Hi, I post the following, specifically for E. Lee, who hasn't a clue as to what I do or don't believe. The following is the Statement of Faith for our church. This is not a creedal statement, but simply a statement used to introduce people to the beliefs held by our church. Hopefully this will clear things up -- but considering E. Lee's unreasonable and ridiculous attacks on me so far, I doubt that it will.

About the Bible . . .

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

About the Trinity . . .

We believe that there is one living and true God, eternally existing in three persons, that these are equal in every divine perfection, and that they execute distinct but harmonious offices in the work of creation, providence and redemption.

About God the Father . . .

We believe in God, the Father, an infinite, personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power and love. We believe that He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of each person, that He hears and answers prayer, and that He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.

About Jesus Christ . . .

We believe in Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe in His virgin birth, sinless life, miracles and teachings. We believe in His substitutionary atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension into heaven, perpetual intercession for His people, and personal visible return to earth.

About the Holy Spirit . . .

We believe in the Holy Spirit who came forth from the Father and Son to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and to regenerate, sanctify, and empower all who believe in Jesus Christ. We believe that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer in Christ, and that He is an abiding helper, teacher and guide.

About Beginning a New Life . . .

We believe that all people are sinners by nature and by choice and are, therefore, under condemnation. We believe that those who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior, and are baptized are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

About God's New Society . . .

We believe in the universal church, a living spiritual body of which Christ is the head and all regenerated persons are members. We believe in the local church, consisting of a company of believers in Jesus Christ, baptized on a credible confession of faith, and associated for worship, work and fellowship. We believe that God has laid upon the members of the local church the primary task of giving the gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost world.

About How to Live Life . . .

We believe that Christians should live for the glory of God and the well being of others; that their conduct should be blameless before the world; that they should be faithful stewards of their possessions; and that they should seek to realize for themselves and others the full stature of maturity in Christ.

About Two Important Symbols . . .

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has committed two ordinances to the local church: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. We believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water into the name of the triune God. We believe that the Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ for commemoration of His death. We believe that these two ordinances should be observed and administered until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

About the End of History . . .

We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal joy of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

Answers

Brethren:

Brother Davis has offered the following excuse for posting his human creed as follows:

“Hi, I post the following, specifically for E. Lee, who hasn't a clue as to what I do or don't believe.”

Now, he knows that in this forum we all respond to what is said by those who post here. And Brother Davis and I have discussed things that he said that he believed and we have shown from the scriptures that his teaching was contrary to the doctrine of Christ. And his only response is to give us his “creed” so that he can demonstrate that his teaching is consistent with it. But he will never be able to show that he has taught in this forum that which is in harmony with the DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. Because his teachings are completely contrary to the truth of the gospel of Christ, I do have not only a “clue” but also rather conclusive evidence from his own words concerning what he believes about the subjects that we have discussed. And we showed that his doctrine was contrary to the truth and he has yet to respond to those posts.

Then he says:

“ The following is the Statement of Faith for our church.”

“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17). Our faith was delivered to us there and it is completely and sufficiently STATED there. Therefore we have not need for Brother Davis’ human creed. And Brother Davis’ statement might be a “statement of faith for “his church” but it is not THE STATEMENT of faith for the church of Christ. For Christ is the head of the church and the only one authorized to offer any “statement of faith” for the church of Christ. And God delivered that statement “through his son” (Heb. 1:1) “once for ALL” (Jude 3) therefore we do not need men like Brother Davis restating it in his OWN words for us when God’s word was sufficient to that purpose, now do we? If he claims to believe the word of God all he need do is show that what the statements he makes and the doctrines that he teaches are in harmony with God’s word and we will have no just cause for thinking of him as a false teacher. But thus far he has failed miserably in that regard, now hasn’t he?

And the word of God sufficiently expresses that which all faithful Christians believe. And if any “statement of faith” states more than the word of God then it states too much. And if it contains less than the word of it states too little. And if it states the exact same thing as the word of God there is no need for such a statement for we already have the word of God and it is completely sufficient to furnish the man of God to all good works. (2 Tim. 3:16,17).

Thus, just because Brother Davis cannot answer the arguments from the word of God which are counter to his teachings is no reason for us to believe his creed will clear things up. And his giving us this creed does not clear up the fact that he teaches, contrary to the doctrine of Christ that we are to fellowship and accept as Christians persons who have been baptized for their own reasons rather than for the reasons taught in the word of God. None of these things is any justifiable excuse for his giving us this creed. The word of God is what we want to know. We could care less about what he believes. WE are interested in what the word of God teaches. For Christ is our only creed and the word of God is our only rule of faith and practice. But, Brother Davis, in quoting the creed that his congregation has devised has only proven my point that he is a false teacher. For he has no authority from God to write or promote such creeds.

Then he says:

“This is not a creedal statement, but simply a statement used to introduce people to the beliefs held by our church.”

Brethren, when a man writes a creed and refers to it as evidence of what he believes and in the next breath he denies that it is a “creedal statement” then has shown himself to be contradictory, hasn’t he? Just because Brother Davis says that it is "not a creedal statement" does not make it true now does it. If his statement were not a “creedal statement” we would like to know just what he thinks a “creed” is defined as:

“Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit srad-dadhAti Date: before 12th century 1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle”

And a “creed” would be a statement of a set of fundamental beliefs. SO, since Brother Davis has taken upon himself to write for us a statement of fundamental beliefs it should be obvious that he has written for us a “creed”, now isn't it? It would be interesting to know what would happen to persons in Brother Davis’ “church” if any member did not follow or accept any of the listed items in his “statement of faith”. The phrase, “statement of faith” is nothing more than a euphemism for a “creed”.

Then he says:

“ Hopefully this will clear things up -- but considering E. Lee's unreasonable and ridiculous attacks on me so far, I doubt that it will.”

E. Lee has made no “attacks upon Brother Davis. He has instead attacked the teaching of Brother Davis by proving that those teachings were false. And Brother Davis is offended that we do not allow him to teach that which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ without challenging him to prove that his doctrine comes from Christ. All one need do is read the treads concerning the “purpose of baptism” to see that such is the case. And Brother Davis has not shown that any of the arguments that we have made concerning that matter were “unreasonable or ridiculous”. For all he has done concerning those arguments is to ignore them completely”. Go to that thread, brethren and read it for yourselves and you will not find a single place where Brother Davis responded to them at all. But, he is right about one thing. A “statement of faith” which Brother Davis denies is a “creed” which is simply a statement of fundamental beliefs is not likely to “clear things up in the least! For such self- contradiction is often confusing, isn’t it? So, we also doubt that “his creed” for “his church” is likely to clear up anything concerning the subject of the purpose of baptism according to Christ and the doctrine of Christ which is to be taught and defended by the church of Christ. (Jude 3; Romans 16:17,18; 2 Peter 2:12-22; 2 John 9- 11; 1 Tim. 3:15; Ephesians 1:11).

