Letter: Our Church, Our Children and the “Sinner’s Prayer”

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 8.23.31 AM

Is the sinner’s prayer Biblical? Many of us have been instructed at some point in our lives to, “repeat after me, eyes closed and no one looking at others.”

The truth of the matter is that it is biblical to  pray to Jesus to ask Him to forgive us our sins. But without true repentance, there can be no regeneration. That’s why it is not biblical to say someone is saved “because of reciting the Sinner’s Prayer.” We must put our trust, hope, and faith in Christ and His sacrifice on the cross, but to give someone assurance of salvation based on reciting a prayer, or thinking the words in our heads as someone else says them, does not produce saving faith.

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 8.24.34 AMI recently received a letter from a mom who gets it, and who, unfortunately, had no idea that her children were being subjected to a few leaders who do not. Before I share it, understand that there are over-zealous children’s leaders, and under-zealous ones. While both kinds can be fun and nice and well-meaning, both may also produce false converts. Unfortunately, stories like this one happen in churches across the world. The question is, what will you do about it?

Be sure to read to the end:

As parents, we take our responsibility to train our children to grow in grace and knowledge of their Lord and Savior very seriously. We understand that it’s our job to teach and share the Gospel with our children, but it’s not our job – or our church’s job – to “save” them.

So imagine my shock when a friend told me that’s exactly what my children’s leaders were attempting to do last Wednesday night. While the adults were taking our Bible study classes, our children’s’ leaders were cheerfully working to coerce the children into praying the sinner’s prayer.

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 8.26.30 AMI learned that after the teachers gave a very man-centered gospel (“Don’t you want to go to heaven?” “It’s like being at your favorite place all the time!”), with no mention of repentance or sin, they were taking the children aside, one at a time, and asking them if they had prayed to ask Jesus in their hearts. If the kids said no, the teachers were instructed to make them pray the prayer. And if the kids didn’t want to pray it, the teachers were told to pray the prayer for the kids, while the kids prayed silently.

After that, the teachers took the children’s Bibles and wrote Wednesday’s “saved” date on the front. Thankfully, my 9 year old son wouldn’t let them do that to his Bible. I didn’t realize the full extent of what was going on until after class, or I would have gone in right then and pulled my children out.

Needless to say, I’m angry, upset, and frustrated. Our son had already been growing so much lately, puzzling through the question of what must he do to be saved. This assurance that this prayer, prayed by his teacher, not even by him, could bring salvation to him, confused him terribly.

My husband and I were left with the horrible task of trying to undo the damage these “well-meaning” women caused to my son, while trying not to discourage the growth we’ve seen in him and his desire for salvation. And, at the same time, we were trying not to degrade his teachers in front of him, because we must still be respectful of people even when they are teaching false doctrine.

We’ve sent an email to our leadership about this, and we know we are not the only parents who are upset about what occurred. There is already a time set up to meet with the children’s ministry director and the elder over the children’s ministry. We want our leadership to be more involved in being sure that the teachers are solid; these teachers were given far too much freedom without any supervision, and the result is the creation of dozens of cute little false converts who think they have fire insurance and who think that heaven is like hanging out at the park on the swings, and they have no need to repent or do anything else. Ever.

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 8.59.10 AMThis has to stop. Our people are being led astray and our pastors are afraid of being too harsh so they won’t call out false teachers, trying to struggle against the tide of false teaching by sharing the positive, and avoiding the negative and that leads to what I experienced last night. We have to stand up, to call on our leaders to be proactive, to stamp out dangerous yeast as soon as it starts to spread, to take people to the Word for everything, and to firmly (and, yes, graciously) correct false doctrine when it comes into our churches.

I pray for these women who led this class. They will be held accountable to God one day for what they did and they don’t even know they are in danger of His wrath for leading these little ones astray! And I also pray that I will be gracious with them, because my mama heart does not want to! Yes, that’s a sin. I know it. That is why I’m submitting fully to my husband in this matter and allowing him to deal with it with our church leadership because I know I won’t be as gracious as he is. He is protecting me from sinning by taking the reins on this, and I’m thankful for that protection.

But most of all, I pray for the precious souls who were there Wednesday night, the ones who don’t live in my house. By God’s grace, my husband and I have our eyes open to the dangerous trends in the church at large, and have been watchful and careful about what we say and how we say it to our children, but even so, last night? That was a conversation we have feared having to have with our sons. We shouldn’t have had to have it because of something taught in our church, where the leadership knows better, but isn’t teaching the teachers correctly. What about those children who were there? Who will go home, thinking they are saved…because the teacher prayed while they listened? Now, I know God can use that, but there was no profession of faith there. There was no understanding of the gospel, no call for repentance, just a promise of good stuff if they’ll say the magic words. Have we really reduced the gospel to that

We know the very real danger of raising good, righteous, moral sons who think that is all there is to being a Christian and have no actual love for Christ.

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 9.04.49 AMToward that end, we have taken steps. We have always kept our children in worship with us. They need to learn to worship with the corporate body of Christ, not be shunted off to play while the adults learn. From the time that they could read simple words, they have had to fill in a sentence or two about the sermon each Sunday and draw a picture about what they heard, too; as they’ve grown older, the questions have gotten harder and they know they need to find those answers from the sermon or in the Bible. We try very hard to ground everything in Scripture, avoiding loose language and avoiding giving our sons false assurance of salvation, too. The very last thing I want is for my sons to think that, because mommy and daddy are saved, then they automatically are too. Or to think that they are better than other kids and that God is lucky to have them. Or to think that their profession of faith in Christ must be done to make mommy happy. False conversions are rampant in our churches, many times because of well-meaning but biblically illiterate people, who honestly think that the “sinner’s prayer” is in the Bible. (It’s not.) Or who think that “inviting Jesus into your life” is a biblical concept (it’s not). The reality that we have striven to teach our sons is that we can do nothing to save ourselves for we are all of us unrighteous. That all we can do is cast ourselves on His mercy, and plead for Him to rescue us from our sinful state. That we must repent of our sins, (which isn’t just changing your mind, but is agreeing that what you did was sin, stopping the sin, and turning and going the other way) confess Christ and believe with our hearts. (Romans 10:8-11) And? After all that? We have emphasized to them that we must watch each other, carefully, for the fruit that only true repentance and the Holy Spirit can bring. (John 16:5-11) A profession of faith as a four year old means nothing if there is no fruit of God in that child’s life. We don’t want to squelch our children’s joy, but at the same time, we don’t want to give them assurance that “that prayer” prayed on “that date in their Bible” means that they are saved.

Now, before I go further, I must say this: I know that our church leadership also believes this. I know that they know it is not biblical to “invite Jesus into your heart” and I’ve been in trainings where the children’s ministry leader has specifically told the adults who would be working with the children to share the Gospel, clearly, with the children, but to avoid formulaic prayers and “magic incantation” like language. Time will show whether the profession of faith was true or not. I know they believe this. However? They have failed in communicating clearly not just what Scripture DOES teach, but what it does NOT teach.

In case you are reading this and think “Uh oh. My kid did that,” or even “I did that…you mean I’m not saved?” let me please take this moment to remind you what the gospel actually is. To put it simply, we all have a problem that we are born with. A sin problem. Because God is who He is, He cannot tolerate sin or be around it at all, so our sin problem? Has eternal consequences. The wrath of God is upon His enemies (Romans 1:18) and guess what? That’s all of us, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23-25) Before time began, however, God knew this would be a problem, and He already had the perfect plan; the only plan that would work! See, the wrath of God must be satisfied. When we sin, the most offended party is God. We owe Him a debt we cannot pay. We come to Him in our sin, and no work, no good deed that we do can even come close to “balancing” out what we owe Him, because none of us are good, not even one. (Romans 3:10) We needed a perfect sacrifice, someone who could live without sin, and who would willingly take on our sin and God’s wrath, so that His justice might be served, while giving to us His righteousness. (2 Corinthians 5:21) That’s what Jesus did. That imputation, where He took on our sin, paid the debt we owed, and gave us His righteousness? That’s what we needed. All we can do now is admit that we need a Savior. That we are sinful people. Repent and plead with Him to save us. (Acts 2:37-39) Turn from our sin, and turn to Him, trusting that He can save us. And when we stand before God, we will still say, “I have done nothing that you should let me be with You in glory. But your Son paid that debt for me, and I have been clothed with Him, by Your grace, through faith in Your Son.” And God, who is both just and the justifier (Romans 3:26), will not exact the same payment of you that His Son has already paid. The only way to enter into glory is to enter in covered by His blood. Those who truly love God? Will obey His commands. (John 14:15) Not because it is a list to cross off, but because you know that you have been rescued from hell, given grace when you deserved justice, and your life has been paid for by someone else. Repent. Call out to Him. Bow before Him and submit your life to Him. And offer yourself as a living sacrifice to Him. (Romans 12:1)

Guard your children, folks. This is going on in many churches where it is encouraged; I’m thankful that is not the case in my church, but disgusted that it still happened anyway. Know your Bible.  Know the Gospel. All of it. And know what your children are being taught, even at church. The consequences are, literally, nothing short of eternal.

Excellent, mom.

What are your thoughts?

, , , ,

100 Responses to Letter: Our Church, Our Children and the “Sinner’s Prayer”

  1. Darrel November 20, 2015 at 11:13 am #

    “…just a promise of good stuff if they’ll say the magic words.”

    Well, ‘Mom’, you’ve nailed it. Those “magic words” are akin to sorcery and a form of witchcraft. Caution would be in order when labeling those that teach this nonsense as “well meaning” for anyone who has actually repented of their own sins would NEVER lead another person down that dead end road.

    Being “respectful of people even when they are teaching false doctrine” is hard to find in Scripture. John The Baptist and the Lord Jesus had several choice words for false prophets of their day, none of which indicated any respect (brood of vipers, liars, white washed tombs, tow-fold more a child of hell and so on). Of the many encounters recorded in the four Gospel accounts with religious leaders of His day there were only two where the Lord Jesus did not come down hard on the hypocrisy, the lies, the false doctrine of those who were supposed to know better. [Nicodemus in John 3 and Jarius in Luke 8]. In Matt. there are 40 recorded instances of Christ rebuking the religious ‘know-it-alls’ of His day. Mark shows 24, Luke 31 and John 19. Granted, some of these cover the same material in the different accounts, but note that there are no ‘repeats’ in Matt.’s 40.

    I sincerely hope that your pastor, elders, and other leadership are as you see them now—-standing for the integrity of the Gospel and for Christ. It will become crystal clear in the first few moments of your husband’s meeting with them. Either the teachers who did this deed will be reprimanded or your husband will be reprimanded for daring to bring such a thing up and that will be followed by ‘suggestions’ that the matter be dropped in the name of “unity” of the ‘church’. If this happens (and I hope it does not) and your husband does not obey these men (doing so would be contrary to the Word) then expect condemnation, ridicule and threats. It is all too common for a church and it’s leadership to present itself as being obedient to Christ and the Word right up until the time probing and unwanted questions arise concerning things just like this. It will become apparent almost immediately how this will play out: situation fixed and resolved according to Scripture or rejection of this legitimate complaint with a huge “face-saving” onslaught launched against all who dare question the leadership. Again, I sincerely hope this will not be the case here and your pastor and other leaders will be found faithful to the Word.

    It is refreshing and encouraging to read this and it is obvious that you and your husband walk with the Lord. It’s never easy to do what you are about to do, but as you stand firm on the Word you will come out the other side of this with great joy that you were held up by the Holy Spirit through it all and that your life has been a testimony to the Lord. Numbers 6:24-26.

  2. Sola Scriptura November 20, 2015 at 1:08 pm #

    I very much like the theme of the article. So many church leaders want to brag about the number they’ve allegedly saved, having no understanding the true gospel of Jesus Christ, as you laid out so nicely. We must understand sin, repentance and the cross of Christ to truly be saved:
    http://followingjesuschrist3.com/2015/04/29/sin-repentance-and-the-cross-of-christ/

    I also tend to agree with the comment above that we are not to worry so much about the feelings of those who teach false doctrine. They are ravenous wolves whether dressed as cute 20 somethings or classy sunday school teaching moms. The sword of truth which is the word, is swinging, and it will separate truth and lies…and it will seperate families and friends. Our job is to be on God’s side(via the word) no matter the temporal cost:
    http://followingjesuschrist3.com/2014/09/18/false-prophets-and-teachers/

  3. Gina November 20, 2015 at 1:37 pm #

    Kudos to you and your husband for being so concerned and yet careful to go about this in a sound, biblical fashion and to take the initiative to write about it so that others can be warned. It’s definitely not just in your church. Although I wouldn’t say the pastoral leadership in my church teaches this false way of salvation, they do seem to trust the hearts of other leaders too much and allow them teach kids with little to no supervision. I have sat in an AWANA big group meeting as a leader, listening to the director explain salvation and say everything to the girls BUT repentance. I then took my girls back to our class and told them all about repentance alongside belief – that we can’t just believe in Christ (I did this as graciously as I could-didn’t want the director to look bad). What is belief? It’s more than believing He exists and that He is Lord. The demons believe that and they tremble. Where is the trembling in sinners? Many in the church seem to want to protect others from the truth of hell, to reduce it to “separation from God forever” and to quickly jump to cheap grace. Jesus never did that. His message was somber and it struck fear in the hearts that hadn’t received His grace yet. That fear and trembling brings one to their knees in sorrow over their sin and leads them to repent. That is why the Good News is so good. People are already living as if they are separated from God, so the threat of doing that for eternity is no biggie to them. It’s when they realize that their sin means eternal punishment, that is when some begin to think twice. It’s so critical to not cheapen grace to recited and forced prayer; to child’s play. It breaks my heart to hear this is happening all over the place. Yes, leaders need to confront false teaching and they need to do it in a hurry. Thanks again!

    • Paul, The Marketplace Minister November 21, 2015 at 7:23 am #

      Praise the Lord for you and your desire to follow-up with truth when you hear teaching that falls short. Please, keep discipling all the new followers of Jesus that you can.

  4. lyn November 20, 2015 at 4:09 pm #

    Numbers are huge, especially in the SBC churches. They are pressured into getting confessions so they can ‘baptize’ the new converts. I used to attend an SBC church and recall vividly the ‘abc’s’ of salvation – admit, confess believe! It’s just that simple! There is no mention of sin, no speaking of grace as a necessity in being born again and saved. We have forgotten salvation is ALL of the Lord, and the words ‘repent and believe’ are not an option …. it is a command. We have forgotten that God will take His gospel and either work in a heart to save or leave that sinner in their unregenerate state only to be further hardened. It is the preaching of the Gospel that saves, not man’s unbiblical methods.
    I have heard preachers say, ‘if you place your faith in Jesus’. There is so much wrong with that statement; first of all, we cannot possibly place faith in Christ because faith is a gift {Eph. 2:8-9} given by God to His elect. To tell a sinner to place something they do not naturally possess – faith – in Christ is not found anywhere in the Bible. We have forgotten the ministerial work of God the Spirit in saving sinners, He is the one who re-births/regenerates sinners by the power of God along with the word of God. If God doesn’t move in a sinner’s heart, then we think silly man-made methods must be used. America has tampered with the Gospel and made it accursed, which has led to multitudes of false converts who are trusting in their ‘work’, i.e., their ‘sinner’s prayer’, their ‘decision’, their ‘inviting Jesus into their heart’, as a means of being saved. There hasn’t been a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of many, so they go on living like devils and parrot the phrase, “I’m saved because I did this or that”. Then, they step into eternity and realize they are not saved at all, and never were. There are multitudes of preachers, pastors, and church folk who will be held accountable for spewing out this accursed gospel, which is just as deadly as any false religion.

  5. edwitness November 20, 2015 at 4:16 pm #

    The errors in your theology are many. But, the outcome is correct. We must reject the sin that enslaves us (Rom.6:17,18) and accept the love and eternal life that Jesus died to secure for us.
    All have sinned(don’t know Jesus,john 16:9) and fall short of(are in need of or lack) the glory(presence, relationship) of God. Look it up for yourself and see if these are not the correct definitions.
    And your definition of biblical justice is incorrect as well. Judges2:16 gives us God’s view of justice. Very different from wrath. God’s justice is deliverance. This is why He set up the judges in Israel. To deliver them from those who wrong them. And His wrath is against those who do the wronging. Spiritually satan is the “wronger” and we are being “wronged”.

