The Church and the Body of Christ

[Arial]

This is in the Arminianism and Calvinism board because there is no board specific to the OP topic, and it does concern those two theologies. But it is not a thread about Arminianism vs Calvinism.

I posted a thread on the same subject that all are welcome to read.

Loading…

christcentered.community.forum

It went so far off track that I am bringing it back into focus here.

In it I addressed a specific time period, and a specific event within that era that opened a gateway into the many, not only factions within the church, but many branches, an ever morphing virus if you will, that adapted itself to whatever the current secular culture is. Something was lost that allowed this to happen.

Space does not permit me to go into the history of all the contributing factors that led to Charles Finney, which is where I focused the rapid descent into a church that has no doctrinal borders. Suffice it to say that the most notable advances in that direction came about in the Scientific age and overlapping with that the Age of Enlightenment. In both of these the central focus to answering all of mankind's problems was knowledge. It came to be seen as supplanting faith. It is important to note here that even though the advances in science and knowledge are in an of themselves, good, as is always the case with humanity, they also brought with them, a corruption of themselves. Mankind has a tendency to view every new discovery and advancement as the ultimate. And they go from one extreme to the other. As we will see also happened when a well meaning faction of the church tried desperately to pull her back to the fundamentals.

It must also be pointed out, that Satan uses these things as weapons against Christ and his church. It is part of a war among spiritual forces. the very one we see depicted in Revelation. During the time period of the Age of Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Knowledge, a group of philosophers and theologians conducted an investigation into all the religions of the world to find the common denominators in them. Their idea was not to do away with religion or faith altogether, but to reduce it to what all held in common. The result was a religion that was exclusively moral. Gone were God as sovereign over creation, Christ as any but a good teacher and moral example, gone was the NT doctrinal foundation. That is one thing that has invaded the church.

Why I see Finney as opening the floodgate to the enemy is that he too adopted a purely, almost Pelagian view of Christianity. God was not really necessary for revival, and revivals were what brought people to Christ. And I do not question the motives or intentions of those circuit preachers the Methodist sent our over the land, or the other revivalists. But coming to faith in Christ was no longer about Christ, who he is, and the work that he did, but pure intentional stirring up of emotions through various methods, to get people to invite Christ into their lives. Biblical doctrines and the teaching of them were jettisoned. They came to be considered an interference to gaining souls.

Within the church community, there arose a group known as fundamentalist who fought against this. But that too became so perverted as to lose sight of the cross as central, and was replaced by strict legalism. And to counter that, many non-denominational churches began to arise who considered the denominational churches to be dead churches. And they were not entirely wrong, but the deadness was not the perceived deadness.

And we know how that went. It was all about the new moves of God. Ecstatic speech and displays of the flesh replaced sound doctrine. Teaching was made up according to whatever the preacher wanted to preach, on isolated texts. There was no systematic teaching or preaching. No solid foundation laid for the people. No line by line, book by book investigation into the word of God. There were no Bereans. Not even in the pulpit. The meaning of a scripture is never sought out, but only the application in relation to the world. The world was brought into the church with every cultural and social change. We now have alphabet preachers, CRT is preached in place of the gospel. Even the worship in many places is replaced with entertainment. All the commandments are broken with no correction or discipline or instruction. The cry now is "If we want to save the lost of the world, we must be like the world so they will come to us."

I wonder how many Christians, reading the OT if they even bother (after all it is dry and long and too many words, give me google bits) recognize the parallels between unfaithful Israel and today's church?

And all of that happened because what the Reformation brought back to Christianity, what had in that era been lost due to the corruption and unbiblical teaching of the RCC----the true doctrinal foundation laid by the apostles----now too has been lost. Few are taught these foundations. And therefore few have the discernment necessary to know good from evil or to recognize a wolf beneath the sheep's clothing.

And even though God's truth is still truth, and nothing can prevent him from gathering his elect, even bringing them to Christ through his own power in spite of the false teaching, that does not mean we who have been blessed with the foundation firmly beneath our feet, should sit on our laurels. What has happened is not good. And though the elect will never be lost, everything built on a different foundation than the one the apostles laid, will be burned up.

