Calvinism...."he cannot sin, because he is born of God"

[Egghead]

This too, is quite astounding.

The passage says.

Heb 10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses:

Heb 10:29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy,
who hath trodden under foot the Son of God,
and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

And to this passage this is said.....

The sin referred to here is not forsaking God, but not going on with God to growth and maturity. IN turing from their spiritual destiny christian do tread in comtempt on the Son of God. They idenify themselves with the crucifiers in in not going on with God to maturity.
But they do not loss their salvation.

now, call me naive, but ''die without compassion'' and ''of how much SORER punishment'' seem to be quite clear as to punishment.

And as to the crime...

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,

That seems rather clear as well.
Get sanctified by the blood of the covenant.....be a partaker of the Holy Spirit....aka ''saved''....then purposefully reject that to return to a life of willful sin and whatever punishment is recieved, it will be ''sorer'' than "dying without compassion"...just as the passage shows.

 

[frumanchu]

So, can you sin or not?

Can I sin? Of course. MAY I sin? No. MUST I sin? No.

Sin no longer holds dominion over me, and being justified freely by His grace I cannot in any way lose my salvation by virtue of my sin.

I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.


II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength rom the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regerate part doth overcome: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

~Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIII​

​

 

[Egghead]

Can I sin? Of course. MAY I sin? No. MUST I sin? No.

Sin no longer holds dominion over me, and being justified freely by His grace I cannot in any way lose my salvation by virtue of my sin.

So when the occasion occurs that you do sin, hopefully very little ... when your flesh sins, does that impact your spirit?

Is your spirit EVER finally accountable for the sins of your flesh?

 

[Bulldog]

SAME tense?


compared to....



Again....comparing the OLD to the NEW...

You missed my point. You say that in Romans "serve the law of sin" is a reference to his unregenerate state, tey you don't view vs. 15-24 as doing so, even though they are in the same tense.

 

[Godzchild]

No because Christ was made accountable.

 

[frumanchu]

So when the occasion occurs that you do sin, hopefully very little ... when your flesh sins, does that impact your spirit?

Impact how?

Is your spirit EVER finally accountable for the sins of your flesh?

At times when I do fall into sin, I may "incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts...and bring temporal judgments upon [myself]." (WCF, XXIV,iii)

I will also "appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of [my] thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what have done in the body, whether good or evil" and then shall I "go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord." (WCF, XXXIII,i-ii)

 

[Godzchild]

Ministers have told me that to make a sharp distinction between flesh, or body, and spirit, or soul, is to embrace a viewpoint found in Greek philosophy. The Greek view is foreign to the Hebrew view, which does not separate body and soul, but views them as intrinsically connected, in this life and in the life to come. To say that the body, or flesh, sins but the soul remains free of guilt is to reject the Hebrew background of the Christian religion.

I am only interested in God's view - not the Hebrew view

 

[Egghead]

You missed my point. You say that in Romans "serve the law of sin" is a reference to his unregenerate state, tey you don't view vs. 15-24 as doing so, even though they are in the same tense.

The real point is Paul NEVER shows anywhere that his sinful nature EVER goes away.

In fact, he calls himself the chief of sinners later on.

So this struggle is there when he is a pharisee under the law, and it is there when he becomes a christian.
But the law and animal sacrifice was unable to really do anything about sin.
God had to send His Son to deal with it.

There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ who WALK according to the Spirit.
But we STILL have the same nature to disobey....the same one that Adam and Eve had.

 

[Egghead]

I am only interested in God's view - not the Hebrew view

Gods view is that if you let your flesh sin your spirit will end up in hell.

 

[Bulldog]

According to A.T Robertson's reading, "sinful flesh" (or literally "flesh of sin") means "marked by sin." (emph. mine)

Paul does not, like the Gnostics, consider his sarx or his sōma sinful and evil. But “it is like the horses in a chariot race, which must be kept well in hand by whip and rein if the prize is to be secured” (Robertson and Plummer). The boxers often used boxing gloves (cestus, of ox-hide bands) which gave telling blows. Paul was not willing for his body to be his master. He found good as the outcome of this self-discipline (2Co_12:7; Rom_8:13; Col_2:23; Col_3:5).​

 

[Godzchild]

Oh Egghead - you poor unfortunate PERSON - I'll pray for you! Meanwhile I put my faith in Christ's finished work on the cross!

 

[Egghead]

Impact how?

That is what I wanted to know.
Can you do as Luther stated....murder and fornicate 1000 times a day and not have it ever affect anything but the flesh.

Are you now no longer accountable in eternity?

 

[Egghead]

Oh Egghead - you poor unfortunate sod -

So now we've resorted to name calling?
where is officer cygnus when you need him?

I'll pray for you!

please, dont waste your time, effort or breath.

Meanwhile I put my faith in Christ's finished work on the cross!

right where mine is.
Along with responsibility to keep my flesh AND spirit from sin.

 

[Egghead]

According to A.T Robertson's reading, "sinful flesh" (or literally "flesh of sin") means "marked by sin." (emph. mine)

Paul does not, like the Gnostics, consider his sarx or his sōma sinful and evil. But “it is like the horses in a chariot race, which must be kept well in hand by whip and rein if the prize is to be secured” (Robertson and Plummer). The boxers often used boxing gloves (cestus, of ox-hide bands) which gave telling blows. Paul was not willing for his body to be his master. He found good as the outcome of this self-discipline (2Co_12:7; Rom_8:13; Col_2:23; Col_3:5).​

yeah.....the BIBLE says ''sinful flesh'' and someone somewhere, for doctinal reasons, has to make it say something other than what it does.

I really dont know why all those men wasted their lives translating the bible. Surely they didnt know the first thing about it...not nearly as much as AT Robertson.

 

[frumanchu]

That is what I wanted to know.
Can you do as Luther stated....murder and fornicate 1000 times a day and not have it ever affect anything but the flesh.

Yes and no. Since my justification is by faith alone and rests 100% secure in the finished work of Christ, nothing I do could undo what He has done.

However, to believe that one who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and being sanctified by God actually would do such a thing as murder and fornicate 1000 times a day is to believe that He is rather ineffective at sanctifying those whom He has saved.

To be sure though, if one views Luther's comment against the backdrop of the sermon on the mount, I dare say few here would be inclined to argue against the notion of God's grace covering the sinning of His children hundreds of times a day, for the eternal destinies of many would be in grave danger otherwise.

Are you now no longer accountable in eternity?

Did Christ die for all my sins or only some of them?

 

[frumanchu]

MOD HAT ON

Perhaps, folks, we can do without the sarcasm and name calling all around and stay on topic?

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Egghead]

Yes and no. Since my justification is by faith alone and rests 100% secure in the finished work of Christ, nothing I do could undo what He has done.

I agree.
Nothing you can do can undo the work He has done.
Apostating yourself wouldnt be undoing that work, though.
His sacrifice would still be in place for those who followed Him.

However, to believe that one who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and being sanctified by God actually would do such a thing as murder and fornicate 1000 times a day is to believe that He is rather ineffective at sanctifying those whom He has saved.

Obvioulys Luthers comment must have been hypothetical, I figured that.
But seeing that he made it, it adds some interesting discussion to this topic.

I also have to say that, after discussing all this with your peers the last week or so, seeing that the ''flesh'' can sin and the spirit doesnt sin, nor is it accountable for the sins of the flesh, that Id have to wonder if someone wouldnt be so bold as to actaully believe they could indeed slay 1000 women a day after fornicating with them and still have God in a chokehold to get into heaven.
That is the impression I get here, sadly enough.
There is no accountability, from what Ive seen.

To be sure though, if one views Luther's comment against the backdrop of the sermon on the mount, I dare say few here would be inclined to argue against the notion of God's grace covering the sinning of His children hundreds of times a day, for the eternal destinies of many would be in grave danger otherwise.

now you confuse me.
How can one be ''secure'' as you teach and eternal destinies by in ''grave danger'?

Did Christ die for all my sins or only some of them?

all of them, for sure.
There were requirements for you to recieve that free gift tho (repent)
And there are requirements to keep it (dont apostate)

 

[Godzchild]

Was that name calling? I'm sorry, that term is used in Australia all the time - I didn't think it was name calling. My apologies. Can I say "poor unfortunate person" then?

Are we allowed to quote people's posts on other threads?

Egghead - why are you so mean? Why do you feel the need to attack me. I've asked you to read my blog - and you haven't done that. You simply do not understand where I'm comign from and you are basing your opinions on your misinterpretation of my posts. And that saddens me because I was only trying to share what I think. And you go and attack me like you have and have been quite rude about it too.

I'm actually a really nice person, who cares a lot about people...and you've gone and painted me into something I'm not. I wish things were different between us but you seem to work in 'defence' mode when I was only sharing. And this mode causes you to become quite aggresive in your tone. Please don't speak in such a rude manner to me again.

 

[Egghead]

Was that name calling? I'm sorry, that term is used in Australia all the time - I didn't think it was name calling. My apologies. Can I say "poor unfortunate person" then?

I dont feel unfortunate

Are we allowed to quote people's posts on other threads?

no clue.
I needed to show a point, so I did.

Egghead - why are you so mean? Why do you feel the need to attack me.

Im not attacking.
just becuase someone is adamant in disagreeing with you doesnt mean youre being attacked or persecuted

I've asked you to read my blog - and you haven't done that.
You simply do not understand where I'm comign from and you are basing your opinions on your misinterpretation of my posts.
And that saddens me because I was only trying to share what I think. And you go and attack me like you have and have been quite rude about it too.

No I havent read it at this point.
again, Im not attacking
Ive been making points and trying to not get overly serious here with you all.

I'm actually a really nice person, who cares a lot about people...and you've gone and painted me into something I'm not.

Honestly, I see that youre most likely a very nice person.
Its just these boards make it hard to see how the person is really reacting.
As for painting you in any manner, I quoted you to show a point.

I wish things were different between us but you seem to work in 'defence' mode when I was only sharing.

It gets hard to keep things separated at times.
Im trying to keep up in 4 or 5 threads at once, with 6+ posters at times all saying something.
Its confounding enough trying to keep track of each detail, then having those like cygnus come in and pull what he did to disrupt didnt help either.

Im not trying to make an enemy of you, I promise.
but you have to keep in mind that in MY mind OSAS and calvinism are absolutely lethal doctrine...MY opinion there.
As such I have to find the serious twist they put on the gospel and attempt to expose that however I can.
Its just part of debating here, its nothing personal

And this mode causes you to become quite aggresive in your tone. Please don't speak in such a rude manner to me again.

Ill do my best to refrain

but try to make sure Im really attacking you personally and not just the doctrine.
We ARE here discussing doctrine, arent we?

 

[frumanchu]

I agree. Nothing you can do can undo the work He has done. Apostating yourself wouldnt be undoing that work, though.

Quite the contrary. It is not merely His work on the cross that I was referring to, but also His imputation of Christ's righteousness to me, whereby I am declared just before God. God is not an "indian forgiver." Once justified, surely glorified.

Obvioulys Luthers comment must have been hypothetical, I figured that. But seeing that he made it, it adds some interesting discussion to this topic. I also have to say that, after discussing all this with your peers the last week or so, seeing that the ''flesh'' can sin and the spirit doesnt sin, nor is it accountable for the sins of the flesh, that Id have to wonder if someone wouldnt be so bold as to actaully believe they could indeed slay 1000 women a day after fornicating with them and still have God in a chokehold to get into heaven.

One who is born again would never presume upon God's grace to the extent of doing such a thing.

now you confuse me. How can one be ''secure'' as you teach and eternal destinies by in ''grave danger'?

Read more carefully. My point was that in the context of the sermon on the mount (where speaking evil against your brother and looking lustfully are likened to murder and adultery respectively) the notion of God's forgiveness of a multitude of sins per day suddenly becomes much more relevant and important. If such a thing as quantities of sins were sufficient to "unjustify" us, I daresay many if not all here would be in serious trouble.

all of them, for sure. There were requirements for you to recieve that free gift tho (repent)

Repentance is a fruit of faith. I am saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone.

And there are requirements to keep it (dont apostate)

True believers will not lose their salvation. Once justified, surely glorified.