Now, we will return, as we have time to examine Brother Davis’ creed in detail. But for now we have merely responded to his pathetic statements in his introduction and his sickening excuse for offering up this creed. But if you will examine it closely you will find that like most human creeds it is out of harmony with the doctrine of Christ. I suggest that you look at Brother Davis’ Creed very closely and you will find some touches of “Calvinism” and several things that are contrary to the truth of God’s word. And you will also find things in this creed that even Brother Davis does not believe if what he as said in the past in this forum is what he believes. For his creed, which he has given us, even cortradicts earlier statements which he made in this forum! Look it over closely until we return with more comments upon it.

But remember to beware of men who write creeds and claim that they have not written one. They are among the most deceptive liars in our mist!

But we will return as we have time to examine Brother Davis' creed to see if it states the same thing as the word of God.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

E. Lee,

Just wondering why my simple statement of faith is a creed, but the blatant creed from Camelback church is okay?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, Just wondering why my simple statement of faith is a creed, but the blatant creed from Camelback church is okay?”

Who said that the “Camelback creed” was “OK?” E. Lee Saffold was one of the first ones to object to its being a “creed”. Anyone reading the “camelback” thread can see that I objected to it on the grounds that it tended to be a Creed. I could not prove that the framers of it intended in their minds to write a Creed but I stated that it was such. So, the truth is that both your so-called “simple statement of belief” and the similar “statements of belief” by the Camelback church are both creeds. And I have justly condemned both of them. For both are creeds though I am convinced that yours is far more “blatantly” such.

But it would be interesting indeed for you to explain just how it is that you are convinced that your creed is any less “blatant” than the “Camelback creed”! Ha! But we know that if you follow your normal procedure you will just ignore, as you have done this far all arguments that have been made. A creed is a statement of fundamental beliefs according to the very definition of the word as we have shown in our last post. But Brother Davis had nothing to say about it.

So, Brother Davis do explain to us just how it is that you perceive of the “Camelback creed” which they also called a simple statement of beliefs are different from your equally blatant creed which you also claim is nothing more than a “simple statement of belief”.

Now, let us look one more time at the meaning of the word “creed” and see if your “statement of beliefs fits the definition of a “creed”.

““Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit srad-dadhAti Date: before 12th century 1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle”

Now, Both the “Camel Back church” and Brother Davis’ church have written statements concerning a “set of beliefs” that they consider “fundamental”. And therefore they have both written a human creed. And we would like to see Brother Davis take the time to explain just why his “simple statements of belief” are not a Creed but the “simple statements of belief” made by the camelback church is not a Creed? For we have at least shown that they are both creeds. If he believes otherwise he should explain why one is a Creed and the other is not. For both of them are “statements of fundamental beliefs”. But I would not suggest that you hold your breath waiting on Brother Davis to show any consistency in this matter for he has clearly demonstrated that such is not his “strong suit”.

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

Personally I don't have a problem with a "statement of faith" or a "creed" per se. The earliest Christians formulated such statements to differentiate between what a Christian was and what a non-Christian was, creeds such as the Apostles, Nicean and Athanasian. But when those creeds become tests of membership, and divide Christians from other Christians, then they become problematic. I think this is the spirit in which the Campbells et al objected to creeds, not a carte blanche anathema of any sort of written statement of faith whatsoever.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

I also fail to see anything whatsoever in Barry's "statement of faith" which a member of the CC/CoC would disagree with. Although it's 1:00 am and perhaps I'm missing something. But it all looks very kosher to me - almost (dare I say it) Campbellian.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

E. Lee,

If you want to define the term "creed" as loosely as you have, our statement of faith would fit the definition you have given. When I use the term "creed" I use it in the way it is commonly accepted, as binding on all who will place membership in a denomination or church fellowship.

From your past posts I'm sure you will completely ignore the context of what I am saying and distort it in your own twisted fashion, but for those who might read this that actually have Christian love and charity in their hearts, I offer this explanation:

For many years I have had people from other denominations ask me what we believe. I would answer with the standard "The New Testament". But all the other churches were telling them the same thing. Since we differed with some of these churches on any number of issues, obviously one, or all of us was wrong. What I discovered people were actually asking when they said "What do you believe", is that they wanted to know what set us apart, or what distinguished us from the rest. The simplest way to explain that was to come up with a short summary of what are the main doctrinal emphases of the New and Old Testaments. Especially since I live in a heavily Catholic and Lutheran area (Minneapolis-St. Paul) it was necessary to define these truths in a short doctrinal statement. What we have come up with is no different than a tract, leaflet, etc...that many churches use to describe all different areas of ministry and belief. No one is asked to sign off on this statement, it is simply used to clarify our churches' position on these particular issues.

Now, E. Lee, would you mind pointing out the "Calvinism" in our statement of faith?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Barry -- your last post hit it right on the head. As much as I would like to, it is very difficult today to just say "We believe the Bible" or "We hold the New Testament as our only creed" or "If you want to know what we believe, read the New Testament." I wish it WERE that simple today.

But as you pointed out, most denom's and other christian belief systems would tell a visitor the very same thing. Ask post Baptist preachers if they teach the NT and they will say yes. Ask most anyone from a RC, Lutheran, Episc, Methodist, A of G, and on and on, and they will say the same thing.

Now, if the person asking the question will take the time to sit down for a series of Bible studies, then we can point out the difference. But when a new familymoves into town and starts "church shopping" you usually won't get that chance.

Most congregations put something akin to a statement of faith, or a "what we believe" on the back of their worship folder/bulletin, or inside a visitors packet. This helps cut through the hype, and lays things out in the open as to what the congregation stands for ... allowing the visitor to "know what they are getting into" if you will.

Would it be that it were so simple to just say "We believe the Bible and use it as our statement of faith." We do just that in our homeschool group ... but our homeschool group doesn't teach doctrine. We make it clear that we are a Christian group, and we leave the doctrinal teaching to the parents and their congregations. So we CAN say our statement of faith is the Bible, and leave it at that.

Used to be you could use the word "believers" the same as you could "Christian." Biblically, they are the same ... but are they the same in today's world? In the eyes of God ... maybe. But in the eyes of man, I think not. There are believers, and there are Christians. Again, just another example of how we must adapt our terminology in todays world. Sad to say, but it is true.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

In the "Welcome Packets" we pass out....there is a "What We Teach" section.

I have found that to be quite helpful in dealing with denom. people to find out areas we are going to have to work on right off the bat.

Interesting thing happened recently. We had a couple start visiting who had been Baptist for all their converted life (14 1/2 years). He essentially studied himself right out of the Baptist church (his words).

