| Poster | Thread |
| | Re: | | Thank you everyone for all the questions, I have done my best to show from the Scriptures that man derives his character/nature from only one of two sources, there is not a third independent source. We are dependent creatures and cannot choose to stand apart from either God or Satan. We do not self-generate evil apart from the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience.
A Christian does not have two natures (evil/good), yet he does retain his own individuality and personality (Soul) in the Lord. If you want to call that his nature you can, but it is not evil. It has become damaged by sin because God is intending to save our souls.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
The desires of the spirit war with the desires of the flesh and vice-versa. The flesh is corruptible and seeks it's own, but can be a useful instrument by the Spirit of God.
|
|  2014/4/14 14:38 | | brothagary
Member
Joined: 2011/10/23
Posts: 2556
| | Re: | | i think just is it is not quite as simple as that
due to the fact that we actualy see the script say that satan entered judas at a point in time and at that time it was satan influencing him directly ,, before this it was judas own flesh and sinfull natural desires that comes from the flesh ,that even allowed access to satan him self ,,, the prinice and the power of the air the spirit that wrothest in the sons of disobedience is obviously not the same as satan entering and controlling a person
I gota go to work ,,,chowwwww |
| | 2014/4/14 15:41 | Profile |
| | Re: | | The spiritual nature of man is the nature of the spirit who indwells him. Peter says that Christians are "partakers of the divine nature (phusis)" (II Peter 1:4). Prior to becoming Christians, Paul explained that we "were by nature (phusis) children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3).
We often hear references to "human nature" but it is more biblically correct to refer to someone's spiritual nature.
I think A.W. Pink said it pretty good.
"Since the fall this malignant spirit has entered into human nature in a manner somewhat analogous to that in which the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of believers. He has intimate access to our faculties... Satan can also affect from within. He is able not only to take thoughts out of men's minds (Luke 8:12), but to place thoughts in them, as we are told he 'put into the heart of Judas' to betray Christ (John 13:2); he works indiscernibly as a spirit." Gleanings from Genesis.
E.H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology.
"Unredeemed men are in helpless captivity to sin and Satan and are regarded as children of the devil."
Augustus H. Strong - Systematic Theology.
"Self-originated sin would have made man himself a Satan."
A.W. Pink - Gleanings From the Scriptures.
"...death brought its subjects under complete bondage to sin and Satan... They were not guided by the Holy Spirit, but energized and directed by the evil spirit..."
Daniel P. Fuller, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
"Satan rules in the hearts of all those who are not 'born of God' (I John 3:8f); they are called the 'children of the devil' (v. 10; cf. John 8:44). Prior to regeneration all were energized and motivated by the spirit of Satan (Eph. 2:2; cf. Acts 26:18). For the time being God has granted Satan a limited power over death, and Satan uses the fear of death to keep people in bondage to him (Heb. 2:14f.)."
L. Nelson Bell, "Christianity Today" magazine, March 31, 1972.
"There are two forces contending for our minds, wills and bodies. It is a solemn thought, and one we hate to admit, that we are either Satan's slaves or Christ's. I can hear the indignant rebuttal; 'I alone decide what I will do. I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul.' But the Bible makes it plain that there is no third state of existence for man.
"In the spiritual realm, neither ignorance nor deliberate rejection can nullify the fact revealed in God's Word that our lives are dominated either by Satan or by Christ."
Russell Kelfer, "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions," tape #907.
"Satan's story to Eve in Genesis 3, and to Jesus in Matthew 4, was that you can live independently of God, that you can be your own god, set your own standards, let circumstances dictate your decision. BUT IT IS A LIE. Either God controls your life by your choosing to let Him, or Satan controls your life by your choosing (either by design or default) to let him. You and I were designed by God to be ruled by a spirit. Our choice is not whether or not to be ruled, but rather, by which spirit we will be ruled!"
Ian Thomas - Mystery of Godliness.
"Satan, who is the father of lies (John 8:44), invaded the soul of man. .. The behavior mechanism in man designed by God to be the means whereby he should bear the divine image, was prostituted by the devil to become the means whereby man would bear the satanic image, for 'He that committeth sin is of the devil..." (I John 3:8)...takes his character from the evil one"24
"In the absence of the Holy Spirit instructing and controlling his mind and his emotions and his will with Truth, Satan, who is the father of lies, invaded...man, usurped the sovereignty of God, and introduced this evil agency to pollute, corrupt, abuse and miuse his soul and so to twist and bend his will that the behavior mechanism in man, designed by God to be the means whereby he should bear the divine image, was prostituted by the devil to become the means whereby man would bear the satanic image..."