    So you see, in trying to protect your children from wrong teaching, you have failed to protect yourself. Your Bible has the answers you need to correct the bad theology taught to you by those who are only repeating what they have been taught.
    Blessings:-}

    • lyn November 20, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

      all have sinned – what is the biblical definition of sin?
      The Greek word translated “sin” in the Bible is (hamartano), it literally means, “to miss the mark.” As John states in 1 John 3:4, “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.” Sin is lawlessness. God has revealed to us His law or will. Breaking God’s law is sin, which all have done – James 2:10 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Sin is not defined as not knowing Christ, it is defined as breaking God’s law. That isn’t to say that unbelief is not sin, however, you cannot omit the fact that disobedience to God’s law is also sin.

      The phrase ‘to fall short’ is defined as hustereó: to come late, be behind, come short
      Original Word: ὑστερέω
      Part of Speech: Verb
      Transliteration: hustereó
      Phonetic Spelling: (hoos-ter-eh’-o)
      Short Definition: I am lacking, fall short, suffer need
      Definition: I fall behind, am lacking, fall short, suffer need, am inferior to.
      HELPS Word-studies
      5302 hysteréō (from 5306 /hýsteros, “last”) – properly, at “the end,” i.e. coming behind (to “be posterior, late”); (figuratively) coming behind and therefore left out; left wanting (falling short).

      5302 /hysteréō (“failing to fulfill a goal”) means to be in lack and hence, unable to meet the need at hand because depleted (“all run out”). This state of lack (insufficiency, privation) naturally results when a person misses out on what is vital.

      Our sin is the reason we fall short, and are left wanting.

      The glory of God means doxa: opinion (always good in N.T.), hence praise, honor, glory
      Original Word: δόξα, ης, ἡ
      Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
      Transliteration: doxa
      Phonetic Spelling: (dox’-ah)
      Short Definition: honor, renown, glory splendor
      Definition: honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor.
      HELPS Word-studies
      1391 dóksa (from dokeō, “exercising personal opinion which determines value”) – glory. 1391 /dóksa (“glory”) corresponds to the OT word, kabo (OT 3519, “to be heavy”). Both terms convey God’s infinite, intrinsic worth (substance, essence). source – http://biblehub.com/greek/1391.htm

      As for God’s justice, I highly recommend this reading – http://gracegems.org/Pink2/justice_of_god.htm
      Hint, justice is not deliverance.

      Lastly, the statement ‘we are being wronged’ is unbiblical as well. We are not victims of a game between good and evil. We are born sinners, with the sin nature inherited from Adam. All love darkness rather than light, all will always gravitate towards sin and it’s lustful desires. We are fully accountable before God for every thought, word and deed. As for believers, we still battle the flesh, we still sin. Daily repentance is essential as we walk with Christ.

      • edwitness November 29, 2015 at 9:02 pm #

        lyn,
        Good stuff.
        But I have a question. If sin is the breaking, transgressing of God’s law, then why did they still die who were from Adam to Moses? You believe our own sin causes us to die right? The wages of sin is death, right?
        It isn’t “inherited sin” because Paul dealt with that false teaching when he said we did not sin with Adam. Rom.5:14.
        We are not responsible for someone elses sin. Not even Adam’s. That is why the doctrine of original sin tries to place us all in Adam’s loins sinning with him. Because that makes us all sinners along with Adam, and being responsible for our own sin then. But as I said, Paul rejects that in vs.14.

        And just one more. In Phil.3:6 Paul says of himself, “touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless”.
        In Luke1:6 It says of Zachariah and Elizabeth that they were “both righteous before God, walking in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly”.
        This means they could not be accused of breaking the law in even one point. To say they did would make either you or these scriptures a lie.
        In just these three areas of scripture we find the whole of the sin nature doctrine to be false. So called “inherent sin” is dealt with in Rom.5:14 as well.
        And don’t forget Rom.2:14 where we find Paul saying that the Gentiles do the law by their own NATURE. Could a sin nature do that? Not according to that doctrine.

        Sin indeed is to miss the mark. But you betray yourself to be a legalist like Darrel and fortruth when you say that the mark is the law. The mark that the world misses is a person, not a thing.
        The mark is Jesus. John16:9.
        See how the sin nature doctrine depersonalizes your faith? It relates you to Jesus through faith in His ability to keep the law so He can merit you with what you define as righteousness, instead of to Jesus Himself, which is righteousness. Just like the Pharisees did when they trusted in the law to save them.
        The law has nothing to do with our salvation. Not in our ability to keep it or Jesus’.
        Place your trust in Jesus fully. Do not lean on your own understanding. The word of God is truly a discerner of the thoughts and intent of the heart. The word is Jesus. Joihn1:1, 14.
        Blessings:-}

      • edwitness November 29, 2015 at 9:17 pm #

        Also lyn,
        When I say justice is deliverance I am referring to the act of justice, which is best defined by the action a judge in Israel was appointed by God to do. Judges2:16 is a good explanation. But we can look at the actions of the judges like Sampson when he was acting on behalf of Israel. He delivered Israel from their enemies. Moses is another good one.
        Blessings:-}

  6. Paul, The Marketplace Minister November 21, 2015 at 7:04 am #

    It will be a hard day when American Christians are faced with the atrocities of Nazi Germany, the Communist block countries, ISIS infested countries, and when it will be sport to kill Christians. If you are reading this article and you see someone who makes a decision in your church to place their complete trust in Jesus Christ, PLEASE follow-up with them yourselves…even our traditional bible preaching fundamental churches are falling into the same LifeChurch mega-church mentality.

    Another issue is that everyone complains (as you, reader, may be doing) and few do anything to help bring new believers to foundation of biblical ready/study/application, prayer, witnessing, fighting temptation, they only are told…”keep going to church.” Please! YOU seek out those who raise a hand or come forward, and if your church is not doing it, YOU disciple these. Do not fall into thinking, “As long as they keep hearing the preacher at our church, they’ll be alright.” NO! We have to help train them in righteousness. THAT is the mentality of the seeker-friendly church.

    If you attend LifeChurch.tv, you are likely not reading this article, since it is part of the emerging church movement, proud of being “seeker-friendly,” and is highly manipulative in adult decisions and child evangelism. I won’t say that all campuses go to the length of this article, but I was in volunteer leadership where Craig Groeschel preaches, and their “business plan” for the reaching the lost is highly manipulative, and in the case of LifeKids, does little training nor accountability of its small group leaders – so you don’t know what your kids are being told. Lack of accountability is what is promoting nominal and weak followers. (Note, I did say Christians)

    Revelation 3:1b, “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that lived, and art dead.” See also verses 2 and 3.

  7. Paul, The Marketplace Minister November 21, 2015 at 7:18 am #

    Sorry, I meant to say, “(Note, I did NOT say Christians)” — in business, I’ve talked to so many who live godless lives, as I once did, and they say, “I’m safe, because I prayed the sinner’s prayer at a young age.” Deuteronomy 29:16-20, Romans 1:17-18, Habakkuk 2:4-16, and likewise out of the mouth of Jesus, Matthew 9:13 and 11:20.

    The article is correct, without the fundamental of repentance and transferring trust to the Lord Jesus Christ, one only hopes that God will show mercy on them, however, I am not convinced He will. Write me with scripture if you must do a rebuttal.

  8. BERRY FARMER November 22, 2015 at 7:13 am #

    If we look at John 3:3 we see that this is the basis used for the need of the sinner’s prayer. Like many spots in the Bible, if one dwells on one verse as important as it may be, they may miss important ones elsewhere that relate to it. There are actually pertinent verses after this such as John 3:5,6,7,8 . ‘The wind’ used at the start of verse 8 is the same word as Spirit used in the last word. The Spirit is sovereign in these matters. Most often when one witnesses an event where this prayer happens, someone is claiming sovereignty over the Spirit. You may often see some contact information for after you have prayed this which may state something like ‘contact us to see what God has planned for you’. Here again man is claiming sovereignty over the Spirit in these matters. Then more often than not, they train them in some capacity to be evangelists(a spiritual gift) which would be promoting this prayer as an absolute for salvation. What did Jesus say of this? Mark 13:34 . Note it states ‘to each his work’. Not all the same work. Paul later confirms this. Ephesians 4:8,11 .
    This same thing also happens in much prosperity preaching also when 2 people agree on something often relating to a financial matter, God will give it to them. Matthew 18:19 . These preachers often claim sovereignty over the Spirit also. Is this a link described here between the sinner’s prayer and the word of faith movement described in the Berean Research white pages http://bereanresearch.org/word-faith-movement/ .? Any thoughts on this? It should also be noted that those who preach against this prayer may be severely lacking in other doctrine and theology and discernment needs to be at high levels when listening to any preaching and teaching in the days we are in.

  9. Lyn November 22, 2015 at 8:27 pm #

    This excerpt from J.C. Philpot’s biography would never be uttered by most preachers of our day -(from Phil pot’s biography, written by his son)
    “There was nothing my father mistrusted more than ‘childhood piety.’ He insisted that children should never be taught or allowed to use the language of ‘personal possession’ in reference to God. To sing, for instance, “Rock of Ages, cleft for ME” or, “MY Jesus.” Herein he was most logical. For by early influence and example you can train up a child to be a little patriot—a little Catholic—a little Calvinist—or a little Bolshevist. But no power on earth can make him a child of God. He took great care that we, his children, attended the means of grace, and never missed chapel or family prayers. But he never expected us to be anything but little heathen. We had, it is true, to be well behaved little heathen. If not, we got “the stick,” or its equivalent.”

    True men of God understand the sin nature of all mankind, they understand salvation is of the triune God and man adds nothing to it. No work of man can justify the wicked, only the power of God saves a sinner to the uttermost.

    • edwitness November 22, 2015 at 9:42 pm #

      Lyn,
      The teaching that says man has a sin nature is legalism.
      Show me where the scripture teaches that man is born with a sin nature, and I will show you how you are misinterpreting the scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does it say man has a sin nature. It does however say that man is born under death’s power. Rm.5:12. But in no way does this mean man has a sin nature. If you continue reading through vs’s 13 and 14 you will see how the incorrect interpretation of vs12 contradicts vs’s 13 and 14.
      Man sins because he does not know the true God. John 16:9. In that he does not know God, he relates with that which his natural senses will allow. Things he can touch, smell, see, hear, or taste. Until he is born again he is not equipped to relate to the true God. Remember, God is a Spirit. And they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. That is why you MUST be born again.
      Blessings:-}

      • fortruth November 25, 2015 at 9:54 am #

        human sinful nature

        1. Friend, have you considered these verses in Romans 7 regarding the concept of human sinful nature’?

        “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
        But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
        O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
        I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin”

        A ‘law of sin’ indicates something inherent, intrinsic to substance. Say the law of gravity, or thermodynamics, abide intrinsically into the make up of matter God created.

        The fact that Paul cried out for ‘deliverance’ it means it was beyond his power to obtain freedom from it.
        The fact that no one can save himself from this intrinsic predicament means the issue is inherited/imbedded in him, it holds intrinsic bondage needing deliverance from outside.
        On the same lines for instance, one could say: ‘who can deliver me from thinking?’ Nobody, because this is part of our make up, so no one can get away from it, or get rid of it! The same could be said about memory and conscience. This is because the substance of these powers/capabilities, are imbedded in our make up, if not we could ‘dispose’ of them by ourselves.
        This is how sin, fallen nature works and affects us.

        2. Man was created without sin, yet sin passed to all men in Adam.
        See 1Co 15:22 and Rom 5:12 “… as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men”

        This last verse links sin and death as a matter of fact. In other words all being born into this world are destined to die because of the inherited sin in them: They do not have to wait to personally sin, to die; this is why children in the womb die. If they had not inherited sin, they should not die before being born.

        3. “I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Ps 51:5
        ‘shaped’ here points to the procedure by which one is made up, developed, or formed, while ‘conceive’ does not refer to coitus necessarily or exclusively, but to the starting point of development of any one, according to the procedure implemented of God in creation. Almost any other instance of this word being used somewhere else in Scripture, points to the start of a new life, not necessarily to coitus, as this is only the starting means to start the development of an individual, but not the development of the individual.

        If we did not have a sinful nature then predestination of unborn children makes no sense. See the example of Rebecca’s twins in Rom 9:
        ” For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calls;
        … As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
        What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy”

        The verses speak of God having mercy on someone in the womb before having done good or bad.
        So if needing mercy from the womb, this fact indicates sin is present in the make up before we are imputed ‘actual’ guilt due to personal wrongdoing.

        4. The essence of redemption points not to a ‘patch up’ job, but to regeneration, (born again) , new make up, because sin is in our members, in other words, is part of our essence.

        Rom 7:5 & 23
        “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”

        The struggle (warring) is between what an informed mind perceives, and what one is by nature.

        “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, … did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.”

        Observe how the ‘motions of sin’ is what brings death, not actual sin.
        On the other hand, the ‘motions of sin’ means a sort of concupiscence/lust diseased compelling for sin. This inner ‘force’ is the sin nature of man in which he is born.

        Just, something to think about.

        • edwitness November 27, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

          Yes fortruth. It is something to think about. The only problem is, you don’t. Because if you realy did think about it you would see that Paul is speaking to Jews who had come to faith in Jesus and wanted to keep praticing the keeping of the law as well. Rom.7:1.
          It is because of this that you can not make the passage say what you think it says. There is no discussion about a person having an internal struggle with anything but the old practice of lawkeeping. Legalism.
          When Paul says “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man”, he is saying the same thing as when he says later “the law of sin in my members”. vs’s 22,23.
          You see, he desires to keep the law of Moses which is the law of sin which is in nhis members. Remember in vs 7 how he “would not have known sin except THE LAW SAID…”?
          The law makes sin sinful. Without it sin would not count.Rom.5:13.
          So you see, Paul is not saying it is a good thing that he delights in the law of God after the inward man. He is saying that this is what is creationg the struggle.
          The law is done away with in Christ. We are not to have anything to do with the law as born again Christians. If we do the results are catastrophic in that Paul says we become adulterers. vs.3.
          Chew on that for a while. There will be more later if you like.
          Blessings:-}

        • fortruth November 27, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

          1. Sorry but the premise you part from: “Paul is speaking to Jews who had come to faith in Jesus and wanted to keep practicing the keeping of the law as well” is false.

          (Forgive the length of Scripture text included to prove this.)

          A. What you state above as the reason or theme for the epistle is not the theme of Romans, but of Galatians.
          Romans is a theology treaty expounding the validity of the same Gospel, say the same means of faith and salvation, either for the Jew as for the Gentile.

          PROOF

          Rom 11
          v.1 “Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.
          v.13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles,
          v.15 For if the casting away of them [Jews) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? ”

          Rom 15
          v.6 That ye may with one mind … receive ye one another, … Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:… that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, … I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
          v.10 And again he said, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
          v.11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
          v.12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
          … as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand”

          Rom 3
          v. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
          v.29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
          v. 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
          v. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

          B. The letter was written to a mixture of Jew and Gentile Christians

          PROOF

          i. Addresses the Gentiles

          Rom 1

          “Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, … that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.”

          Rom 11
          v.13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles,

          This is confirmed by the context of chapter 1 presenting the guilt of a heathen society and the expounding of sodomy very prominent in Gentile Roman society. both issues should not have importance in a Jewish bacground.

          ii. Speaks to the Jews

          Rom 2
          v.1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judges:
          … glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
          v.11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
          v.12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
          v.17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
          v.24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you”

          C. Rom.7: 1 is not about ‘keeping the law’ but about the ‘wrestling’ between two laws which argument had been already started in the previous chapter. Chapter 7 then derives naturally from such flow of thought

          PROOF

          Rom 6
          v. 18” Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. v. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
          v. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
          v. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death.
          v, 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”

          Then chapter 7 continues developing this same idea starting with the illustration of marriage opening with the words:
          “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he lives?

          The chapter developes the idea rationally
          v. 6 “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter. “

          • edwitness November 27, 2015 at 9:10 pm #

            fortruth,
            Paul says the Gentiles did not have the law.Rom.2:14. The Gentiles were never responsible to the law of Moses in any way. It was given to Israel and never to anyone else.
            Those who knew the law were not Gentiles. They were Jews.
            Therefore, Paul , in Chapter 7, is writing specifically to Jews and not Gentiles.
            This does not mean others can not glean from it truths that will help them in their waSuch as the fact that anyone who tries to serve Christ and keep the law of moses are adulterers. Rom.7:1-7 especially vs3.
            Now if you as a Gentile find yourself trying to live your Christian life by keeping the law of Moses, you are an adulterer just like those Jews who were having trouble in their new Christian life Paul was addressing here in Rom.7

            One thing is for absolutely sure. Chapter 7 does not speak of the lie that is the “sin nature doctrine”. That doctrine is not found in the Bible.