In the past few decades there has been a revival of sorts, quiet though it is and does not exhibit itself in fleshly displays, as Calvinism/Reformed theology, is feeding hungry, hungry people. People hungry for the things of God. Seeking God. And though it was once pronounced dead, at just the right time, God brought it to life again.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Thanks Arial, very enlightening post. In my gaining knowledge on Charles Finney and others like him. I have learned that they deny and refuse to believe in Original Sin taught in Scripture; and Historic Orthodox Beliefs; Imputation of Adam's Sin. Which also leads one to also deny Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. By this denial of Biblical truths which have plagued the Church of Christ from the very beginning. Instead of submitting to the Righteousness of God in the Gospel, they attempt to establish their own; through the activity and efforts of sinful hands. To them Christ is not enough, man has to finish what Christ could not. Which is the good deeds and righteousness of man, instead of the perfect righteousness and holiness of Christ; His One Act of Obedience that brings the free gift of Righteousness to those who believe. A legalistic tendency emerges from the depths of hell. A theology of the serpent that targets man's ego and pride; boasting! Like the Pharisee and those who walk away and judging others as filth, and boasting about their godly acts and not needing mercy and grace; because only filthy sinners need mercy, not righteous men. This man centered legalism perverts and distorts the Gospel that bears good news for the filthy ungodly sinner. A free gift is offered in the Gospel Promise that Christ came to save sinners from their filth by becoming a penal-substitute who bore their sins, and covers them in His white robe of righteousness; the wedding garment of salvation.

Many believe that God will not command what people cannot do. So, it's God who needs to obey man decision and choose. Not the other way around. They also think that man is not depraved or evil. Man can do good and merit God's favor through the fallen flesh; though they do not believe that man is fallen; if some do, they believe it's because of their choice, and not through One Man's Act of Disobedience. They refuse and deny bondage of the will to sin. But insist that man has libertarian free-will. Though this is counter-intuitive because if man is not fallen and has total free-will, then why do they need God or Christ to be saved? Saved from what? Some will go far as admitting that man can enter heaven through their good deeds. This heretical beliefs just keep snow-balling because it's man at the center of this theology, not God.​

 

[Mr GLee]

This is in the Arminianism and Calvinism board because there is no board specific to the OP topic, and it does concern those two theologies. But it is not a thread about Arminianism vs Calvinism.

I posted a thread on the same subject that all are welcome to read.

Loading…

christcentered.community.forum

It went so far off track that I am bringing it back into focus here.

In it I addressed a specific time period, and a specific event within that era that opened a gateway into the many, not only factions within the church, but many branches, an ever morphing virus if you will, that adapted itself to whatever the current secular culture is. Something was lost that allowed this to happen.


Within the church community, there arose a group known as fundamentalist who fought against this. But that too became so perverted as to lose sight of the cross as central, and was replaced by strict legalism. And to counter that, many non-denominational churches began to arise who considered the denominational churches to be dead churches. And they were not entirely wrong, but the deadness was not the perceived deadness.

(Sorry for the length)

I would ask. The idea of non - denominational ..Where and how is that doctrine formed?

The first listed denomination in the New Testament is the Nazarene sect.(Acts 24) Others like the Nicolaitans who thought they were non- denominational or the Pharisees with Sadducees. that called sola scriptura a heresy so they could keep thier own oral traditions of dying mankind. The witness of a legion of dead fathers (Acts24)

The Bible says there must be sects (heresies as private interpretations ) among us. (1 Corinthians 11:19) His invisible kingdom that works in us yoked with us does not come by looking at the dying temporal. . he gives a gospel vison or spiritual understanding. . or gives us ears to hearing his understanding and not that of our own understanding .

I beleive the smallest denomination is a family of two or three that gather under the hearing of his faithful labor of his loving words . Like Adam and Eve. "All the families as tribes or nations of the earth shall be blessed" is a phrase from the Bible, (Genesis 12:3)

Two "Elohim" the one witness Christ spoke.

Mathew 18:16-20 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The law of two working as one, it is used throughout the bible . . . a law of faith .The visible witness Jesus demonstrating the invisible witness that empowered him to do the will of the Father .

I would offer.

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Two seems to represent the church, the rebirth born again bride.

Adam and Eve failed to represent the body of Christ. Their hope of the promised the way back to the tree of life so they named the first born Cain (meaning created one) . They then knew after he was born it was by faith. . the unseen eternal things of God And named the second born Abel meaning (vanity) Seeing the vanities of trusting in the dying things seen and not that of faith .

Abel it would seem was used to represent the loving law "a man must be born again" doctrine . He replaced Abel (vanity) with Enos ( mankind. . born again ).