"...the first man, Adam, not only lost the Life of God, and ceased to be in the image of God, but his whole personality became available to the devil, to be exploited by him, producing a race of men whose ungodly behavior...is a demonstration of 'the mystery of iniquity'."25
"As godliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of God's activity, and God's capacity to reproduce Himself in you, so all ungodliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of Satan's activity, and of his capacity to reproduce the devil in you! ...iniquity is no more the consequence of your capacity to imitate the devil, than godliness is the consequence of your capacity to imitate God. You cannot begin to understand the mystery of godliness without beginning to understand the mystery of iniquity, because the principles involved are identical! When you act in obedience to the Truth, the Truth behaves, producing godliness; when you act in obedience to the lie, the lie behaves, producing iniquity! ..As God is the Author of Truth, so the devil is the author of deception; he is the big lie!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural man cannot reform, he needs an exchange, an exchange of the "spirit of error" for the "spirit of truth" (I John 4:6), the "spirit of the world" is exchanged for the "Spirit of God" (I Cor. 2:12), and the natural man is converted from "darkness to light, from the dominion of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18).
|
| | 2014/4/14 16:31 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
I think A.W. Pink said it pretty good.
What Arthur Pink is speaking about here may well seem appropriate as a means of refuting a belief in inherited sin and a sinful nature, but as with all things which we write one has to take them in context of what is fully intended.
Arthur Pink was a leading Occultist in his day and was a member of the Theosophical Society. He was in essential terms an Gnostic in the true and proper sense of what that means from an occult position. When he got saved he became a staunch Calvinist and believed in depravity.
From "The Total Depravity of Man" By Arthur Pink
"It should be quite plain from our definitions and descriptions of congenital sin that the human constitution is not merely negatively defective, but positively depraved. There are in man’s heart not only the lack of conformity to the divine law but a deformity. Not only is the natural man without any desire for holiness; he is born with a disposition which is now radically opposed to it. Therefore he not only has no love for God, but is full of enmity against Him. Sin is also likened to "leaven" (I Cor. 5:6-7). Sin is not only the absence of beauty, but the presence of horrid ugliness; not simply the unlovely, but the hateful; not only the want of order, but real disorder. As "righteousness" expresses objectively the qualities which constitute what is good, and "holiness" the subjective state which is the root of righteousness, so sin includes not only outward acts of transgression, but the evil and rotten state of the whole inner man which inclines to and animates those external iniquities. Very far from being only an "infirmity," indwelling sin is a loathsome disease."
The section which you have posted from is taken from this book. The following paragraph reads thus:
"One man can influence another only by external means, but Satan can also affect from within. He is able not only to take thoughts out of men’s minds (Luke 8:12), but to place thoughts in them, as we are told he "put into the heart of Judas" to betray Christ (John 13:2); he works indiscernibly as a spirit. As men yield to and comply with the devil’s insinuations, he gains increasing control over them, and God permits him to enter and indwell them, as Matthew 12:29 shows. When Satan would incite anyone to some particularly awful sin he takes possession of him. We read that the devil, after Judas had consented to the vile insinuation which he had put into his heart, "entered into" Judas (Luke 22:3), in order to ensure the carrying out of his design by strengthening the traitor to do his will. The word for "entered" is the same as in Mark 5:13 where the unclean spirits entered into the herd of swine, which brought about their destruction. Satan is able to "fill the heart" (Acts 5:3), giving an additional impulse to evil, as a person filled with wine is abnormally fired. But let it be noted that there is no record in Scripture of either the devil or a demon ever taking possession of a regenerate person."
What Pink is talking about here is something which is exceptional and not simply sin or sinning which is common to all men. Not only that but as the Apostle John tells us in his gospel, Satan had already put the idea to betray the Lord into his heart prior to this meal and prior to actually possessing him. It is one thing to be open to Satanic ariel influence because of a wicked heart, it is another thing to be actually possessed of him.