When I asked him about the "What We Teach" section of the Welcome Packet....he stated..."I found myself more in agreement with you then I do the Baptist."

So.....a statement of what you believe....is helpful, in my opinion, to "cut to the chase."

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, If you want to define the term "creed" as loosely as you have, our statement of faith would fit the definition you have given.”

I do not “define” words as I “want” them to be defined. I defined this word according to how it is defined in a dictionary of the language that we all speak called English. The definition that we have given is an accurate definition of the term “creed”. And by that definition both your creed and the Camelback creed are in fact creeds. And you have not answered our question that we asked of you, which we now repeat. Just how is it that you perceive your “statement of faith” is not a creed while the Camelback “statement of faith” is according to your own words “blatantly a creed”?

Then you say:

“ When I use the term "creed" I use it in the way it is commonly accepted, as binding on all who will place membership in a denomination or church fellowship.”

Would you show us a dictionary that so defines the word? Or is this your own private use of this word? Words have no meaning when men are allowed use words with private meanings instead of the common accepted meanings as defined by those who have studied how those words are currently being used by the majority of those speaking the language. And Brother Davis is seeking to persuade us to accept his private use of this word for he cannot prove that such is its "common” or current usage. A Creed is a Creed whether it is “binding” upon anyone or not. It is not the binding nature of any “statement of faith” that makes it a Creed. The fact that it is a statement of fundamental beliefs is what makes it a creed. Its authoritative nature is subordinate to its being a creed.

Just because you say that such is the “commonly accepted” usage of the word “creed” does not make it the truth, now does it? We use dictionaries to establish just what is the “commonly accepted usage” of a given term. And if such is the common usage of the term you should be able to quote a dictionary that says such is the case. And beside this it is a fact that many “statements of faith” or “creeds” begin as “nonbinding statements” and end up as “binding one’s”. But according to the common usage of the term “creed” is a simple statement of faith whether it is binding or not. And surely it is worse when it becomes a binding document but it would never become binding if it had never been written, now would it? And Christ, through the Holy Spirit speaking in the apostles and inspired men of the New Testament delivered all that was necessary to furnish the man of God to all good works. (2 Tim. 3:16,17). The faith has once been delivered (Jude 3). It needs only to be taught and promulgated throughout the world. It does not need to be restated by men who think that they can say it better than God has already said it in His word. You would spend as much time explaining your “creed” as you would explaining the word of God. So, what not simply state that the New Testament is a clear statement from God of what all who would be Christians must believe and then begin to explain the teaching of the doctrine of Christ found therein. It works very well for just because “Baptists” claim to teach the New Testament does not make it true now does it? And it is very easy to show that they do not, isn’t it? In fact, when we make this clear distinction that we believe the New Testament and demonstrate with clear evidence that the sectarians do not we are able to lead men away from their false doctrines and convert them to Christ through his word. And no “creed” will ever do anything other than direct men away from Christ and his word. You would not offer this so called “statement of faith” if you believed that the word of God is a sufficient statement of our faith.

Then you say:

“From your past posts I'm sure you will completely ignore the context of what I am saying and distort it in your own twisted fashion,”

Brother Davis, the one who is ignoring things here is you. I have shown that you have ignored answering the questions that I have asked you about the “Camelback” creed, which I asked in response to your question, directed at me about that matter. And I have not “distorted” anything that you have said and you have not offered any evidence that would prove that I have in any way “distorted” what you have said. I have sufficiently refuted what you have said and doing that is by no means a distortion. And it is impossible for one to respond as I have to your every word and simultaneously be accused justly of ignoring the “context” of what you are saying. I have responded to all that you have said about the context of your so- called “statement of faith”. And it is you that has ignored most of what I have said to you about it, isn’t it?

Then you say:

“ but for those who might read this that actually have Christian love and charity in their hearts, I offer this explanation:”

Now with this statement, taken in the context of all that you have said to me in this forum it is obvious that you intended by it to imply that E. Lee Saffold does not “actually have love in his heart”. Therefore we ask you to answer a few questions. What evidence can you give that E. Lee Saffold does not have “Christian love” in his heart? I would like for you to answer the questions that you have been asked about this matter. You condemn us for being “Judgmental” yet you have JUDGED that E. Lee Saffold does not have “Christian love” in his heart without any evidence to support or sustain you judgement. You are indeed hypocritical in this aren’t you? Please explain to us just how it is that you can judge what is in our hearts? I would like very much to hear you explain how it is right for you to make such judgements without any evidence to support it and it is wrong for us to make judgements based upon evidence that we have offered for all to consider?

Then you offer the follow excuse for writing your creed as follows:

“For many years I have had people from other denominations ask me what we believe. I would answer with the standard "The New Testament".

Well, that is a good answer if you are willing to follow through with some teaching to show that such a claim is easy for anyone to make but only those who can demonstrate that such is in fact the truth can justifiably make that claim. But from your writing thus far in this forum it is obvious that PROVING what you assert is not something you are willing of capable of doing. Thus, if you cannot prove that we do in fact believe and follow the New Testament while the false teachers in the denominational, sectarian churches do not. Then you would indeed have some problem with this statement for you are just either unwilling or unable to prove that it is the truth, aren’t you? But your unwillingness or your inability to show that the denominations do not follow the New Testament as they claim while we do does not justify you in writing a “creed” similar to the creeds that denominations have had for this purpose, now does it?

And you further excuse yourself for writing a “creed” as follows:

“But all the other churches were telling them the same thing.”

So what? Anyone can assert such but it is another "story" altogether to prove that it is true, isn’t it? If the other churches were telling them the same thing and if those “other churches were in fact following the New Testament they would not be “other churches” now would they? Now it is obvious to any thinking person that if the so- called “other churches” were following the New Testament and we also were following the New Testament that we would all be following the same thing. It is obvious on the very face of things that they are not all following the New Testament isn’t it? And if they are actually following the New Testament then we would have no objections to them and a person could go there as well as worship with us and it would not matter now would it? But the truth is that they are not following the New Testament and we are following it. And following the sectarian practice of writing creeds to distinguish ourselves from “other churches” does just the opposite of what you claim you are trying to do. Instead of distinguishing us from these so- called “other churches” it makes us JUST LIKE THEM, now doesn’t it?

What we do is we answer the question with a clear statement of fact from the word of God that “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). And we assert and prove that we follow the New Testament and the denominations follow their creeds instead of the word of God. And when we are finished they see the clear distinction. Some of them become angry and storm away and others are soon converted to Christ and obey the gospel of Christ. So, if you think that you must compromise by writing a creed instead of teaching these persons the clear distinction between genuine New Testament Christianity from the false counterfeit Christianity found among the sectarians and denominationalism you are woefully mistaken. We must have firm convictions based upon the word of God and absolutely no compromise with the creeds of any men, even those who claim to be among us!

Then you continue your so-called “explanation” as follows:

“ Since we differed with some of these churches on any number of issues, obviously one, or all of us was wrong.”

If you did not differ with these “other churches” on matters that was contrary to the teaching of the word of God then you had no difference and therefore no reason to care whether these persons worshipped with you or the other churches. But if your differences were based upon the fact that you are following the doctrine of Christ and they were not. Then you should have simply made that clear to them but showing them that the word of God differs with the teachings of these other churches on “any number of issues”. But instead you have simply left the impression that these ‘other churches” merely differ with YOU on “any number of issues”. And you can rest assured that there is a vast difference between disagreeing with YOU and your “creed” and differing with GOD AND HIS INSPIRED WORD. The true problem with the sectarians and all of the denominations is not that they “differ with us” on a “number of issues” but that they DIFFER WITH GOD AND HIS WORD on a great number of important issues! But by writing your creed you have simply left the impression stronger than it was before that the difference is merely between you and “other denominations” rather than between the denominations and the Lord Jesus Christ and His boy or kingdom the church! And you should be ashamed of such pathetic weakness! And your inability to teach those who are being lead away from the truth of the gospel the difference between the false doctrines taught in the creeds of the denominations and the doctrine of Christ. Which is followed and obeyed by the church of Christ, which is the “pillar and ground of the truth”. (2 Tim. 3:15; Col. 1:18,24; Eph. 1:22,23; Heb. 12:22; Heb 4:12; Heb. 5:8,9).

Then you say:

“ What I discovered people were actually asking when they said "What do you believe", is that they wanted to know what set us apart, or what distinguished us from the rest.

And all you could do was to write a “creed” just like all of the rest so that there was NOT DISTINCTION BETWENN YOU AT ALL other than the difference between your various creeds! You had the opportunity to say to them, “If you would really like to know what “set us apart” is the simple fact that we are Christians because we have obeyed the gospel of Christ and that we follow the doctrine of Christ. And they are not Christians because they have not obeyed the gospel of Christ nor do they follow the teachings of Christ found in the New Testament. And if you would like for us to show the evidence that this is the truth. We would be happy to sit down with you and prove conclusively that this is in fact the truth of the matter and therefore it is the very thing that distinguishes us from all counterfeit Christians in the world!

But you did not have the courage to make such a bold statement not the ability to prove that it is the truth so all you did was to go out and write a creed so that the “distinction” between you and the denominations became even LESS apparent, didn’t you? This is the result of cowardice! When Christians are afraid to state the truth and even write creeds in order to avoid giving offense to the denominations then they have become as “salt that has lost its savor”. And those of you that feel this “need for a creed” should be ashamed of yourselves for you have abandoned the very idea of restoring New Testament Christianity. For restoring New Testament Christianity can only be done by a RETURN TO THE NEW TESTAMENT as our only rule of faith and practice and a renouncing of all human creeds. Including those written by brethren like Brother Davis who so cowardly feel this “need for a creed”.

Then Brother Davis continues as follows

“ The simplest way to explain that was to come up with a short summary of what are the main doctrinal emphases of the New and Old Testaments.”

Now we find the real source of the problem hear. Brother Davis was looking for the “simplest way” rather than the right way. God’s word is sufficient for the purpose of teaching those who are not Christians how to become Christians. And what people need is to study the word of God rather than “short summaries” of the “main doctrinal emphases” of God’s word. They are to be taught the gospel of Christ from the word of God rather than the doctrines of men from the creeds of men. All one need do is to open the Old and New Testaments and begin to teach it rather than write a creed and then have to explain and teach it instead of the word of God.

Then he says:

“ Especially since I live in a heavily Catholic and Lutheran area (Minneapolis-St. Paul) it was necessary to define these truths in a short doctrinal statement.”

Living in a “heavily Catholic and Lutheran area” only further demonstrates the need to teach the word of God. It most certainly does not make it NECESSARY to define the truth of God’s word in “short doctrinal statements” in a human creed, especially one that is contrary to the word of God. And if it teaches that which is the same as what the word of God teaches then the creed is not at all necessary because we have the word of God. It is sufficient to refer these “Catholics and Lutherans” to God’s word and teach them from it the truth in contrast with the false doctrines of the Catholics and Lutherans”. But to write a creed is far from Necessary just because on is in a “Catholic and Lutheran area”. And Brother Davis does not offer any reason why such a circumstance makes a creed NECESSARY, now does he? It makes teaching the word of God necessary but it makes no creed necessary at all.

Then he says:

“ What we have come up with is no different than a tract, leaflet, etc...that many churches use to describe all different areas of ministry and belief.”

A tract or leaflet that is teaching the word of God is far different from one that is designed to do no more than teach “what we believe”. What is needed is to teach what God says and in doing so everyone will naturally come to understand that what we believe is what God says. But if we teach what “we believe” without any reference to what the word of God says we are not teaching the word of God but the doctrines of men.

Then he says:

“No one is asked to sign off on this statement, it is simply used to clarify our churches' position on these particular issues.”

Now this just further shows there is no need for the creed. For when one teaches the word of God they must call upon all men to OBEY what it teaches for to do so is to obey God. (Heb. 5;8,9; John 12:48; Luke 6:46; Matt. 7:21-23). God is the author of what we teach and believe through His inspired words in the Old and New Testaments. Not some Brother who has decided to write a statement, which he claims, is teaching the exact same thing as the word of God. A statement that further claims that no one has to “sign off” or accept as true in order to be accepted of the Lord and recognized as a member of the church or body of Christ. If it were in fact teaching the same as the word of God then it would follow that those teachings MUST be accepted by all who would call themselves Christians in order for them to please God. And the fact that Brother Davis sees that his words do not have to be accepted as true is clearly evidence that they do not teach the same thing as the doctrine of Christ for that doctrine MUST be accepted in order for anyone to be acceptable to God. So, which is it Brother Davis. Is your statement of faith teaching the same as the word of God or is it teaching something different from the word of God? You tell us. For if it is teaching the same as the word of God we have God’s word and do not need your “statement of faith” at all. And if it is teaching the same as the word of God why is it that it does not “have to be believed” by all that hear read it? For if the word of God is binding upon us and your statement of faith simply teaches what the word of God says then why is not one required to believe it? Tell us for we would like to know. The doctrine of Christ is binding is it not? And if your creed is not “binding” then it cannot be teaching the doctrine of Christ to which all Christians are bound to obey.

Then he asked me a question, and I will be happy to answer it even though he has ignored all of the questions that I have asked him as follows:

“Now, E. Lee, would you mind pointing out the "Calvinism" in our statement of faith?”

All on need do is read the following words from Brother Davis’ Creed as follows:

“About Beginning a New Life . . . We believe that all people are sinners by nature and by choice and are, therefore, under condemnation. We believe that those who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior, and are baptized are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.”

Now, we would like for Brother Davis to show us just where the WORD of God teaches that “all people are SINNERS BY NATURE” and that they are condemned for something that it is “natural” for them to be? For sin is not “natural” and we are not by any means “sinners by nature”. Christ was a “person” wasn’t he? And if ALL people are “sinners by nature” then was Christ as a natural man a sinner by nature? For we are told that there is “one mediator between God and Man the MAN Christ Jesus.” So, was Christ a “sinner by nature” because he was as much human as he was divine? Did his human nature cause him to be a sinner?

The Bible teaches that “sin is the transgression of the law”. (1 John 3:4). And transgression of the Law is not something that we do by nature but rather by choice. We are sinners because by choice. God made or created our “nature” and God did not make us sinners and then condemn us for being what he made us to be by nature. Now this is not taught in the doctrine of Christ and it is “CALVINISM” pure and simple. For he is the one that teaches that we are sinners by a “corrupted nature inherited from Adam. But God’s word teaches no such thing. Fo0r if a person is a sinner by nature he is a sinner the very moment that he takes on human nature. This very idea makes sin something that is a natural part of our very being and something that we have no choice concerning. But Brother Davis Creed is contradictory here. For if we are sinners by nature we cannot be sinners by choice for we cannot chose our “nature” it is thrust upon us in our natural birth. And if we are sinners by choice then we cannot be sinners by nature for we have control over our “choices” but none whatsoever over our nature. SO, Brother Davis’ creed does in fact have some touches of “Calvinism” as the above quotation from it shows. For it implies the idea of sin as being inherited from our nature rather then the result solely of our conscious choice. The word of God shows us just how we come to sin and the results of it as follows:

“Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (James 1: 11- 15). So we so not sin by nature rather we sin when we are tempted and drawn away by our own lust and we chose to disobey God. It is therefore impossible to “inherit” sin. For sin is not an inherited trait received by nature but rather it s a conscious choice to disobey God.

And this is just one place where we find “Calvinism” embedded in Brother Davis’ creed though we suspect it in other places, which we will discuss when we have the time to go into them. This is just the more apparent and clear Calvinistic notions found in it. For the word of God did not cause Brother Davis to write that men are “Sinners by nature” rather it is the pervasive influence of the false doctrines of John Calvin that caused that nonsense to be written.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

The FACT is, when people visit a congregation, if they are TOLD that congregation adheres to eh NT, in most cases, they will believe it. Sad, but true! It would be great if every person checking out congregatios would be mature enough in their Christianity to be able to discern the truth from falsehood. But the fact is, many (dare I say MOST) aren't that mature. There hear the person in the pulpit SAY it is a NT church, and they have no reason not to believe it. Next thing you know, they are involved in a congregation that may not truly be a NT church.

By using a "statement of faith" or "statement of beliefs" or "statement of what we teach" they will have a better idea of what that particular congregation stands for.

Case in point -- the Church of the Brethren where we use their facilities for our contemporary service and Friday evening coffeehouse. By reading "what they believe" (or however it was worded) I could see that they stand much closer to the biblical stand for Christianity than any other denoms I have personally come in cotact with ... and sadly, are on the mark with regards to the purpose of immersion in the salvation process than many Christian Churches/Churches of Christ that I have come in contact with over the past couple of years.

By reading that info, I could see that there are certainly a "Christian Church" by any other name. Interesting.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Sorry for all the typos in the above post -- typing without checking the spelling 'cause I gotta get outa here!

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Lee, you wrote,

Now, we would like for Brother Davis to show us just where the WORD of God teaches that “all people are SINNERS BY NATURE” and that they are condemned for something that it is “natural” for them to be? For sin is not “natural” and we are not by any means “sinners by nature”.

Barry is not going to have to show you. Lee, I hate to object, but this is not a "Calvinist" docrine, it is a very Biblical one. For Paul wrote, in Romans chapter seven, that all mankind has a nature that is sinful. Indeed, the whole point of the book of Romans and the book of Galatians is that we do indeed inherit a sinful nature, but that we receive a new nature, a new creation, imputed when we come to Christ, and these books tell us how to appropriate it, by dying to our old nature to live for the new. Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:3 that men, outside of Christ, are "by nature the children of wrath." I am somewhat in shock, Lee. This is Bible Doctrine 101, I cannot believe you would object to a doctrine that is all over the New Testament, that is almost at the core of the Gospel itself.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Barry's info does not seem to hold to Calvinist doctrine, in that, at least the way I resd it, it does not hold that we inerit Adams sin, or our parents sin, etc., etc., but that we inherit the nature of sin, as we live in a sin-sick world. Not born a sinner, but born with a leaning towards a sinful lifestyle.

Barry -- correct me if I am wrong on this.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

John and Darrell,

You both hit it right on the head. We are born with the propensity to sin, but only becoming guilty of sin when we commit sin. It should be obvious by now that E. Lee is simply on a witch hunt when it comes to me. I can't imagine any person who understands Restoration Theology that would disagree with any of the statements we have made. This is why I don't bother replying to most of E. Lee's diatribes. For one, if God Himself sat down next to E. Lee and tried to explain doctrine, E. Lee would try to argue with Him; Secondly, I'm too busy doing ministry to waste my time with those who obviously are not on the front lines, but just want to sit back and take cheap shots at those who are.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Barry,

Glad to see you on the forum again. I think that we (I) can learn something from what you share and... I think you can learn something by participating.

One of the points that sticks out in your SoF is this, "We believe that those who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior, and are baptized are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. " That is fine as far as it goes, but it does leave open for you to hold the belief (as I believe you do from other things you have written) that the person's reason for being baptized doesn't matter... or at least, that they can believe fully that they are already saved (and already have the Holy Spirit) when they are baptized and still be regenerated. I'm not so sure about this... for those that beleive this also strongly teach (falsely) salvation by faith only and lead many astray.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Brother John:

You accurately quote my words to Brother Davis as follows:

“Lee, you wrote, Now, we would like for Brother Davis to show us just where the WORD of God teaches that “all people are SINNERS BY NATURE” and that they are condemned for something that it is “natural” for them to be? For sin is not “natural” and we are not by any means “sinners by nature”.”

Then you responded as follows:

“Barry is not going to have to show you.”

Now, Brother John, If you will read the very first sentence of what you quoted me as saying you will find that I said, “we would LIKE for Brother Davis to show us just where the word of God teaches that “All People are sinners by nature”. I did not in any way suggest that Brother Davis was “going to have to show” me anything. I still would like for Brother Davis to show me where the scriptures teach that “all people are sinners by nature”. For you have most assuredly failed to do so as we shall see. But I do not now nor have I ever stated that he MUST do so. I have never implied that he will “have to show me” as you suggested.