          • fortruth November 27, 2015 at 10:30 pm #

            Sorry, but you are on denial, only affirming your point with no basis of biblical proof, as an opinion, and having not disproved any of the facts presented in my last two posts to you. Till you do this, debate cannot proceed. You are purely skirting around with statements that prove nothing.

            Please, consider all the other arguments in the first post and see if there is not enough biblical evidence in them to bring your false assumption to not.

          • edwitness November 28, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

            fortruth,
            Please tell me, where in the Bible do we find God giving the law or requiring anyone but Israel to keep the law? This is proof positive that Gentiles are not the object of Paul’s writing in Rom.7. And that a so called sin nature is not the subject either.
            The letter is written to the church at Rome, right? That means he addressed Jews and Gentiles who had come to faith there. But when the law is the subject, it is always speaking to Jews and never Gentiles. Because Gentiles have never been, nor ever will be under the law.Rom.2:14. Which means God does not speak to Gentiles about the law of Moses.
            Gentiles have never had a problem keeping the law because they never were and are not now required to. So why would Paul write to them about trying to keep it and trhe problems it causes when they do?
            Do you get it now? I hope so. Because I can’t possibly make it any simpler than that.
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth November 28, 2015 at 5:15 pm #

            Sorry, you still avoid acknowledging or refuting the evidence presented to you in the previous posts.

            However, the argument of your last post is totally obsolete. The Gentiles will be judged according to the law God has written in their hearts. They have a law

            See Rom 2:

            v. 6 (God) will render to every man according to his deeds…
            For there is no respect of persons with God.
            v. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
            14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
            v. 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

          • edwitness November 29, 2015 at 3:16 pm #

            fortruth,
            What sin will those who are “apart from the law” be judged by since they will not be judged by the law of Moses. Are you interpreting vs.6 to mean that some will be judged to be either saved or unsaved by their works? Really? Is that the law God has written on their hearts?
            And did you notice that vs.14 says that the Gentiles do by their “nature” what the law requires? Haven’t you been saying that all men have a sinful nature? According to the doctrine of the sin nature it is impossible for man not to sin. That would mean they could never by their “sinful nature” do what the law requires. But Paul says in vs.14 they did. It’s obvious from this that Paul does not agree with your belief in the sin nature of man.
            And vs.14 also says they “are a law unto themselves”. What law would that be since the only people who were ever required to keep the law of Moses was Israel?
            You have been blinded by the teaching that man has a sin nature. It forces you into the mindset that the law of Moses is the criteria used for all judgement from God. But Paul obliterates that argument when he says in Rom.5:13 “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed(DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST YOU) when there is no law”.
            One thing we see here is that there was a time, from Adam to Moses, where there was no law. The other thing we see here is that sin does not count against you when there is no law. The question is, why did they still die if sin causes death and yet sin did not count against them because there was no law?
            Vs.14 gives that answer for you if you can take the blinders off. Paul says it was because “death reigned”. Not sin. Death is the power that uses sin. 1stCor.15:56 tells us that sin is death’s stinger. If sin causes death it would be the other way around.
            And if you say that death reigning was the result of the sin nature we “inherited” from Adam as the doctrine of original sin teaches, ie “we sinned with him because we were in his loins”, then Paul refutes that when he says “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that HAD NOT SINNED in the likeness of Adam’s transgression…” Since they did not sin the same sin Adam did, which was the only sin up to that point, then the “in his loins” argument is wrong. And the argument for inherent sin is wrong as well because the teaching that we inherited sin from Adam stands or falls based on the “in his loins” thesis.
            As you can see I understand the sin nature doctrine very well. After many years of study I have concluded it to be a falsehood foisted on the church to keep our eyes off of Jesus. And instead to keep them fixed on rules of conduct.
            Which is exactly why those in Mt.7:23 were told by Jesus that He did not know them. They were focused on the works they did “for Christ” and not on the person Jesus Himself. In other words, Jesus saves, not how well we keep rules and DO works. They were deceived into thinking their “wonderful works” proved their relationship with Jesus.
            The sin nature doctrine does it’s job well by keeping you focused on how well you avoid being naughty. When instead you should be focused on Jesus. If you would focus on Jesus, the being naughty stuff would take care of itself.

            Now I will answer your lengthy comment you call “proof” that Paul is not addressing the Jews only with chapter 7 of Romans.
            Please show me scriptural evidence that says that the law of Moses was also for the Gentiles?
            It does not exist and therefore is PROOF that when the context is the law it is intended for the Jews only. Paul is careful to preface his remarks in Rom.7 with “for I speak to them that know the law”. It just doesn’t get any clearer than that. If Gentiles do not have the law,Rom.2:14, how would they know it?
            Vs.6 says “But now we are delivered from the law…” If the Gentiles were never under the law, then why would they need to be delivered from it? They would not.
            In vs.7 Paul even says what law he is referring to by listing “Thou shalt not covet” among them. The Bible makes it clear that the 10 commandments were given to Israel. Not the world. It was a covenant God made between Himself and the nation Of Israel and noone else. Exodus19:5-20:22 That is what signified them as God’s chosen people. It’s purpose was to preserve them as a nation separated to God. Gal.3:23. They were “kept”, gaurded under the law. And when Christ would come they would no longer need the law. Gal.3:25,26.
            Now in Rom.7:8 he says that sin apart from the law is dead. So the reason Jesus delivered Israel from the law is so that sin would no longer have any power over them. 1stCor.15:56 expresses it this way: “The sting of death is sin;(sin is death’s stinger and not the other way around) and the STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW.”
            So when someone is not under law sin has no strength. It does not count. Rom.5:12-14.
            For anyone to make themselves responsible for keeping the law as service to Christ is the Biblical definition of legalism.
            MARANATHA!
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth November 29, 2015 at 4:15 pm #

            The first chapter of Romans proves that the Gentiles are under condemnation, the second chapter proves that the Jews are under condemnation, and chapter number three establishes that both are under condemnation.

            We are not saved by works, the law is the schoolmaster leading us to the realization of our condemmed state which will then lead us to Christ.

            The law in the conscience of the Gentiles is the same law God wrote for the Jews.

            Trust these statements may serve to clarify your inquiries

          • edwitness November 29, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

            Your reply answers nothing I wrote about. Jesus’ death and resurrection applies in two ways. That is why He said many times that He came to the Jew FIRST and then to the Gentiles.
            The law is specifically given to Israel by God in Exodus. No such statement is made for Gentiles. In fact, the scripture rejects this position.
            When was a Gentile ever commanded by God to sacrifice animals for forgiveness of sins?
            NEVER!
            The letter to the Hebrews should help you get that. For example, Heb.9 develops the plan of God for the Jew. The writer says that the blood of bulls and goats “sanctified to the purifying of the flesh”. But that it was insufficient for the purging of the conscience from dead works.
            Now by means of His death,(for the Hebrew) for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the FIRST testament”. Who had the first testament? The Jews. The transgressions there were theirs alone.
            The Gentiles, not being under the law, had no sin that counted against them. So they were judged apart from the law.

            Rom.2:14,17 The jews had the law and were responsible to keep it.
            Rom.4:13-16 Who are the “that only which are of the law”?
            John 10:16 Who are the “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold”?
            Gal.2:11-16 Why did Paul have to withstand Peter to his face? Because he stood with the Jews in matters of the law.
            These and many other passages make the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. And that distinction is those who are under the law and those who are not.
            The law is not nor ever has been for the Gentiles. Your clinging to this idea after having been shown the error of your thinking shows that you are not interested in truth. You are only interested in being right. How sad. Because that was the position the Pharisees took.

            Here’s the proof.
            In Luke1:6 and Phil.3:6 statements are made that prove that man could keep the law perfectly. Just like Jesus did. These verses prove that Paul and Zachariah and Elizabeth kept the law “blamelessly”. That means if you were to accuse them of failing in even one of them you would be wrong.
            So what made Jesus so special? It wasn’t because He kept the law perfectly. All of Israel was expected to do that. And many did.
            The reason I bring this to your attention is because undoubtedly you believe the false teaching that Jesus had to keep the law perfectly to become the sinless sacrifice required by God’s law. He was not sinless because He kept the law perfectly. He was sinless because… You figure it out and get back to me.

            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth November 29, 2015 at 8:18 pm #

            Sorry, friend. Your last post demonstrates you have more than one doctrinal error, so this will require that we address point by point. It was assumed differently and that is because recent previous posts had been given in a general mode taking basic understanding for granted.

            Please, see some truths for your clarification.

            1. Man’s accountability comes about from breaking the moral law, not necessarily the ceremonial law, which was given in a type manner as illustrated in Heb 9.
            Those born before the ceremonial law was given, say when there was no Jew or Gentile before Abraham was called, were guilty before God, having only the law of God written in their hearts. This is why judgment came in the time of Noah.

            2. God had in mind redemption for Jews and Gentiles from the very beginning when he gave the promise to Abraham:

            “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;”
            “in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” Gen 22:18 & 28:14

            In God’s eternal plan the Gentiles were included in his salvation plan.

            Also see,
            “The LORD has made known his salvation: his righteousness has he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen. He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.” Ps 98

            “The LORD has made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” Isa 52:10

            “O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.”Jer 16:19

            3. Many times in the OT we find Gentiles joining Israel, so the idea of the Gentiles being included with Israel in not an exclusive NT phenomena.

            This sermon is very explicit giving many verses about the issue.
            Missions in the Old Testament by Voddie Baucham http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=129142335464

            The ethnic Israel always intended to typify the body of true believers, say the justified before by God by faith.
            “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” Gal 3

            Not all the national/ethnic Jews were true believers. This is a fact seen in OT narratives.

            This is obvious from 1 Co 10:

            ” they did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”

            Also Rom 2:25-29
            “For circumcision verily profits, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.”
            “he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

            “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Gal 6:15-16

            4. The conclusion you take from Luke1:6 and Phil.3:6 is false. The passages do not indicate what you state. Your interpretation is out of context and twisted and contradicts Rom 3:9-12 for instance
            “we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all
            under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God.
            They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” This language does not infer there is a chance of any being able to keep the law. If this was the case Christ sacrifice was not a necessity.

            Also it contradicts the idea in Rom 3:20 ” by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight ”

            5. Christ was sinless:
            “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Heb 4:15
            He “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” 1Pe 2:22
            “such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;” Heb 7:26

            Please, forgive that the answers are given in condensed mode for the sake of simplicity.

          • edwitness November 30, 2015 at 6:37 pm #

            fortruth,
            I understand your legalism very well. I had to be delivered from it myself. God is good and will show you the truth if you will receive it.

            We do not join with Israel and become Jews as the Gentiles did in the OT. In fact there was much that a Gentile could not do in Judaism for generations down to keep the bloodline pure. But, I agree, it was God’s plan from the beginning for the whole world to have the opportunity to be saved. For the Jew first and then for the Gentiles. If the Jews trust in Christ they can be saved as well. But they must leave the law at the cross. Col.2:14 & Rom.7:1-7.

            1. Your point about “moral law” is not correct. Paul says in Rom.5:13 there was no law, NONE, moral or otherwise, that those from Adam to Moses were responsible to keep. He even said in Rom.7 what law he was referring to. Thou shalt not covet is part of the “moral” law. Yet they still died.

            2. The context is correct. Paul said he was blameless. And Luke said that Zachariah and Elizabeth were blameless as well. In fact, Luke said they “walked in ALL the commandments and ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESS”. Doesn’t the verse mean what it says? Or because of your presuppositions about righteousness does it have to mean something other than what it actually says?
            There is no way to make it say something else unless you actually change the words in the verses.
            I did not say they were saved because they kept the law blamelessly. The righteousness received from keeping the law perfectly is not the righteousness one receives from trusting in Christ for salvation. These righteousnesses are spoken of in Rom.4:1-5. So keeping the law perfectly will not save anyone even though it is a real righteousness. Never has. Gal.3:21.

            There is self righteousness. The righteousness of the Pharisees is a good example of that.
            There is also a righteousness that comes from doing the works of the law genuinely like Paul and Zachariah and Elizebeth.
            And there is also a righteousness that comes through faith. That is what Abraham received. And this righteousness is the only one that can save us.

            You think righteousness comes only through perfect lawkeeping. You believe that is how Jesus gained it for us. Another wrong presupposition.

            I hope this helps.
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth November 30, 2015 at 7:55 pm #

            Sorry that there seems to be some much basic (simple) knowledge or biblical understanding of Scriptures you appear to be ignorant off.

            1. Please define what you understand as legalism.

            2. Col.2:14, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances … against us”
            This alludes to God’s eternal precepts by which man is condemned or justified in his sight, which make the basis of why people in Noah’s time were able to be condemned without written law.

            However, though this is sufficient to condemned any, when speaking about attaining justification with God, nobody can keep the law perfectly as Christ did because:
            “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Jas 2:10
            By this verse only we know Zachariah was not justified by his ‘blameless’ behavior as he sinned in unbelief when the angel brought him the news of John’s birth.

            3. Rom.5:13 “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”
            The book of Romans deals with justification from a legal point of view.
            God judges all people or matters against his own character. In this sense, God could had condemned us all as he did the people at the flood if he wished, and be perfectly right, yet he decided to bring the ‘legal’ document against us written in stone before passing official verdict at the cross.

            4. There is only one righteousness God is pleased with man and this is the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that no one should boast in his presence. If there is any other righteousness man can attain by himself, we bring insult to the death of Christ, say we imply he died in vain.

            Yet we know he was delivered for our iniquities that no one should boast.

            Rom 4:22-25
            “(Abraham’s faith) was imputed to him for righteousness,
            Now it was not written for his sake alone, … But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
            Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”

            “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Christ) shall many be made righteous” Rom 5:19

            “by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Eph 2:8-9

            5. You are contradicting yourself. For all you have said it is you who infers or believes that righteousness comes by law keeping.

            6. Christ did not become righteous, he was righteous
            See 1Jo 2:1 “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”
            Saying any other thing is devilish, because he being God, if saying different, one ends imputing unrighteousness to God.

            7. In the OT the adjective “righteous” was used to indicate the believer whose conduct is characterized by separation from evil.
            See Job 17:9, Psa 1:5-6, Psa 7:11, or Psa 97:11

            “the righteous LORD loves righteousness; his countenance does behold the upright” Psa 11:7.

          • edwitness December 1, 2015 at 7:43 pm #

            fortruth,
            The Biblical definition of legalism is any LEGAL means we would prescribe as necessary for our salvation. If lawkeeping by anyone is a part of our salvation we are a legalist. If we believe that Jesus had to keep the law perfectly because we could not, is a part of the plan for us to be able to be made righteous before a holy God, we are a legalist. The keeping of the law, even if it’s Jesus doing it, in order for us to be saved, is salvation by works. ie LEGALISM.
            You quoted it yourself. No man will ever be justified by the works of the law. Not by Jesus or any other man. This means Jesus could not be justified this way either.

            The point Paul was making when he said he was blameless according to the righteousness of the law, is that the perfect keeping of the law could not nor ever will save him. Also found in Gal.3:21. If you read further in Phil.3 you will see that Paul considered the righteousness he had from blameless law keeping to be loss and dung so that he instead could win Christ.Vs.8.
            And in vs.9 he says there IS a righteousness that comes from keeping the law. But this righteousness is a righteousness that is of works. Also described in Rom.4:1-ff. The work of keeping the law blamelessly. This righteousness is not the same as what comes from thinking more highly of ourselves than we should. That is called self righteousness.

            James’ statement about having to keep all of the law or be guilty of all does not say it could not be done. To the contrary, he was simply making the point that when we break one we are guilty of all. So that would mean if we kept them all we would be guilty of none, right? I know this is difficult to accept because you have been trained to believe that no one except Jesus could keep the whole law. But I have given you 2 examples that prove that your understanding is wrong.

