“Anyone could interrupt the sermon, grab a microphone, and give a word from the Lord. This became more common, and the pastors loved it! “
Malcolm was born and raised in a church dabbling in mystical SOZO Healing Prayers, Soaking Prayers, Fire Tunnels and more.
He has allowed me to include his story in this series about a movement called the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR for short. It is at its core an anti-biblical counterfeit that sounds almost like biblical Christianity.
In this series, I want to take readers beyond the textbook What is the New Apostolic Reformation Movement explanation, into the personal experiences from those who have been there, and what happened when God opened their eyes to the truth.
This is Malcolm’s story in his own words:
I grew up in a Christian home, with three siblings, and wonderful God-fearing parents. My parents were saved when they were first married, and immediately fell into an NAR church, though it wasn’t called the NAR at the time yet, since this was the 80s.
From the stories that they have told us kids, their experiences were just as bizarre and demonic as the NAR is today. They have said that what they saw 30 years ago is exactly the same evil acts of spiritual manipulation and pastoral abuse that they endured in their early years of enthusiastic faith. They went to this pre-NAR church for around 12 years, before I was born. But my older siblings remember that place well, and the church is still alive and active in our community today, just as crazy as ever.
My parents were actively involved in many ministries within that church, and they were falsely accused of many things as well. They left; essentially they were kicked out. The senior pastor and associate pastors (who were self proclaimed prophets), lied to the congregation about my parent’s intentions.
From there, they found another church that was brand new to our town. It was taken over by a young pastor who had just come back from Charismatic Bible school, and he was also abused in the same church my parents had left. They immediately had a connection, and were able to relate to him right away. Once again, my parents were highly involved in the ministries of this church, having a key to the place, leading worship, Bible studies, and children’s ministry. As my siblings and I grew up, we also became very involved in the church activities as well.
This church wasn’t outwardly NAR like the last place was, but they held no formal doctrine, no statement of faith, no denominational affiliation, and didn’t have any sort of accountability at all. The taught whatever, by whomever, though the crazy aspects and “spiritual awakenings” didn’t take off there very often. It still did though.
Occasionally a very charismatic pastor would be a guest speaker, and have the big classic NAR alter call. This church became very popular, and grew from 100 people to around 400-500 members over a course of 7-10 years or so. The self-appointed pastors (there was no board of elders or deacons, for fear of inviting in a religious spirit), proclaimed that we were going to build a new facility. They called a meeting on a Sunday Night and revealed to us the floor plan of the new church building, which was massive. None of us voted on whether or not the church should do this, it was just told to us that God wanted this to be done. The pastoral office was a classic vision casting model.
The facility was built and everyone volunteered, though the financials were sealed tight. No one was allowed to know how much money was going anywhere. However you were expected to tithe, and it was taught out of context from the Scriptures that we would be cursed if we didn’t. The church grew a little more and it was the “happening place” in town for a few years, mostly because of the shiny new building.
Services continued to operate, and it became more and more relaxed, where anyone could interrupt the sermon, grab a microphone, and give a word from the Lord. This became more common, and the pastors loved it! A few associate pastors came and went, but the associates that I knew, who are still there, were YWAM (Youth With A Mission) missionaries, and heavy NAR teachers and believers. They along with other members began to bring in some in literature from famous NAR churches, Hillsong, and Bethel Church, New Life Church in Colorado Springs, etc. It snuck in by way of music culture and worship time.
We went along with it, sang all the songs, and helped to lead the charismatic worship time where people were getting filled with the fire of the Holy Ghost. But then one day, we were told to look up some specific kind of (false) teaching from Bethel, and told by friends to embrace it. So, at this point I’m 19 years old, having grown up in this place, thinking that this was the closest best thing to the Biblical New Testament church. My parents and I looked up these videos on YouTube that we were told about. My parents instantly had flashbacks of the old church they had left 20 years prior, and realized that this church was heading in that same hyper charismatic direction.
We liked being more moderately charismatic, but as we learned from more research, it’s impossible to be charismatic with it not eventually leading back to the NAR and the charismatic teachings on the gifts that have been extrapolated and twisted out of context from the Scriptures.
In our stumbling on YouTube regarding these false teachings like SOZO prayer, soaking, and the fire tunnel, we came across Chris Rosebrough, who debunked all of it in about 1 hour of his Fighting for the Faith program. We were hooked!
We hung on for another year at this church hoping that we would be able to influence the ministers to repent, to get away from this false doctrine. Since the church never really taught anything anyway, it really wasn’t too late in our eyes. We had been set free, and we tried to share that freedom with others in our church, but it was resisted. And after a year, we completely gave up and left.
I’ve gone to that church since I was born. That was all that I knew. We all began to deprogram and deprogram, especially my parents who were steeped in Charismatic craziness for 30 years. I was so discouraged, but just before I made my exit from that church, I enrolled in Bible school. It’s a legitimate school that is well known to teach with expository methods. I thought that maybe my pastors who knew me since I was born, who baptized me, who watched me grow up in their church, would be somewhat interested in what I was wanting to do, and maybe discuss their experiences with Bible school, as mentors to me.
No. This didn’t happen. I had documentation from my school that needed to be signed by a pastor for my volunteer work, to prove that I was involved in a church. One of my pastors took the document, and as he was signing it, he belittled it all, saying that it looked like it was from a grade school. I felt like a kicked dog. I immediately knew that I wasn’t welcome in that church, after being a life long member who was born into their congregation. I later figured out that it was probably because they had no formal training as pastors, and didn’t think that Bible college was really worth something.
We left, sad and confused. But the longer we’ve been gone, (about 18 months now) the more free we are, and the more cult-like that place seems when we talk with people that still go there. I have since found a church that teaches from a real statement of faith, and doctrinal statement. (Imagine that!) They teach with expository methods, and vet every book that comes through the door before allowing it to be used in any aspect. They truly revere the Word of God, and respect it, by not practicing wild actions of the flesh that are extra-biblical.
I have been set free. And I have been loved by a true church that really does practice and teach the Gospel, rather than bondage to the Law that I was exposed to my whole life at my previous church. I have never felt so free, just by simply studying the Word of God, and seeing the Law and the Gospel work hand in hand, not one without the other.
So, to those of you who are in the process of leaving an NAR or NAR-influenced church, don’t hesitate any longer. I know that it’s hard to leave those friends behind. I feel like I’ve been shunned by members of my old church, but I also have so much freedom in Christ, and my new brothers and sisters in the Lord at my current church know this too and have had similar experiences. There are good churches out there still.
Don’t try to change the one you’re in, only the Lord can. I have found such great comfort in reading Revelation, and the seven letters. Jesus already has addressed the problems that exist in the church, and is calling them to repent. We just need to get out of the way and let Him draw them to the truth.
Author’s Note: You can read the entire series of NAR testimonies here. If you would like to send me your story about your NAR church experience and what happened when your eyes were opened, you can email me here. I will be changing your first name to keep you anonymous.
It’s great that he was delivered from the NAR cult. But, this statement makes it clear he has a long way to go in reprogramming himself.
First he says “I have been set free. And I have been loved by a true church that really does practice and teach the Gospel, rather than bondage to the Law that I was exposed to my whole life at my previous church.”
And then says;
“I have never felt so free, just by simply studying the Word of God, and seeing the Law and the Gospel work hand in hand, not one without the other.”
This tells me that he has gone from a law only church to a law mixed with grace church. Which is sad because both are a perversion of the gospel of the grace of God that Paul taught. Doing so makes one an adulteress as Paul said in Rom.7:1-4.
I will pray that Malcolm is delivered completely from the law so that he can bring forth fruit unto God.
Blessings:-}
Whatever we think or hold to doctrinally as individuals reading this blog, cut Malcolm some slack please EdWitness, He is just 20 or 21 it seems by deduction and is finding his way and I for one was glad to read his testimony and see how far he has come in understanding truth. It just does not seem appropriate to make references to being an ‘adulteress’.
Amen to that Susan.
The adulteress part was really for him to realize he is being sold a wrong view of Christianity when the older believers tell him the law shows us our sin. It does not. The Holy Spirit shows us our sin by making us realize that we do not know Jesus. John16:9. If he can avoid legalist teaching he will have the freedom Christ told us about in John 8.
The problem comes from the leadership and older believers that teach a theology that says the law is a part of the Christian’s life. When it absolutely is not. As Berlorac said in quoting the scripture, “the law is not of faith”. Gal.3:12
Remember also what Paul said about the law’s ability to give the righteousness that is of faith. He said it was “dung” and “loss” when compared to knowing Jesus. Phil.3:8. Because when we are judged it is not based on how well we kept the law. It is based on whether or not we KNOW Jesus. The law has absolutely nothing to do with faith. And it is by faith alone that we are saved and stay saved. Because the just shall live by faith. Rom.1:17
Blessings:-}
Edwitness: I don’t share your theology. I have tried to make sense of it, but I can’t. Contrary to what you preach, I do understand a place for the Law and Gospel in the life of a believer. The Law shows us our sin, we repent, and we receive forgiveness by faith and grace through the blood of Jesus Christ (Gospel). It is the process of sanctification.
Maggie, I don’t mean to step on toes here, but I wanted to address this issue of “Law and Gospel.” Edwitness and I don’t agree on many things, but we do agree on this one issue of “Law and Gospel.”
The Mosaic Law was given to Jews only, not to us Gentiles (Psalm 147:19-20; Romans 2:14, 3:1-2); therefore, let us not now bring it into the salvation equation.
Paul says, “the Law is not of faith” (Galatians 3:10-12). Paul also says that the Law cannot produce righteousness (Galatians 2:21, Galatians 3:21). It is faith that is accounted as righteousness (Romans 4:13, Galatians 5:5), but the Law is not of faith; therefore, the observance of the Law does not do anything to qualify us for justification (I know you already know that). Likewise, the Law does not do anything to help us in sanctification. This is what Paul says to Peter in Galatians 2. If the Law has no power to justify, why would we think it has power to sanctify?
The purpose of the Mosaic Law was to show the Jews their sin. The Law was put in place to make sin exceedingly sinful (Romans 7:13) “until Christ” (Galatians 3:24). But now that the faith has come, the Jews are no longer under such a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:25).
The Gentile was never under the Law; don’t now bring Israel’s Law into Christianity. Law and Grace are mutually exclusive. The only “law” the Christian is under is the “law of love,” or the “law of Christ” (Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 6:2) and this is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-24), not the Law or the law-works principle.
We were justified by faith; we now walk by faith. There is no difference. The same power that saved us is the same power that sanctifies us. We know what sin is by conviction of the Holy Spirit and Paul’s letters to the Body of Christ, not the Law.
Again, sorry for the intrusion…
No intrusion, Berlorac. When I posted my comment, I was primarily concerned that Malcolm and others not be discouraged by Edwitness’s comment (as SusanJ said above). I agree it is the Holy Spirit who does the work of sanctification. My present understanding of doctrine is that it is the Holy Spirit who shows us our sin and convicts us, through the Law–the Law regarding love of God and love of neighbor (Luke 10:27-28). It is such an impossibly high standard that I can never reach it by my own works–hence the need of Jesus as Savior (Grace). I will certainly study further.
Maggie, fair enough. Ten years ago, I was right where you are now, so I get where you’re coming from. But can I ask you to consider how people were justified before the Law was given to Israel? There were 2,500 years of human history prior to the Mosaic Law. How is it that those billions of people could be declared righteous without having the Law to turn to for guidance? And once saved, how would those people be sanctified? For example, how was Abraham saved?
Maggie,
The question that we need to ask first is; Does the law have anything to do with me being a sinner? The answer to that is emphatically no. Because the Gentile is not now, nor ever has been under the law. Rom.2:14; “For when the Gentiles, WHICH HAVE NOT THE LAW…”
If I do not have the law I am not answerable to it. James4:17; “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
If we don’t have it we can not know it. And if we do not have it we can not be made sinners because of it.
Then we must ask; Is the law a part of the New Testament?
If it is then the unbeliever who desires to become a Christian is answerable to it first. ALL of it.
But, if it isn’t then they are not answerable to it.
Paul wrote in Eph.2:15; “Having ABOLISHED IN HIS FLESH THE ENMITY, EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;”
The law was a wall between the Jew who had it and the Gentile who never did. This is why Gentiles were considered “dogs” to Jews. That is why this means that Jesus abolished the law for all mankind, both Jew and Gentile, so he could make them one in Him.
And through His death and resurrection He gave us a New Testament that has as a means of accessing it the gift of faith with which we are able to receive God’s grace. Eph.2:8,9;
“For 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.”
In fact, the law was only given to control behavior. Both now and for Israel. Gal.3:18,19;
“For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
WHEREFORE THEN SERVETH THE LAW? It was added because of transgressions, TILL the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”
“Till” means it is no longer in force after the promise came. Because the promise, Jesus, has come.
What then makes all men concluded under sin as Gal.3:22 says?
“But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
In other words, if the law does not show us our sin anymore because it has been abolished, then what does?
The sin of the world that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to show us is found in
John 16:8,9 “And when he is come, HE WILL REPROVE THE WORLD OF SIN, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
OF SIN, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE NOT ON ME;
Of righteousness BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER and you see me no more….”
By righteousness here being defined as Jesus going to the Father, this says righteousness is a relationship with the father.
Righteousness is the opposite of sin. And sin is not knowing, believing, in Jesus. This means righteousness is to know Him. And John 17:3 says “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
The sin all mankind are judged by since Jesus came is no faith in Him. The law has truly been abolished. That is why when we stand before God our eternal life is determined by whether we know Him or not. Not by how many naughty things we did or did not do.
I hope you can see the Biblical reasons for this being the truth for God’s definition of sin since Jesus came.
Blessings:-}
(John16:is no faith in Jesus. We know this because knowing Him is life eternal John17:3;
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Edwitness,
Thank you for your excellent description of what it means to live in New Covenant grace! I continue to be amazed how it is that “Gentile” believers in Christ believe that they are to live their lives under the Old Covenant laws, and even with a mindset that they can pick and choose the ones they will comply with.
How good do we believe the Good News really is?
Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law and we are to be at rest in the finished work of His Cross! What you write should be proclaimed from the roof tops!
Go for it!
David
Please help me understand the discussion about the law. I do understand that we are not justified by the law. But When you are witnessing to someone how do you answer them when they ask you what sin is? Did not Jesus use the law when speaking to the woman at the well? Did he not mention them in the beatitudes as the foundation on which he raises the standard? Does not Romans 3: 9-20 reflect a summary of the Ten Commandments and end with ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin.’?
Again, in the context of witnessing to someone. Do you think ‘the law’ plays a part in preaching the good news. If they do not know what sin is?
Thank you
Friend,
Much of what Edwitness says is good, yet he has a ‘unique’ view on original sin that I do not agree with nor do most scholars and theologians…
These links may help –
http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs095m.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Theology-Systematic-Understanding-Biblical/dp/0802427340
Friend,
The law does not define sin since Jesus came. Jesus does. That is, a relationship or the lack of one with Jesus does. John16:8,9
“And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;…”
This then is what Jesus said would define sin when He left and sent the Holy Spirit to reprove the world and lead us to Christ. When the Holy Spirit is reproving us of sin He is exposing us to the fact that we do not know Jesus. He is not showing us how naughty we are as some do by telling people they have violated the law. The law is not of faith.
Those in Jesus’ day and before were not filled with the Holy Spirit as Christians in the church age are. And the Holy Spirit had not been sent to reprove the world until after Jesus came, died, rose, and ascended into heaven. Because of this they were led by the law and not the Spirit of God. They trusted God, but were led by His law.
Rom.8:14 applies to us now. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
We are led by the Holy Spirit who shows us our sin by introducing us to Jesus. Our sin is not knowing Him. John16:8,9.
When we come to the realization that we do not know Him we are made aware of that sin. The sin of not believing in Jesus that the Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus to reprove the whole world of. That is what makes the whole world concluded under sin as Gal.3:22 says. “But the scripture has concluded all under sin…”
All that the law was given to Israel for was to keep them from wiping each other out before faith came. Gal.3:23. God preserved a holy (separate) people unto Himself through the law in this way. Once faith came it is no longer needed because the Holy Spirit brings all men to Christ, Jew and Gentile, so we can know and trust in Him. It is not the law that leads them to Christ. That can only be done through the Holy Spirit as Jesus said. So, when we tell people they are lawbreakers and that it is the reason they need Jesus, we are saying the law still does the job that Jesus said only the Holy Spirit can do.
So, telling someone they need Jesus because they have lied, stolen, cheated, etc is not relevant for salvation. Because the law does not lead anyone to Jesus. The Holy Spirit does.
When we are allowed into heaven it will be because we know Jesus.
If we are not allowed into heaven it will be because we do not know Jesus. Any and all naughty behavior will have nothing to do with it one way or the other. Because we are not saved by works. Nor do we stay saved by works. It is by grace through faith in Jesus alone.
So what does the law have to do with salvation in the church age? Absolutely nothing. As an Israelite Jesus was under the law. So He kept it because that was the duty of all Israelites. He did not keep it so He would be the spotless, sinlessly pure lamb of God. He was the spotless lamb of God for the same reason that we are righteous. Because He knew and trusted the Father, just as we know and trust Him.
I hope that helps.
Blessings:-}
Thank you David,
It is amazing how a New Testament believer wants to place themselves under the law. When Paul taught that even the Jews who once had the law were delivered from it.
Rom.7:6. And told them that it was “…..for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
The “first Testament” was not given to the world. It was only given to Israel. That is why in this letter to the Hebrews they are told Jesus redeemed the transgressions they committed, so being set free from the OT they could now have eternal life through faith in Jesus in the NT.
And we know Paul was writing only to Jews in Rom.7 and not Gentiles, because he begins the chapter with “For I speak to them who know the law” in vs.1. And the church today teaches it as if Paul is writing to Gentiles too. They teach that it means all men have a sin nature. But, as Paul made very clear, he was not writing to Gentiles.
Blessings:-} brother and thanks again for the kind words
Have you read the book “Extra Virgin Grace” by Ryan Rufus? You remind me of how I felt after I tried to grasp the wonder of it all … grace being so mysteriously huge!!!
Another great book is
“More than a Saviour, when Jesus calls you Friend” by Robert Crosby.
Would love to talk to you Edwitness but I’m in Sydney. Where are you?
I’ve been invited to go to hear a Rabbi teach on the ‘Torah Study for Christians’. Pray for me as I hope to bring Romans, Galations,Hebrews, Isaiah into the group …Jesus actually!!
Fantastic story Malcolm! Stand firm on God’s inerrant Word!
Can you please link the teaching referenced in this article that debunked many false teachings in an hour?
“In our stumbling on YouTube regarding these false teachings like SOZO prayer, soaking, and the fire tunnel, we came across Chris Rosebrough, who debunked all of it in about 1 hour of his Fighting for the Faith program. We were hooked!”
Well done Malcolm. Continue in the word and let to Holy Spirit bring you into all truth. 1John 2:26 and 2:27 will help you to continue to walk in freedom. Thank you for sharing your story.
Romans 2:14
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
The law was given to Hebrews, gentiles until they become a new creation in Jesus Christ operate as stated above, their conscience approving or disapproving.
Manny,
I love what you said here brother. And this to me begs the question; If the Gentiles operated this way by their nature as this scripture says, how could they have a “sin nature”, as so many teach they do?
To me this is just one more evidence that the sin nature doctrine is false.
Blessings:-}
Hi Ed!
The sin nature was introduced in Genesis, when Adam and Eve disobeyed willingly they were cursed by God, they knowingly did was what not allowed, it was not ambiguous, in turn for their willful disobedience God cursed them, that curse would be passed from generation to generation untill the Messiah would destroy it, in the mean time man would be held hostage by it, that’s why Paul said he was cursed seeing two nature’s in him, The Law and The New Birth in Christ. Yes he was saved, but he still carried (just as we all do) the “old man” nature! Abraham was justified by faith and the work of being obedient to God and offering his son showed he was obedient and proved justified, but it was temporal, he still was a sinner and carried and a times acted like he was not justified! Ed, the curse or “nature” is real and it lives along with our saved souls, that’s why struggling with sin is the lot of every saved Christian, we see it we hate it, Jesus paid for its consequences, but until we have a new body, we struggle with it!
God bless you brother!
I’m going to stick out my neck on this one. This is my understanding of the sin nature in man:
Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, the world is fallen and people are born with a fallen nature–i.e., we are sinners because we sin. This is in contrast to the concept of original sin: We sin because we are sinners. I understand this teaching of original sin was accepted in church history as the church was institutionalized. It was taught that one was born with sin and needed water baptism in infancy so the sin would be washed away. The institutionalized church was the only vehicle by which one could get salvation, by way of the sacraments administered by the church.
Maggie,
Paul wrote that man sins because he is spiritually dead. Rom.5:12. And that this death provides the circumstances in which man chooses to sin.
I found this cartoon depicting the world’s view of the gospel message that they hear from Christians who believe in the sin nature doctrine. That man sins because he is a sinner.
http://theatheistpig.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/image6.jpeg
This message is not what the Bible teaches. But, it is the message that comes through when the gospel according to the sin nature doctrine is shared.
In contrast we are told “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” Rom.2:4 Not the recognition of our disgustingness.
Those who have chosen to believe a sin nature doctrine version of the gospel would do well to rethink their position. I pray daily for that in all my fellow Christians.
Blessings:-}
Hey Manny,
The problem I see with saying that God cursed Adam and Eve is that the scripture never says that. It does say God cursed the ground because of what they did, but it never says God cursed Adam or Eve. It also says God cursed the serpent. But, we do not find that being said of the man and woman even when God does say that about these others.
What it does say is that their eyes were opened and they knew good and evil. It also says that man would reap from the ground by the sweat of his brow. And that Man would now return to the dust he came from(physical death). Then it says they were forced out of the garden so they could not eat from the tree of life and live forever.
But, God does not call any of these curses. That is because they are not. They are the same kind of consequences we get from walking out onto a very busy freeway. We get run over and killed. That is not a curse. It is a consequence.
A person’s struggle with sin is the result of very bad teaching. Rom.7 which you cite does not say the Christian struggles with sin. It does not even say the Gentile struggles with sin. It says the Jew who “knows the law” and tries to continue under the law while trying to serve Christ will struggle, because the law and grace do not mix. You can not be married to the law and to Christ without being in spiritual adultery. Vs1-4
Paul told them they would be a “wretched man” until they allowed Jesus to set them free by delivering them from the law completely.
As a Jew Paul struggled at first with this law keeping in Christ idea. But, he explains in this chapter and in Galatians that he no longer struggled with this by saying in Rom.8:1,2;
“There is therefore NOW no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, (who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.)
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free (delivered) from the law of sin and death.” And when he said “All things are lawful unto me…” twice! 1Cor.6:12 and 10:23, he meant exactly that because the law does not any longer define sin for the Jew.
The last part of Rom.8:1that I placed in parentheses is not in the original. If there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus then why is there a struggle with sin? Because you have accepted wrong theology regarding what Adam passed onto the rest of mankind and your subsequent interpretations based on it. He did not pass on sin to mankind. He passed death to mankind. Rom.5:12
“and so death passed upon all men. For that (or because of this death) all have sinned.”
John also throws a kink in the works for the ‘sin nature’ believing Christians when he writes that those who are born of God “can not sin” and if one sins he is “of the devil”. They must do all sorts of gymnastics in grammar to make it agree with their prior incorrect interpretations.
The correct understanding of these statements in 1John3:6,8,9 can only come from the correct understanding of the events in the garden and what it’s consequences for the rest of mankind were.
Blessings:-} brother
We are not held to the law because we can’t possibly obey it, and if we violate even one of the laws, then we are guilty of violating them all, as Paul teaches us in Galatians…but, if we love Jesus Christ, and understand the price both he and the Father paid atvthe cross , then we want to obey him,with our heart because we love him. Obedience from the heart is different than legalistically obeying the law. Obedience cannot save us, but the free gift of his blood can.
I am fully convinced that everyone that is truly saved, no matter where they are on their journey, wants to honor our great God with their lives. But only the Holy Spirit living in us can grow us in loving obedience, and for me at least, only filling up on the word gives me the strength and courage to stand against this wicked world.
I think Jesus explains the reality of a non-legalistic obedience in John 14:
“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
John 14:21-26 KJV
http://bible.com/1/jhn.14.21-26.kjv
Sola Scriptura,
The righteousness the law gives is a righteousness of works. Something owed. Phil.3:9
The righteousness we have in Jesus is a righteousness of faith. Something given. Rom.1:17 and 3:22
Paul, Zechariah and Elisabeth, and Job are all examples of those who kept the law blamelessly and received righteousness because of their works. Luke1:6, Phil.3:6, Job1.
But, Paul makes it clear that this righteousness was nothing compared to the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus. Phil.3:8
Why did Paul say this? Because the righteousness one receives through the keeping of the law was never able to give life. Gal.3:21. It was not given to Israel for that purpose. It’s purpose was to keep Israel as a holy (separate) people unto God until faith (Jesus) would come. It told Israel when they were missing (sin) what God wanted them to do.
But, the righteousness one receives through faith in Jesus is the relationship. Gal.3:21. And having a relationship with Jesus means we know Him. And knowing Him is eternal life. John17:3 So, the righteousness we receive through faith in Jesus IS life.
Therefore, whether or not man can keep the law is not relevant. Because only the righteousness of faith gives life. Man is born separated from God by death’s power. Jesus’ resurrection conquered that death. That is why only the righteousness that comes as a result of knowing Him can give us the life we need.
Blessings:-}
PS The idea that the law was impossible for any man to keep comes from a legalistic view of the scriptures which is informed by the Augustinian view of the sin nature of man.
The whole premise that man has a sin nature comes from a perversion of the effect that the original sin of Adam had on the rest of mankind that started with Augustine. The Bible never once says man has a sin nature. Augustine did.
Sola Scriptura,
You said “I think Jesus explains the reality of a non-legalistic obedience in John 14:….”
Amen to that brother. Hallelujah!!!
God bless and keep you:-)
Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Yes! The curse is passed along!
Sola Scriptura,
What event is David addressing in Psalm 51? That will help you understand his thinking when he wrote it.
Blessings:-}
Sola Scriptura,
Do you really see sin nature anywhere in there? I sure don’t, because I refuse to base my understanding of the scriptures on what I think it might imply. You should try that. You will be surprised how much wrong understanding will drop off if you do. Starting with the belief in a “sin nature”.
Blessings:-}
Why does anyone continue to argue with Edwitness?
He has repeatedly stated his false doctrines. Not only does Ed not believe that man is a sinner by nature, he does not even believe man has a tendency to sin. The consequence of this false doctrine is that Ed does not believe that Christ died to pay for our sins. Ed has rejected Paul’s Gospel of Grace, which begins, “Christ died for our sins…” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Inasmuch as the main portion of the Christians in Corinth were Gentiles, Ed cannot say that this idea of Christ dying for sins only applied to Jews. Paul talks much about the shed blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins to largely Gentile churches (Romans 3:25, Romans 5:9, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14). Ed can say what he’s going to say, but there’s no sense in arguing with him. He does not believe the Gospel.
BTW B,
I am happy that you spoke up. You asked “Why does anyone continue to argue with Edwitness?” and since I am pretty new here my question was— Why doesn’t anyone here challenge his claims?— I realize there may be a long history of that now.
Hey RS, even I’m late to the party. Before me, there were others. I remember being warned about Edwitness many months ago by those who had provided much Scripture and patience, to no avail.
B, your concern and frustration is being validated hour by hour. All we can do is warn others and show them the hypocrisy and the holes in the arguments being put forth. God bless B.
Manny, you were on the right track when you referenced Romans 7. For the believer, the old man was crucified with Christ. We are to reckon this so (Romans 6:6). Yet, the flesh still remains, alongside the new nature. When the Christian attempts to keep the Law, the struggle ensues. Why? Because the Law only arouses the flesh, making sin exceedingly sinful (Romans 7:13). We all have this flesh. The Jews had this flesh prior to the Law being given to them. God gave them the Law to show them their sin through the flesh. We are not under the Law, yet the flesh remains. This is why we are warned by Paul not to subject the flesh to the law-principle, for in so doing, it only arouses the flesh. Instead, we are to yield to the Spirit. Paul says in Galatians 5 that the Spirit wars against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit. This is referring to believers, proving once again that we still have the flesh. No, the Bible does not call it “sin nature,” but that is, in essence, what it is; Paul refers to it as the flesh.
Rascott247,
You’re a lot closer to the truth now than when I first corresponded with you. The “flesh” is not a problem for the Christian. 1John3:6-9;
“Whosoever abideth in him SINNETH NOT: WHOSOEVER SINNETH HATH NOT SEEN HIM, NEITHER KNOWN HIM.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
HE THAT COMMITS SIN IS OF THE DEVIL; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, THAT HE MIGHT DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL.
WHOSOEVER IS BORN OF GOD DOES NOT COMMIT SIN; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
The feeble attempts of sin nature doctrine believers to explain this passage are easily refuted from the scriptures. It can never be understood from that perspective. This puts the sin nature believer at a disadvantage when satan comes calling. He feels condemned unless he twists some more scriptures to make him feel ok again.
This is why Jesus said “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John8:31,32
There is the greatest freedom in knowing the fullest truth from the scriptures as is made possible through a true humility before God. God resists the proud but gives more grace to the humble.
Blessings:-}
I’m sorry rascott247. That comment about being much closer to the truth….. was meant for berlorac.
Blessings:-}
Every time Edwitness asserts that man has a free will, that man is not a sinner by nature, and that man can choose God, he diminishes the sacrifice of Christ and the grace of God. Christ died for the UNGODLY. When Ed says, in effect, that man isn’t so bad, he diminishes the work of God on the Cross. Romans 5:6-8.