Then you say:

“ Lee, I hate to object, but this is not a "Calvinist" docrine, it is a very Biblical one.”

Brother John you should not “hate to object” when you think that I am in error about something. For you know that I am interested in the truth and if you can correct any error that I may have made I would greatly appreciate it. But so far you have not convinced me of any error rather you have made some grievous errors yourself.

No, Brother John, Brother Davis’ statement in this regard is without question tinged with Calvinism in this matter and this Calvinistic idea of being “sinners by nature” or inherently so is most assuredly is not a “Biblical doctrine at all”.

Then you at least do that which Brother Davis has constantly failed to even attempt. You at the very least offer for our consideration some scriptures that cause you to think that the scriptures teach that “All people are sinners by nature” as follows:

“ For Paul wrote, in Romans chapter seven, that all mankind has a nature that is sinful.”

It is interesting to note just here that you have not given the exact reference from Romans the seventh chapter that teaches “all mankind has a nature that is sinful, now have you? And when you say “all mankind” you include all that have ever been members of the human race and partook of human nature. Now, is it not true that Christ was born as a man and took upon himself the nature of man (Heb. 2:14- 18)? Then does this mean that Christ had a “sinful nature”? For you argument would read this way:

Major premise:

All of mankind has a nature that is sinful.

Minor premise:

Christ took upon himself the nature of mankind. (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2: 7)

Conclusion:

Therefore Christ had a “sinful nature”.

Romans the seventh chapter does not teach that “all people are sinners by nature”. But it is rather justifying the Law, which made sin evident. And it explains just as James did that our inner man, whether a Christian or not “delights in the law of God” and that our outer man or our flesh is the source of our temptations and thus craves to satisfy its natural desires and pulls against the will. It only shows that we are tempted when drawn away by our own lust and enticed. But we do not become sinners by this nature but are only tempted by Satan through the desires of the flesh to sin. But we are sinners when we, because we are sorely tempted to satisfy these fleshly desires to disobey God, chose to disobey God rather than deny ourselves and obey him. We are not sinners when we are tempted to sin but we are sinners when we chose to disobey God because we are tempted to do so. WE do not inherit sin. What we inherit is a body that has needs, desires, and cravings, which Satan uses to lure or tempt us to disobey the commands of God concerning the proper fulfillment of those desires. But by nature itself we are not sinners.

Then you say:

“ Indeed, the whole point of the book of Romans and the book of Galatians is that we do indeed inherit a sinful nature, but that we receive a new nature, a new creation, imputed when we come to Christ, and these books tell us how to appropriate it, by dying to our old nature to live for the new.”

Brother John, the apostle Paul expresses the theme or “whole point” of the book of Romans in the first chapter of Romans. The great theme of the Epistle is set forth in chapter 1:16,17: "The Gospel is the Power of God unto Salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." The great doctrine is that salvation is not through the Law by works of the Law, but through the Gospel accepted by Faith. The righteousness of God, the righteousness, which brings justification in the sight of God, does not come from legal works, but comes from God who gives this righteousness to those who believe upon and accept his Son. This great doctrinal theme is discussed with many illustrations and in various phases through chapters 1-11, and in chapters 12-14 the apostle passes to exhortations and practical applications, while the sixteenth and last chapter is devoted to salutations of various saints in Rome known to the apostle.

And anyone who is able to read at all can tell that the idea of man “inheriting a sinful nature” is not even remotely discussed in the entire book much less is it the “whole point of the book of Romans”! And only one who is completely ignorant of its contents would say such a thing! You cannot find one single passage of scripture in either the book of Romans or Galatians that states that we “inherit a sinful nature”. And it is interesting to note that you did not refer us specifically to any one that taught such nonsense, now did you?

Then let notice that the Galatian letter is an indignant protest against and refutation of the Judaizing teachers. In the first two chapters Paul shows that his apostleship was not derived from the other apostles, but from Christ. And that the gospel that he taught was not revealed to him by them, but by his Lord. And that he had never met them as an inferior, but on an equal footing. And that it was agreed between them that Peter, James and John would devote their labors to the Circumcision, while he and Barnabas should go to the Uncircumcision. And that on one occasion it was needful for him to rebuke and correct Peter on the very question of the proper attitude towards Gentile Christians. In the Second Part of the Letter, chapters three and four, he contrasts the free gospel salvation by a living faith in Christ with the slavish legalism of the false teachers who would virtually place Moses in the stead of Christ. The Third Part, the fifth and sixth chapters is devoted mainly to practical duties, which grow out of the gospel.

There is not a single word in the book of Galatians that teaches that “all people are sinners by nature”. And Brother John you have not specified a single one that teaches such nonsense, now have you?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Then you argue as follows from Ephesians 2:3:

“Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:3 that men, outside of Christ, are "by nature the children of wrath."”

Not only fleshly desires, but the impulses of a sinful mind, such as malice, envy, pride, etc. And were “by nature the children of wrath, even as others”. This declares that "we," now Jewish Christians, were once, when in a state of nature, under condemnation, just as the "others," the rest of the world, or the Gentiles. Some have held, as does brother John that this passage teaches innate, hereditary depravity. I am sure that this was not in the apostle's mind. (1) Two classes are spoken of, "you" and "we," Gentiles and Jews. (2) Both were equally sinful, the first "dead in trespasses and in sins," and the second "by nature the children of wrath, even as the others." (3) The passage then simply affirms that Jews and Gentiles alike, before conversion, were dead in trespasses and sins, and under the divine condemnation. However, "by nature" is supposed to teach, according to Brother John and some other Calvinist, that the depravity is innate, and that all are born under the wrath of God. Such an interpretation would put the passage in conflict with Paul's teaching elsewhere, and with that of Christ. For instance Matthew 18:3 and 19:4 are inconsistent with the view that little children are born "under the wrath of God." Indeed, it is taught in this passage that both classes have been brought into this state of condemnation by walking in sin, not by their birth. But does not by nature imply that they are born "children of wrath?" The word rendered "by nature," is found in Romans 2:14;1 Cor. 11:14; Gal. 2:15; Gal. 4:8. In only one of these passages can it refer to natural birth at all, and there it refers to race (Gal. 2:15). In not one passage does it describe what is innate. It does describe custom, practice, and unconverted state. No one would say that the Gentiles, who "do by nature the things of the law," do so because it is innate. It means that they do so without the revelation. In a similar sense it is used here, and means that "we," as well as others, before we were converted by the gospel, were dwelling in sin like others, and were like them, "the children of wrath." The state of nature is the unconverted state. In is not a reference to any inherent nature that makes men sinners but rather the nature of those who had been practicing sin as “Children of wrath”.

But notice what Paul says in the seventh chapter of Romans concerning the nature of the inner man, converted or not, “delights in the law of God.” (Romans 7:22).

Then you say:

“I am somewhat in shock, Lee.”

Brother John, you can relax. You imaginary state of shock will pass and it will not kill you. But your false doctrine that we “inherit sin” will destroy you and those who believe it.

Then you say:

“ This is Bible Doctrine 101”

No brother John nothing can be a “Bible doctrine” unless it is taught in the Bible. And thus far you have failed miserably to demonstrate that such nonsense is taught in the Bible therefore you have failed to prove that it is “Bible 101”. You may have had a course that pretended to be “Bible 101” in some sectarian college or university that taught such nonsense as if it were “Bible 101”. But they did not teach you where you could find such a doctrine in the scriptures for you have been unable to show it to us, now haven’t you? Now, while this is not “Bible 101” it is surely “Calvinism 101”. It is indeed one of the very basic tenets of Calvinism that we are totally and hereditarily depraved. And one of the ways they attempt to prove this nonsense is by claiming that we inherited a sinful nature from our father Adam. So, you also are teaching Calvinism aren’t you?

Then you say:

“ I cannot believe you would object to a doctrine that is all over the New Testament”

You are correct in understanding that I most assuredly would not object to any doctrine taught in even one single place in the New Testament. And you know that I would not object to such or you would not be so “shocked” now would you? But I am not objecting to a doctrine that is “all over the New Testament”! I am objecting, instead, to a doctrine that is NOWHERE in the New Testament. And you have yet to find it anywhere in the New Testament. Just because you imagine that it is “everywhere in the New Testament” and assert that such is a reality that we all should believe is no reason that we should believe you. Especially since you are completely unable to refer us to a single passage of scripture that teaches such nonsense. If it is “every where in the New Testament” then why is it that you cannot find it anywhere in the New Testament?

Then you say that the idea that we “inherit a sinful nature” is almost the “core of the gospel itself” as follows:

“ that is almost at the core of the Gospel itself.”

Now, Brother John we ask you to prove it! Prove to us that the gospel even mentions that we we inherit a sinful nature much less that it is “almost” at the “core of the gospel itself”. You have not even been able to demonstrate that such nonsense is even a “part of the gospel itself” much less that it is at the very “core of the gospel itself”! If you are to prove this hogwash you will have to do a better job than you have done thus far, now won’t you?

The truth is that even Romans seven shows that the inner man, which is also a part of our nature “delights in the law of God” (Romans 7:21-22). It is the part of our nature that “wills to do Good”. And there is also “another law” that wars against that part of our nature that “wills to do good” (Romans 7:23). And this is the law of the inclination of the weak flesh to desire to do evil in order to gratify its own lust. And James explains how this works. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (James 1:12-15). Thus, the inclination of our fleshly desires only provides a means for Satan to tempt us but we are not made SINNERS in this way. It is not until our lust is “conceived” that it brings forth sin. And it is not until we sin that we die! So, while there are natural cravings of man whereby Satan can tempt us to sin it does not follow that we are “sinners by nature” for we can chose to deny ourselves the enjoyment of these “pleasures” by the gratification of these cravings and desires. Just as Jesus did after he had been without food for forty days. And was at that very moment when all of his natural cravings, desires and even physical needs were so deprived (not depraved but deprived) tempted to “turn stones into bread” bread which he surely was starving to eat. But Christ CHOSE to say, “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”. (Matt. 4:4). Now it is obvious that it was surely natural for his flesh to crave “bread” after being without food for so long. But Christ was not a “SINNER by nature” or it was not a forgone conclusion that Christ would sin because his nature craved food desperately! He still had the power of will, and choice. He was “tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. So he chose to obey God’s word and do God’s will even when he was hungry and tempted to obey the command of Satan to make stones into bread. But he did not. But according to this Calvinistic view man is by nature a sinner and therefore is unable to do as our lord, who was a man like we are. But Christ proved that man can, despite of his “natural desires and cravings” chose to obey God instead of satisfying his fleshly desires and cravings. And for this reason he said, “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children, yea and his own life also HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE”. (Luke 14:26). And he also said, “whosoever doeth not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:27). And again he said, “So, likewise whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33). It is clear that God expects us to choose to obey Him even when our cravings, desires, ambitions, aims and earthly cravings seemingly and strongly compel us to disobey Him. He expects us to go without food, if we must to obey him. He expects us to sacrifice our dreams if we must to obey him. He expects us to “forsake all that we have if we must to obey him. And our current twentieth century notion that we just “cannot help it if we sin” because we are “sinful by nature”. And that it is therefore not our fault since we cannot go against our nature is a LIE that began with Satan and was popularized by Calvin and is now being propagated by Brother John and Brother Davis. And it is most assuredly contrary to the doctrine of Christ and the example of Christ. Read the temptation of Christ and see how he went against nature instead of using it as an excuse to disobey God.

“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matt.)

Now it should be quite obvious that there was nothing in the human nature of the Son of God that had the power to force him to sin. He was tempted by Satan by appealing to his natural need for food when he was hungry but his natural need for food was not “sinful in nature” but only something that Satan could use to tempt him to sin. In like manner there is nothing in our nature that is in and of itself sinful. But the natural cravings can be used by Satan to tempt us but that is all. These natural things are no SINFUL in and of themselves and neither are we “sinners by them”. WE are sinners solely by choice! We chose to do that which we know is wrong in order to gratify our own will, desires, lusts and cravings. But we do not have to make that choice. And because we are capable of choosing not to sin we are responsible before God, justly, for our sins. But we do not inherit our sins nor are we “sinners by nature”. Rather we are tempted to sin when we are “drawn away by our own lust and enticed” and we become sinners when we chose to disobey God and not one moment before or without disobeying God. And we do not disobey God because it is “natural” for us to do so or because we have inherited a “sinful nature from Adam and Eve and ultimately God who is the “father of our spirits”. Instead we inherited a world void of the tree of Life which was removed from the Garden of Eden. And we inherit a world that yields her fruit to us only by the “sweat of our face”. And thus we inherit a world wherein we are all facing death because that which God had provided in the garden to sustain our life was removed because of Adam’s sin. But we did not inherit Adams sin nor did we inherit a sinful nature from him. Man’s nature is the same as it was before the fall in the garden. Nothing about his actual “nature” was changed nothing. He has the same propensity in the Garden of Eden to mortality but he could be rejuvenated by eating of the “tree of life” which was in the garden. But when man sinned God remove him from the garden and placed cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the way of the tree of life lest man should “eat and live forever”. WE no longer have access to the tree that save us from our mortality. Now we have no choice but to die because of Adams sin. But in the resurrection we will be brought back to life and then the consequence of Adam’s sin will be ended and we will once again have access to the tree of life in the paradise of God! Oh, Lord hasten the day!