            So what do you and those who believe like you do with this new information? The first thing you do is try to make Phil.3:6 and Luke1:6 fit with what you already believe to be true. That all men sin by breaking God’s law even though these passages say otherwise. When that doesn’t work, you change what it says. Instead of changing what you believe to agree with the scripture, by changing a word here or there, you make the scripture agree with what you already believe to be true. This is isogesis. You pour into the scripture your preconceived beliefs.
            Another place you do this is 1stJohn3:6,8,9. These scriptures clearly teach that if you are born again you can not sin. But because you already believe this is impossible, you change the wording to fit your wrong theology. You and the mainline legalistic church will answer to God for the perversion you have foisted on young believers.
            Your presuppositions are getting in your way. You have been taught that the reason man could not be saved by keeping the law is because he never could keep it all. The scriptures I gave you make that presupposition a lie. Of course man can keep the law completely. God expected them to. But, the real problem is the law can not save. It was never meant for that purpose. Gal.3:21 says there is not a law given that can give life. Otherwise the righteousness that gives life would have been by the law.
            You are blinded by the lie that is the sin nature doctrine. It is diabolical. I was there. I know how subtle it is.
            I have heard teachers say that if a man could keep the law perfectly he would not need Jesus. But that is not true. He needs Jesus because He is the life we need to be delivered from death. The law can not save from death. They say Jesus had to keep the law perfectly for us so that He could satisfy God’s wrath. Another lie. He kept the law because He was a Jew. And Jews were expected to keep the law. They say that Jesus died in our place for the same reason. More lies.
            Jesus did not die in our place. When the scripture says He died for us, it does not mean in our place. It means He entered into death with us. On our behalf. By dying our death, He could give us life through the resurrection because we place our faith in Him. Look how personal God’s true means of salvation is. He entered into death with us because we were already dead. Being dead already as the scripture says, “death passed upon all men”, how could Jesus die instead of us? He entered into death with us. That is how He died for us.

            You say that what was spoken of in Col.2:14 are “God’s eternal precepts by which man is condemned.” But you provided no evidence for them having ever been written down. That is important because the Col. passage says plainly that “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us” were what was “nailed to the cross”. Not some unwritten code of “eternal precepts”. It was the law of Moses that was the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was taken out of the way, nailing it to the cross”.
            Eph.2:15,16 refers to the same law that was nailed to the cross.
            You have no clue just how clueless you are.
            You could be saved even with all of the false teaching you believe. That is a testament to how much God loves us. But why remain ignorant if you don’t have to? God wants you to know the truth. Seek Him instead of what is popular. He will reveal Himself to you.
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 5:44 am #

            1. Legalism as defined in your terms.
            Friend, say what you will but Christ fulfilled the law for us. See what he himself said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Mat 5:17
            This implies he sacrificed himself without guilt. If you deny that he kept the law you hold him guilty of sin and this is a serious issue.

            “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:” 1Co 5:7 the lamb of the Passover had to be without spot. Had Christ been guilty otherwise of sin he could not be the perfect lamb for us. You are indirectly charging Christ with sin if you say he did not keep the law. This is devilish.

            He suffered not for his own sin so what you are stating falls by its own definition. “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God,” 1Pe 3:18
            “(Christ) needed not … to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins” Heb 7:27
            “Christ died for our sins” not for his sins I Co 15:3

            Justification is understood in legal terms, and you better understand, that you are not going to put God ‘right’ about this. You are in a whole denying the substituttionary death of Christ and his sinless perfection indirectly with these notions. This is the aim of Satanism

            2. The statement of Paul saying he was ‘Blameless according the law’ intends to explain how meticulous his religious zeal was. However, this does not infer that a person can keep the law, as other parts of Scripture demonstrate the opposite.

            3. Keeping all the law is impossible because even we keep all the ins and outs of detail still we are guilty of not loving God with all our might and strength or our neighbor as ourselves which is in the law. No one can attain this from birth, so man cannot keep the law. It is an absurd

            4. All men are guilty of breaking the law. This is demonstrated in Scripture: “we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom 3:19 We all are guilty means nobody can ever have a possibility of keeping the law, but are due to break it.
            “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:” Rom 3:20

            5. 1Jh 3:6,8,9 This passage does not infer sinless practice, but sinless status
            If this passage taught sinless practice or sin exception for those in Christ, John was contradicting himself because only in the second chapter he says otherwise: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:”
            So, the passage rather refers to the sinless new status or sphere the believer enters when converted, say the ‘new life’ referred to in 2Co 5:17, all things become new: “if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

            6. In saying man can keep the law you are a step next to denying all the plan of redemption making it obsolete. This is diabolic

            7. Jesus died in our place.
            “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:” 1Co 5:7
            “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God,” 1Pe 3:18
            “the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Is 53:6
            “(Christ) bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness” 1Pe 2:24

            All these verses speak of substitution, as the lamb took the place of the first born in the households of Egypt, or the ram took the place of Isaac, or the animals in the temple the place of sinners.
            Christ “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Heb 9

            Also see Heb 10:6-10
            “when he comes into the world, he said, Sacrifice and offering thou would not, but a body hast thou prepared me: .. Then said I, Lo, I come … to do thy will, O God. …By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ …” this infers substitution of the sacrifices by the sacrifice of the body of Christ

            8. You state: ‘He entered into death with us’ This is a blasphemous statement. He tasted death for us, but he did not partake in the death of our sin which is the sole part of our condemnation. Again this compromises the sinless nature of Christ

            9. “God’s eternal precepts by which man is condemned.”
            God’s precepts are the reflection of his own nature of what the whole of Scripture gives evidence.
            “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us” does not refer only to Moses’ law, neither represents a physical tangible writing as neither it is the book of life in Rev 20 or the writing in Heb 10:7 “Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.”
            ‘the handwriting of ordinances’ stand for all that God is against what man is hold guilty

            10. About yur statement: ‘You have no clue just how clueless you are’
            One only needs to heed to the verses above to be certain of what Scripture teaches.

            Sorry, but you are full of serious error which denies Scripture’s teaching as a whole and in parts.

          • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 6:09 pm #

            fortruth,
            “Implies this” and “assume that” is not a good foundation for sound theology.
            You really don’t believe the clear teaching of scripture, do you?
            Of course Jesus kept the law. He was a Jew. They were expected to keep the law. And most did. I gave you two witnesses to that truth and all you gave me was “that’s absurd”.
            Sound theology there. LOL Blameless! That’s the word they used to describe how they kept the law.
            Jesus’ sinlessness is His relationship with the Father that none of us had from birth the way He did. He was righteous because He always trusted in the Father. He never trusted in a false god. John116:9. We were born separated from God by death that passed to all men from Adam. Rom.5:12-14.
            You continue with your assumptions when you say the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us” is more than what is written. Even when the passage says it is what is “handwritten”. Ordinances that were written down is a good definition of the law. You must really want to be right. You ignore the clear meaning of the scripture to put your sin nature spin on it. Even when it actually uses the wording that best defines the writing of the law of Moses.
            It makes sense though that you would feel the need to do that. Seeing how sin nature is not in the Bible.
            Other than the law of love, what law have the Gentiles ever been responsible to keep? In keeping the law of love the Gentiles did by their NATURE(what you call a sin nature) what was in the law. Rom.2:14. That includes loving God like you said before, right? How can a sin nature do that? Since according to the sin nature doctrine it is impossible for a sin nature to do anything but sin? How could anyone do what the law required by their nature as Rom.2:14 says if it is a sinful nature?
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 6:50 pm #

            1. Please, may you consider that ‘implies’ means deductive reasoning, which in the case in question means that, if Christ had not fulfilled all the commandments of the law, he would have sinned. Yet the Scriptures say that Christ “through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God” Hb 9:14 It could not be said that he was ‘without spot’ if he had not fulfilled the law completely.
            Jesus did much more than keep the law as any other dutiful Jew, he kept it perfectly in order to be “without spot”

            2. About the two samples you present for blameless conduct, the matter centers about literacy and common sense first.
            Any objective reader may attest that what you are trying to affirm through these two instances is nonsensical.
            I have already pointed out how Zachariah sinned and was judged for this by not being able to speak for 8-9 months. In the case of Paul, it emphasises ‘blameless regarding the keeping of the law’, Yet all the while he was engaged in cruel abuse of Christians and murder. So mush for being sinless. Both cases fall apart by their own weight.

            3. You affirm that
            “Jesus’ sinlessness is His relationship with the Father”
            He was sinless, period. If he had not been sinless all around, he was not sinless at all.

            4. You say that “We were born separated from God by death that passed to all men from Adam.”
            Sin and death passed on to man together to all:
            “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Rom 5:12

            5. “handwritten”
            Nobody is denying the inclusiveness of Moses’ law/writings in this. You are limiting the concept for your convenience to exempt any ‘without the law’ in your theory. See the context of the chapter. It speaks of all the guilt against us represented of course by God’s law, either written in the heart, on stone, or paper.

            6. The Gentiles’ law written in the heart does not consist of mere petty love, because we read that the conscience accuses or excuses conduct. See Rom 2:15
            “the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
            Probably to admit to this may disturb your theory

            7. God forbade access to the tree of life to fulfill the anticipated death verdict. This is how he did it.

          • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 8:02 pm #

            fortruth,
            I was wondering when you were going to get to that about Paul persecuting the church. In the passage where he calls himself blameless he states that he persecuted the church, right? How could he do that and still say he kept the law blamelessly?
            These are questions you need to ask of the scripture.
            But, I will tell you. Paul considered the Jews turned Christians to be heretics and blaspheners, right? And what does the law require is to be done with such Jews? They are to be stoned, right? Isn’t that exactly what Paul did? So he was keeping the law blamelessly.
            How about Zechariah’s having not believed the angel? Does the scripture say he sinned by not believing him? No. That was no more sin than when Thomas didn’t believe the disciples.
            You think these were sins because your adherence to the sin nature doctrine demands it.
            Not because the scripture says so.
            And “common sense” is not a great tool for hearing from God. It can help you deal with natural things. But not spiritual.

            “Objective reader”? You mean like you that believes in a doctrine that is not even once named in the Bible? How is that called objective? It’s not. It’s purely subjective because it is brought from somewhere other than the context and injected subjectively into the scripture to satisfy a preconceived idea about man’s nature.

            Where does the scripture say that breaking God’s law would mean Jesus would have spots? Assumption created by the sin nature doctrine.

            The sinlessness He had was not from keeping the law blamelessly. Other Jews had already been doing that as the examples I have provided prove. No, His justification was derived from His relationship with the Father. John16:9

            You add to the scripture when you say that sin as well as death passed upon all men. The scripture is very specific. Is this some of your “common sense”?
            “Death passed upon all men”. And this death came to us as a result of Adam’s sin. Not our own. If we die physically without being born again, death continues to “reign” eternally over us. We are then eternally separated from God.

            “Mere petty love”? Jesus said that it is on love for the Father and one another the law and prophets hang. Petty? When we love the way God does we see that when we love someone we don’t steal, murder, cheat, covet,…from them. “Either accusing or excusing their conduct”. Rom.2:14.
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 9:22 pm #

            1. Regarding Paul’s conduct as blameless, you seem to believe in situational ethics. The end justifies or excuses the actual sin ?!..
            Actually Paul would not agree with you, as he regretted his conduct before his conversion.
            See what he stated about it: “I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” 1Co 15:9

            You cannot prove that he was able to keep the law because his course of action was evil. It is said he “breathed out threatenings and slaughter” Act 9:1 Issuing ‘threats’ does not pertain to the realm of justice. Terror is never justifiable.

            Paul was never excused about the sins he committed previous his conversion, in fact, when they were brought up, they always came in a connotation of shame.
            He sinned against the way, the truth and the life. This is why Christ told him: “ Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” Ac 9

            2. Zechariah sinned, period.

            3. The doctrine of the sinful nature in man is in Scripture. It has been presented to you. You chose to ignore it.

            4. Breaking a just law makes any one guilty. Christ did not break the law, this is why he was without spot, he was not guilty. Christ is the only blameless. John16:9 is a gimmick signifying nothing

            5. The following verses prove the inherited sin of Adam
            “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Rom 5:12

            “ as by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1Co 15:21-22

            6. ‘Petty love’ intended to describe your lesser approach about conscience regarding sin.
            Now, however, you seem to understand how conscience functions as a judge, say accusing or excusing. So the law written in the heart acts both as a testimony and as a judge against man.

            7. There is a right and a perverted way to use reason. The first uses common sense and a clean conscience, the later uses false logic, none valid premises and deceit. This is known as sophistry.

            8. Regarding your statement: ‘Jesus came so that man could be made alive, not good’
            The benefits of redemption are many and one of them is to be made a new creature, another is reconciliation, another is adoption (acceptance), another is peace, another is forgiveness, another is justification, which you term ‘legalism’, and other benefits are regeneration, inmortality, incorruption, eternal life, fellowship, etc..

            9. There is a doctrine of identification as mentioned in Rom 6:4 “we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
            This is however different of what you say about Christ entering into our death. This has been explained before. Such notion seeds from Satanism

          • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 9:49 pm #

            fortruth,
            The basic problem with the sin nature doctrine and what it produces is that believing it means that you believe that you are saved by the works of the law. You said yourself that if Jesus had not kept the law sinlessly He could not have been the spotless lamb.
            Since you believe that would have disqualified Him from being the savior, you are saved because He kept the law sinlessly. You are saved by the works of the law.
            But, the scripture says that no flesh will be justified by the works of the law. Rom.3:20. This includes Jesus, and by extension you, because He was flesh and blood just like us.Heb.2:14.
            If no flesh could be set right, sinless, by the keeping of the law, then Jesus was not justified that way either. Yet you say it is imperitive that He kept it sinlessly for that very reason. To be the spotless lamb.
            See the problem in your interpretation and why I call it legalism?
            Blessings:-}

  10. Darrel November 23, 2015 at 9:20 am #

    Ed, you said it yourself : “the errors in your theology are many..”
    Skipping to the third paragraph of your first comment on 11-20 @4:16 pm (because the first two paragraphs make little to no sense at all) we find you saying that the “justice of God” is nothing more than a method to deliver Israel from satan and that “justice” is carried out only on those who oppose Israel. If that were the case today then God (according to you) has been negligent in His care for Israel because Hitler and now the muslims wreak havoc on the Jews with no restraint.

    @ 9:42 on 11-22 you provide further evidence (words from your own mouth) of your willful and purposeful rebellion against the Word of God by stating that man’s sin nature is legalism (I guess we are supposed to just take your word for it because you provide no Scripture, just your fantasy doctrine). The facts of Scripture tell us the exact opposite, man’s sin nature began in the Garden of Eden when Adam knowingly rebelled against the command of God (just like you are doing now) Gen 3:3, 17, 18, 19. Note also 1 Tim. 2:14 says that Adam was not deceived when he disobeyed God, but did so on purpose (just like you). Cherry-picking your way through Romans 5 does not qualify as proper interpretation as you conveniently forgot to continue on to Rom. 5:17 and see death’s reign because of Adam’s sin. Rom. 5:18 Adam is again credited with giving all of mankind his sin nature and is the reason why the wrath of God abides on all men except those chosen to eternal life by the Father (Rom. 5:19 explains this).

    Back to your unbiblical notion of the Justice of God, if it were only to save the Jews from the hands of their oppressors then why did he Lord Jesus Christ die on the cross for the sins of His chosen ones that they might be bon again (many of which are not Jews, but Gentiles)? Since you love to quote John 16:9 why not read a little further to John 16:13 & 14 and find that the Holy Spirit will teach those who belong to Christ the TRUTH and not be responsible for this pile of garbage you try to pass off as truth. You were born with a sin nature just like all of us who have Adam and Eve as our first parents. You are correct in one thing: “You must be born again”. I would suggest you read 2 Cor. 13:5.

    • edwitness November 24, 2015 at 3:36 pm #

      Darrel,
      Please read my comment to lyn as it contains most of the answers to your reply.
      As for the justice of God, I was not saying God’s justice is only for Israel. Nor did I say it was for their enemies.
      God’s justice is deliverance. This is directed only towards His people. Be they Israel or His church. His wrath is toward His and our enemies. This is not necessarily instantaneous. Much of it we will not see until after this life.
      And as I told lyn, the sin nature doctrine is not Biblical. It comes from a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Biblical doctrine. We can thank Augustine for that.

      Wikipedia;
      According to his contemporary, Jerome, Augustine “established anew the ancient Faith.”[7] In his early years, he was heavily influenced by Manichaeism and afterward by the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus. After his baptism and conversion to Christianity in 387, Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, accommodating a variety of methods and perspectives.[8] Believing that the grace of Christ was indispensable to human freedom, he helped formulate the doctrine of original sin and made seminal contributions to the development of ju
      When the Western Roman Empire began to disintegrate, Augustine developed the concept of the pre-Schism Catholic Church as a spiritual City of God, distinct from the material Earthly City.[9] His thoughts profoundly influenced the medieval worldview. The segment of the Church that adhered to the concept of the Trinity as defined by the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople[10] closely identified with Augustine’s City of God.
      got questions.org
      Question: “Who was Saint Augustine in church history?”

      Answer: Saint Augustine was a philosopher and theologian who had a profound effect on both Protestant and Catholic theology. He was born Augustine Aurelius in A.D. 354, in Thagaste (in what is now Algeria), during the Roman occupation of that region. The son of a Christian mother and a pagan father, he developed a strong interest in rhetoric and philosophy, and he left home in his late teens to study in Carthage. Although his childhood had a heavy Christian influence, Augustine did not follow Christian teachings or practices, but rather lived a hedonistic lifestyle. While in Carthage, he associated with other young men who boasted of sexual exploits, and he himself began a long-term affair with a woman. At the age of 20 or 21, he began to teach rhetoric, and by the age of 30 he was one of the premier academicians in the Latin world, teaching rhetoric at the imperial court in Milan, where he took another lover, having left the first.

      While in Carthage, still as a young man, Augustine left the Christian church to follow the Manichaean religion. Manichaeism was a syncretistic form of Gnosticism which taught a dualistic view of good and evil. Creation was seen as flawed and under the equal influences of light and darkness. While in Carthage, Augustine began to move away from this school of thought, and he left it entirely while in Milan.

      But, he did not “leave it entirely”. He actually brought it into his understanding of the duality of man and the sinful nature. As well as his understanding of the “trinity”.
      Blessings:-}

  11. lyn November 23, 2015 at 6:06 pm #

    Excellent truths Darrel, it appears Ed holds to a pelagianism view which is wildly popular with those who adhere to the false teaching known as free will doctrine.
    “Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. In other words, a person’s free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad without the aid of Divine intervention. Pelagianism teaches that man’s nature is basically good. Thus it denies original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell, and all of his descendants were not affected by Adam’s sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God’s grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him.

    Pelagianism fails to understand man’s nature and weakness. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3, Psalm 51:5). We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned,” (Rom. 5:12, NIV). Furthermore, Romans 3:10-12 says, “There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” Therefore, we are unable to do God’s will (Rom. 6:16, 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam–contrary to what Pelagius taught. Pelagius has been condemned by many councils throughout church history including the following:

    Councils of Carthage (412, 416, and 418)
    Council of Ephesus (431)
    The Council of Orange (529)
    Council of Trent (1546) Roman Catholic
    2nd Helvetic (1561/66) 8-9. (Swiss-German Reformed)
    Augsburg Confession (1530) Art. 9, 18 (Lutheran)
    Gallican Confession (1559) Art. 10 (French Reformed)
    Belgic Confession (1561) Art. 15 (Lowlands, French/Dutch/German Reformed)
    The Anglican Articles (1571), 9. (English)
    Canons of Dort (1618-9), 3/4.2 (Dutch/German/French Reformed).1″ {source – https://carm.org/pelagianism}

    Ephesians 2:3 clearly states this, ” Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Focus on the last part of the text, ‘by nature the children of wrath’. Defining the phrase ‘by nature’ will unlock the truth of man’s inherited sin nature. From Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance-nature – From phuo; growth (by germination or expansion), i.e. (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension, a genus or sort; figuratively, native disposition, constitution or usage — (man-)kind, nature(-al).
    Here we see ‘natural production [lineal descent]’. Having defined ‘by nature’ we now can understand the Apostle Paul’s meaning, we have inherited the fallen sinful nature of Adam, for all have sinned, all are born sinners {Psalm 51:5}.
    Here is another verse to ponder, from Genesis 5:3, And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth’. Matthew Henry’s commentary is most excellent, “Adam was made in the image of God; but, when he was fallen and corrupt, he begat a son in his own image, sinful and defiled, frail, mortal, and miserable, like himself; not only a man like himself, consisting of body and soul, but a sinner like himself, guilty and obnoxious, degenerate and corrupt. Even the man after God’s own heart owns himself conceived and born in sin, Psa_51:5. This was Adam’s own likeness, the reverse of that divine likeness in which Adam was made; but, having lost it himself, he could not convey it to his seed. Note, Grace does not run in the blood, but corruption does. A sinner begets a sinner, but a saint does not beget a saint.”

    Ed, your theology is faulty, unbiblical and pure heresy. God have mercy on you and grant you a right understanding of your own inherited sin nature, your vile wickedness that makes you, by nature, a child of wrath.

    • edwitness November 24, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

      lyn,
      Question: When Adam and Eve knew they were naked after eating the fruit, why did they hide from God? Please be honest and give your first thought without looking in your Bible. Now look in your Bible and see that you were wrong because you believed what you have been told and not what your Bible actually says.

      Psalm 51, if taken literally, attributes the sin to David’s parents. After all, they were the one’s doing the act of conception not David. “In sin was I conceived”. So obviously it is not to be taken literally. In this Psalm David was expressing how low he was feeling from the events concerning his sin with Bathsheba. Hardly a passage to hang your hat on concerning the lie that is the “sin nature doctrine”.
      And I do not believe that man has a nature that is “basically good” either. We are born neutral, and only until we learn to sin from others do we become sinners. But, in fact, the idea of the “nature” of man being central to Christian theology is not a Biblical one. It comes from the Greek philosophical view of things with emphasis placed on the Greek understanding of perfection. Augustine, being taught Christianity by his Christian Grandmother, and also taught a Greek philosophical view of things in his schooling, had created in him a synthesis of these wherein the “sin nature doctrine” was developed and pronounced at the council at Nicea.

      Rom.5:12 is translated to English absent a very important prepositional phrase. From the Greek it is transliterated to be the word efho. It means “of which” or “because of which”. So when you read the passage it should read like this:
      “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men,(here’s the efho) ‘because of which'(death) all have sinned”:
      Efho is masculine and can only refer to a masculine noun. Sin(hamartia) is feminine. But, thanatos(death) is masculine, so the “because of which” can not be referring to sin. Therefore, one’s own personal sin is not the cause of death in them. The death that came to Adam when he sinned is what passed upon all men. And as a result of that death(separation from God) men sin. THE Sin = no faith in God. John 16:9. Out of this sin flows all other sins. This is why John says “He that commits sin, (John16:9), is of the devil…” And “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin”. And again “…whosoever sins has not seen Him, neither known Him”.1stJohn3:6,8,9.
      The rest of the passage, and especially the next two verses, contradict verse 12 when you interpret it the way you and Darrel do. If sin causes death then why in vs.13 do we find people still died even when “sin is not imputed(doesn’t count) where there is no law”. They all still died before the law came. Why? Because death, not sin, reigned as vs.14 says. See how it flows when you interpret it correctly?
      We find in vs.14 that there were those who did not sin as Adam did. If this is true, and it is, then the doctrine of “original sin” is not true. Because that doctrine says that we all have a sin nature because we were with Adam, that is in his loins, sinning with him when he sinned.
      So either vs.14 is true or the doctrine of “original sin” is true. They can not both be true because they contradict each other. We all either sinned with Adam or we did not.

      Here’s one for you;
      The real Biblical reason we must be born again.
      Adam was not a spiritual being. What?! In other words he was not created with a spirit. Blasphemy you say! Gen. 2:7 tells us that Adam’s body was formed from the elements. And that God breathed into him the “breath of life”. The same breath of life that animals have in them too. Gen.7:22. The Hebrew word for breath here is not ruach as many teach. It is neshawmaw. Which means air or wind. So when we see in Genesis that Adam became a living soul, we see that a soul has two parts, not three. Simply a body with air in it. Lungs, blood, brain etc. All working because God placed air into his “nostrils”. Unlike the mouth, only air goes into the nostrils.
      1st Cor.15:45-48 also states that Adam was “natural” not “spiritual”. This brings us to the need for being “born again”.
      Anyone born from Adam, that is all of us, is born with no spirit. Just like Adam. Being born again is necessary to be able to relate to God spiritually. John4:24. Also remeber that the “natural man receives not the things of the Spirit”. 1stCor.2:14 but, “God has revealed them to us by His Spirit…”vs.10.
      If you will notice, Adam and all those before Christ came and died on the cross and rose again, could only communicate with God through their natural senses. Remember how it says “God walked and talked” in the garden with Adam? How God led Israel with “a cloud by day and a fire by night”? And how God spoke to His prophets in a voice they could hear with their natural ears? That was literal. Unlike the way we Christians hear God today which is by the Spirit.

      The bottom line is this. Sin is not THE issue with anyone except a legalist. Death is THE issue and the main enemy of mankind. As a legalist, you focus on sin and how to avoid it. But as a Christian we are to focus on Jesus and our relationship with Him. Which is Life. The opposite of death. John17:3.
      Whatever criteria we use for our ultimate decision making is our God. When our main focus is on sin, and not death and the resultant life we recieve from Jesus, we make our choices consistent with that focus. The fix for being naughty is to be made good. The fix for being dead is to be made alive. John5:24,25. See the difference? Therefore you are in a form of idolatry when you make your decisions based on anything other than Jesus and your relationship with Him.
      For the Jews their idol was the law. While you and Darrel understand Rom.7 to be a description of the battle Christians have with their “sin nature”, it is really written to those Jews, (“for I speak to them that know the law”, vs1) who would try to keep the law and serve Christ at the same time for salvation.These are by definition legalists. Paul said they were adulterers, vs.3. It seems both of you, Lyn and Darrel, have fallen into a similar trap.
      Jesus died, not so bad people could be made good. But, so that dead people could be made alive.
      So you can stick with the legalist interpretation of scripture if you want to, or trust Jesus to show you the truth instead.

      I would recommend reading Ray Shelton’s book.
      An exerpt from Ray Shelton’s “FROM DEATH TO LIFE”:
      …..God in the person of His Son entered into our death so that He might deliver us from death by raising Jesus from the dead. His resurrection is our resurrection, and we are made alive with Him and in Him. Thus taking away the cause of our sin, He saves us from sin. Jesus died for our sins — literally — to take them away, not just the guilt of sin but sin itself. For, being made alive to God with Christ, we now in faith trust in the true God. This faith in God is the opposite of sin, which is trust in a false god. We have turned from our false gods to serve and trust the true God that we now know. This faith is righteousness (Rom. 4:3, 5), and it comes from knowing personally the true God through His Son, Jesus Christ. To know Him is life (John 17:3), and to know Him is to trust Him. For He is love and love begets trust. The death of Christ for us not only demonstrates God’s love for us but is also the means by which that love is made known to us. By Jesus entering into our death through His death on the cross, God could remove that death in the resurrection of Jesus. Now in the resurrection of Jesus the barrier of death is removed. We see God revealed as never before. We know Him now, having been made alive to God in the resurrection of Jesus. To be alive spiritually is to know God (John 17:3). And being made alive to God in Jesus is to know the love of God. Thus the death of Jesus is more than a demonstration of love — it is the means by which that love could remove the barrier of death, and thus make us alive to God Himself, revealing Himself to us. The trust that this love invokes is righteousness; it relates us rightly to God. Thus by taking away death, God takes away sin. And by taking away sin, God takes away His wrath.

      At the start of this I asked you why they hid. You said because they were ashamed right? Now why do you think they want us to believe that? Legalism.
      Blessings:-}

  12. Lyn November 24, 2015 at 7:47 pm #

    Your view has already been exposed for what it is – pelagianism. Pulling verses out of context and using your opinions as ‘proof’ does not make your erroneous views any more believable. What you claim as truth is anything but….. You will never convince me otherwise. Time to move on.

    • edwitness November 24, 2015 at 8:37 pm #

      lyn,
      Your reply sounds eerily familiar. Oh, I remember. The Pharisees said something much the same to Jesus.
      Thanks
      MARANATHA!

  13. lyn November 24, 2015 at 9:13 pm #

    Ed,

    You will not change my mind, and I will not change yours. Rather than resort to name calling, as you have childishly done, just agree to disagree and go about your business. I believe the Bible clearly teaches on original sin, and you will never convince me otherwise. I do not have time to spend in hours of frivolous debate, so I will simply agree to disagree and close this debate out.
    Prayerfully, you are mature enough to do the same.

    • edwitness November 25, 2015 at 12:27 am #

      lyn,
      I am not trying to change your mind. I have been where you are now. I would hope for a change of heart as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit.
      Paul is the one who expressed grave concern for “legalism”. He called it adultery. Rm.7:3
      Just like the word “trinity” is not found in scripture, so the phrase “sin nature” is not found there either. This should make it’s pronounced truthfulness even more suspect to the discerning Christian.
      I know what is taught in seminaries and in most pulpits. But, more importantly God does too. The truth is there in the scripture. My prayer is that you let God show you His truth so you can grow in the fulness of what He has for you. Real freedom in Christ.
      Blessings:-}

      • Lyn November 25, 2015 at 2:09 am #

        I have no desire to jump into your camp. My studies of God’s word coupled with prayer are more than enough, for the Spirit has revealed the truth of mans inherited sin nature . As i stated, this debate is done.

  14. lyn November 24, 2015 at 9:17 pm #

    words of wisdom from George Everard….

    Guard against profitless bitter disputes about religion. In these the Devil glories — under the guise of an angel of light they effectually do his work. The spirit of piety is lost in strifes about words — true love waxes cold, and temper runs high, while men dispute about baptism, and election, and whether Christ died for all; and this minister is disparaged, and another praised, and faults are found with this service, and with that prayer, and all the while . . .
    Christ Himself is forgotten,
    and the Spirit grieved,
    and weak souls wounded,
    and the ungodly hardened,
    and the Great Adversary rejoices in having turned the Gospel of peace and love, into a means of man’s undoing.
    I speak not against needful controversy. Truth is above all things precious, and is not to be sacrificed even to peace. But there are right times, and there is a right spirit in which to conduct it; and there is a spirit which is of self and party, and not of Christ. “Speaking the truth in love.”
    The words of Richard Hooker deserve to be remembered: “There shall come a time when three words, uttered with charity and meekness, shall receive a far more blessed reward, than three thousand volumes, written with disdainful sharpness of wit.”
    http://www.gracegems.org/Everard/daily_talk.htm

  15. Darrel November 25, 2015 at 3:13 pm #

    Ed, your lack of knowledge of the Lord, His character, His Sovereignty, and His eternal intent for man is beyond appalling. Your speech is that of a false prophet and a charlatan—–dangerous to those who would believe your nonsense. The definition of “legalism” has nothing to do with man’s inherited sin nature, it has everything to do with a man trying to gain entrance to heaven apart from repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus—-this is the precise endgame of your claim that man has no sin nature and is coupled with the belief that there is a “spark” within man that can be ignited to connect him to God (if man so wishes), nothing could be further from the truth. You have also taken it upon yourself to place the Trinity in the same category as the sin nature of man and in effect said that the Trinity is a myth. There are 40 plus direct references to the Trinity in the Scriptures, but you have chosen to ignore them and redact them from your reality. This alone makes you a heretic. And as a heretic, you have no part in the discussion of the things of God. The only option you have is to repent (if it’s not too late) and beg for mercy from the Lord. I say “too late” because many who have said what you have said have committed the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and will never be saved—–ever.

    • edwitness November 27, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

      Darrel,
      A discussion about how you interpret the Bible is not grounds for heresy unless it ends with the rejection of Jesus as Creator God. So behave yourself.
      All that you have said about the so called sin nature and the Trinity is what I refer to as “mainline theology”. Becuase seminaries have taught your pastors their understanding of them, and not the Holy Spirit through the word of God. Therefore it is what is popular. And being popular doesn’t make it true.
      I’m not saying there is no Trinity. I’m saying your understanding of the Trinity is not Biblical. The way you jump to conclusions without hearing things through shows me you are a novice in the scriptures. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just an observation. I still consider you a brother. I hope so.
      The Trinity can be better understood in the context of John 17:21-23. Jesus explains the oneness of the Trinity by saying He wants us to be one just like He and the Father are one. Did you get that? Just like He and the Father are one. Just try getting a “one in essence” definition from that.
      Again, that thinking comes from Greek philosophy. Not from the Bible.
      The sin nature doctrine is not Biblical. And neither is the “mainline” teaching of the Trinity. There are 3. And they are one. But they are not one in essence. The Bible just does not teach that. Not anywhere.
      The sin nature doctrine is legalism because it speaks to the issue of man’s inability to keep from sinning. And that the sin we supposedly inherited from Adam because we were in his loins sinning with him, is what causes us to die. But as I showed you before, Rom.5:12-14 rejects this explanation for why man dies. These verses tell us that man dies because he was placed under death’s power (“death reigned”vs.14)when Adam sinned. And that sin didn’t even count against them that were alive from Adam to Moses because there was no law. Why is that? Because the law is what makes sin sinful. It makes sin count.
      Rom.5:12-14 & 7:7,8.

