SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The "Sin Nature"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
You know what, that's right. Wescott and Hort who were responsible for finding that text from which the NIV was translated were members of the London's Club of Hermes, a santanist group that is still active today.



I have read about Westcott and Hort.

It always amazes me that Christendom can admit that Satan has a counterfeit for everything of the Holy Spirit, but they think it is lunacy that we say he has also counterfeited/perverted God's word. Today's versions of the Bible (over 400 english versions), are counterfeit.

The very first thing he did in the garden was to corrupt and pervert God's word. He is still doing it and he has many people snookered. If he cannot change it, he will omit or add to it.

Hath God said???



 2010/11/9 14:50
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

AMEN!

"God is not the author of confusion" Isn't it confusing with all of these translations? Ask a new convert to go into a bookstore and buy a Bible, how will he know what to do?


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 14:54Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Quote: I don't think Finney was coming against the idea of original sin. ... Original sin was strongly taught by Finney ... Have you read Finney's Systematic Theology?



Not in its entirety. Maybe I should rephrase. From some rather lengthy quotes I have gleaned that he did not reject the idea that man was born in sin due to Adam's fall. He rejected the idea that man was born with a "sin nature". That was my understanding of what he was saying.


_________________
Travis

 2010/11/9 15:39Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
The main stream in Finney's time believed that man in unable to choose God.



True! I am not making this statement to start or to promulgate any sort of Calv/Arm debate or discussion, but this mainstream belief is orthodox Calvanism, which Finney very strongly opposed.


_________________
Travis

 2010/11/9 15:46Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
What do you think of this from the NIV? I think it is weird. 1 Cor 5:4-5 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. Satan can destroy our sinful nature??? Why would he want to do that?



Again, the word (sarx) being redefined as "sinful nature" when it really simply means "flesh". I don't have a lot against the NIV, but this redefinition of terms bothers me a little bit.


_________________
Travis

 2010/11/9 15:49Profile
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 533


 Re:

And why would Satan want to destroy a person's sinful nature? Satan is the author of sin.

 2010/11/9 15:59Profile
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

Sir, If you get the time, I posted a link to a website that puts all of Finney's works online. You can order a copy of his Systematic Theology from them for $15. (Way cheaper than other copies I've looked at.) It is recomended that you read his entire book though, he very clearly rejected original sin and the sin nature.

Here's the link again: www.gospeltruth.net


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 16:21Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Ask a new convert to go into a bookstore and buy a Bible, how will he know what to do?

At 15, I read the living bible, by 19 God wanted me to read the King James. It was hard reading but I stuck with it and I am glad.

 2010/11/9 16:33









 Re:

bump

 2010/11/9 16:36
davidc
Member



Joined: 2010/8/15
Posts: 272
France

 Re: The sin nature

I've only been away one day, and there are 8 pages of posting to catch up. Can I go back to Anonymous who replied to my posting about Jesus being made sin for us:

" For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor 5:21 (KJV)

Anonymous, You say:

"Sin is a choice (intention, goal, etc)". This is the basis of your belief in this posting.

then you continue:

"Jesus being without sin means that Jesus did not choose sin." This is a logical extension of your belief.

then:

"Since sin is a choice, Jesus was not literally "made sin". It is a figurative phrase. Jesus didn't turn into a choice. It represents the fact that Jesus suffered for our sins when we are the one's who deserve to suffer for them. He offered up his life on account of our sins in order to justify pardon being granted to those who repent."


And so you make the word of God of none effect by your belief. If the plain statement that "God has made Christ to be sin" does not fit into your belief system, you call it a figurative phrase. You say it represents something which it plainly does not. You should abandon your belief system of sin being a choice and believe what God says.

Jesus himself knew what would come upon Him on the cross, and He deliberately chose the Father's will, not his own will. This is what free will is, and only Christ had the authority to exercise it.

David


_________________
david

 2010/11/9 17:36Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy