is going to take his child once he’s born.
This is the overarching context. David is full of grief and is at a very low spot in his life. We even read how grieved David is. He is unkept and is fasting. Even his servants are concerned over his grief.
We do the scriptures injustice when we assign meanings that were never intended, especially for arguments sake.
Read Psalm 69 as well, and ask why David feels this way. Why has his family abandoned him? Ask yourself why he, as the youngest is alone tending the sheep without help? Ask yourself why the youngest is not thought of when Samuel visits. You will learn that David is an outcast in his own family because of who his Mother is, and who his grandmother Ruth was. This article may assist you.
Nitzevet, Mother of David - The bold voice of silence
He was Israel’s mightiest warrior, revered by friend and foe; yet for the first 28 years of his life he was a lowly outcast . . . The secret story behind the mysterious circumstances of King David’s birth.
The verse in question comes from a man who was looked down on his whole life by his family, including his father. A child is to be cherished and loved by his Father, yet Jesse wants nothing to do with him and turns his brothers in shame toward him.. David is a blemish to his Father. In David’s eyes, his own conception was purely a sexual act with disregard for any child. This runs parallel with the child Bathsheba is now carrying. Their union was purely sexual, and it turned into the murder of a righteous man.
In Gods eyes, sex is sacred. Children are sacred, without spot and without blemish.
Psalm 139:14
New International Version
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
If you read my post’s, I stated that little children are innocent.
For this statement, I was accused of teaching that everyone is born of immaculate conception.
My position is to teach what the scriptures teach, and reconcile the truth that sin and death were spread to all men from Adam, as well as the truth that children are innocent, not knowing good from evil.
For this stance I seem to be getting it from both sides, which I’m used too. So be it.
It is good that you grasp one thing and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them. Ecclesiastes 7:18 NASB
JLB
Did God form your body from the dust of the ground and place you in your mothers womb, or were you procreated by your father and mother engaging in the sacred act of sex?
God formed our spirit within us.
The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:
Zechariah 12:1
When we grasp these two distinctly different truths, we can come forth with a healthy balance of two seemingly opposing ideas.
- Our bodies are conceived in sin.
- Our spirits are formed within us, by the Lord.
This is certainly not “dry shallow doctrine“ but simple foundational truth.
JLB
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Who said?
Please reply.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Right Walpole...
This is what I meant...not worth going back to read my post, but, yes, you're right.
We suffer from the EFFECTS of O.S. and one of them is concupiscense.
I do believe this is called the sin nature in Protestantism....
IOW,,,,the TENDANCY to sin....that thing that makes us not obey God.
We used to have a member on here that was very sensitive to the use of the word NATURE.
I now what you mean above....but then what wording to use?
Sometimes we use the word carnal...or flesh. It all means the same.
Man has a nature that has been damaged - we could say that. This is what is meant
in Protestantism...it's just too long.
Romans 5:12 says that death came from Adam....we are spiritually dead...
we have our flesh before knowing God, and the flesh is sinful.
Galatians 5:17
For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
It's this "desire of the flesh" that is called the sin nature. Verses 18 to 21 go on to state some of these sins.
There are many more verses that explain this.
It might be wrong to call it the "sin nature"...but it just means the above.
To answer your list of why you believe it's wrong....keep in mind the meaning above.
1. God would be the creator of sin. For each time He created a new person, he would be bringing forth sin (and evil) into the world.
This is not how the bringing forth of sin is believed to happen,,,and I do believe the CC agrees with the following:
God would not be the creator of sin because the "sin nature" (sorry) is transmitted by the adults. God created the first
humans to be perfect, but they were not (and He knew they wouldn't be).
This is why the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus and why Mary was born immaculate...so that Jesus would NOT inherit
this sin nature.
2. Man could not be held accountable for his sinful acts. For he would simply be acting as he was created, in accordance with his nature. His sins would be God's fault, not his own.
I don't understand why you think this. God did not make Adam sin,,,he sinned on his own with his own free will.
This action separated man from God (from himself, from others, and from nature).
This separation caused this sinful nature to be imputed to all men since Adam was the head of all humans. (Federal Headship?)
Man IS responsible for accepting God and returning to a relationship with Him...
or Not accepting God and keeping the seperation...It's man's free will option.
3. It would mean Christ Himself assumed a sinful nature.
See item 1.
Jesus was not a "normal" human!
stovebolts
Member
And Iagree.
I don’t even understand what that means.. sounds like high theology to me.
We share the same position.
It’s nice to know that your loved.
It is good that you grasp one thing and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them. Ecclesiastes 7:18 NASB
Amen
God empowers his creation...
Sex can be used in a godly way, or it can be abused. All sex is not sacred.
The sex David had with Bathsheba was not sacred. It was dirty, and it caused David’s hands to become dirty.
David is looking at his own perceived conception in Psalm 51:5 to his relationship with Bathsheba. Please read Psalm 69 for further insight. He sees both sexual encounters as dirty. Neither were sacred.
I don’t know the discussion anyone was having on immaculate conception, but the psalms really have little to no place in those discussions IMO. Personally, I think it takes away from scripture when we force our ideas onto passages. I find it more helpful to understand the narrative scripture portrays and then apply those ideas to our life.
I won’t split hairs here, but I believe God breathed his spirit into Adam making Adam a living soul and that spirit spans through humanity. All humanity has Gods spirit within them ( not to be confused with the Holy Spirit) and Gods spirit returns to Him, and our bodies return to the dust of the earth. Zach understands this and I believe is foundational to what he wrote.
I don’t really see them as distinctly different. As a whole, God gives his spirit to all regardless if the sexual act was sacred or as dirty as rape. In the same way, every body will return to the earth...
Psalm 51 and 139 are both written by David. Neither contradict each other. All I’m saying brother is this. Let the Bible tell its story and let’s tell the story the Bible tells. Again, how did immaculate conception get applied to David and his dirty sex?
Not every body is conceived in sin. When two people fall in love and commit themselves to one another (in marriage) and experience sex the way God designed it, then the two become one in body and spirit. This love in no way produces a dirty child.
Sex is not sinful when experienced in a Godly manner. It is beautiful. It is good. But sex can be sinful when experienced outside of Gods way.
We are conceived through sex. If that sexual encounter was sinful, (rape, infedility, lust etc), then we can say one was conceived in sin. But not everyone is conceived in sin. Some are conceived in love.
Agreed
Every human being has a physical body that contains sin that is passed on by the father: the fathers bloodline
This is why Jesus was born of a virgin.
JLB