      Try to answer this question please?
      What caused Adam to die after he ate the fruit and his eyes were opened?
      Simple enough question for you, right?
      I await your answer.
      Blessings:-}

      • Darrel November 30, 2015 at 9:25 pm #

        Gee, ed, you’ve got me stumped!! Why don’t you answer your own question, since you never answer anyone else’s.

      • fortruth November 30, 2015 at 11:25 pm #

        What caused Adam to die after he ate the fruit and his eyes were opened?

        Here is the biblical answer to your question:

        “The wages of sin is death” Adam sinned, disobeyed, and death was the sure pay. Sin caused Adam’s death, and
        “… as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12

        The spirit of God in the believer leads the child of God into truth, not into rationalism.

        Examine yourself if you are in the faith. It appears you are playing the game of ‘being wiser’ than God. If you think you are smart enough to stand ‘different’ from the doctrines the main historical church had sustained for centuries, you are really going against much, which shall be demanded from you in the day of judgment. And this not because we should conform to any church’s creed in particular, but for the following serious fact:

        The child of God, being born from above, is led into truth by the Spirit of truth he is given when converted.

        “the anointing which ye have received of him abides in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” 1Jo 2:27

        and Jhn 16:13
        “when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.”

        On the basis of this then, if your views grossly defer from the average believer in the basics of faith, there should be a cause of concern.

        Also, the Trinity including the person of the Holy Spirit of God along the Father and the Son as demonstrated in Jhn 15:26, converge on one same purpose for the believer’s understanding of truth:

        “the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me:”

        By excluding the Spirit from the Trinity one excludes belonging to Christ, because Christ said he would dwell in the believer by His Spirit that acts as his seal, (token) of real son-ship.

        2Co 1:21-22 “Now he which establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God;
        Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”

        Again the verse above demonstrates the conjoined work of the Trinity in the personal experience of the believer.

        He that denies that Jesus is come in the flesh is antichrist.
        “every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist”

        On disputing/diminishing the absolute necessity of the merit of Christ’s death as the only solution for man’s inherited sin, one depreciates his coming in the flesh. In other words, indirectly one ends denying him of his redemption right as the only Saviour man has.

        “Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist,” 1Jo 2:22 & 4:3

        Denying Jesus as the ‘anointed’ of God, say as the only appointed unquestionable reason for our justification, defies sound judgement.

        Sorry, but it might be good for you to consider that by extensive reasoning, your present beliefs may arrive to such serious conclusions.

        • edwitness December 1, 2015 at 9:06 pm #

          fortruth,
          Your answer is incorrect just like most of what you say.
          Sin did not cause Adam to die. You are so sure the sin nature doctrine is true, you trusted in it instead of what the scripture says again.
          Gen.3:22-24 has the correct answer.
          “And the Lord God said, behold the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and LIVE FOREVER:
          THEREFORE the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
          So He drove out the man: and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep(gaurd) the way of the tree of life”.
          If God had not driven Adam away from being able to eat of the tree of life, Adam would have lived forever. So, because Adam could no longer eat from the tree of life he died.
          You applied reason to come up with your answer. I simply read and believed the scripture. Like I have from the beginning of our conversations.
          You learned something new today, didn’t ya?
          There’s lots more where that came from.
          The scriptures I mean.
          Blessings:-}

          • Darrel December 1, 2015 at 10:49 pm #

            “Your answer is incorrect just like most of what you say”
            How fitting to use your own words against you. There is no end to your ignorance of the Scriptures and the Attributes of God.
            You said “sin did not cause Adam to die” and your are employing the same doublespeak used by your father, the devil, to make other men believe that God the Father is a liar. Gen. 2:17 “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it YOU SHALL SURELY DIE.” Adam died when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just as God had promised he would. Then you say: “So, because Adam could no longer eat from the tree of life he died.” Really? Where did you come up with that, your own power of reasoning and logic? No where does the Bible state that Adam EVER ate from the tree of life. If he had done so, as you so deceitfully imply, he would have lived forever despite his sin. The God of the Bible cannot lie. Your god, however is well practiced in the art of lies and deceit.

            Then you top it off with one of the most arrogant statements you could ever make: “You learned something today, didn’t ya?” Wow!!! Arrogant and infallible, too, what a combination——-straight out of Isaiah 14. Thank you for showing your true colors for all the world to see.

          • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 5:36 pm #

            Darrel,
            The tree of life was one of the “of every tree in the garden you may freely eat” trees. He ate from it too.
            When the scripture says “you shall surely die” it should be translated “beginning to die you shall finally die”. Ask any Hebrew scholar? I’m not one. But I know some.
            From the day Adam ate from the tree he was kept from eating from the tree of life. So beginning to die he finally did die.
            Sin did not kill Adam. No more access to the tree of life did.
            Besides, he was still alive for a long time after he ate the fruit. If the sin killed him, why didn’t he fall over immediately? It said “In the day that you eat”, right?

          • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 6:06 am #

            Friend, The wages of sin is death and the sting of death is sin. 1Co 15:56
            We do not need to reinvent the ‘theological’ wheel, just take this and suffices

          • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 6:48 pm #

            fortruth,
            It may seem to you that it is “reinventing” the wheel. But really it is building the “wheel” correctly to start with. If our theological foundation is wrong, how can we expect to build a sound structure upon it? As Jesus said, “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it”.
            Have you ever witnessed to someone? Maybe you have heard the instructions for witnessing that go something like this.
            “Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen? Have you ever lusted after someone?” They say yes, yes, and yes. Then you say they have broken God’s commands. And that they are guilty before God and going to hell because of their sin.
            This becomes for them the first(foundational) “truth” they learn about God. It remains and becomes part of the foundation for their house.
            But the law has nothing to do with them being a sinner because God never gave the law to Gentiles. So we have incorporated into our foundation some false doctrine. And as the first thing that we heard about God it is woven into everything we add to our knowledge of God. Our foundation and building.
            Ultimately, as we continue to learn we are so filled with the wrong understanding about what it is Jesus has done for us, we don’t really KNOW anything for sure that is from God.
            This is what the sin nature doctrine has done to the church. It has given it a foundation of sand. I know. I have been where you and lyn and Darrel are now.
            Here is how to fix it. When you read the scripture stop reading INTO IT your preconceived ideas of theology. Let it say what it says and let Jesus by His Spirit lead you into the truth of what it really means. It generally means exactly what it says. If you don’t know how to incorporate what your reading into the correct Biblical understanding put it on the shelf until God gives you more light that will clear it up for you.
            The sin nature doctrine is a lie. It will only make your house and foundation more rickety if you keep building your house with it. What you have believed about the sin nature is not just not true, it is dangerous to a Biblical foundation. Throw it out and start building a sound Biblical structure.
            Blessings:-}

        • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

          fortruth,
          When did you read that I believed that the Godhead was not 3 persons? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three in one. One in ESSENCE is where the problem comes in. The Godhead is not one ontologically as mainline theology states.
          John17 tells us how they are one. In vs.22 Jesus says “that they may be one, even AS WE ARE ONE”.
          If you and Darrel and lyn are standing together in one place, how many would I see?
          Pretty simple, right?
          Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 3:38 pm #

            1. “When did you read that I believed that the Godhead was not 3 persons?”

            Sorry if this has been overlooked or misrepresented
            However you attest that: ‘There are 3. And they are one. But they are not one in essence’.
            There is plenty of proof in Scripture to demonstrate the contrary about your last affirmation that says that the three are not equal in essence.

            This might be tedious to expound here.
            However, here is a sample:

            Christ abides in us
            “That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, … hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us” 1Jo 3:23-24

            God abides in us
            “God is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him” 1Jo 4:16

            The Spirit abides in us
            “the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but ye know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.” Jhn 14:17

            2. God is spirit and this makes possible the oneness of the Trinity. We are not talking here of physical entities. A man can be a father, a lawyer, and a husband. Yet being all the time the same being. So is God.

          • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 7:20 pm #

            fortruth,
            Are the Father and the Son and the Holy spirit three distinct persons?
            Blessings:-}

  16. edwitness November 29, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

    The truth is, a person who believes in their heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead and confesses (says) with their mouth that Jesus is Lord shall be saved. The mouth confessing unto salvation is what the “sinners prayer” is all about. Although it should never be coerced. The prayer is a confession, or profession if you like, that they want forgiveness of their sin and salvation from death to life eternal. Simple enough for a child to understand. If it is sincere the rest will follow. If it is not, it won’t. When it comes to your child, Mom and Dad, the key role of discipler falls to you.
    The prayer is a starting point. Discipleship is the followup. We all have to start somewhere.
    And it is the rare person who learns all about the Bible and then becomes a believer. In fact I have never met anyone like that. Have you?
    Blessings:-}

    • lyn December 1, 2015 at 1:56 pm #

      Many have used the ‘Roman Road’ as some sort of method to be saved, yet, when one studies the whole counsel of God, one sees that the heart must first be changed by God. The mouth confesses only after the Spirit regenerates, as John 3 clearly teaches. Even faith is a gift, given by God to His elect {see Ephesians 2:8-9}. Never, ever teach your children to repeat some silly prayer as though that is the magic formula that saves. The only sinner’s prayer found in all of scripture is that of the tax collector, ‘Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner’.
      Children must hear of their sins, using scripture as the basis for pointing them out. How are sinners saved? ‘ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.’ Romans 1:16. It is the preaching of the word of God, the Gospel of Christ, coupled with the ministerial work of the Holy Spirit, that saves sinners – all by grace. Those who adhere to the accursed gospel of free will vehemently deny these biblical truths and rob God of glory due only to Him.
      As for people learning about the bible then becoming a believer, one has to ask, how many unbelievers even have a desire to learn about the bible? None, nada, zilch.
      It is pointless to even make such a statement, for no one seeks after God, none. All have sinned and fall short of His glory. No one can or will come to Him unless the Father draws them {see John 6:44}. No one can be born again by their own power, that is the work of the Spirit {see John 3, John 1:13}. No one can repent unless God grants it {see 2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18}. The will of man is not free, it is tainted by sin. ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?’ Jeremiah 17:9
      Heart – defined by Brown Driver Briggs as ‘ inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding, inclination, resolution, determination (of will)

      deceitful -crooked, deceitful, polluted

      desperately wicked – to be incurable
      1a2) to be sick
      1a3) desperate, incurable, desperately wicked, woeful, very sick (passive participle) (metaphorically)
      So, all of the ‘inner man’, including his will, is tainted by sin. Man is unable to rationalize and reason when it comes to spiritual matters, for ‘the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ 1 Cor. 2:14
      Who is it that confesses Christ? Is it a random bunch of people who have chosen to believe and repeated sinners prayers? Not at all; it is the elect of God, chosen by Him before the foundation of the world. Sinners like the tax collector cry out only after God has done a work in their heart.

      • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 12:05 am #

        lyn,
        You sound like a calvinist. TULIP anyone?
        Does John3:16 mean what it says? “…that WHOSOEVER believeth on Him…”
        How about vs.17, “…that the WORLD through Him might be saved”.
        Rom.10:9-13 is a good one, “…if you confess with your mouth…thou shalt be saved…For WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”.
        Or 2nd Peter3:9, “…not WILLING that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance”.
        And Acts 10:34,35, “…God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears Him…”
        And last but not least John1:12,13, “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of god, even to them that believe on His name:
        Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”.
        We know from 2nd Peter3:9 that it is God’s will that none perish. This emphasizes that it is God’s will for all mankind to be saved. And that mankind can not save himself. He needs Jesus.
        We must however understand that man’s free will plays as large a role in his own personal salvation as God’s will to save him. God does not force Himself on anyone. If He calls us and we reject His call we are damned. Free will is equal to God’s will only in this case. It happens to be part of the image of God He made man in in the first place. God placed a choice between life and death before Adam. The fact that he chose is proof of free will. Man is not a robot.

        But, maybe I’m wrong and you are not a calvinist. I hope that is the case.
        Blessings:-}

  17. Darrel December 1, 2015 at 10:08 pm #

    Don’t you just love it when the arrogance of wicked men force them to show their true colors? False prophets can do nothing but lie, they lie with flattery to deceive their target, they lie by changing Scripture to fit their fantasy theology, they lie when they claim to have, know and teach “truth” but the reality is the precise opposite: false doctrine. This thread is a classic case. There is one (an angel of light sent from satan to deceive) who would have the unsuspecting babes in Christ believe that they have no sin nature, that their will is strong enough to choose right over sin, and to somehow seek God of their own accord (see Lyn’s post above). They will say that because the term “sin nature” does not occur in Scripture that it is therefore a myth concocted by mislead theologians. All this in a effort to validate the “sinner’s prayer” as repeated by millions of hell-bound people because that ‘prayer’ never saved anyone—only the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit saves. Slipped into the mix is the blatant attack on the Trinity. Again they say the word “Trinity” never appears in Scripture and therefore falls into the same realm of concocted theology just like they concluded the ‘non-existence’ of the sin nature of all mankind. For a babe in Christ the Holy Spirit will almost be screaming that this is ERROR and rank HERESY. You may not know the verses that point out the truth, but you know that this is all a load of nonsense. Never mind that the deceiver is adept at using circle logic, changing and twisting the Scriptures to fit his fantasy “theology” all in an effort to prove himself right and all his detractors wrong (this is really the bottom line for false prophets—their own ego). They refuse to listen to arguments that easily prove them wrong (how could their ego handle it?) so they continue to spout more nonsense to make themselves appear to be the only one with correct view. God’s view is the only correct view and He has spoken plainly for all those who have ears to hear. The false prophet’s problem is that they do not have ears to hear. They could read the Bible through hundreds of times and never understand what they read BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GOD’S ELECT, their eyes are blinded, ears stopped, and understanding void (Isa. 6:9&10; Matt. 13:14; Luke 8:10; John 12:40 and others).

    So what do you do with such a deceiver such as this? Expose them—Eph. 5:11. Rom. 16:17 & 18 teaches us to avoid them. 2Tim. 3:1-7 describes those of Paul’s day and our day who parade about with an air of righteousness but are powerless to bring anyone to the knowledge of the truth, to build up the church, or stop their own deceitful speech. Avoid them, don’t listen to them, don’t believe their lies and don’t fall for their flattery. May the Lord open the hearts and minds of His chosen people to this charlatan in their midst.

  18. edwitness December 2, 2015 at 1:10 am #

    Darrel,

    NOT ONLY JESUS KEPT THE LAW PERFECTLY:
    The scripture says “And they were both RIGHTEOUS before God, walking in ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD
    BLAMELESS”. Luke1:6
    I did not change a word. You do.

    The scripture says “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: circucised the eighth day, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; TOUCHING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS IN THE LAW, BLAMELESS”. Phil.3:6
    I do not change a word. You do.

    CHRISTIANS CAN NOT SIN:
    The scripture says “Whosoever abideth in Him SINNETH NOT: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him; neither known Him”. 1stJohn3:6
    I do not change a word. You do.

    The scripture says “HE THAT COMMITTETH SIN IS OF THE DEVIL; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil”. 1stJohn3:8
    I do not change a word. You do.

    The scripture says “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”. 1stJohn3:9
    I do not change a word. You do.

    SIN NATURE:
    The scripture says “For when the Gentiles which HAVE NOT THE LAW, DO BY NATURE the things contained in the law, these HAVING NOT THE LAW, are a law unto themselves”. Rom.2:14
    I do not change a word. You do.

    TRINITY:
    The scripture says “That they all MAY BE ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also MAY BE ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent Me.
    And the glory which thou gavest Me I have given them; THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE:
    I in them, and thou in Me, that they may be made PERFECT IN ONE; and that the world may know that thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved Me”.
    John17:21-23
    I do not change a word. You do.

    By your own criteria you make yourself a child of the devil. Though I would not make that boast about you.
    You are simply deceived by the “sin nature” doctrine. A legalist who might possibly be saved, but only because God’s grace is so big.

    • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 6:14 am #

      1. Sorry, in another post you implied Christ did not fulfil the law, and in this you state the opposite.
      2. Also if Elizabeth and Zachariah had kept the law as you said to that point, certainly Zachariah missed out when left dumb for his sin of unbelief after the angel announced the birth of John.
      3. Please, notice that the rest of the points you make have been addressed in a post above.

      • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 6:56 pm #

        fortruth,
        Where did you find the angel or anyone else telling Zechariah that he “sinned” because he did not believe the angel?
        There is no scriptural support for that assumption. Unbelief in Jesus as God is sin. But, not just any unbelief.
        Blessings:-}

        • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 7:41 pm #

          1. You stated that “God never gave the law to Gentiles.”
          Sorry it has been already stated that the people born before Abraham, when there was no Jew or Gentile, were judged without the written law, so this will not make a difference.

