| Re: |
by RobertW on 2012/11/11 7:15:07
No one in the OT was given that responsibility. No one.
I never placed the responsibility of being born again on OT saints or on anyone else. John 3:3 is merely given as a statement of fact. We cannot in of ourselves make ourselves born again.
I don't believe that as well.
However, by implication you have placed them in Christ which they were not except by faith in a hope __from themselves, that God honored because they lived it out. I call it an Abraham faith.
In other conversations we have had you will remember I have suggested that the OT Saints are the souls of just men made perfect in Hebrews 12:23. That is when their change came in my view.
But it could not be a change whereby they realized a happening other than perhaps being confident their "Redeemer lives" nor need it have a change when justification was meted out to them because of their faith and righteous life before God for which Romans 5:1 satisfied their longing.
They were not born from above as they walked the earth, they walked in the revelation they had and were faithful. They were not in Christ or crucified with Christ, etc. Their possibilities were far less than ours. John is speaking to us in 1 John, not the Old Testament saints. The New Testament is not retroactive. I think we agree wholeheartedly there. Blessings.
Interesting you use the word "revelation", which is what I also believe, the interesting thing here being they were not indwelt by the Holy Ghost in the sense of John 20:22. In their case it was simply the holy Spirit revealing Himself in some unmistakable way and perhaps even in some not so unmistakable ways to test their fortitude.. All as a demonstration of God's faithfulness, to be sure. __and of course, I agree with you__wholeheartedly. Blessings bac acha.
| 2012/11/11 10:39||Profile|
| Re: RobertW |
RobertW wrote ///Because man is not a sinner simply because he/she sins; they sin because they are sinners. They are by nature children of wrath. By one man The Sin entered the world and by one man's sin we were all constituted sinners. In contrast, by one man's obedience many will be constituted righteous. That is to say, in the same way that men were by nature rebellious children of wrath IN Adam- they can be by nature obedient loving children of God IN Christ. Hope that helps. Blessings.///
I would understand you to be saying that "man is not a sinner simply because he/she sins" "they sin because they are sinners. That is to say, that men were by nature rebellious children of wrath IN Adam-
so as to say that They are deserving of Gods wrath not because of disobedience but because they are simply human"
So to be human simply by its self is cause enough for us to be deserving of Gods wrath ?? am I somehow misunderstanding your position??
how is this not a clear contridiction to
what you posted on the "Why do people go to hell?" thread
Where you wrote
RE: RobertW wrote/// So we see then the issue is not children making it to heaven, for they are as the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. The disciples asked the question and Jesus called a child to Him. Any theology that cannot account for this reality has to be scrapped and reworked. Shockingly men make it difficult for a child to get into Heaven, when Jesus spun it around on the adults and made the children (in effect) the standard.///
I think we need to scrapp and rework this theolgy that I have found no evidence of existing before Augustine
| 2012/11/11 16:11||Profile|
Will the Theologians please sit down by David Bercot copyright 2009 scroll publishing
Luther told the German rulers: "The fact that seditious articals of doctrine should be punished by the sword needs no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptist hold tenets relating to infant baptism,((original sin)), and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God,and are indeed opposed to it....Think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized?" Luther went on to complain:
The Anabaptist set up a ministry and congregation of their own,which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound...to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders...Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenent, such as infant baptism, ((original sin)), and unnecessary seperation,then ...we conclude that...the stubborn sectarians must be put to death.
Is this doctrine really that important??
| 2012/11/11 16:59||Profile|
| Re: |
I have a couple of David Bercot's books and have liked a lot of what he has said, however I think he presses a little too hard in some areas.
Is this doctrine really that important??
It is important to keep in mind that these were different times than today. A lot of things ended up being punishable by death. We have moved past this approach to enforcing doctrine, but the answer to the question is 'no' it is not important enough to put someone to death. But its like swerving to miss the ditch on the left we risk over correcting and going into the ditch on the right. What I mean is, we risk an attitude that theology and doctrine are not important at all. We don't want to put people to death, but we don't want to be cavalier about it either.
As the saying goes, "In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, and in all things charity."