Judas was acting against Christ long before Satan took possession of him. As Gary said he was already sinning and planning to betray Christ. By this point of Satan entering Judas and possessing him, Judas had already agreed a price and been paid. The Lord called Judas a devil at the supper table and only then did Satan take possession of him. I suppose the difference may simply be that when a man acts in his own interests in defiant contradiction to an exceptional circumstance then he puts himself in the way of doing something which will go way beyond anything he is capable of desiring for himself. Did Judas actually intend that Christ be crucified? Or that Christ be ill treated when he was arrested to the point of being put to death? We don't know. All we do know is that once Judas realised the magnitude of what he had done he could not bear to live and took his own life.
In Luke 22:3 we read that Satan entered into Judas in order to plant the idea of betray and that this followed the Lord's words concerning being anointed with perfume for His burial. Perhaps in this we can see the strength of the effect of Satan when he is given ground in circumstances of extreme wickedness.
Nothing Arthur Pink is saying however detracts from a belief and realisation that men of themselves can and do sin or that the very condition of all men is congenital and not simple a matter of experiential sin and sinning. It seems to me that this is precisely where we have to rightly divide the word of truth. If we insist that every man woman and child is a child of the devil in the way you yourself intend that to mean, then we have gone a long way from what the Scriptures really tells us.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/depravity_nook.html
Just for clarification
“Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?” And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver to him. From then on he began looking for a good opportunity to betray Jesus.” (Matthew 26:14–16, NASB95)
““She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. “Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.” Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went off to the chief priests in order to betray Him to them. They were glad when they heard this, and promised to give him money. And he began seeking how to betray Him at an opportune time.” (Mark 14:8–11, NASB95)
There is some contention as to whether Judas was paid before the last supper or not. My point is simply that Judas was actively seeking to betray Jesus before Satan actually possessed him. |
| | 2014/4/14 17:28 | |
| | Re: | | Yes, those quotes contained quite a various array of men.
And, isn't it interesting that men of all walks of life and Christian theologies, understand these same truths of Satanic function in men. Just so you did not think I was biased, I included quotes from Calvinists (Pink) and many other theologians in varying camps.
Still, people want to continue to deny the satanic function of the Devil within the natural man. They refer instead to an ambiguous "principle" of death, sin or evil that is supposedly operative in the person apart from Jesus Christ.
Let me ask you something, Andrew. If you can generate or originate your own sin or evil-character, then why can't you equally generate or originate righteous character? They are both independent and self-generated character.
If you can self-generate sin and evil then you are the Devil and there is no need for the Devil. However, if you can self-generate righteousness then you are God and there is no need for Jesus Christ. But, you are not the devil and neither are you God.
*******You are a dependent creature totally contingent on a spiritual presence for your spiritual nature. You will manifest the character of the spiritual person you are reliant on.********
Let me ask you another question: Can you sin apart from the personal sin-source of Satan? If there is evil apart from the Evil One, or death apart from the one having the power of death (DEVIL) or lying apart from the father of lies, then there must be life apart from the One who is Life, or truth apart from the One who said, "I am the Truth", there must be righteousness apart from the Righteous One. And there must be Salvation apart from the One who is the Savior. Maybe there is holiness apart from the Holy One.
But you and I both know that is nonsense. We would have to agree with Paul that "Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21).
You think the Satanic function in natural man diminishes man's responsibility but it does not and it also did not diminish Adam's responsibility. Consequently, he suffered the consequences of receiving Satan's word over God's. Receiving and obey the word of God or Satan, receives them. That is how powerful one's intentional words are.
John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
As far as spiritual sources go, Paul knows that we are "Not ...sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of (ek - out of) ourselves, but our sufficiency is of (ek - out of) God" (II Cor. 3:5). On the other hand, John writes that "he that committeth sin is of (ek - out of) the devil" (I John 3:8), and "Cain was of (ek - out of) that wicked one, and slew his brother" (I John 3:12).
|
| | 2014/4/14 18:08 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
by brothagary on 2014/4/14 15:41:56
i think just is it is not quite as simple as that
due to the fact that we actualy see the script say that satan entered judas at a point in time and at that time it was satan influencing him directly ,, before this it was judas own flesh and sinfull natural desires that comes from the flesh ,that even allowed access to satan him self ,,, the prinice and the power of the air the spirit that wrothest in the sons of disobedience is obviously not the same as satan entering and controlling a person
Hi brothergary,
It is that simple.