          2. Any of God’s laws are for the Gentiles the same as for the Jews. God has only one standard and his intend was to reveal himself through a nation (Jews) to the world.
          This is how the law came about to be visibly wirtten, but it was not fabricated there and then, because God’s law relies on his very character and existence.

          3. You never refuted or disproved the arguments of my first post yet, never mind the subsequent.
          You rather choose to ramble on secondary issues instead of facing the real arguments.

          4. The sin-nature of man is foundational to the Redemption plan.
          If man is good, can do good for himself, what is the point of Saviour?????

          5. Preconceived ideas yield to the plain/obvious meaning of Scripture, which you have opted to ignore at face value.

          6. If ‘the sin nature doctrine is a lie’ as you say, what Gospel do you have?
          Any other gospel is to be accursed. This is the danger you are for.

          7. About Zacharias this is the key: All that does not proceed from faith is sin because “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” Rom 14:23
          So, you imagine that one is struck with dumbness for no reason ?!? …
          The Scripture says:
          “thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, … because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.” Luke 1

          8. The perception we have from the Godhead is a divinity that revealed himself in flesh for the redemption of man, aiding his plan with His Spirit.
          If you are trying to add to this by dissecting what it is not revealed, I leave it to yourself. To aid understanding theologians have explained it as ‘three persons’, which does not mean three different personalities. The oneness of the Godhead is not fathomable, but it is believable by what we read in Scripture; if it were fathomable, God would not be God.

          • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 8:50 pm #

            fortruth,
            The #4 question is THE central question to all that I have been trying to say in all of my comments. “If man is basically good then why does he need a savior”?
            This delineates the issue between the sin nature doctrine and the Biblical view of salvation.
            The sin nature doctrine addresses the need for man to be made good.
            But Jesus came so that man could be made alive. Not to make him good.John5:24
            The sin nature doctrine view relates us to the law because in it’s perfect keeping we are made to be acceptable to God. Legalism.
            But in that Jesus entered into death with those who were dead already we relate with Him and the eternal life He gives us because of the resurrection.
            God in the person of His Son entered into our death so that He might deliver us from death by raising Jesus from the dead. How much more personal can it get? His resurrection is our resurrection, and we are made alive with Him and in Him. Thus taking away the cause of our sin, He saves us from sin. Jesus died for our sins – literally – to take them away, not just the guilt of sin but sin itself. For, being made alive to God with Christ, we now in faith trust in the true God.
            This faith in God is the opposite of sin, which is trust in a false god. We have turned from our false gods to serve and trust the true God that we now know. This faith is righteousness (Rom. 4:3, 5), and it comes from knowing personally the true God through His Son, Jesus Christ. To know Him is life (John 17:3). Being good is not life. And to know Him is to trust Him. For He is love and love begets trust. The death of Christ for us not only demonstrates God’s love for us but is also the means by which that love is made known to us.

            By Jesus entering into our death through His death on the cross, God could remove that death in the resurrection of Jesus. Now in the resurrection of Jesus the barrier of death is removed. We see God revealed as never before. We know Him now, having been made alive to God in the resurrection of Jesus.
            To be alive spiritually is to know God (John 17:3). And being made alive to God in Jesus is to know the love of God. Thus the death of Jesus is more than a demonstration of love – it is the means by which that love could remove the barrier of death, and thus make us alive to God Himself, revealing Himself to us. The trust that this love invokes is righteousness; it relates us rightly to God. Thus by taking away death, God takes away sin. Being made alive, we are set right with God through faith. We are justified – set right – through the faith that resulted from the righteousness of God; that is, the act of God by which He sets us right with Himself. God sets us right with Himself by making us alive to Himself. And the faith flowing from that life is that right relationship to Him.
            It is faith in the risen Christ through Whom we are made alive to God that is righteousness (Rom. 10:9-10). Justification is not a legal act but the real act of God whereby He puts us into a right personal relationship – sets us right – with Himself. He did this by making us alive to God in Christ. This is no legal fiction but reality – we are alive to God in Christ. And being made alive, we believe; we trust the God we now know, having been made alive to Him.
            This faith is righteousness; Rom.4:3-5, it relates us rightly to God (it is the opposite of the sin of idolatry – trust in a false god). This righteousness of faith is no legal fiction. To be alive to God is to trust Him. And this is the reality that the salvation of God has produced. God is not concerned about legal formalities and technicalities. He is concerned about the reality of making us alive to Himself, and the faith that trusts Him and His love.
            Jesus said that He came that we might have life and that more abundantly.
            Jesus died. He didn’t just live a good life. He died. If He only meant for man to be made good then why did He have to die? He didn’t.
            He could have just kept the law perfectly and given us the merit necessary for God to accept us. What you define as righteousness.
            He did have to die to bring us life though. His resurrection is our resurrection.
            But, in Gal.3:21 Paul says there was never a law given that could give life. So how does being made good bring life? It can’t.
            In your sin nature doctrine man’s basic problem is he is a bad person (sinner) who needs to be made sinless. This can not make alive because there has never been a law given that could give life.
            The Biblical message of salvation is man is dead and needs to be made alive. And Christ came and died and rose from the dead to give us that life.
            Something sinlessness could never do.
            Blessings:-}

          • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 9:04 pm #

            fortruth,
            That’s my point as well. The sin nature doctrine is not Biblical.
            It is a creation of the synthesizing of Greek philosophy and the Bible through the machinations of Augustine. It is itself “another gospel”. A false one and is therefore accursed.
            The true gospel of Jesus Christ is that He came, He died, He rose , and He lives. As stated by Paul in 1stCor.15:1-4.
            In hashing out the details of these we find that the sin nature doctrine relates you to the law.
            While the true gospel relates you to God through Jesus Himself.
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 8:35 am #

            Commenting on your statement: ‘the sin nature doctrine relates you to the law.”
            The sin nature if basic to the work of redemption

          • edwitness December 3, 2015 at 11:42 am #

            fortruth,
            It is not warped logic. Just look how you answered it. “We are saved by the MERIT of a transaction…” You don’t see the problem with that statement? Merit is a result of works. Rom.4:4,5
            Aside from it’s impersonal nature, when we say we are saved by merit, that is by definition saying we are saved by works. And in this case the works are the works of the law. Do you realize that all of the cults believe that very thing?
            So, I guess what your saying is that you are willing to take a chance on a doctrine that is specifically rejected as a means for salvation in the Bible to be able to rightly relate you to God. Gal.3:21. Really?
            From your perspective then, Mormons and JWs and RCs and the rest of the cults have nothing to worry about. They believe in salvation by works also, except with a few other abominable twists.
            The issue that produced the reformation was salvation by works. And in the final analysis, what the mainline church teaches and what you say you believe is the same thing. They just place the works of the law for salvation on Jesus.
            But, it makes no difference who is doing the works of the law. No flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. Rom.3:20.
            If the works of the law are in any way included as the means for your salvation, you have believed a lie and can not be justified before God. Rom.4:14. Faith is made void.
            The really scary thing is that satan has been able to permeate the church through it’s seminaries with this damnable lie.
            When Paul wrote to say that if “we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”, the “gospel” you have believed is exactly the kind he was referring to. Which is a “gospel” in which the works of the law play an integral part for your salvation.

            My sincere hope is that I have been able to present to you this information clearly enough for you to choose to accept or reject it based on it’s being understood.
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

            The merit comes from the personal offering of himself, not of works he did.
            “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hb 10:10
            “ if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain”. Gal 2:21

            Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Gal 5:4

          • edwitness December 3, 2015 at 1:44 pm #

            h,
            You have already stated that unless Jesus kept the law sinlessly He could not have been the spotless lamb and therefore He could not have died for our sins.
            That makes His works an indispensible means for us to be saved.
            Therefore you believe we are saved because of the works of the law Jesus kept sinlessly.
            Have you changed your mind about that?
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

            His sinless perfection is a clause to the whole issue, not the means. You seem to confuse this.
            We are sanctified by the OFFERING of himself on the cross. This has been previously states.

          • edwitness December 3, 2015 at 2:09 pm #

            fortruth,
            But, according to you His sacrifice on the cross would not be possible had He not kept the law sinlessly, right?
            That has also been previously stated by you.
            The clause, as you call it, is part of the whole that you state is necessary for Jesus to be the spotless lamb that is acceptable to God for salvation. Without the “clause” you say He could not have been our savior.
            Have you changed your mind about that now? Are you seeing the error that makes this view a salvation by the works of the law?
            Either the works of the law are included in your view as a necessary part for salvation or it is not. You can’t have the works of the law included in any way for salvation if you are to believe it is by grace through faith. The law makes faith void. Rom.4:14-16.
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 1:48 pm #

            Previous post should read at the end: ‘This has been previously stated’
            Thanks

          • edwitness December 3, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

            I only got an h in there for my last reply. I meant fortruth.
            Blessings:-}

    • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 6:18 am #

      Please, cease from your own wisdom

      • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 6:58 pm #

        fortruth,
        Since when does quoting the scriptures word for word become man’s wisdom?
        Blessings:-}

        • lyn December 2, 2015 at 7:08 pm #

          Satan quoted scripture too, and like you, he twisted God’s holy word. You are to be ignored from here on out Edwitness, for your teaching is heresy.

        • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 8:22 am #

          No interpretation is private. Scripture interprets Scripture by comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, not rational things with spiritual things.
          “… we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
          God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God.
          … he that is spiritual (meaning the person having the Spirit) judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”
          1 Co 2

          • edwitness December 3, 2015 at 12:11 pm #

            fortruth,
            Agreed! The scripture interprets itself.
            Blessings:-}

  19. Darrel December 2, 2015 at 10:07 am #

    How convenient for you, ed, to leave out Rom. 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in His sight…” Not even you in all your “worldly wisdom” will be able to circumvent this fact when you stand before the Judge just prior to being cast into the Lake of Fire. Rom. 3:21 & 22 tells the world where the only acceptable righteousness (to God) comes from: “through faith in Jesus Christ”. Then you say “Christians can not sin”. So now you would have us all believe that you do not sin when you spout the heresies concerning your own sin nature (it is evident from your speech that your own sin nature is alive and well, and more robust than ever) and now you go further with your lies concerning the Trinity. It is noted that you make no mention of the Holy Spirit anywhere in your “description” (fantasy style) of the Trinity, in fact, you have replaced the Holy Spirit with men. To you the “trinity” is Father, Son, and all mankind. Do you think that the Holy Spirit will just wink, nod, and chuckle at this blasphemy you have directed toward Him? Yeah, well, you keep believing that. You claim to be “Christian” and yet it seems that you have committed the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (since you know the Bible so well, you find the appropriate verses that tell you your own fate).

    Agreeing with fortruth, I wish you would shut up also, but that’s not likely to happen. Option “B” is for you to continue your hourly rants into more heresy, so please do continue to show the world your arrogance, ignorance, and what a real false prophet sounds like—-on that score you’re doing a fine job. When you have nothing better to do read 2 Peter chapter 2. It is a detailed account of the characteristics and fate of you and of all your brother false prophets.

    ” The Lord is known by the judgment He executes; The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands.” Psa. 9:16.

    • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 7:13 pm #

      Darrel,
      I have said prior to this that the Godhead is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe in the triune Godhead. Like the scripture, I said they are not one in essence. Not one ontologically. You assume too much. That is because you have been trained to assume instead of believing what it actually says.
      Your reference to Rom.3:20 helps prove my point that even Jesus was never justified by the works of the law. He took a body of flesh and blood just like ours. Heb.2:14. So He was not justified because He kept the law perfectly. No flesh could be.
      Only the righteousness that is of faith can save us. TRUE!
      Righteousness that comes from keeping the law blamelessly was never meant to give life.
      Gal.3:21

  20. lyn December 2, 2015 at 7:07 pm #

    Edwitness is a minion of Satan used by his father the Devil to bring about dissension and division. His theology is based upon heresy – Pelagianism. He is here strictly to push this heresy off as ‘biblical’ and has no interest in truth. Those who are void of the Spirit and unregenerate do this very thing. May God have mercy on Edwitness, for his erroneous beliefs prove he is under wrath.

    Let us heed the warnings from Scripture concerning heretics like Ed,

    “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Romans 16:17
    “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” 2 Thess. 3:14
    ” A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” Titus 3:10

    • Darrel December 2, 2015 at 9:12 pm #

      Thanks for the reminder, Lyn. edwitness is officially REJECTED.

      • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 9:19 pm #

        Darrel,
        Like I said before. Just like the Pharisees rejected Jesus. I’m in good company. Thanks

    • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 9:16 pm #

      lyn,
      While you should be heeding the warning of Paul when he said “I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any otherr gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him(or her) be accursed”.
      Your false gospel relates you to a Jesus that got salvation for you by the keeping of the law. Personal relationship with the law. You are adulterers. Rom.7:1-7
      But the true Jesus got salvation for us by entering into death with those who were already dead, and by the resurrection, breaking death’s power over mabkind when he places his faith in Him. Personal relationship with Jesus. I have life and that life more abundantly.
      I’ll stick with Bible doctrine.
      You can stick with Augustine’s doctrine.

  21. lyn December 2, 2015 at 9:46 pm #

    “I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any otherr gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him(or her) be accursed”.

    Heed your own warning heretic

    • edwitness December 2, 2015 at 9:55 pm #

      lyn,
      Jesus died for the whole world. Not just for you and Darrel and fortruth.
      For God so loved the world…that WHOSOEVER WOULD BELIEVE ON HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. WHOSOEVER LYN.
      Blessings:-}

  22. edwitness December 2, 2015 at 10:17 pm #

    To sin is to miss the mark. Anyone who says the mark that we miss when we sin is anything other than Jesus, is a legalist at best. And a liar at worst.
    Either way they have much to answer for to God.

    • fortruth December 2, 2015 at 11:02 pm #

      1. Your statement reads:
      ‘Since you believe that would have disqualified Him from being the savior, you are saved because He kept the law sinlessly. You are saved by the works of the law.’

      Such a fallacy. This sound as warped logic to say the least.
      We are saved by the merit of a transaction by which we are imputed the righteousness won by another:

      “the church of God, (Christ) hath purchased with his own blood.” Act 20:28

      “God sent forth his Son .. to redeem them that were under the law, (this means under condemnation)
      that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Gal 4:4-5

      2. Lies do not fit in fair debate

      Jesus did not earn salvation by keeping the law. Keeping the law was only a requisite to qualify his sacrifice as valid.
      Christ earned our pardon by his atonement, say his substitutionary death, not by his ‘works’

      The doctrine of identification with Christ renders his work of atonement, (expiation for our sins) valid.

      This is the figure we see repeatedly all over the book of Leviticus, that Christ fulfilled:
      “he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” Lev 1:4

      This the NT confirms as this:
      “we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Rom 5:11

      ” (God) sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” 1Jo 4:10

      “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
      whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins” Rom 3:25

      All this speaks of becoming propitious, be placated or appeased by means of expiation, which means the suffering of one for the sins of another, or instead of another.

      3. To sin is to break God’s law.

      • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 6:21 am #

        Addendum
        1.Christ did not become righteous by keeping the law. He was able to keep the law because he was righteous.
        2. By not believing the Godhead as equal in essence one puts in jeopardy Christ’s divinity. This is the spirit of antichrist.

        • edwitness December 3, 2015 at 12:28 pm #

          fortruth,
          1.How was Christ righteous? I’m not saying He wasn’t. I just want to know what you think it was that made Him righteous. As you have seen, your definition of righteousness is contrary to mine, and I believe contrary to the scripture as well.

          2.Equal has nothing to do with the issue of essence. At least not in a Biblical sense. The issue of essence does not come from the Bible. It comes from Greek philosophy. The divinity of Jesus is not in question here. At least not for me.
          We have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit because they are coeternal and are the creator of everything that has been made. Not because they are the same essence or the same ontologically. Each has all of the attributes that the other has that makes them God.
          Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 12:30 pm #

            1. Christ was God in flesh
            2. Essence has to do with being

          • edwitness December 3, 2015 at 1:54 pm #

            fortruth,
            For clarification what I’m referring to is the Godhead. Not Jesus’ incarnation.
            When you think of the Godhead what does it mean to you that they are ONE in essence? The reference to the oneness of God in John17 does not have anything to do with Jesus’ incarnation.
            The fact that Jesus desires that we would be one with each other, the exact same way He is one with the Father and Holy Spirit, should tell you something about what the Bible means when it says God is one.
            Blessings:-}

          • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 2:47 pm #

            The essence of the Godhead comes included in 1 Tim 3:16 detailing its visible intervention towards man
            “great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

            It has been explained before that the divinity chosed to become flesh for a redemption purpose with the presence of his Spirit.

