Essential Christian Doctrines
- Thread starter NightTwister
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Saying there is no answer is your answer, but we should not answer thusly before searching GW for an answer,
which I have done and shared with you, but accepting or not is your free choice.
I can only urge you to be open to learning more of GW and not give up seeking answers,
because I also once thought there was no answer before the Lord gave me further insight
when I read all of GW with an open/truthseeking mind.
"Witness" IS the actual term used in Acts 1:8 and Rev. 1:5, 3:14, which you refuse to use.
The context in which I used it was this: "The concept of karma can serve as a bridge to witnessing,
similar to how Paul witnessed to the Athenians in Acts 17:22-31."
Please clarify your objection in this context.
I just told you, but apparently it’s a flyover.
I don’t use the phrase “witnessing” to someone else, because WE never witnessed Jesus doing anything in the first century, only His disciples and apostles saw Him.
In order to be a witness to anything, you need to have physically been there to see for yourself.
Again, context is everything.
“Sin-nature” is a man-made phrase, is it not? If not, where in Scripture do you find this?
Because it's this sinful nature that causes us to sin.
What do you think makes us sin?
If we don't have the sin nature...we will not sin.
Jesus did not have the sin nature because He's God.
He could be tempted, but He could not sin.
Right.
So is Trinity.
You don't believe in the Trinity either?
Hypostatic Union is a man-made term.
Maybe you also don't believe in that??
We need man-made terms to explain things.
You know, like we had to give a name to this thingy I'm using...
we call it a mouse.
However, here is your verse:
Romans 7:18
18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
Oh, is that all? I agree that we did not personally witness the first century, so we are dependent on the writings
of those who did so for information, which is what we cite and share with others.
Our witnessing is along the lines of 1Pet. 3:15: our personal testimony or reasons we believe the NT writings (aka apologetics).
Mine includes this:
Which belief or opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).
A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11), Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.
While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).
Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).
What is yours?
This is how I see it.
The idea of sin nature is the inclination or tendency to choose sin over good. Adam had a choice. He made the wrong choice which would be when sin entered the human heart. You could almost look at like he had a 50/50 shot with no sin nature and everyone following him would have more like a 30/70 shot.
Jesus not having sin nature would be because He was born of a virgin. Sin nature/seed would’ve been passed down from the father. The woman’s seed/ Jesus was the new and last Adam. He was a beginning of a new line of humans branching off. If you look at a line on paper it would fork at the resurrection of Jesu into two lines. The original line would be broad and the new line would be narrow.
We are born on the original wide line and must be reborn onto the narrow line.
U
Undergrace1
Guest
For 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 Rom7:18
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin. 25
Its in the NIV, I don't know about other translations
Agreed to your definition of sin nature.
So if Adam had a 50/50 chance with the sin nature...
WHO put the sin nature in him?
Couldn't have been God, right?
So where did he get it from?
I don't mean to belabor the point JAF.
We can stop whenever you want because this is a circle that never ends.
Sin entered when Adam ate...
But it took sin to make him eat...
see?
Yes sir.Jesus not having sin nature would be because He was born of a virgin. Sin nature/seed would’ve been passed down from the father. The woman’s seed/ Jesus was the new and last Adam. He was a beginning of a new line of humans branching off. If you look at a line on paper it would fork at the resurrection of Jesu into two lines. The original line would be broad and the new line would be narrow.
Perfectly explained !
I don’t really see it as a circle. No one put sin nature in Adam. Evil existed in Satan. Satan tempted Adam. Adam made a choice. The consequence of that choice induced sin nature, separation from God, spiritual death, and eventually physical death.
Of course I agree with your statement.
Yeah. That fruit looked good to the eye.
Eve fell for it.
Then what was Adam to do?
He understood that Eve was doomed...
so he joined her not to leave her alone.
It doesn't state this anywhere,,,but some understand it like this
and it seems feasible.
I don't add to scripture - but some explanation must be given since
it's Adam that caused the fall and not Eve.
Adam was God's representative for humanity. Jesus is called the second Adam because He likewise represented humanity.
yes sir.
Adam caused the fall of humanity.
Jesus restored our relationship with God.
Jesus is the Savior of all who accept His sacrifice.
The first Adam caused death.
The second Adam caused life.
Why he chose disobedience over life, who knows. I often can’t explain why I make the dumb choices I make
. Maybe it was the same curiosity that killed the cat as thy say. But God gave Adam the command not Eve. Adam was the first of mankind. Adam was the one responsible. Speaking of that though, man being the responsible one is a big problem today. Men have turned into complete (trying to think of a politically correct word to put here). You get the point. What happened to men taking responsibility for their actions and for their families? Anyways that’s another conversation.