When Paul explains the spiritual condition and behavior of the Ephesians before they became Christians, he writes, "who were dead (spiritually) in your trespasses and sins, wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world (of which Satan is "god" - II Cor. 4:4), according to the prince of the power of the air (Satan), of the spirit (the "spirit of this world" - I Cor. 2:12) that now worketh in the children of disobedience (all mankind due to Adam's disobedience - Rom. 5:19). Among whom also we all had our conversation (behavior) in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature (the spiritual nature of the Evil One) the children of wrath, even as others" (Eph. 2:1-3). The natural, unregenerate man functions by spiritually deriving his nature from the spirit of Satan.
That is pretty simple! But ask yourself something? Does Satan want everyone/anyone to know this? Or is it better that we condemn ourselves over and over and over and over, and finally arrive at the place where we give up and just say, God does not expect us to overcome, it is mockery. And then they lose their faith because of bad theology that they were taught.
Remember, the name of this thread is "No more condemnation".
|
| | 2014/4/14 18:47 | |
| | Re: | | Just-In the only person here seemingly denying anything is myself and perhaps one other. The thing I am denying however is not that Satan can influence mens minds and therefore their actions, I am addressing something which is implicit in parts of this thread which if received would be profoundly detrimental to some people. Knowledge comes by many and varied means. As a matter of dread reality the most wicked men who have ever lived are those who have been exposed to the most light. Even Satanist read the bible and occultist believe much of it as well. This forum is a rich source of knowledge for the occultist. What we say has real consequences.
I am glad that you are showing a balance in your selections of men, but you can scarcely expect me to give context to every quote you have made. I will however if you want me too, and we will see what context can do for meaning.
Quote:
Still, people want to continue to deny the satanic function of the Devil within the natural man. They refer instead to an ambiguous "principle" of death, sin or evil that is supposedly operative in the person apart from Jesus Christ.
As a former occultist, I know that Satan does posses men, and if not directly by his own spirit, by a deep root of wickedness driven down into their souls. Such occurrences are not easily understood, but of course they do happen. They happen in every society and community. Yet the characteristic of these things is not always as we imagine. Not all truly wicked men are hedonistically driven by their sexual and carnal appetites. Some are aesthetic and very moral men. Yet they perpetuate by philosophy truly dangerous and destructive insights and snares which lead other men to unimaginable blasphemies and cruel actions.
Quote:
If you can self-generate sin and evil then you are the Devil and there is no need for the Devil. However, if you can self-generate righteousness then you are God and there is no need for Jesus Christ. But, you are not the devil and neither are you God.
Here is what Pink says:
"Unlike the Holy Spirit, the devil has no creative power. He can impart no new nature, but only avail himself of what is already there for him to work on. He avails himself of the constitution of man’s nature, especially of his depravity as a fallen being. He gives impetus and direction to man’s free but evil tendencies. Rightly did Goodwin point out that "as no man doth sin because God decrees him to sin, and therefore none can excuse himself with that; so no man can excuse himself with this, that Satan worketh in him."
Here then is the nature of human depravity as seen from the positive side. The fall has brought man into subjection to the power of death, into hopeless bondage to sin, into complete spiritual blindness. Man has become the bondslave of Satan. In that dreadful state he does not possess a particle of power to deliver himself or even to mitigate his wretchedness. In addition, his heart is filled with enmity against God."
And here is another quote from Pink which adds to it:
"Since the fall this malignant spirit has entered into human nature in a manner somewhat analogous to that in which the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of believers. He has intimate access to our faculties. and though he cannot, like God’s Spirit, work at the roots to change and transform their tendencies, yet he can ply them with representations and delusions which effectually incline them to fulfill his behests. He can cheat the understanding with appearances of truth, fascinate the fancy with pretenses of beauty, and deceive the heart with semblances of good. By a whisper, a touch, a secret suggestion, he can give an impulse to our thoughts and turn them into channels which exactly serve his evil designs. Men not only do what he desires, but he has a commanding power over them, as his being termed a prince plainly implies; and therefore they are said to be "taken captive... at his will" (II Tim. 2:26), and when converted they are delivered from his power (Col. 1:13). Yet he does not work immediately in all hearts, as the Holy Spirit does in the regenerate, for he is not omnipresent, but employs a host of demons as his agents."
You will have to read these comments by Pink really slowly and carefully, not once but perhaps three or four times to receive the intention or implication of the words themselves.