            Beyond this, and whatever other deductive information Scripture shares, we speculate.

  23. edwitness December 3, 2015 at 4:45 pm #

    fortruth,
    OK. But I’m confused about where you get the idea of essence in regard to the trinity from in the first place then. The “essence” of God is not a Biblical concept. It stems from a Greek view of perfection. It was introduced into Christian vocabulary by Augustine at the council at Nicea.
    Blessings:-}

    • fortruth December 3, 2015 at 4:53 pm #

      Sorry, it appears the concept bothers you for a particular reason.
      I trust you may be able to find the answers you look for somehow somewhere.
      All Scripture testifies of the character of God, manifesting who he is by what he has done and revealed of himself, and this should suffice to comprehend his intend and design as a whole.
      Take care

  24. zuma December 14, 2016 at 3:22 am #

    Repentance has been interpreted by some people as recognition that Jesus is the Lord instead of praying a prayer that acknowledges our sinfulness and to ask God for forgiveness of their sin. Discuss.

    In order to comprehend the word, repentance, let’s meditate 1 John 2:4, “(that mentions that) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (KJV)” As the phrase, keepeth not his commandments, is mentioned in 1 John 2:3 with the phrase, the truth is not in him, it gives a significant truth that a person, who simply proclaims with his mouth to believe in Jesus and yet does not keep God’s commandment, would not have the truth in him. As the truth is not in him at the absence of God’s commandment in him, do you think he could be saved since 1 John 2:4, “(even calls him to be) …a liar…”?

    The same is mentioned in 1 John 2:3, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” As the phrase, we know him, is mentioned in 1 John 2:3 with the phrase, if we keep his commandments, it implies that we could only be able to proclaim to know God if we keep God’s commandment. Or in other words, we could not mention we could know God if we refuse to keep God’s commandment. Thus, it raises a query whether a person could proclaim to know God if he proclaims to believe in Jesus and yet insists not to keep God’s commandment since 1 John 2:3, “(comments that he could only declare himself to) know him, if (he) keep(s) his commandment.”. As he could not proclaim himself to know God due to he insists not to keep God’s commandment, could he be saved then?

    When Jesus was confronted by a person who requested him Matthew 19:16, “…what…shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (KJV)”, His immediate response towards the way to eternal life was Matthew 19:17, “…if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” The commandments that Matthew 19:18, “Jesus said, (are) Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not hear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” For instance, if the way to eternal life is simply to Matthew 19:21, “…come and follow (Jesus and to believe in Him without the repentance of sin)”, why should Jesus mention in Matthew 19:17, “(that his ambition to) enter into life (could only be met by) keep(ing) the commandments.”? Thus, it raises a query whether a person could be saved if he proclaims to believe in Jesus and yet insists not to keep God’s commandment.

    James 2:10-12 relate keeping God’s commandment to obeying them. James 2:10-12, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

    1 John 1:6, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” As the phrase, walk in darkness, is mentioned in 1 John 1:6 with the phrase, If we say that we have fellowship with him…we lie, it implies that we must not walk in darkness in order that we could comment ourselves to have fellowship with Jesus. As we could not proclaim to have fellowship with Jesus as a result of our insisting in disobeying God’s commandment, could our faith save us? 1 John 1:6, “(even mentions that we) do not the truth” when we insist to walk in darkness.

    The word, Repentance, has been mentioned in Acts 8:22 to interlink with getting away from our wickedness instead of simply our recognition towards Jesus as Lord. The following is the extract: Acts 8:22, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” The same is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:21, “(that) …many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed (KJV).”

    The word, repent, is placed on the first word, in Acts 2:38 prior to phrase, ye shall receive the…Holy Spirit, to stress repentance is needed prior to the receipt of the Holy Spirit. The following are the extracts: Acts 2:38-39, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

    John 12:46, “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” As the phrase, whosoever believeth on me, is mentioned in John 12:46 with the phrase, should not abide in darkness, it implies that a person who proclaims to have a genuine faith in Jesus is the one who does not abide in darkness. Or in other words, a genuine believer is the one who repents from sin and does not walk in darkness. It certainly rejects those people who simply proclaim to believe in Jesus and yet continue in abiding in darkness. Thus, faith and repentance from sin should not be separable. For James 2:17, “(mentions that) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”

    Salvation is meant for those people who obey Jesus instead of those who simply proclaim to believe in Jesus and yet work contrarily against His commandment as mentioned in Hebrews 5:5, “(that)…Christ… (KJV)” Hebrews 5:9, “…being made perfect, he came the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” The same is mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8, “(that) …when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his might angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power:”; 1 John 2:17, “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.”

    The word, love, in the scripture has been used to relate to keeping of God’s commandments. The following are the extracts: John 14:15, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”; 1 John 5:3-4, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”; Romans 13:9, “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

    Our God is not a God that could tolerate sin. The scripture even mentions that His anger is upon people who commit sin and He would hide from them for their sin as mentioned below: Deuteronomy 31:17-18, “Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us? And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.” As God will hide His face from people if they continue in sinning, do you think He would hide His face from them who pray sinner’s prayer and yet continue in sinning without repentant heart? Do you think God would hide from those people who proclaim to believe in Jesus and yet continue in sinning? As God would hide from them, do you think they could be saved?

    From the above verses, it could come to the conclusion that a person who proclaims himself to believe in Jesus must not walk in darkness in order that he could proclaim himself to have fellowship with Him. Thus, it is a must for him to repent from his evil way in order that the truth could be with him (1 John 2:4). That is the reason why repentance of sin has to be proceeded prior to praying sinner’s prayer. As repentance of sin is a must in order to be saved, it has placed a query whether Catholics, who use rosaries to pray to Jesus and to stand around Mary’s statues to pray and to draw invisible crosses from foreheads to chests and from shoulders to shoulders, could be saved. This is by virtue to they have violated Exodus 20:4-5, “(that mention that) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (forming a invisible cross from head to the chest and from shoulder to shoulder) …Thou shalt not serve them” Even if they would have prayed sinner’s prayer and have acknowledged Jesus’ resurrection and have believed salvation is by God’s grace through faith, their salvation is in query since they continue in their daily sin without repentant heart.

    Does it mean that there must be some outward evidence of turning away of sin in order to consider a person to have genuine repentance of sin? No, it is not true since the scripture mentions that God sees the heart. As long as the heart has the desire to repent from sin, it is to be considered as repentance of sin. The following are the extracts: Psalms 7:10, “My defence is of God, which saveth the upright in heart.”; Psalms 44:21, “Shall not God search this out? For he knoweth the secrets of the heart.”; Proverbs 21:2, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.”; Proverbs 11:20, “They that are a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright way are his delight.”; Psalms 66:18, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me: (Do you think God will hear a person’s sinner prayer if he has the mind to continue in sinning? How about he has his mind to be set at repenting from his sin. To him, God will hear his prayer since his heart has been set right before God since he does not regard iniquity in his heart.)”

    Faith is directed from a person’s heart towards God as mentioned in Psalms 62:8, “Trust in him; ye people, pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us. Selah.”; Psalms 95:10, “Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:”; Matthew 13:15, “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are full of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”

    Could a non-Christian be saved if he refuses to confess that he is a sinner? 1 John 1:10, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” As the phrase, If we say that we have not sinned, is mentioned in 1 John 1:10 with the phrase, his word is not in us, it implies that God’s word is not in a person if he refuses to admit that he is a sinner. As God’s word is not in him if he insists not to admit that he does sin before God, how could he be saved then at the absence of God’s word to be in him? Thus, it would place a query whether he could be saved if he proclaims himself to believe in Jesus and yet insists that he is perfect before God without sin since 1 John 1:10 mentions that the word is not in him at the absence of his acknowledgement of his sin. Praying a sinner prayer provides a way out for a non-Christian to confess his sin before God to seek His forgiveness upon him. The reason is simply that he needs God’s cleansing of his past sin in order that he could be perfected. For 1 John 1:9, “(mentions that) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

    A person’s faith in Jesus and repentance of sin and even water baptism could not cause him to be saved since salvation is only activated through the indwelling of Spirit of Christ in him. Or in other words, if he proclaims to believe in Jesus and has obeyed all the commandments of God and even to receive water baptism, he still does not belong to God if he does not have the Spirit of Christ to be with him. For Romans 8:9, “(mentions that) …Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

    Belief in Jesus might not be accompanied with the receipt of the Holy Spirit since Acts 19:2, “(mentions that) …Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard there be any Holy Ghost.” For instance, if belief in Jesus would automatically cause the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it does not matter whether they know the Holy Ghost since it would come to them automatically. However, a query about the uncertainty of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is placed upon believers as mentioned in Acts 19:2 since the phrase, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed, is mentioned. Believers must not presume themselves to have the Holy Spirit. Or else, they might be turned up to be rejected in the last days when they meet Jesus since Matthew 7:22-23, “(mention that) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” These people who call Jesus as Lord should have faith in Jesus and yet they will be rejected in the last day. The only reason that could explain why Jesus would comment to them that He does not know them is they are not God’s people since there is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them. The same is mentioned in Romans 8:9, “(that)…if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Praying sinner’s prayer provides a way out for a non-Christian since it directs him to ask Jesus to receive Him to be his personal saviour so as to secure himself with salvation since a person who proclaims to believe in Jesus might not be accompanied with the receipt of the Holy Ghost as mentioned in Acts 19:2. Nobody in this world could proclaim he has the right for the receipt of the Holy Spirit since he is a sinner. It is by God’s grace that He has given him the Holy Spirit when he prays sinner’s prayer. Salvation is not of the work of faith or repentance of sin or the full obedience of laws that anyone could boast but the result of the free gift of God by the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ to be in him to cause him to be saved. Thus, salvation is purely the work of God’s grace.

    A person who says sinner’s prayer to pray for the receipt of the Holy Spirit must believe he has received it after prayer. Or else, his prayer would be in vain since the Holy Spirit would not come to him as mentioned in James 1:6-8, “(that) …let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”

    Acts 5:32 mentions that the Holy Ghost is granted to a person who obeys God instead of those with rebellious heart to seek to

  25. zuma December 14, 2016 at 3:23 am #

    go against Him. Acts 5:32, “And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” As the phrase, the Holy Ghost, is mentioned in Acts 5:32 with the phrase, God hath given to them that obey him, it implies that the Holy Ghost would only be granted to those who obey God and that is why repentance of sin and turning away from evil deeds are needed prior to the receipt of the Holy Ghost. Thus, it has placed a query whether the Holy Spirit would come upon those people who proclaims to believe in Jesus and yet refuse to turn away from sin, such as, praying to idols & etc., to live in darkness.

    Could a person be saved if he proclaims to believe in Jesus and to repent from sin and even to have prayed to receive Jesus Christ as his personal saviour and yet he does not know Jesus’ resurrection? The phrase, unless ye have believed in vain, is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:2, “(with the phrase,) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you,” Do you think what kind of Gospel that Paul stressed in 1 Corinthians 15:2 that we would turn up to be in vain if we do not uphold it? 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, “(mention that) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” As 1 Corinthians 15:2 relates a person’s faith to be in vain if he does not uphold Jesus’ resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, could his faith save him? Thus, it gives a significant truth that a person’s faith must be strongly grounded with Jesus’ resurrection. Many Charismatic churches have tried to avoid sharing Jesus’ resurrection to their followers and only emphasize only belief in Jesus. According to 1 Corinthians 15:2, their faith would turn up to be in vain if these people who proclaim to be saved do not know whether Jesus had died for their sins and had risen on the third day. As 1 Corinthians 15:2 considers their faith to be in vain, how could they be saved then? Thus, the word, belief, in the scripture has to be accompanied with the acknowledgement of Jesus’ resurrection. Nevertheless, a person must have the knowledge about Jesus’ resurrection before praying sinner’s prayer.

    John 16:7 mentions that the Holy Spirit would come after the departure of Jesus. Or in other words, all the people as mentioned in the four gospels should not have received the Holy Spirit prior to the death of Jesus. The following is the extract: John 16:7, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”

    Should a woman in Matthew 9:22, Mark 5:34 & Luke 8:48 be treated as receiving eternal life prior to Jesus’ death since He called her to be His daughter? It might not be true that this woman had been granted with eternal life prior to the receipt of the Holy Spirit if the reason for Jesus called her to be His daughter was merely He was the creator of her while she was in her mother’s womb.

    The word, save, might be used in the four gospels as merely the forgiveness of past sin that they had committed so that they would not be judged for the past sin that they had committed instead of referring it to they would have a place in heaven eternally. The following are the extracts: Matthew 1:21, “And she shall bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”; Luke 7:48, “And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.”; Luke 7:50, “And he said to this woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” Note: Jesus told that woman in Luke 7:50 that her faith had saved her from punishment of her past sin. How about future sin that she could be judged between the time her sin be forgiven by Jesus and the time of her death. Nothing is mentioned she had obtained eternal life other than she had been saved from the punishment of her past sin, instead of future sin, through Jesus’ forgiveness of sin.

    The word, save, in the four gospels might be used in the four gospels to be interpreted as rescuing a person from his physical illnesses or death while on earth instead of being interpreted as obtaining eternal life. The following are the extracts: Matthew 8:25, “And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save: we perish.”; Matthew 14:30, “But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.”; Mark 3:4, “And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.”

    Besides, Matthew 19:25-26 do not mention that the disciples had received immediate eternal life during their speech with Jesus prior to their receipt of the Holy Spirit. The following are the extracts: Matthew 19:25-26, “When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved. But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” When Peter enquired Jesus Matthew 19:27, “…we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?”, Matthew 19:28-29, “Jesus said unto them, …ye which have followed me…shall sit in the throne of his glory… And every one that hath forsaken houses, …for my name’s sake, …shall inherit everlasting life.” The phrases, shall inherit everlasting life, and, shall sit in the throne of his glory, in Matthew 19:28-29 in future tense imply the disciples did not inherit everlasting life while Jesus was having His speech with them in Matthew 19:28-29. They should have received the everlasting life after the death of Jesus since the Holy Spirit could only come to them after Jesus’ departure as mentioned in John 16:7.

    Should Luke 23:39, “one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him” be treated as a saint of God when Luke 23:43, “Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” As John 16:7, “(mentions that) if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you…”, it implies that the thief as mentioned in Luke 23:43 should not have received the Holy Spirit since Jesus had not died or had not departed from this world. As the thief was not granted with the Holy Spirit, he was none of His (Romans 8:9). Unless Luke 23:43, “(has been changed as) …To day shalt (Jesus be in you or the Holy Spirit be in you)”, it would then be justified that the thief had received the Holy Spirit when Jesus was having His dialogue with him in Luke 23:43. Despite nothing is mentioned that the thief belonged to Christ or he was filled with the Holy Spirit in Luke 23:43 since Jesus had not departed from the world during His dialogue with him (John 16:7), Jesus promised him to go side by side Luke 23:43, “(with) me (to) paradise (KJV).” Does Luke 23:43 imply that he was granted with eternal life since it is mentioned that he could be in paradise with him? It is hard to conclude it since Ecclessiastes 12:7 mentions that every spirit returns to God. The following is the extract: Ecclessiates 12:7, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” If the word, return, in Luke 23:43 implies temporary dwelling at paradise to be waiting for God’s judgment in the last day so as to decide what his final destiny should be, either to eternal condemnation or to everlasting living with God, Luke 23:43 could not be used to support that the thief could be saved with everlasting life since every spirit would return God there (Eccl 12:7).

    Nevertheless, it is irrational to extract any event from the four gospels prior to the death of Jesus to support that people could belong to God at the absence of the receipt of the Holy Spirit prior to the death of Jesus to counteract Romans 8:9, “(that mentions that) …if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

    • Edwitness December 14, 2016 at 10:17 am #

      Zuma,
      If you are pondering whether a person can be born again before Jesus’ death and resurrection, I believe the answer is found in Romans 8:29- “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
      This means Jesus is raised first and afterward the rest of us when we trust in Him.

      And Col.1:18- “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

      Until Jesus died the New Testament had no power. Heb.9:16,17
      “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”

      It is in the New Testament that we find eternal life. The law could never give life.
      Gal.3:21- “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.”

      Blessings:-}

Leave a Reply