It was then when those who were born again could cry out Abba Father , The second born spiritual one seed, Christ fulfilled his promise the tree of life revealed at the birth of Jesus the Son of man. The first born again Son of many sons of God. . Christians

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

It would seem God created division denominations at the Tower of Babel or kingdom of Woke . Adults teaching children born with a imagination how to use it to thier own advantage. Like they never had a childhood of their own . Gnosticism "lets play pretend" the ressurection has come full blown lying wonders

He caused division between families so that mankind might reach out to Christ the invisible head by his authroity (sola scriptura ) and not those sent with sola scriptura apostles . Putting a stop to men venerating dying mankind rather that Christ the head

.Protecting the integrity of the living word helping us to humble oneself under it as it is written .Also taking away the power of Satan the king of lying signs to wonder after. Woke . Am I a women? or am I man, or can I be a tiger or what ever my imagination comes up with . Just don't imagine you have no need to pay the taxes lol

Hoping the gospel will wake up the Woke lol. . .. Awake Woke

.1 Corinthian 4:6-7 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure(parable) transferred to myself and to Apollos (the witness of two) for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

 

[Arial]

I would ask. The idea of non - denominational ..Where and how is that doctrine formed?

By whatever and however are the private musings of the one who sets up his church. Key word "his" or "her" as the case may be.Not Christ's church. Case in point would be Kenneth Hagin. But there are thousands of them, not all teaching the same things. What they have in common is no knowledge or concern for doctrinal teaching as given in the NT church by the apostles. It is never about what does this scripture mean, and then a search through the Bible itself to discover what that meaning is, it is, to be blunt, how can I apply this scripture in a way that benefits me in the flesh.

As an example Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen., faith ceases to be a trust in the person and work of Christ unto eternal life. Instead it becomes a force we exert that requires God to give us what we asked for. And what is asked for are things of the world to spend it on your pleasures, (James 4:3). When what we should be asking for are the things of God. Grace, understanding, wisdom, sanctification etc. And everything that follows Heb 11:1 on the heroes of faith, and which studied carefully, explain what that faith really is.

This example refers to the particular sect of Hagin and his successor Kenneth Copeland. But there are thousands upon thousands of non-denominational churches that follow in those same footsteps.

 

[Arial]

By this denial of Biblical truths have plagued the Church of Christ from the very beginning. Instead of submitting to the Righteousness of God in the Gospel, they attempt to establish their own; through the activity and efforts of sinful hands. To them Christ is not enough, man has to finish what Christ could not. Which is the good deeds and righteousness of man, instead of the perfect righteousness and holiness of Christ; His One Act of Obedience that brings the free gift of Righteousness to those who believe.

It also leads to a legalism and self righteousness and of walking about in the world with such a judgemental attitude and speech, that it has comes to be seen by non-Christians as the very reason to stay away from Christianity. They think that is what Christianity is. ( I speak from experience on that one.) Quick anecdote.

I had already been brought to Christ when this happened but I could easily imagine how it would turn away a non-believer, rather than turn them to. My then husband and I were returning from an early morning deer hunt (it was deer season) and took a jog into town to the mini-mart to get gas before returning to the farm. The .06 was in the gun rack in the pickup.

A couple of very young and zealous, and I suspect new to Christianity themselves, came up to my husband and said, "If you let Christ into your life, you wouldn't need that gun."

Saved from what?

That is the question my dad used to ask when we passed those old burma shave signs that used to pepper the country road sides. The really sad thing about that---and this was in the 1950's and my dad was born in 1906, is that he grew up in Presbyterian and Baptist churches. I think he fell into that era of fundamentalism that had degraded into legalism replacing the gospel and the cross entirely, as the teaching that was given. The "our own righteousness" you mentioned.

This heretical beliefs just keep snow-balling because it's man at the center of this theology, not God.

Yes. Exactly what replaced God when salvation was no longer considered monergistic, and theology (who God is) was no longer the bases for all else that followed.

 

[JIM]

Many believe that God will not command what people cannot do.​

So obviously, you do believe that God would issue a command that man could not obey and then condemn him to hell for not obeying. Is that correct?

 

[Arial]

So obviously, you do believe that God would issue a command that man could not obey and then condemn him to hell for not obeying. Is that correct?

I will take a crack at that while we wait for @Ladodgers6 input.

If you consider who God is in both his character and in His eternal, self existence, as creator of all that is (Gen 1 and 2); and you see that mankind is one of the things he created; and that he created man exclusively in his image and likeness; we then can ponder what it means to be made in his image and likeness.

It could be a long and detailed explanation. But to put it both briefly and succinctly, it means we are meant to reflect his very character in all our doings, and that, though it is not spoken as a command, is implicit. So the implicit command is to obey him in all he gives us to do and be. And as long as Adam and Eve stayed in that garden with access to the tree of life, with him providing all that we need to survive and thrive and do as he commands, and him dwelling right there with them, face to face, they could be faithful image bearers.

They also were given a command to not do something specific. A test you might say, as all through the scriptures we see God testing people as to their faithfulness. He did not tempt them to disobey. He tested them. They failed the test.

But all those implicit commands did not go away, have not gone away, will not go away. He is God. We are his creatures. And here is where a denial of original sin gets in your way. And it really is in your way. It is why you have to do a work around many questions and other things you deny. Obeying perfectly not only became an impossibility for Adam, since he had already disobeyed, he took all of mankind with him in that same condition. None were in the garden anymore. None had access to the tree of life. None lived face to face with God. They were now in a world full of both evil and good and they had desires for evil. The fact that none obeyed perfectly, ever, since that tragedy, supports this even if you won't allow scripture to support it.

But God's dwelling place still exists, the tree of life still exists, all the implicit commands of God that are commanded of us as his creation, his creatures, who are made in his image and likeness, still exist and are still commands, even though it has become impossible for us to obey perfectly. So yes, he commands what we cannot do. And the penalty for disobedience is the same as it was in the Garden. Death and hell. And it is not as though we are doing what we don't want to do when we disobey. We disobey because we want to.

 

[JIM]

I will take a crack at that while we wait for @Ladodgers6 input.

If you consider who God is in both his character and in His eternal, self existence, as creator of all that is (Gen 1 and 2); and you see that mankind is one of the things he created; and that he created man exclusively in his image and likeness; we then can ponder what it means to be made in his image and likeness.

It could be a long and detailed explanation. But to put it both briefly and succinctly, it means we are meant to reflect his very character in all our doings, and that, though it is not spoken as a command, is implicit. So the implicit command is to obey him in all he gives us to do and be. And as long as Adam and Eve stayed in that garden with access to the tree of life, with him providing all that we need to survive and thrive and do as he commands, and him dwelling right there with them, face to face, they could be faithful image bearers.

They also were given a command to not do something specific. A test you might say, as all through the scriptures we see God testing people as to their faithfulness. He did not tempt them to disobey. He tested them. They failed the test.

But all those implicit commands did not go away, have not gone away, will not go away. He is God. We are his creatures. And here is where a denial of original sin gets in your way. And it really is in your way. It is why you have to do a work around many questions and other things you deny. Obeying perfectly not only became an impossibility for Adam, since he had already disobeyed, he took all of mankind with him in that same condition. None were in the garden anymore. None had access to the tree of life. None lived face to face with God. They were now in a world full of both evil and good and they had desires for evil. The fact that none obeyed perfectly, ever, since that tragedy, supports this even if you won't allow scripture to support it.

But God's dwelling place still exists, the tree of life still exists, all the implicit commands of God that are commanded of us as his creation, his creatures, who are made in his image and likeness, still exist and are still commands, even though it has become impossible for us to obey perfectly. So yes, he commands what we cannot do. And the penalty for disobedience is the same as it was in the Garden. Death and hell. And it is not as though we are doing what we don't want to do when we disobey. We disobey because we want to.

Sorry, I don't buy that. Too much of that is not true. Your last sentence is true. We disobey because we want to. As did Adam. Yes, he failed the test. That didn't change anything but Adam. Adam was created in God's image as you say. Adam was given a body. God also gave him a spirit. It was in that spirit, not in his body, that Adam was made in God's image. We are given a body, perhaps not in the way of Adam. We are given a body through the procreation process. We are still given a spirit by God Himself. It is in that spirit that we like Adam are made in God's image. Nothing that Adam did changed that.

You said, "Obeying perfectly not only became an impossibility for Adam, since he had already disobeyed, he took all of mankind with him in that same condition", You are almost correct. Being perfectly obedient was no longer possible. However, he could have perfectly obeyed everything after that. disobeying that first time did not preclude him from perfect obedience after that. And neither did/does it preclude you from obeying perfectly. But you, like Adam, have failed that first time. And that had nothing to do with Adam. That is completely on you. Adam did not take you down with him. You did that all on your own. But you can't handle that. That is the reason you need Adam as a scape goat. You need the work around of Original Sin as the excuse for why you failed. You disobeyed because you wanted to, not because of anything Adam did or didn't do.

You said, "....even though it has become impossible for us to obey perfectly". That is simply not true. You (and I) haven't obeyed perfectly, and you (and I) won't obey perfectly, but not because it was impossible. Again, as you admitted, we disobeyed because we wanted to. And that not because of Adam. He is not to blame. We are. God knows that. You should admit it. Original Sin is one sorry doctrine. It is the non-comedic "Da Debo made me Doit".

 

[Arial]

Sorry, I don't buy that. Too much of that is not true. Your last sentence is true. We disobey because we want to. As did Adam. Yes, he failed the test. That didn't change anything but Adam. Adam was created in God's image as you say. Adam was given a body. God also gave him a spirit. It was in that spirit, not in his body, that Adam was made in God's image. We are given a body, perhaps not in the way of Adam. We are given a body through the procreation process. We are still given a spirit by God Himself. It is in that spirit that we like Adam are made in God's image. Nothing that Adam did changed that.

You said, "Obeying perfectly not only became an impossibility for Adam, since he had already disobeyed, he took all of mankind with him in that same condition", You are almost correct. Being perfectly obedient was no longer possible. However, he could have perfectly obeyed everything after that. disobeying that first time did not preclude him from perfect obedience after that. And neither did/does it preclude you from obeying perfectly. But you, like Adam, have failed that first time. And that had nothing to do with Adam. That is completely on you. Adam did not take you down with him. You did that all on your own. But you can't handle that. That is the reason you need Adam as a scape goat. You need the work around of Original Sin as the excuse for why you failed. You disobeyed because you wanted to, not because of anything Adam did or didn't do.

You said, "....even though it has become impossible for us to obey perfectly". That is simply not true. You (and I) haven't obeyed perfectly, and you (and I) won't obey perfectly, but not because it was impossible. Again, as you admitted, we disobeyed because we wanted to. And that not because of Adam. He is not to blame. We are. God knows that. You should admit it. Original Sin is one sorry doctrine. It is the non-comedic "Da Debo made me Doit".

Whether you buy it or not is irrelevant. And I am not having this conversation with you again. I have put it to you, the same truth , from various angles and perspectives, choosing different words, and it all comes back to the same thing, You don't THINK it is true, therefore it isn't true. And that is a very strange outlook for one who so embraces reason and logic.

Enough. Not every OP is about original sin. Find other topics that fit with the OP you are in. Rule #3. Got it this time? Let me help so you can engage in this one.

Find the subject of the two part OP. Read carefully what is said in it. Read carefully posts from others, finding the subject, carefully read the content. Address directly those things. I simply did you a favor by giving my two cents on what you asked LA. It is quite likely, because of what you did, that as others stop by, this OP too has been changed to be about your agenda. That is rude and disrespectful. Please, finally, understand that.

 

[JIM]

Enough. Not every OP is about original sin. Find other topics that fit with the OP you are in. Rule #3. Got it this time? Let me help so you can engage in this one.

You were the one who introduced original sin into this one, not me. In your post #7, you said, "And here is where a denial of original sin gets in your way". It isn't in my way. It, as a biblical truth, doesn't even exist. So please don't come down on me for this one. It was you. And you did it in response to what I considered to be a very simple question, not even dealing with original sin.

 

[Arial]

You were the one who introduced original sin into this one, not me. In your post #7, you said, "And here is where a denial of original sin gets in your way". It isn't in my way. It, as a biblical truth, doesn't even exist. So please don't come down on me for this one. It was you. And you did it in response to what I considered to be a very simple question, not even dealing with original sin.

I simply said your denial of OS is what got in your way and why you needed to ask the question you did.

 

[Ladodgers6]

So obviously, you do believe that God would issue a command that man could not obey and then condemn him to hell for not obeying. Is that correct?

Does God command us to obey His commands?

 

[JIM]

Because that is required to answer the question you asked and the assumption you made. It is why you see God commanding what we cannot do the terrible way in which you see it. But you took the chance to give your view of original sin.

Actually, no. My question was easily answered with a "yes" or a "no". But you obviously read into the question something more.

 

[JIM]

Does God command us to obey His commands?

You are responding to my question with a question. That is not an answer, it is a dodge. Please just answer my question and then we can move on.

 

[Ladodgers6]

We disobey because we want to. As did Adam.

Thank you for understanding this. Sinners sin because they want to. This is the fallen desire of postlapsarian mankind. Nobody coerces sinners to sin, they do it by nature. Meaning it's not by compulsion but by necessity. In other words they do what they want to do, because it's their innate desire or concupiscence to do it.

Does this mean that God who commands us to be righteous and holy is unjust for commanding as such? Because as Arial pointed out God in our prelapsarian state made us in His image. But sinners love the darkness rather than the light. So, are sinners sent to hell because they are not given the ability to meet and fulfill God's commandments or because Adam and His One Act of Disobedience condemned us all?​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Sorry, I don't buy that. Too much of that is not true. Your last sentence is true. We disobey because we want to. As did Adam. Yes, he failed the test. That didn't change anything but Adam. Adam was created in God's image as you say. Adam was given a body. God also gave him a spirit. It was in that spirit, not in his body, that Adam was made in God's image. We are given a body, perhaps not in the way of Adam. We are given a body through the procreation process. We are still given a spirit by God Himself. It is in that spirit that we like Adam are made in God's image. Nothing that Adam did changed that.

You said, "Obeying perfectly not only became an impossibility for Adam, since he had already disobeyed, he took all of mankind with him in that same condition", You are almost correct. Being perfectly obedient was no longer possible. However, he could have perfectly obeyed everything after that. disobeying that first time did not preclude him from perfect obedience after that. And neither did/does it preclude you from obeying perfectly. But you, like Adam, have failed that first time. And that had nothing to do with Adam. That is completely on you. Adam did not take you down with him. You did that all on your own. But you can't handle that. That is the reason you need Adam as a scape goat. You need the work around of Original Sin as the excuse for why you failed. You disobeyed because you wanted to, not because of anything Adam did or didn't do.

You said, "....even though it has become impossible for us to obey perfectly". That is simply not true. You (and I) haven't obeyed perfectly, and you (and I) won't obey perfectly, but not because it was impossible. Again, as you admitted, we disobeyed because we wanted to. And that not because of Adam. He is not to blame. We are. God knows that. You should admit it. Original Sin is one sorry doctrine. It is the non-comedic "Da Debo made me Doit".

I am curious to ask you. Please if you wouldn't mind, will you share your view of the Fall?

 

[Ladodgers6]

You were the one who introduced original sin into this one, not me. In your post #7, you said, "And here is where a denial of original sin gets in your way". It isn't in my way. It, as a biblical truth, doesn't even exist. So please don't come down on me for this one. It was you. And you did it in response to what I considered to be a very simple question, not even dealing with original sin.

I do not mind talking about Original Sin with you. Please ask away, but I have one rule that we both follow. That we both answer each other questions honestly without avoiding them. If you either us do not know or cannot provide a immediate answer, then just state so. And secondly, let's keep name calling out of this, please.

 

[Ladodgers6]

You were the one who introduced original sin into this one, not me. In your post #7, you said, "And here is where a denial of original sin gets in your way". It isn't in my way. It, as a biblical truth, doesn't even exist. So please don't come down on me for this one. It was you. And you did it in response to what I considered to be a very simple question, not even dealing with original sin.

I beg to differ, Original Sin is clearly taught in Scripture. Read Romans 5:12-21. I will gladly love to debate this topic with you. BTW, if your view, where does Sin come from, and has ANYONE, other than Christ been found sinless before God. If not, how come? So, you agree with Pelagius? If you deny the Imputation of Adam's Sin to His Progeny (Descendants), then you also deny the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, correct?​

 

[Ladodgers6]

You are responding to my question with a question. That is not an answer, it is a dodge. Please just answer my question and then we can move on.

I believe it's a obvious question that needs an answer, yes? You do believe that sinners can fulfill God's commandments? My answer is no. So, are God's commandments unfair to judge and convict sinners? Does God need to lower His standard of Holiness to allow sinners to enter heaven? BTW, a question can answer a question.​

 

[JIM]

Thank you for understanding this. Sinners sin because they want to. This is the fallen desire of postlapsarian mankind. Nobody coerces sinners to sin, they do it by nature. Meaning it's not by compulsion but by necessity. In other words they do what they want to do, because it's their innate desire or concupiscence to do it.​

No one sins by necessity. There is no pre- or post-lapsarianism, if by lapsarianism you mean the fall of mankind due to Adam's sin. Any fall is the fall of the individual when he, just like Adam, commits his first sin.

Does this mean that God who commands us to be righteous and holy is unjust for commanding as such? Because as Arial pointed out God in our prelapsarian state made us in His image. But sinners love the darkness rather than the light. So, are sinners sent to hell because they are not given the ability to meet and fulfill God's commandments or because Adam and His One Act of Disobedience condemnation us all?​

Adam (and his one act of disobedience) didn't condemn anyone. God didn't given any such power to him.