Pink is essentially saying that Satan is just one spirit. He cannot posses one man in Africa and then another man in China at the same time. He does however have at his command an innumerable host of unclean spirits who represent him and they can and do possess many people. Pink makes the point that these unclean spirits cannot change the roots of the condition which constitutes the essence and fabric of what a man is by nature. He says that these spirits can only seek for the consent and agreement of a man and in that consent and agreement they can deceive men into acting and especially believing in ways which actually agree with their own natural wickedness. In short Pink is not saying that Satan can make men wicked, he is saying that he uses the wickedness of men as his instruments. If you were to ask Pink therefore 'how is it that a man would agree with a wicked and sinful thing' he would have to answer 'because they are sinful by nature'.
Quote:
Let me ask you something, Andrew. If you can generate or originate your own sin or evil-character, then why can't you equally generate or originate righteous character? They are both independent and self-generated character.
I can generate and agree with wickedness, and desire to sin, and do unspeakable things because it is in me to do it by reason of having no other power to do otherwise. I know not God. I walk in darkness and I am utterly and hopelessly lost. (Just for effect you understand)!
Did Cain murder Able? And so could I have done. The fact that this would have been in Satan's ambition as a murderer from the beginning is utterly irrelevant to what a man can do of himself if he is sufficiently aroused and angered in his own flesh. When Cain was angry do we ever ask what that actually means. When God said, "why has your countenance fallen" do we ask what countenance means? Anger is not an intellectual abstract. It is a physiological event which takes place in the very fabric of the body itself. We do not speak of 'feeling angry' for no good reason. If I were to say, 'I think I am angry' even I myself would doubt that I was. It was anger which was visible in the face of Cain. Countenance means appearance. It is the very same thing a small child comprehends when they see that we are angry. In explaining his encounter with God to Abel, Cain was once again stirred to anger, and this time he acted on it. 'Sin stands at the door, and you must master it". Do we really believe that God was telling Cain that he had to personally wrestle Satan down and master the prince of the power of the air and the ruler of this world?
Quote:
You think the Satanic function in natural man diminishes man's responsibility but it does not and it also did not diminish Adam's responsibility. Consequently, he suffered the consequences of receiving Satan's word over God's. Receiving and obey the word of God or Satan, receives them. That is how powerful one's intentional words are.
I agree that no amount of activity of Satan removes the responsibility of men. However to follow on and say, or else imply that Adam obeyed the words of Satan in preference to those of God, in the direct sense you mean, is completely wrong.
“Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:17, NASB95)
Eve did listen to the word of Satan, but even here she is not held accountable at all. It is the man Adam who is held accountable. Eve was deceived, which is Satan's chief activity, and through deceiving he is able to make use of both innocence and guilt. Such is the nature of deception. Adam of course was not deceived, and whilst it may well be necessary to properly understand why he disobeyed God, it is definitely not because he saw his big break from God. He was after all innocent and without the knowledge of good and evil. How could he possibly have even given thought to an evil thing. He wasn't deceived, so he wasn't even tricked in some terrible way. He literally and openly acted in his own will and the power of his own soul. In short he acted in disobedience and to do this disobedient thing he had to be motivated to act on his own behalf in disobedience to God. Was the motivation for this independent and disobedient action of itself sinful? Or was this motivation to act disobediently reasonable? If we actually knew what this motivation was, we would be better informed as to what constitutes ground for Satan to deceive us or else act against us once we have believed and received newness of life. But as to why we continue to sin, the only explanation is that we have something in us which is in the flesh and it gives ground to always doing the selfish thing if we walk in its power. Does Satan possess every one who has ever believed? Where then does the power come from to explain why regenerated believers sin. As John said, "we sin daily". What we don't do is practise sin.
Apart from that Satan didn't directly influence Eve based on some fault in her, he did it by possessing another creature altogether by reason of that creature giving place to possession. Regardless as to what is the meaning of serpent, it is a creature which both Adam and Eve saw no wrong purpose in, when it flew into the branches of the tree of knowledge. Did Eve know that she was in fact speaking directly with the prince of the power of the air? It is not very likely in my opinion. Do men know that they are actually serving Satan's purposes when they do evil things? You would be hard pressed to find a wicked man who knowingly serves Satan, let alone a man who is willing to be restrained by the laws of God in the nations. |
| | 2014/4/14 19:35 | |
| | Re: | |
Genesis 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Sin is a demon crouching at the door. Sin is not a generic enemy.
"He desires to have you, but you must rule over him."