Hello Berlorac and Manny
Ed’s theology is a strange mix of Pelagianism and Hyper-dispensationalism. I never met a OSAS Pelagian before Ed and I’ve never met anyone make the distinctions between Jews and gentiles that he does. I don’t find his conclusions concerning sin, law (not the Law), justice and righteousness to be supported by scripture. It appears that He believes in Christ for life based on Christ’s work on the Cross so I consider him a brother. But even as articulate as his comments are they are unpersuasive when taking in the whole counsel of God.
[When Ed says, in effect, that man isn’t so bad, he diminishes the work of God on the Cross.] I completely agree B.
rascott247, I appreciate your comment. When you say, “It appears that he believes in Christ for life based on Christ’s work on the Cross,” you are perhaps forgetting that Ed only believes that the work of the Cross is to deliver one from Adam (death) to Christ (life). Now, we know this is true, but it is not all that the Scriptures say about the Cross. Again, the Gospel that one must believe to be justified is that “Christ died for our sins…” We must believe that we have committed sins (for which propitiation and expiation must be made), and that the shed blood of Christ on the Cross satisfied God’s justice regarding those sins. Ed does not believe this.
B, thanks for the reply
I agree with your assessment of the gospel I am unsure of you assessment about Ed. I am new to this board so I have heard from him less. If one claims sinlessness I would not count them a brother or sister. Ed seems to define sin as “missing the mark” only and categorizes all gentile sin as idolatry. He is mistaken about his definition but it seems he believes Jesus took away his sin even if he chose to sin and his every sin is idolatry: My assessment maybe wrong.
Hey RS, this is something he has said more than once here:
[Forgiveness is truly free. It is given just because God wants to give it. Because He loves us. No one has to pay a PENALTY for it. That idea comes through the false teaching that says man has a sin nature. We can thank the RCC for that heresy.
That is why appeasement is not part of the atonement. There was no penalty for sin.Think about what you are saying about our God when you say there is. He becomes the kind of God in our minds that Oprah and Joel Osteen say makes them reject Him. A God that required Jesus to “appease His wrath” by beating Him so badly that He was unrecognizable as a man. But, that was not enough to satisfy god’s anger. He then had to humiliate Jesus beyond measure. Still not satisfied, God then hung Him on a cross to suffer for long enough to satisfy God’s wrath. His anger. Still angry though, God had to kill Him. Is this really the God you serve?
This does not describe the God of the Bible. This describes a raving maniac.] (Source: https://bereanresearch.org/lysa-terkeursts-book-unglued-un-biblical/
Edwitness October 11, 2016 at 2:29 pm # )
And again,
[I’m pretty sure those of Oprah’s ilk have heard the message that Christ died for their sins. That is why they are there instead of with the Jesus they were taught about in church when they were kids.
You see, the God that beat Jesus to a bloody pulp and killed Him to satisfy His anger at humanity that is preached in most pulpits and by most Christians did not suit them. It was difficult for them to reconcile this god they were hearing about when they were children, with the God of love the Bible speaks of. So they went to the OTHER extreme and made up a god to fit their new lifestyles.
If you have listened to Osteen, Oprah, and the other new age preachers you would see they just want the really mad god to not exist. What they do not understand is that the “really mad god” only exists in the minds of those who preach him.] (Source: https://bereanresearch.org/did-hillsong-pastor-carl-lentz-share-the-gospel-on-oprahs-show/
Edwitness October 19, 2016 at 1:16 pm # )
You see that Ed makes a sick caricature out of the “Just dying for the unjust,” apparently so he can then attack it. He believes that man sinned in Adam (and we know this is true), but the result of this — according to Ed — is only that man is in the dominion of death and needs deliverance from death. He fails to acknowledge that we also commit sins and those sins needed to be forgiven. He does not believe that the shed blood of Christ was for sins, plural (Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14), but only to remove us from the dominion of death.
Close berlorac,
But, with one exception. The scripture never says all sinned in Adam. If it did I would believe it. It says “in Adam all died”. 1Cor.15:22. This is the result of Adam being prohibited from the tree of life as the scripture also says. Gen.3:22. This is why death, not sin, passed to all men as stated in Rom.5:12-22.
If you would read the scriptures for confirmation of what I have said like a Berean would, instead of applying your sin nature doctrine beliefs to it, you would see the truth in everything I have shared here. But, you are so busy fighting the truth you have allowed Satan’s lies to blind yourself to it. SAD
I’m just a messenger. And now that you have heard it you will be held responsible for rejecting it.
Blessings:-}
PS Show me one verse that says the death that came to Adam was a “penalty”? If you love the truth found in the scriptures the way you say you do you will admit it never says that.
Romans 3:23 in the literal Greek: “For all sinned and are falling short of the glory of God.”
Romans 5:12: “and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned…”
In both verses “sinned” is in the aorist, which means that it is a one-time event. Paul is teaching that, in Adam, all sinned.
Berlorac,
You are believing it is implied because it does not say what you said it does.
Rom.3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Where does it say this sin is IN Adam? I have already shown you that I believe all have sinned. Just not IN Adam.
Rom.5:12 “Wherefore, 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:”
“For that” is efho in Greek, but a better rendering of it would be “of which”. It is masculine. Therefore it must refer to a masculine noun. The word sin (hamartia) is feminine. Therefore sin can not be the noun “for that” is referring to.
Death (thanatos) is masculine. It is the closest masculine noun in the sentence. Therefore “for that” or “of which” must refer to death. Which means it is because of death all sinned and not the other way around. That is why the scripture actually says “In Adam all died.” Death first. Then sin as a result of death. But, this is hard for you because it does not line up with the sin nature doctrine. Never mind that it is what the scripture actually says.
This is why we are told that no person is responsible for the sins of another. Ezekiel18:20 and Duet.24:16.
Adam brought the kingdom of death to the whole of creation outside of heaven. Not just mankind. He was the only man that could ever do this because he was the first man. He represented the whole of creation in his choices concerning life and death. He had dominion over the whole earth. All of creation groans waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. Rom.8:19-23.
So, he didn’t just represent mankind when he sinned. He represented all of creation. That’s why animals die too. Not because they inherited an imaginary sin nature. But, because they have been placed under death’s kingdom just as we have. “Death reigns” as Paul says. Rom.5:14. “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, EVEN OVER THEM THAT HAD NOT SINNED AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM’S TRANSGRESSION, who is the figure of him that was to come.” And Paul also writes that “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” 1Cor.15:26. So death is still reigning over creation.
Rom.5:14 also explains that everyone did not sin in Adam. Because if they did they would all be guilty of the same sin as Adam. But, as you can see in this verse we are not.
I asked you where it says that “in Adam all sinned”? You believing it implies it here does not make it so. Aorist or otherwise. The fact that all have sinned does not mean all sinned IN Adam.
You have yet to come up with a verse that actually says “in Adam all sinned”. And you have already found that it doesn’t ever say that so you can quit now. I will never believe it because of a maybe, possibly, might imply. As no Christian should.
Blessings:-}
Yes, “for” refers to death in Romans 5:12. But you’re reading it wrong. Romans 5:12-19 is all about our position in Adam (until, by faith, we have our position in Christ). “Therefore, as through on man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for all sinned.” “Sinned” is aorist; it doesn’t mean we commit sins many times, or over a period of time. It means there was a one-time event in history in which “all sinned.” It means that we sinned in Adam, which is the subject of the passage, and that is why we die. Likewise, those who are in Christ, through the gift, have life in Him.
“It means that we sinned in Adam, which is the subject of the passage, and that is why we die.”
If that is true berlorac then why does a tree die? Or a dog? Or a fish? Etc….
Did they sin? Or did they just inherit Adam’s sin nature? Your position has so many holes because it is not Biblical.
Animals and fish and trees die because they have been subjected under the death’s power just like we have. “Death passed to all men”. Not sin. And as a result of that all men have sinned.
Aorist does not necessarily mean what you are saying it does. It depends if it is in the first or second aorist among other factors. The verb hamarton (sinned) is a simple aorist. This tense most commonly refers to a single past action. This single past action refers to the first act of sin that each person does at some time in their life. It is referring to each individual when they sinned because the subject of the “sinned” in the last clause of Rom.5:12 is “death” as it relates to “men”, not “Adam”.
The death that passed upon all men caused each one to commit that single act of sin. That sin makes them a sinner. Not their ongoing sin as you referred to. And not Adam’s sin. Otherwise the scripture would be a lie that says no one is responsible for the sins of others. Duet.24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20.
It was death that created the circumstances in which “all men sinned.” And it is death that reigns over creation that causes animals and birds and fish …… to die. Not a sin nature and not an act of sin.
Blessings:-}
Berlorac,
How is the cross diminished when Someone says that we must believe that Jesus died for sins so we could be made alive?
John 5:24 says that very thing.
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
Jesus did not die to make bad people good. That would make them good people who would still be dead and on their way to hell. He died to give dead people who sin life.
Blessings:-}
Edwitness, Did the Lord Yeshua shed His blood to pay the penalty for YOUR sins?
Berlorac,
Show me a scripture that says Jesus died to pay the “penalty” for sins?
Blessings:-}
Ed, Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14, to name a couple. We had to be forgiven because there were offences. If there were no offences, there would be no penalty. Either we have to pay the penalty or we put our faith in the Gospel that the Lord Yeshua paid it for us.
The wrath of God abides on those who do not believe Him. What is this wrath for, Ed? Unbelievers are storing up wrath for the day of wrath. Sounds like a penalty to me. Romans 1:18, Romans 2:5, Colossians 3:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:16; cf. Romans 5:9, 1 Thessalonians 1:10.
Berlorac,
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;” Eph.1:7
Redemption is the purchase of the new body so it can be delivered from death. Rom.8:23
The riches of His grace is that He gives it freely. There was no “penalty” to be paid.
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:” Col.1:14
Redemption is the purchase of the new body by Jesus giving up His. Rom.8:23
and Heb.10:4,5 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” So the purchase, redemption was simply the exchange of His body for the new one.
And with Eph.2:15 now being accomplished in Jesus’ death, now all, both Jew and Gentile, have access to God through faith in Jesus. Eph.2:8,9.
We are told that the only people who thought God was punishing Jesus when He was tortured and killed were the Jews who believed He was a blasphemer. Because that was the punishment for blasphemy under the law. “He is despised and rejected OF MEN; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and WE hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and WE esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: YET WE DID ESTEEM HIM STRICKEN, SMITTEN OF GOD, AND AFFLICTED.”
Isaiah53:3,4
The fact that vs5 says “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”, is because He was beaten by those who hated God and served satan. All the while those who looked on believed it was God doing it. When it was really satan torturing and killing the savior. Not God.
It was allowed because as Paul says in Col.2:15 “And having spoiled principalities and powers, HE MADE A SHEW OF THEM OPENLY, TRIUMPHING OVER THEM IN IT.” “In it” is the suffering and dying at the cross where Jesus exposed satan for who he really is. Satan beat and killed Him. And satan was exposed to all who would come to Jesus through the cross.
If someone had to pay a penalty as you say. Then Jesus would have included that in His parable about the king taking an account of his servants. But He did not. There is no mention of anyone paying what was owed for them. It was a free gift.
And this gift represented the life we receive from Jesus. He is life so His suffering and death was not a penalty that needed to be paid so He could give it to us. It was the exposing of the works of darkness and the it’s defeat as 1John3:8 says that sent Him to the suffering of the cross. “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”
There is a payment for the redemption of sins. But, it is never to be understood as a penalty being paid. It is the purchase of the new body with the one Jesus gave at the cross. An exchange.
The only reason you believe it is a penalty is your adherence to the unBiblical heresy that is the sin nature doctrine.
Blessings:-}
Ed, It was God’s will for Jesus to suffer and die Isaiah 53:10.
God created the smith that blows the coals and he can do as he wishes even with instruments of destruction including Satan.
Amen berlorac! I learned a LONG time ago to ignore and avoid ‘edwitness’. He has twisted theology and, in my opinion, is dangerous in what he says he believes. Romans 16:17 is very fitting for him.
BTW, still banned here :^)
lyn, good to see you. Yes, Edwitness’ theology can be dangerous, particularly to those who are new to the faith and just learning. I shall heed Romans 16:17, but I wanted to be sure that those visiting here know of Ed’s abberant theology.
[BTW, still banned here] lol! The Lord Yeshua bless you, lyn.
Thank you brother, the Lord bless you as well, and ALL of His elect!!
Berlorac,
You have placed yourself in the camp of those jews who believed Jesus was beaten and killed by God. They believed it was because He was a blasphemer. You believe it because you think the only way for God to forgive us is to beat and torture and kill someone to pay the “penalty” for sin to satisfy His justice. And you say that is the definition of love. Not according to the Bible it’s not.
If satan is the one who beat and killed Jesus as the scripture says, you are attributing the work of satan to God.
Blasphemy is the only unforgivable sin. You all are in deep trouble if you keep this up.
Blessings:-}
B
The “unforgiveable sin” was national Israel’s blasphemy of denying that the miracles Jesus did were Messianic signs and attributing them to Satan. Then they asked Him to do more. You cannot become guilty of this.
Romans 8:38-39
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord
lyn, You post comments without the owners saying anything.
What got you banned?
I think Ed is tripping upon semantics, B I agree with you, the curse is implied in Genesis, though not called out specifically, as a curse the consequences have been amplified throughout the ages to everyone. It did not stop with Adam and Eve, essentially the ground is cursed because of man’s disobedience. If the sin nature wasn’t passed along, why did Cain murder his brother? Where did that inkling come from? Doesn’t Paul say that murders and greed come from our hearts?
Manny, I would agree with you regarding semantics if Edwitness were not such a prolific writer here. He has stated many, many times his false doctrines and has never changed his mind. It doesn’t matter how many times or in how many different ways one may describe and show from Scripture that man is a sinner by nature, Ed just won’t believe it. That is not something I (we) can remedy. We’ve given many, many Scriptures over the past year to no effect. Only the Holy Spirit (as always) can do the work that needs to be done.
I am sorry and saddened to hear this B, as I’ve developed an affection for the saints here, you, Rascott and Ed, plus the wonderful ladies Marsha and Amy. I don’t know what to say. I will pray for Ed, as I pray for all of us. God bless you B.
Manny, it’s not up to me to decide anything regarding Ed’s soul. All I can do is question why he gets a free pass here even though he doesn’t believe the Gospel. I’m just concerned about those coming here who will be swayed by his many lengthy posts. This is a discernment site, after all! Let us scrutinize what is said here. All of Ed’s babbling may seem impressive to those who aren’t paying full attention, but it’s nothing but philosophy.
B, I understand.
berlorac & Manny,
I think Edwitness is a Christian (believes the gospel) but he is heterodoxical on the nature of man and constantly makes it an issue. He ostensibly thinks it’s the cause of ‘all’ false teaching. He provided me with a link of someone that held his belief, maybe he will provide again for you.
Anyway, perfect doctrine doesn’t save or Calvinists wouldn’t make it based on their soteriology. 🙂 They do believe the gospel just misunderstand how it plays out and end up attacking the character of God. It really mostly becomes divisive when they have to push that doctrine all the time much like Edwitness and his unique take on the flesh.
Q, Ed doesn’t believe that Christ died for his sins (for he believes he has not committed sins). He believes that the message of Christ dying for someone’s sins is the mark of an “angry god.” He has flat out stated that there is no penalty for sins. I will say it again: The first part of the Gospel is that “Christ died for our sins…” Without believing that, where does one stand?
Berlorac,
“All have sinned”.
Blessings:-}
Hey berlorac, Perhaps he will give a straight forward reply to what you just said.
Ed?
Q,
That straight forward enough for you?
Blessings:-}
No Edwitness, it is not clear.
berlorac is not just saying you don’t believe “all have sinned”, which you have clarified, but is implying you may not be a Christian because you don’t believe Christ died for your sins!
Did Jesus die for your sins?
Manny put me on your prayer list.
Consider it done my friend, it’s a privilege to prayer for fellow saints.
Thank you Manny!
Berlorac and Manny and anyone else who believes they have a sin nature,
You are believing a doctrine that you say defines man’s struggle because of something that is not ever once stated plainly in the scriptures. Everything you believe it teaches about the sin nature does so for you by implication only. For instance, I believe that we are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. Because the scripture plainly says “For 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 See how it works?
But, when we look at the clear teaching of the scriptures it refutes what you believe.
Rom.2:14, 1Cor.15:45-48, etc….
And you would take that kind of evidence and condemn someone with it? Wow! Even if you were right about it that would still not mean someone is lost because they do not agree. You do not have to believe man has a sin nature to be saved. All you have to believe is that Jesus is Lord and that His resurrection makes Him the only way to receive eternal life. Rom.10:9,10
Augustine introduced the sin nature doctrine into Christianity because of his Greek philosophical thinking. And satan has kept this lie going all the way till now so he could bind you to your sin as long as you are in your mortal body. But, Paul says that when you are dead to the law you are free from sin. But, the sin nature doctrine makes that an impossibility.
So you all have to change what Paul said into being free from the ‘consequences’ of sin. But, Paul does not say that. He says you are free from sin itself. Rom.6:1-7;
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. HOW SHALL WE, THAT ARE DEAD TO SIN, live any longer therein? (HOW SHALL WE INDEED? Are you dead to sin or not? If you believe Paul then you can not live in sin any longer.)
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore 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.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, THAT OUR OLD MAN IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, THAT THE BODY OF SIN MIGHT BE DESTROYED, THAT HENCEFORTH WE SHOULD NOT SERVE SIN. (Is the old man crucified with Him or not? Is the old man destroyed or not? Paul says he is if you are buried with Christ in baptism. And he also says that now you will not serve sin)
FOR HE THAT IS DEAD IS FREED FROM SIN.” (Since you are dead with Christ in baptism you are freed from sin itself.)
So instead of condemning me for believing the Bible literally. You should be asking yourselves why it is that you still struggle with sin.
When you believe you have a sin nature you can never be freed from sin until you get the new body. But, this is not what Paul says here. He says you are freed from sin itself if you have been buried with Christ in baptism.
So what is the problem? The problem is that you like having something to blame your naughty behavior on. Which is exactly why Augustine invented the sin nature doctrine to begin with. He struggled with whores and all manner of sin. So he figured out a “christian” way to say it wasn’t his fault when he sinned. “It’s the sin nature that I inherited from Adam that made me sin. I can’t help that so I will just have to struggle with it until Jesus comes.”
You can believe what you want. But, as for me and my house we will believe the word of God.
I love you guys enough to tell you the truth. That maturity is taking responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming something/someone else for your struggles. It’s time to grow up and believe God’s word completely.
I can’t make it any more plain than that.
Blessings:-}
Ed
I’m not sure what you think of when you hear “sin nature” but it seems you are thinking of morality—in terms of naughty and nice. This becomes more evident when you use Rom 2:14 to show that “do by nature the things contained in the law” proves there is no sin nature. By “sin nature” we mean a comprehensive character of depravity not a depth of depravity. The sting of death is sin and every human being is dead (until coming to faith) therefore every human being is still infected with the venom that death carried—sin!
Now Ed I remember seeing you argue the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture and you did so inductively—looking at many clues, piecing it together nicely. And the fellow arguing against you kept ignoring your facts and he was basically saying “I want to see the words ‘pre-trib rapture’ in scripture”; and we can’t produce a verse using those words, yet you and I see a pre-trib rapture being taught in scripture because we add up the evidence. You want me to produce a verse that says “fallen man has a sin nature; he is not like Adam was at creation” I can’t produce that verse, but the doctrine is very much in the pages of scripture.
Blessings to you Ed
Rascott247,
Thank you for your clarification. But, I understand what it means when someone says they believe in the sin nature doctrine. I could not miss it because it is the dominant perception taught in most churches. Whether they be rcc or protestant. It is what I was first taught to believe.
The problem is not that I don’t know that doctrine, I do. The problem is the scriptures do not teach it. A man (Augustine) brought this heresy into the church when the rcc was in control of the message. Then when the reformers left the rcc they brought this heresy with them. And this is why it is taught in Protestant churches today. And not because it is actually taught in the scriptures.
The only way a person can get this understanding from the scriptures is by believing it is IMPLIED in them. Because it is never plainly stated. And as I told Manny, only a fool would base their salvation on something that is only IMPLIED in the scriptures. So why would you believe anything else the Bible teaches by IMPLICATION? Especially when so much concrete evidence is there that contradicts it.
Blessings:-}
Ed
I don’t believe that anybody here sought out this debate. Even I in the short time that I have been coming to this board have noticed that you tend to make this (sin nature/penal substitution) an issue on thread after thread. Have you ever considered that your views and arguments have been thoroughly weighed against scripture and have been found wanting? Or perhaps we are all foolish and immature. I understand berolac’s frustration.
Your argument about believing from implication is hypocritical (you believe in a pre-trib rapture by inference). In Matthew 22 Jesus defended the doctrine of the resurrection against the Sadducees using only the Pentateuch and He argued that by implication the Abrahamic Covenant taught the resurrection. [31] “have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, [32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead but of the living.” What on earth does that have to do with the resurrection? Can you see the inference? Was Jesus foolish for teaching in the manner? Absolutely not!!
Ed you have your own definitions of legalism, law, justice, righteousness, and sin. Rom 4:15 says “where there is no law there is no transgression”. Rom 5:14 says “the transgression of Adam”. And your interpretation is that Adam did not transgress a law he merely went against God’s advice—unpersuasive to me. You require that the gospel be preached void of Jesus’ payment of restitution (penalty) through which propitiation and redemption (legal terms) were made possible and in doing so you impugn the justice of God. If God wanted to forgive sinners and give life to the dead He could just do it without sending His Son to shed His blood but then He would not be a just God. Without shedding of blood there is no remission (another legal term). I am convinced that it is you who turns the good news into bad news by denying that a just God required debt (penalty) be paid.
Ed I am done trying to reason from scripture with you on this issue. That does not mean that I will not oppose your view to others when I see you posting polemic comments against God’s justice i.e. there was no penalty for sin.
Rascott247,
“(you believe in a pre-trib rapture by inference)”
I am not dogmatic on this issue specifically because of what you said.
“Rom 5:14 says “the transgression of Adam”. And your interpretation is that Adam did not transgress a law he merely went against God’s advice—unpersuasive to me.”
(Transgression is not breaking or violating. It is to cross over.
This is why Paul calls them “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses AND sins;”)
“You require that the gospel be preached void of Jesus’ payment of restitution (penalty) through which propitiation and redemption (legal terms) were made possible…”
(Again, show me a verse that says death is a penalty. And propitiation means mercyseat. Redemption is to buy up. What did Jesus purchase with His death? The new body.
“And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY.”Rom.8:23)
“and in doing so you impugn the justice of God.”
(The justice of God is delieverance. “Nevertheless the Lord raised up judges, which DELIVERED THEM out of the hand of those that spoiled them.”Judges2:16. This then is what a judge does when he does justice.)
“(another legal term)”
(Only interpreted as legal terms by a legalist. God does not pour a legal definition into these terms as I have shown from what the scriptures actually say. You stick to your legal interpretation of the relationship God wants to have with us. But, God compares His relationship with us to the relationship a husband is to have with his wife. Do you treat your relationship with your wife as a legal obligation? If so, then I can see why you are having a problem understanding the relationship dynamics we are shown in the scriptures.)
Blessings:-}
Besides rascott247,
We don’t have to disagree disagreeably. We can talk about doctrinal issues in a Christian manner…… I hope. Since we are supposed to be Christians right? But, if you can’t then that’s ok. I love you anyway:-D
Blessings:-}
[Transgression is not breaking or violating. It is to cross over. This is why Paul calls them “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses AND sins;”]
Ed you completely missed the point. The definition of transgression is irrelevant to the logic Paul is using. What did Adam cross over? A border? Good advice? Had to be a law or no “cross over occurred.
Paul’s premise is that without A there can be no B. Paul says Adam committed B; conclusion there had to be an A for Adam to commit B. But since the only A (law) you see in scripture is the Mosaic Covenant you change the B (Adam’s but not the first B) to C or D or E anything to keep Adam’s sin from being imputed. Your theology forces you to because the text and logic argues against doing so.
One more time; “where there is no law there is no transgression.” —“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”
Then Paul says to gentiles (see Eph 2:11) Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,—Now what law did those gentiles cross over? There had to be a law to “cross over” if you are going to equate transgression with trespass. Or else they were dead in imputed sin.
Rascott247,
I really haven’t missed the point. The reason for the subtle difference makes it so that there does not need to be a law to transgress. There only needs to be instruction.
Like someone being told “Do not run across the freeway or you will get killed.” That is not a law. It is instructive. But when the person does it after being warned of what will happen when they do it, they still die.
The scripture tells of only two covenants. 1. Law. And 2. Grace. One is conditional and the other is unconditional. There is still instruction for living in the grace covenant, but the transgression of it does not void the covenant. In other words, if the person who has come to a saving faith in Jesus does something that is not of faith, they are still in relationship with God. Whereas, under the law, for many of the offenses to the law one might commit, the penalty was death. Separation.
The fact that some would try to make it say there are more law type covenants is indicative of the fact that the person is a legalist. And therefore couches all relationships in the construct of law. But, they must ignore Paul’s instruction that there was NO LAW UNTIL MOSES in doing so. NONE.
Paul was very clear about this when he said “(For UNTIL the law sin was in the world: but SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE IS NO LAW.
NEVERTHELESS DEATH REIGNED FROM ADAM TO MOSES, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”
So, what happened to Adam was not the imputation of sin any more than what has happened to us is. Because from Adam to Moses sin was not imputed. This means that the death that reigns is not the imputation of a “penalty” for sin. Because the sin that resulted in a penalty was not imputed until Moses.
And since we are under grace and not under law sin is not imputed to us either. Only under the law is sin imputed and the penalty for that sin which was under the law, death.
In this Paul gives the parameters for the only covenant that put anyone under the obligation of law. It started with Moses. And in Eph.2:15 we find the end point for this covenant. Jesus’ death abolished it. Giving power to the covenant of grace(Heb.9:15.)
Eph.2:15- “HAVING ABOLISHED IN HIS FLESH THE ENMITY, EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;”
The stated purpose here was to make all men one in Jesus through faith, not works.
When Adam transgressed he still had a relationship with God. This is expressed in God taking away the leaves they tried to cover their nakedness with and instead put animal skins on them. A symbol of the sacrifice of Jesus. Adam obviously trusted God in doing this which is his part of the relationship. Just as it is ours.
There has only been one covenant that had law as it’s foundation. Only one. It did not apply to Adam and it does not apply to us.
I can not stress enough the ramifications of what Paul has said here. When Adam transgressed it was not a penalty for it that killed him. It was the fact that he no longer had access to the tree of life. Gen.3:22-24. If he did he would have continued living. And the fact that he no longer has access has extrapolated out to his progeny. Which is why we all die as well.
Where there is no law sin is not imputed. And when sin is not imputed there is no penalty for it.
Blessings:-}
[The reason for the subtle difference makes it so that there does not need to be a law to transgress] No kidding! I think I just said that. The problem is that you have made a subtle change (think Gen 3:1). If the word of God says there can be no transgression without law what give you the right to say that Adam transgressed without law? And you do so why? — So that” There only needs to be instruction.” You are making the text say what you want it to say.
[The scripture tells of only two covenants. 1. Law. And 2. Grace] Wrong! Gen 9:1-17. Ever see a rainbow? That covenant is still in effect. God made a covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:1-21; 17:1-21). That covenant is still in effect. God made a Covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai which is detailed from Exo 20 to Deut 29 and this covenant is called THE Law. That covenant has been done away with. Deuteronomy 29:1 Says that through Moses God made two covenants with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, one was THE Law and the other concerning returning to the land in obedience. The land covenant is still in effect. God made a covenant with Phinehas of everlasting priesthood (Num 25:11-13). God made a covenant with David of a kingdom (Ps 89:3-4). Then of course there is the New Covenant (Lk 22:20, Heb 9:15).
[When Adam transgressed he still had a relationship with God.] Adam had a relationship to God as a creature created in God’s image but Adam was spiritually dead. That’s why he hid and covered himself with leaves. Adam died the day he disobeyed God and ate of the tree. God had to call out to him Adam was not seeking God. If Adam would have stayed in the garden and eaten of the tree of life he would have lived physically forever in a corrupt body never capable of being resurrected to an incorruptible body. Spiritual death brought physical death.
You asked earlier about marriage. Well marriage is a legal contract. This does not cancel out the relationship aspects to marriage.
Ed you need to quit dictating to the Bible and let it dictate to you.
Hey Manny,
At least you admit that the only way you can say what happened to Adam was a curse, can only be seen by IMPLICATION. What true student of the scriptures would base their eternal life on what it MIGHT IMPLY? Only a fool would do that. And Manny, I do not believe you are a fool.
Blessings:-}
Hi Rascott! It’s been a while! I hope you’re doing well.
Doing OK Manny. Pray all is well with you.
Edwitness, I didn’t say you had to believe in a sin nature to be saved. What I said was that you have to believe that “Christ died for our sins…” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Every time I have shown this to you, you have ignored it. I can’t make it any more plain than that.
Berlorac,
Agreed.
I have always said that I believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world. John1:29. Because I believe what the scriptures actually say. Not what I might think they might imply.
I can’t make it any more plain than that.
Blessings:-}
You have always said that Jesus died for sins? Where? If Jesus died for the sins of the world, then why did you say,
[There was no penalty for sin.Think about what you are saying about our God when you say there is. He becomes the kind of God in our minds that Oprah and Joel Osteen say makes them reject Him. A God that required Jesus to “appease His wrath” by beating Him so badly that He was unrecognizable as a man. But, that was not enough to satisfy god’s anger. He then had to humiliate Jesus beyond measure. Still not satisfied, God then hung Him on a cross to suffer for long enough to satisfy God’s wrath. His anger. Still angry though, God had to kill Him. Is this really the God you serve?
This does not describe the God of the Bible. This describes a raving maniac.]
And you say,
[I’m pretty sure those of Oprah’s ilk have heard the message that Christ died for their sins. That is why they are there instead of with the Jesus they were taught about in church when they were kids.
You see, the God that beat Jesus to a bloody pulp and killed Him to satisfy His anger at humanity that is preached in most pulpits and by most Christians did not suit them. It was difficult for them to reconcile this god they were hearing about when they were children, with the God of love the Bible speaks of. So they went to the OTHER extreme and made up a god to fit their new lifestyles.
If you have listened to Osteen, Oprah, and the other new age preachers you would see they just want the really mad god to not exist. What they do not understand is that the “really mad god” only exists in the minds of those who preach him.]
Edwitness, that doesn’t sound like you believe that Christ died for your sins. It sounds like you believe that Christ shedding His blood on the Cross, the Just for the unjust (1 Peter 3:18), is a myth in the minds of false teachers. You first make a twisted caricature of the sacrifice of Christ and then attack it. So, why would I think that you believe that the shed blood of Christ on the Cross secured forgiveness for sins?
Berlorac,
You misunderstand what I say. You need to stop believing what you think is implied by what I say and start letting what I actually say be what I mean.
I did not say Jesus did not die for our sins. I said His death is not the payment of a ‘penalty’. I asked you to show one scripture that says death is a “penalty”. You did not because you can not.
If it was a penalty God would have said so in His word. But, you need it to be a penalty because it fits with your beliefs that stem from the sin nature doctrine.
See how that doctrine interprets for you the foundational beliefs of the Bible. That is why the sin nature doctrine is so destructive to faith. It touches everything that a person believes about why we needed Jesus to bring us salvation.
Jesus died for sins in two ways because there were two different people groups He died for. Jew and Gentile. He made this distinction when He said “…. I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Mt.15:24. This was His earthly ministry. He separated Paul to go to the Gentiles with the message of the gospel of grace after He ascended into heaven.
1. The first sins He died for were for Israel who was under the law; “….that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions THAT WERE UNDER THE FIRST TESTAMENT, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Heb.9:15
The first testament was not for the whole world. It was for Israel alone.
2. The second sins He died for was for the Gentiles who were never under the law; “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
OF SIN, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE NOT ON ME;” John 16:8,9
The sins under the first testament were abolished at the cross. Eph.2:15. The Jews had been delivered from the law. Rom.7:6. That being taken care of, now the whole world was made solely accountable to knowing Him for salvation. John17:3. This is why all, both Jew and Gentile, were concluded under sin. Gal.3:22.
And this is why Jesus told them that eternal life was knowing Him. John17:3. And Paul told them that it is by grace through faith, not of works. Eph.2:8,9
Do you notice that what I believe does not come in any way by implication? And that the things I believe are actually word for word from the scriptures? I offer this as proof that God is on the throne of my heart. And that I am made alive in Him. And truly born again.
The doctrine I profess is emphatically Biblical. But, the doctrine of the sin nature, and the penalty for sin and all of the implications it causes, is not.
You have believed and are trying to defend what you have been told. While I have believed and defend what is actually written in so many words in the scriptures. That is why I am so sure of it’s truthfulness.
We should never allow ourselves to be convinced by what we think might be implied.
Blessings:-}
Ed, Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14, to name a couple. We had to be forgiven because there were offences. If there were no offences, there would be no penalty. Either we have to pay the penalty or we put our faith in the Gospel that the Lord Yeshua paid it for us.
The wrath of God abides on those who do not believe Him. What is this wrath for, Ed? Unbelievers are storing up wrath for the day of wrath. Sounds like a penalty to me. Romans 1:18, Romans 2:5, Colossians 3:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:16; cf. Romans 5:9, 1 Thessalonians 1:10.
Like I said, there’s no reasoning with you because you make up your own definitions, as if you are using a dictionary instead of comparing Scripture with Scripture to see how words are used in the Bible.
Berlorac,
God’s ultimate expression of His wrath is for someone to be separated from Him. This wrath was expressed when Jesus said “Father. Father. Whyhast thou forsaken me?” This is how God expressed His wrath toward the sin that Jesus had taken upon Himself on the cross. Satan beat and tortured and then killed Jesus. Not God.
1Cor.2:8- “Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” This says that the princes of this world killed Jesus.
And
Col.2:14,15- “And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”
Blessings:-}
Concerning the false doctrine of ‘free will’, this is a real eye opener as to its origin. It can be traced back to the RCC and the Jesuits – imagine that! https://elijah1757.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/swarms_of_locusts.pdf
Everyone, I wanted to copy and paste this paragraph that Ed just wrote in response to me buried in this thread. Ed says,
[The fact that vs5 says “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”, is because He was beaten by those who hated God and served satan. All the while those who looked on believed it was God doing it. When it was really satan torturing and killing the savior. Not God.]
This is a horrible attempt at interpreting Isaiah 53. Ed stops at verse 5, but verse 6 says, “the LORD [Yahweh] has laid on Him [Yeshua our Savior] the iniquity of us all.” God laid our sins on His Son. The Lord Yeshua bore our sins willingly. Not only that, but God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).
Do not believe Ed’s lie that it was satan torturing and killing our Savior!
Wow! This is why you confront error, sooner or later light reveals the darkness. Thanks B ! Horrible, horrible theology going on there.
Praise God for what you’ve pointed out here brother B, this is a horrific misinterpretation of the truth.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10
Isaiah 53:4
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isaiah 53:6
All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
Lyn,
Isaiah 53:4
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.
Why do you think it says “yet” in this passage? It is showing that the griefs and sorrows He bore did not mean He was stricken, smitten of God. They that believed Jesus was a blasphemer were the ones who it says believed He was smitten of God. Do you think the followers of Jesus thought it was God that was punishing Him for blasphemy? Of course not. They knew Jesus was no blasphemer. Peter had said Jesus was the Son of the living God.
Keep at it. If you really love Jesus you will come to the knowledge of the truth. God is love.
You guys really have a distorted view of the scriptures. Remember, blasphemy is the only unforgivable sin.
Blessings:-}
‘it pleased’ – Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
to be pleased with, desire
Brown-Driver-Briggs- verb, delight in
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
(10) Yet it pleased the Lord . . .—The sufferings of the Servant are referred not to chance or fate, or even the wickedness of his persecutors, but to the absolute “good-pleasure” of the Father, manifesting itself in its fullest measure in the hour of apparent failure. (Comp. Psalm 22:15.)
Matthew Poole’s Commentary
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; but although he was perfectly innocent, it pleased God for other just and wise reasons to punish him.
To ‘bruise’, from Strong’s concordance – ‘to crush’. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
beat to pieces, break in pieces, bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress,
A primitive root (compare dakah); to crumble; transitively, to bruise (literally or figuratively) — beat to pieces, break (in pieces), bruise, contrite, crush, destroy, humble, oppress, smite.
It’s clear that historical Christianity disagrees with ‘edwitness’.
Amen Lynn
“Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted”— the people confess that at the time of His suffering, they considered it to be the punishment of God for His own sins.
“But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities;”— Now, however, they acknowledge that the Servant’s suffering was vicarious: He suffered for the sins of the people, not for His own sins.
Lyn,
That would be true if you were quoting from historical Christianity. But, you are not. You are quoting from sources that believe the same lie that you do. The lie that began with Augustine and continues to be propogated by his adherents to this day.
The historical Christianity of the New Testament is what I have been telling you.
You stick with Augustinianism. I’ll stick with the prophets, apostles, and Jesus.
The rcc agrees completely with all of you on Augustine’s teachings.
Blessings:-}
Lynn
Am I mistaken or was it Isaiah who wrote “it pleased the Lord to bruise Him”? How could a person think that you were quoting Augustine? Don’t answer, it was a rhetorical question.
Berlorac,
You really need to learn how to understand what you read.
God did put the sin of the world on Jesus as Israel did the scapegoat. Israel did not beat and kill the scapegoat. And neither did God beat and kill Jesus.
Like I showed you in Isaiah53. The only ones who believed that God was the one who was beating and killing Jesus was those who believed He deserved it for blasphemy. Isaiah53:4 says it perfectly. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: YET WE did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”
God laid on Jesus our griefs and sorrows. Our sin. But, it was Satan’s people who beat and killed Him.
Think about that the next time you consider your belief that God had to beat and kill Jesus for the so called “penalty” for sin to be paid and His justice to be satisfied. When you do that you attribute to God the work of satan. Yuk it up fellas. But, doesn’t that sound an awful lot like what Jesus called blasphemy?
Blessings:-}
Amen Rascott- If Christ did not bear God’s wrath for the sins of His people, that means wrath remains to be poured out. This is the reasoning one must come to IF you follow ‘edwitness’ twisted theology.
Christ was the propitiation, or ‘satisfaction’ for sin. God was satisfied in the Lord freely submitting himself to death on a cross. In order for God to be satisfied, that would only mean His wrath was spent on His Son. There remains no more wrath for the elect of God because it was all spent on Christ. That is substitutionary atonement.
Lyn,
Propitiation means mercy seat not satisfaction
When God ultimately executes His wrath He separates the one the wrath is poured out on from Himself. This happens to all who do not come to faith in Jesus. And that is why Jesus said on the cross, “Father. Father. Why hast thou forsaken me.”
At that very moment the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus in separating Him from the Father. This was God’s wrath against the sin of the world that Jesus took on Himself.
Not the beatings and killing. That was satan.
Blessings:-}
Propitiation does refer to the mercy seat. But it was the High Priest who had to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat. In fact, he could not come to the Holy of Holies and the mercy seat without the blood.
Berlorac,
Agreed:-)
Blessings:-}
Isaiah 53:8 “…for the transgression of My people He was stricken.”
Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it pleased the LORD [Yahweh] to bruise Him; He [Yahweh] has put Him [our Savior] to grief…”
Isaiah 53:11 “He shall see the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied…My righteous Servant [shall] justify many; and He shall bear their iniquities.”