Men like C.G. Finney did not believe in Original Sin. He also had a different view of the atonement, etc. He is way out of the mainstream and some have taken up his views to combat what they see is the error of Augustine and the Reformers. I think they are mistaken, but I also don't come down in line with the Reformers in some areas.
The great value of these forums is that one can do a search on google with key words and sermonindex added and see many of these old discussions from the past. We have been blessed to have many Godly men and women contribute- that were not always conformists, but were very passionately Biblical in their thinking. I urge everyone that is really interested in looking at these great subjects to look at some of these past discussions.
I have been on both sides of some of these conversations over the years so I don't hold views the same as I did 8 years ago. I have been willing to change and amend my views as I have seen necessary. WKIP (we know in part). As long as we are willing to really listen to each other we may be surprised to find that they may have a valid point that has to be considered. That is always my approach. Iron sharpens iron. That is the great value, along with the many friendships we make, in these forums; and unlike in the 1400's-1600's we don't have to worry to much about any real life witch hunts or burnings at the stake as we make our way doctrinally. Blessings.
Robert Wurtz II
| 2012/11/11 18:32||Profile|
| Re: RobertW |
Hi RobertW I greatly appreciate your gracious responses.
RE: RobertW wrote ///I have a couple of David Bercot's books and have liked a lot of what he has said, however I think he presses a little too hard in some areas.///
I understand what you mean by pressing a little to hard in some areas, I think his best book that I have read is the kingdom that turned the world upside down.
RE: RobertW wrote ///It is important to keep in mind that these were different times than today. A lot of things ended up being punishable by death. We have moved past this approach to enforcing doctrine, but the answer to the question is 'no' it is not important enough to put someone to death.///
I realize that we live in different times but indorsing the deaths of someone that slightly differes in theolgy was regected by many whom had less theological understanding than did the Reformers.
Many criticized them in their own day for their bizar lack of compassion. 1 Cor 13 is clear it does not matter how much you know or how much you do, if you lack compassion the rest is all vanity. If their is one point that all Christians through out history ought to agree upon is that we should have a Love for our fellow man despite rather or not they see eye to eye with us theologically. It does not take a theologian to relize this but unfortunately it is just those whom seems to be the furthest from understanding this truth. as the scripture says beware of the scribes
What puts this doctrine into even more question is the reality that it has followed along the same doctrinal lineage as has the death to the heratick mentality.
The new Foxes Book of Martyrs John Fox rewritten updated by Harold J chadwick p.56
referring to Papal persecutions and the Inquisition
/They justified the horrors they committed by wresing Old Testament Scriptures, and by appeal to (Augustine), who had interpreted luke 14:23 as endorsing the use of forse against heretics: "Then the master said to the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges,and compel them to come in,that my house may be filled."/
a great many of these papal persecutiones had to do with those whom rejected infant baptism see martyrs mirror
We see the reformers not coming to their doctrinal positions from scripture alone but unarguably through the lens of Augustines writings, this is more than clear thru there writings. as far as I am aware We do not find these doctrines in the Church fathers before Augustine. which is another reason to question these doctrines
This lack of compassion for anyone whom even slightly disagreed theologicaly, I find not only for the most part starts around the time of Augustine but also follows thru the same path as does those whom where very adamant about the doctrine of original sin.
I do not wish at all to missterotype the reformers and am open to being corrected by facts but I will say I do not consider it as building a strawman case by looking at the fruit of the vessels by whom these doctrines have been passed down thru history. especially when I personally as have others are not convinced that the few scriptures that are used in defense of the doctrine acctually imply what is said of them to imply.
When they use verses like psalms 58:3 totally out of context to make their case it seems to me that they are more than desperate to find actual scriptures to support such a doctrine.
rather we are looking at
Ulrich Zwingli - Felix Manz
John Calvin, not only in the Michael Servetus case that is very well known and excused, he was a unitarian.
But listen to what John Calvin says concerning Michael Sattlers martyrdom, I challenge all to find one thing of error with Michael Sattlers that even slightly is worthy of death.