When I refer to Satan, I mean any kind of demonic activity (demon spirits). You should know that.
|
| | 2014/4/14 20:01 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Sin is a demon crouching at the door. Sin is not a generic enemy.
"He desires to have you, but you must rule over him."
When I refer to Satan, I mean any kind of demonic activity (demon spirits). You should know that.
Is that it Just-In? I feel sure that you must realise that in the Hebrew:
הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתוֹ֔ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּוֹֽ׃
.....the word sin חַטָּ֣את means a sin against God and that the word הוּא, is translated variously “that”, “him”, “same”, “this”, “he”, “which”, “who”, “such”, “wherein” and "it".
I feel sure that with a little effort it would be possible to justify the use of the personal pronoun "him" and allude this to mean a demonic spirit. Yet even if it did become a demonic spirit in that direct sense of seeking to drive Cain to murder his brother, on what basis would the demon drive him? You are suggesting that Cain could have had either no power to resist because he is taking his direction from a demon which becomes his life force, or that he has to wrestle with a demon directly and defeat it.
And why is this only if Cain does not do well? Are we saying that if Cain did well his countenance would be lifted up? If we mean that then we are saying the truth, because that is what God has said. If we say that this lifting of his countenance would equate to being happy, then that too would be true no doubt. But tell me this Just-In since when did a man's happiness serve as a cover and as a protection from Satan? If Satan could have gotten Cain in the grips of his direct power amounting to being his driving energy and life, no amount of happiness would make a scrap of difference.
One final thing Just-In!
If sin is a demon then we are saying that Christ became possessed on the cross as a means of defeating sin, because He who knew no sin, became sin. How careful we have to be in these things brother. |
| | 2014/4/14 20:45 | |
| | Re: | | We must remember that righteousness and life do not exist apart from Christ. They cannot be separated. "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." (1Jn_2:29)
And sin and death do not exist apart from Satan.
1Jn_5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, AND THAT WICKED ONE TOUCHETH HIM NOT.
1Jn_3:12 Not as Cain, WHO WAS OF (EK - out of) THAT WICKED ONE, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
Jesus Christ is the personification of righteousness and life, as well, Satan is the personification of sin and death. Without Satan, there would be no sin. He is SIN. His very existence is SIN as he stands against God.
Satan used jealousy and envy to gain an entrance at Cain's "doorstep". Satan's reason? To destroy the Seed that would someday destroy him. Just like he drove Pharoah and Herod to kill children in the hope that the "seed" would be destroyed.
Cain would be happy if like Abel, he learned and did what pleased God which would have led him to rule over his enemy. Enoch knew that. But God rejected Cain's offering. “The works of the flesh” now began to be openly produced by Cain as he turns to the voice of Satan more and more: “enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger.” (Ga 5:19, 20).
What does John mean when he writes that “Cain was of that wicked one” when he murdered his brother, Abel?
- he had a “bad attitude”?
- he had evil motives?
- the devil made him do it?
- he was deriving evil character from the evil one?
Is John implying that the false-teachers “derive what they do from that wicked one” in the same way that Cain did when he slew his brother? (1Jn 2:18,19; 3:8,10)
If as you say, we have evil DNA passed on to us, then what of Abel? Better still, what of Enoch, who walked with God and was not?
Yes, sin is a person and fallen man derives their character from Satan and his demon spirits.
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is OF (EK - out of) THE DEVIL (because he is the originator of sin); for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, THAT HE MIGHT DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL.
The Church has ignored 1Jn 3:9 because they have been taught bad theology. They just skip over it because they have implicitly been taught they will always sin and I think that is why we have such a bad problem in the Church. It has just been accepted (sin) as a way of life.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Adam would not have sinned if there was no Mr. Sin (the Devil).
The power of sin is not your sin nature. Your sin nature is a poor synonym for old man or old self. That "old you" was crucified in Christ (Rom. 6:6). It is a past event. Before you were saved, it was as normal for your old man to rebel against God's authority as it is for a fish to swim. However, with salvation the new man (Christ's nature) hates sin (Rom. 7:15a, 19, 22). That's why the Bible addresses Christians 56 times as "saints" (holy ones) rather than sinners saved by grace like we've erroneously believed. Even the Corinthians, the most carnal church in the epistles, are called "sanctified" and "saints" (1 Cor. 1:2).
“Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,” (Eph. 6:11).
|
| | 2014/4/14 22:13 | |
|