Isaiah 53:12 “…because He poured out His soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Titus 2:14 “Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession…”
2 Corinthians 5:19 “…God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself…”
1 Peter 3:18-19 “Knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things…but with the precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot…”
Edwitness,
I gave definitions from the original language, and commentary from men of old. God was pleased to crush His Son, as the text states in Isaiah 53:10. It pleased the Lord to bruise, now let’s use the definitions for those words – It ‘delighted’ the Lord to ‘crush’ – ‘Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him’ is the beginning of the text. God was delighted in crushing who? Him – which references to Christ. You can twist that all day long and blame Augustine, the RCC, and whoever else you care to blame. The scriptures do not lie.
BTW, you might find it interesting to note your ‘free will’ theology was/is a tool used by the Jesuits and the RCC to infiltrate Protestant churches and lead multitudes like yourself astray. If the foundation isn’t right, nothing else will be either. It’s apparent your foundation is way off.
Chapters 2 and 3 outline how the Jesuits used Jacob Arminius to infiltrate Protestantism – https://elijah1757.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/swarms_of_locusts.pdf
Lyn,
The definitions were one thing. The commentary was another. All those you quoted believe the Augustinian view as you do.
Blessings:-}
the definitions prove the context of the text!! As for Augustine, I haven’t a clue who or what he is…..
Lyn,
You may not know Augustine. You may not even know that he is the person credited by all the scholars you quote with presenting the sin nature doctrine to the church. That church was the rcc then because the Protestant church had not come about yet. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists and Lutherans, consider him to be one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation due to his teachings on salvation and divine grace.
He taught long before Calvin that death was the penalty for sin. And that only by Jesus paying the penalty for sin by being beaten and killed by God could you be saved. He also taught irresistible grace. The I in TULIP.
He was also heavily influenced by Neoplatonism and Manichaeism. Both of which lend much to what you have come to believe. You were taught it when you first came to the Lord by people who you thought knew what they were talking about. After all, they had been Christians for a long time. The problem is you all have not searched the scriptures objectively to see whether what you were taught early on is true. You are not being as the Bereans.
Augustine is your guy whether you know him or not. What you believe was from Calvin really started with Augustine. Not with the doctrines of the historical Christianity taught by the apostles.
Augustine was a whoremonger. He invented the sin nature doctrine to take the blame off of himself and put it on the flesh that he had no control over. It’s totally depraved after all, right? That’s what he taught. So he said as you all do that you just apply 1John1:9 every time you sin and you are cleansed again. But, 1John 1:9 means nothing of the sort.
Run from this heresy.
Blessings:-}
As I stated previously, IF God did not pour out His wrath on His own Son, then wrath remains. That is why a right understanding of ‘propitiation’ is essential.
“The exact word “propitiation” appears just a handful of times in the New Testament among the more literal English translations (such as the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV). In Romans 3:24-25, we are told of, “…Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood.” In Hebrews 9:5, the same Greek word that was used in Romans 3:25 (hilastērion) is translated “mercy seat” to refer to the lid of the Ark of the Covenant. In 1 John 2:1-2, we read: “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” Then in 1 John 4:10, the beloved apostle uses the term again: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
The word “propitiation” refers to a sacrifice that appeases God’s wrath by satisfying His justice. “To propitiate”, in Scripture, is to placate and appease the wrath of God on behalf of a guilty sinner who deserves to be punished, and in terms of the Gospel, it is to turn such wrath into divine favor.
Isaiah wrote: “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:4-6). Notice the prophet says Jesus was, “bruised for our iniquities”. The Hebrew word for “bruised” here is “daka”, which should literally be translated in modern language as “crushed” (see ESV). In the same chapter a few verses down, in verse 10, we read: “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.” The same Hebrew word is used here for “bruised” (crushed) as in verse 5. Thus verse 10 reveals to us that it wasn’t the Roman soldiers that crushed the Son of God, it wasn’t merely the scourges or the scoffing or the nails or the crown of thorns. Nor was it Jews who crushed Him. It was actually “the LORD” who crushed His own Son! God’s holy justice was offended by guilty criminals and the Lord demanded that the just nature of His Law be vindicated. Thus wrath had to be poured out on the guilty. But instead of the guilty suffering for their own sin, the Son of God in His love and mercy came down and bore their iniquities and was crushed in their place in order to satisfy justice and secure for them the pardon of God. from http://www.puregospeltruth.com/propitiation—satisfying-gods-righteous-wrath.html
Brethren,
It is apparent ‘edwitness’ has no desire for truth, rather, his desire is to push his own agenda. With that said, it may be time to stop casting pearls before swine. Yes, we pray, but we also must be obedient to God’s truth…
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
Lyn,
To the contrary. It is my great desire for the truth that has led me to this Biblical understanding. You really don’t get the sriousness of the kind of betrayal to the gospel that Augustine spread through the church. Do your own research on him and his influence in what you all believe. You are taking the word of a whoremonger and Neoplatonist/Manechean.
The divisive person that Paul was referring to is one that would lead you AWAY from the word of God. That would be Augustine. The father of YOUR faith.
Blessings:-}
To clarify ‘propitiation’ from my earlier comment – HELPS Word-studies
2434 hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. 2434 (hilasmós) is only used twice (1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) – both times of Christ’s atoning blood that appeases God’s wrath, on all confessed sin. By the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ provided the ultimate 2434 /hilasmós (“propitiation”).
Strong’s Concordance
hilasmos: propitiation
Original Word: ἱλασμός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: hilasmos
Phonetic Spelling: (hil-as-mos’)
Short Definition: a propitiation, atoning sacrifice
Definition: a propitiation (of an angry god), atoning sacrifice.
from http://biblehub.com/greek/2434.htm
Lyn,
So you believe that not only is God a stark raving maniac who must beat someone to a pulp and then kill Him for His justice to be satisfied. But, you also believe He forces His salvation on some. And has predestined others to go to hell and there is not one thing either one can do about it?
Talk about heresy.
Rom.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.”
God foreknew everyone. Which is why He is not willing that ANY should perish.
And 2Peter3:9- “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, BUT THAT ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE.”
And John 3:16- “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.”
And Rom.10:13- “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Add to the scriptures whatever you want to. But, the plain reading of the passage means God predestined no one to go to hell. No wonder you believe Augustine that God must beat Jesus to a pulp and kill Him to be satisfied with pleasure.
Blessings:-}
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
Rm 7.7What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”b 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful natured a slave to the law of sin.
The struggle of a Christian
And to you Edwitness,its sanctimonious,I ‘m right and your wrong people as yourself is why I left the Church,vowing never to ever step inside one again 12 yrs ago and havent except for Weddings and Funeral Services.
But as Paul answers His struggle,I say with Him Thanks be to God Through Our Lord Jesus Christ and why I will Be in Glory with Him Who Saved me and Keeps Me,when My time on Earth ends or He Returns in His Glory
If I understand correctly, Edwitness is teaching Pelagianism, which is a heresy. If so, is there anything more to be said?
He is teaching Pelagianism Maggie. He is twisting the text to fit his concept of God’s justice and man’s depravity. It is great that you recognized it for what it is but many people do not.
God bless you Maggie
Rascott–You recognized and named it in your 2/2/17 comment.
Maggie, I point-blank called Edwitness a Pelagian months ago and he denied it. Then, Manny joined the discussion and asked Ed if he was a Pelagian and Ed said, “no.” See, Pelagians do not believe that Adam’s sin affected the human race in any way, but Ed believes that Adam’s sin brought death to the human race; therefore, Ed says he’s not Pelagian. However, Ed is in agreement with all of the other points of Pelagianism. It was my prayer back then that people would see his teachings for what they are. About a month ago, I called him out on his gnostic beliefs, as well, and his response, as I took it, was a wink and a smile.
This is why I had had enough of all this a couple of days ago and called him out once again. I praise God that He has brought these things to light and exposed them so that we all can be edified by the truth of the Word of God.
[I called him out on his gnostic beliefs, as well] Very interesting B. His doctrine of man is Pelagianistic no doubt but his doctrine of sin, at the very least, has Gnostic over tones as evident by his interpretation of 1 John 3:6-9.
Thanks for shedding light B.
Ed says that man is born with body and soul, but not spirit — in any sense. According to Ed, a man does not receive a spirit until he is born again. I had never heard this teaching before. The typical gnostic teaching is that man is body and soul-spirit, a dual nature, but Ed’s anthropology takes it a step further. I suppose this would make man merely a higher animal until he is made a new creation in Christ.
berlorac, lyn, Maggie, Manny and others,
Edwitness is preaching something other than orthodox Christianity, it doesn’t seem to be classical Pelagianism but something similar with his own twist. It appears he takes an over literal aproach to his interpretation and doesn’t understand Systematic Theology.
It seems because there is little moderation on this blog he has found a forum to constantly push his peculiar interpretation.
I agree with others that this teaching can harm some and should be pointed out to those who are unaware of what he is teaching.
It think it does fall under Romans 16:17 and also 2 Timothy 2:14
Wow. 6 months later, and I never would have guessed that this story would cause such a discussion regarding original sin, law and Gospel…. Interesting comments! Yes, as someone mentioned up there, I am 22 years old, almost 23. Yes, I know that I am not all that wise. I’m young and foolish. I do happen to understand original sin, and I do believe in it. I know that in and of myself, nothing good can come. Apart from Christ, I am grasping at the wind. I must fully yield to Jesus, and allow Him to draw me.
BTW. I wasn’t referencing the Mosaic Law. I was referencing the moral law that God has written upon the hearts of all mankind, Jew or Gentile. I do know the difference. I do understand that the Mosaic Law was to be viewed as the governmental law of the land of Israel, just as we in the US have our constitution, and laws that we abide by as earthly citizens. But… Like another commentator said up there, it’s the law of loving your neighbor, and the Lord God. By doing those things, we fulfill the 10 commandments naturally! And it’s not us who does it, it’s the Holy Spirit at work within us, as we yield to Him.
Edwitness’ doctrinal views are something that I actually am very familiar with. We have 2 large churches in my community that holds to his beliefs. I’ve heard it all before and I reject it. I went to a Bible study twice with people from one of those churches, and they twisted James 2 so bad! I never went back… Have fun trying to be perfect. I know better.
Thank you all for your prayers, and supportive comments! God be with you all.