John Calvin Treatise against the anabaptist and against the libertines translated by Benjamin Wirt Farley p.157
John Calvin wrote
// Now in order to give a favorable pretext to their doctrine, they have published along with their resolution the history of the Death of a certain Michael (footnote says Sattler)an accomplice and member of their sect.In fact ,they are in the habit of making a powerful defense out of the fact that some have been killed for holding views which would not retract,although if they had they might have escaped death and ransomed their life. Indeed,it is an effective means of authorizing a doctrine for a man to abandon his life courageously and freely in order to confirm his belief. For when we are told what the prophets,apostles,and other martyrs endured in order to maintain the truth of Gode,we are so much the more strengthened to adhere to the faith we hold,which they sealed by their blood.
I acknowledge,therefore,that we must not vilify the death of God's servants,since their courage and constancy is no small aid in supporting our weakness. But since we can be thoroughly deceived by this unless we have another criterion,we must return to the foundation without which we should be unable to make sound judgments or be certain about the matter.
Certainly a mans death, whoever he might be,is never so precious that it can or ought to prejudice Gods truth in any thing, or be so beneficial as to approve of erroneous and perverse doctrines.Therefore let us hold to this:that although a sound and solid doctrine,being founded on reason,is confirmed later by the death of its adherents and confessors by whom it is maintained,nevertheless,the death of the whole world cannot prove a lie.
Indeed what seperates the martyrs of God from the devil's deciples is that the martyrs die for a righteous cause. Therefore in the same way that it is laudable and courageous to suffer death when necessity calls for it in order to bear witness to the truth,so also it is insane obstinancy to suffer for a wicked cause.So much so that whoever suffers for it the most is all the more reprimanded. In fact, when we let ourselves be carried away by this pretext, we lose complete judgment and esteem.//
I am sorry but I personally have a difficult finding these words and the actions to represent what I read in the New Testament, and I am not saying this proudly but rather from a most disturbed position, It breaks me to read how these men whom we have been taught to have been the Torchbearers of the truth had a bizar lack of compassion for their fellow man
I could now go on with Luther but I think the point is more than clear,
But this mentality did not stop with the reformers. We see how others whom passed this doctrine of original sin as a foundational truth reacted in the Synod of Dort which had 0 tolarance and zero compassion, and persecuted and put to death people over similar doctrinal differences, We also see this same mentality in the American puritans whom held this doctrine as a foundational truth with how they put to death the early Quakers 'Boston martyrs'.
The point is not to misreapresent nor to build a strawman but rather to show why I personally am not convinced that such doctrine is the truth when one says that the true church has always held these doctrines, I have to ask myself whom has carried the tourch of truth 'Orthodoxy'?
I wounder if their could be a connection with the mindset that has in the past approved of killing the heratick and the mindset that all men are concieved wicked sinful and evil in mind body and soul, because if such a case was true and the only exception is those whom agree with you theologically, whom would feel compassion for the killing of a venomous serpent. So such a doctrine can and most likley has effected mens perseption of their fellow man.
but yet the new testament says to love thy neighbour as thyself and when asked who is thy neighbour, Jesus gives an example of one that would have been considered a heratick by the one asking and goes on to explain how this heratick possesed more godly compassion than did the leaders of the ones own religion.
James says "Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."
Why would it be wrong to curse or even kill men, if every bit of there nature is wicked evil and hated by God?? But rather than say that man was made a sinner at conseption, James says men are made after the similitude of God.
RE: RobertW wrote ///As the saying goes, "In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, and in all things charity."///
good saying brother
RE: RobertW wrote ///Men like C.G. Finney did not believe in Original Sin. He also had a different view of the atonement, etc. He is way out of the mainstream and some have taken up his views to combat what they see is the error of Augustine and the Reformers. I think they are mistaken, but I also don't come down in line with the Reformers in some areas.///
I actually know very little of Finney, before listening to Keith Daniels 'walking the tight rope,' ( which was an excelant sermon) All I had heard was negative slang about him, how he was a sheep in wolves clothing as what spurgeon.org and the like propagates. I was to scared of him, I have since read a little of his bio, in wich seems to declare just the opposite of what is said of him. and of course I have searched what he has said concerning this subject.
RE: RobertW wrote ///The great value of these forums is that one can do a search on google with key words and sermonindex added and see many of these old discussions from the past. We have been blessed to have many Godly men and women contribute- that were not always conformists, but were very passionately Biblical in their thinking. I urge everyone that is really interested in looking at these great subjects to look at some of these past discussions.///
I must agree that God uses men with all different understandings of such doctrines he looks past our ignorance
RE: RobertW wrote ///I have been on both sides of some of these conversations over the years so I don't hold views the same as I did 8 years ago. I have been willing to change and amend my views as I have seen necessary. WKIP (we know in part). As long as we are willing to really listen to each other we may be surprised to find that they may have a valid point that has to be considered. That is always my approach. Iron sharpens iron. That is the great value, along with the many friendships we make, in these forums; and unlike in the 1400's-1600's we don't have to worry to much about any real life witch hunts or burnings at the stake as we make our way doctrinally. Blessings///
I agree my thinking is constantly changing and I must be open to God to change me where I need to be changed,
Edit, proof read for clarity
| 2012/11/11 22:28||Profile|
| Re: |
Croref: I did not mean to drop a comment and run, so to speak. It is deer season here in Missouri, and I have been busy trying to lay in a years supply of meat for my family. I am not sure that I need to respond as the discussion has moved, but I wanted to reply to your post.
Let me say this and then please comment:
Our old nature was not influenced by sin__our souls were. How? Through our flesh, by temptation and untoward affinities. Our natures being devoid of God made us to be our god. Our souls were in complete union with our flesh and vanity. Our "I love you's" always went out from us with a hook in it. We chose as we saw fit but always looking out for our interests. I was not a "child of wrath" until you crossed me or I had to "deny myself". BTW: I was a compassionate man__when it suited me. So what is the problem that we need a new nature? Might we liken the need to one who has cataracts? "Unless you are born again__you cannot see. . " (cf Jn3:3,5)
I am not sure exactly what perspective you are coming from, but I notice a few things that I wanted to comment on. Before the rebirth, man's spirit is dead toward God. This is due to Adam's transgression. By the one man, Adam, all are made sinners. As such, we sin. We are not sinners because we committed actions of sin, we commit actions of sin because we are sinners. We are not sinners because we have allowed our mind, will, and emotions or our bodies to become corrupt. Our mind, our will, and our emotions, and our bodies have become corrupt because of original sin. So we don't have to teach a child how to lie, steal, or be jealous, nor do we have to teach a child how to become sick physically.
The rebirth brings to life (spiritually) our spirit. We who were dead in sin are now alive in Christ. We are now in right relationship with God. This is a spiritual rebirth (see Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in John 3).
Yet we still live in a body and have a soul that is not born again and that is still subject to corruption. When we are born again, we can think of it as though 1/3 of us is now partaking of the divine nature of God. It is through knowing God through communion with Him in the spirit that we can be empowered to escape the corruption that is in the world.
I want to come back to that, but since I mentioned natures, let me insert that being "children of wrath" does not mean that we get angry when we are crossed. In the end we will either be subject to God's grace or to His wrath. It is a question of whose child we are. "Who is our Daddy?", so to speak. A child of wrath is one who is, due to not being born again, is destined to experience the wrath of God on the unGodly.
It is through the divine nature that we overcome. Our flesh we will have with us until the return of Christ. Paul address this in Romans 8 (remember my comment about Romans 6-8 needing to be read in continuity). He also addresses this in his letter to the Thessalonians when he prays that God would sanctify them wholly, spirit, soul, and body, and in Romans 12 when he speaks of being transformed by the renewing of the mind.
We will always battle the flesh. But we can make progress. This progress can come only through the empowering work of the Holy Spirit. I can tell you that when I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I found my battle against the flesh now had a new element of overcoming power that was missing before. Now we cannot separate God. Any work He does in us is through His Spirit. So the impact of the word of God and continually study of and revelation from His word, the impact of fellowship with His body (the church), etc., is all empowered by the Holy Spirit.
So if a person wants to view this as starting with one nature and having that nature changed, I am not going to argue the point. If it helps to view it as a change of nature, OK. But technically, I don't see the Bible teaching anything about two natures in man, nor about man having his nature changed. I do see clear teaching that man was unregenerate due to original sin and as a result was spiritually dead. I see that through the sacrifice of Christ, man is now forgiven and is made alive by the Spirit of God. We can now be in fellowship with God in the spirit and are made a partaker of His Spirit. We now partake of the divine nature and are empowered to live an overcoming life by walking in the Spirit.
Hope that clarifies it a bit.
| 2012/11/12 8:14||Profile|
| Re: My spirit shall not always strive with man|
Trilogy of Spirit, Soul, and Body by Watchman Nee
From The Latent Power of the Soul
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2.7). This refers to the human body. And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. This describes how God gave spirit to man; it was Adams spirit. So mans body was formed of the dust of the ground, and mans spirit was given to him by God. And man became a living soul. After the breath of life had entered into his nostrils man became a living soul. The spirit, the soul, and the body are three separate entities. May your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire (1 Thess. 5.23). The spirit is God-given; the soul is a living soul; and the body is God-formed.
According to common understanding the soul is our personality. When the spirit and the body were joined, man became a living soul. The characteristic of the angels is spirit and that of the lower animals such as beasts is flesh. We humans have both spirit and body; but our characteristic is neither spirit nor body but soul. We have a living soul. Hence the Bible calls man soul. For example, when Jacob went down into Egypt with his family, the Scriptures tell us that all the souls of the house of Jacob, that came into Egypt, were threescore and ten (Gen. 46.27). Again, those who had received Peters word on Pentecost were baptised and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls (Acts 2.41). Hence soul stands for our personality, for what makes us as man.
What are the various functions of spirit, soul, and body? These have already been explained in Part One of The Spiritual Man. But I was most happy one day to find on the bookshelf a volume of Andrew Murrays writings in which is to be found an explanation of the spirit, soul, and body in the appended notes that is quite similar to our interpretation. What follows is a quotation from one of the notes:
In the history of mans creation we read, The Lord God formed man of the dust of the groundthus was his body made and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life: thus his spirit came from God; and man became a living soul. The spirit quickening the body made man a living soul, a living person with the consciousness of himself. The soul was the meeting-place, the point of union between body and spirit. Through the body, man, the living soul, stood related to the external world of sense; could influence it, or be influenced by it. Through the spirit he stood related to the spiritual world and the Spirit of God, whence he had his origin; could be the recipient and the minister of its life and power. Standing thus midway between two worlds, belonging to both, the soul had the power of determining itself, of choosing or refusing the objects by which it was surrounded, and to which it stood related.
In the constitution of these three parts of mans nature, the spirit, as linking him with the Divine, was the highest; the body, connecting him with the sensible and animal, the lowest; intermediate stood the soul, partaker of the nature of the others, the bond that united them and through which they could act on each other. Its work, as the central power, was to maintain them in their due relation; to keep the body, as the lowest, in subjection to the spirit; itself to receive through the spirit, as the higher, from the Divine Spirit what was waiting (sic) it for its perfection: and so to pass down, even to the body, that by which it might be partaker of the Spirits perfection and become a spiritual body.∗
Murray, The Spirit of Christ. Fort Washington, Pa., Christian Literature Crusade, 1964. Note C: The Place of the Indwelling, p.227-228.
What is the spirit? That which makes us conscious of God and relates us to God is the spirit. What is the soul? It is that which relates us to ourselves and gives us self-consciousness. What is the body? It causes us to be related to the world. C. I. Scofield, in his reference Bible, explains that the spirit gives God-consciousness, the soul self-consciousness, the body world-consciousness. Horse and ox are not conscious of God because they have no spirit. They are only conscious of their own beings. The body causes us to sense the worldsuch as our seeing the things of the world, our feeling hot or cold, and so forth.
| 2012/11/12 10:39|
| Re: amrkelly|
Did Adam and eve have self-consciousness before eating of the fruit??
Where Adam and eve controled by a voice of reason before eating the fruit??
| 2012/11/12 11:16||Profile|
| Re: |
by amrkelly on 2012/11/12 7:39:35
Trilogy of Spirit, Soul, and Body by Watchman Nee
From The Latent Power of the Soul.
A great little book for understanding this issue.
| 2012/11/12 11:27||Profile|
| Re: Croref |
Croref wrote ///No! The ME is my SOUL. MY SOUL is who I am.///
The Soul is your life,
The Me is the Flesh, carnal Mind, the voice of reason, The voice that is all ways reasoning between the knowledge of good and evil.
Men loose their Carnal mind all the time the soul remains the same
| 2012/11/12 11:35||Profile|