Now, let us apply these concepts, concerning the nature of man, to Christ who took upon himself the nature of man. Look at how he was tempted by Satan’s appeals to the natural desires of men. And notice how that he though possessed of the same nature, as we are, CHOSE NOT TO SIN. Therefore he was not a “sinner by nature”. In other words he neither inherited a sinful nature when he took upon himself the nature of man nor was naturally sinful and neither are we. We are tempted and enticed to disobey God just as Christ was tempted but we become sinners when we, unlike Christ, chose of our own free will to disobey God rather than escape temptation. But there is not a single passage in the entire word of God that even remotely implies that we are “sinners by nature”, not a single one.

And the scriptures teach that Christ took part in the same nature that we partake of and if we are “sinners by nature” then so was he! Read this verse. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” (Heb. 2:14- 18). And read again:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:5-8).

Jesus did not take upon himself the “nature of Angels” but he took upon himself the nature of the “seed of Abraham” or man. Thus he took upon himself the NATURE OF MAN. And whatever is man’s nature after the fall is the nature that Christ took upon himself while upon this earth. And therefore if man is BY NATURE a SINNER then Jesus Christ was a SINNER for he took upon himself the exact same NATURE that the seed of Abraham, who was a man, possessed. Now, I am convinced that neither Jesus Christ nor any other person who has ever had the NATURE of MAN is a Sinner by nature and therefore Christ when he took on our nature was not a sinner by that nature. But those of you who think that man is a “SINNER BY NATURE” should then explain to us just how it is that the SON OF GOD could take upon himself such a nature without being a sinner by it. And I do hope that Brother John, and possibly the “peanut gallery” will make some attempt to respond to the questions that I have asked regarding this matter in both this post and the previous post.

What man inherited is a world deprived of the “tree of life” which man could eat and live forever. And because he is so deprived of that tree of life he will die. And he inherited a world that therefore suffers from the consequence of Adam’s sin. For we cannot any longer eat of the tree of life and live. But now we must look toward the day that we will die. But, one day, those who are in Christ will raise from the dead and will go to be with Christ in heaven where the tree of life is on either side of the river of the water of life and once again we will eat and live forever. But man did not inherit any “corrupted nature” and there is not a single passage in the entire word of God that teaches such nonsense.

There is nothing in the innate nature of man that is sinful and none can find a single passage in God’s word that teaches that man has inherited the sins of his father Adam or any one else. The scriptures plainly state, “The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the Son. The soul that sinner it shall die.” (Ezek. 18:20) Sin is not an “inherited trait” as Brother John would like for you to believe. And Brother Davis’ cannot be charged with teaching directly that we “inherit sin” as Brother John is falsely teaching. But he is teaching that we are SINNERS BY NATURE and our natures are something that we INHERIT therefore he is indirectly teaching the exact same nonsense as Brother John is teaching but he has at least allowed himself the possibility of “deniability”. He can “deny” that he is teaching that we inherit sin. But he cannot deny that he is teaching that that we are “sinners by nature” and he cannot deny that we inherit our natures. Therefore he can be convicted of teaching indirectly that we inherit sin. Even though sin is not something that can be inherited. It is an act of overt disobedience to the law. (John 3:4) and no one can inherit disobedience. They must chose it and they must commit the acts of disobedience in order to be sinners. But none have ever been sinners by nature! But if any were sinners by nature they would inherently be sinners for we inherit our natures we do not “chose them”. Yet if we are “Sinners by nature” we cannot do anything but sin. We would therefore have no choice in the matter. It is reasonable to say that we are tempted Satan, who plays upon our nature as human beings with needs, desires cravings and urges both physical and emotional. But we are sinners solely by choice when we chose to yield to those temptations. And we have no excuse for such yielding to temptation to disobey God. For Christ set the example for us to follow. He made no such excuses based upon human nature being responsible for our sins. No, he made it axiomatic that we are sinners by our own choice and are therefore responsible for our sins and God is just to punish us for them as he is merciful to forgive them when we repent and cease serving sin.

“Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” (1 John 2:15-17).

Now Christ was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” (Heb. 4:15,16).

But though Christ took upon himself our human nature he was still WITHOUT SIN because a man is inherently sinful by virtue of his nature as a human being. If they were then Christ would have been “by nature” sinful. Who can reasonably believe such hogwash! It is simply impossible for sin to be inherited as Brother John claims. And therefore sin is not a part of our nature, which we inherit from our fathers. The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak. But the flesh though weak is not sinful until the spirit yields to the flesh and by choosing to disobey the laws of God. Then the weak flesh sins and not before. Weakness is not sin. And using our weakness is no excuse for sin. Sin cannot be excuse it must be PUNISHED OR FORGIVEN. And if man were by nature a sinner he would not be responsible for sin. God would be responsible for sin because he created our nature!

James explains how we are all sin as follows and one can easily see that it is by choice and not by nature that we sin.

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (James 1:12-15).

I love you Brother John and for that reason I seek to correct you in this error that you have taught. It is an egregious error that was popularized by John Calvin and not taught at all by Jesus Christ the Son of God and savior of man.

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said to brothers John and Darrel as if they said the same thing and as if what they said was exactly the same as what your creed said as follows:

“You both hit it right on the head. We are born with the propensity to sin, but only becoming guilty of sin when we commit sin.”

When in truth Brother Darrel has not said the same thing that Brother John has said. Brother Darrel is the one who appears to not believe in “inherited sin” and thought only that your words were not Calvinistic because they did not say anything directly about inherited sin. And Brother John taught the scriptures teach that we actually “inherit a sinful nature”. So do tell us, Brother Davis, since they are not at all agreed in what they said which one of them “hit the nail on the head”? For if one of then “hit it” the other one had to miss it! Ha! For their comments are diametrically opposite of each other!

Well it is obvious that either Brother John says the same as your creed when he taught that we “inherit a sinful nature”. Or you believe that Brother Darrel hit the nail on the head when he said that you did not mean to imply that sin is inherited but only that we have a propensity to sin”. We cannot tell just which one of the two “hit the nail on the head concerning the teaching of your creed though we suspect that Brother John came closer to what your creed is teaching when he affirmed that “we inherit a sinful nature”.

But what Brother Darrel said is not what your Creed says. Your Creed says that people are “sinners by nature and by choice”. Now, a person can be born into the world with a “propensity” or a possibility that he will be tempted to sin. But it is not anything innate in his “nature” that makes him a “sinner”. Man is not therefore a “sinner by nature” as your creed says. He might be tempted by the nature of the fact that he lives in a body with desires and cravings and such that can be used by Satan to tempt him to sin. But he is not a sinner by virtue of any such thing. For no one is a sinner when they are tempted. For as you say they “only become guilty of sin when they commit sin”. Now if you really believe that men “ONLY become sinners when they COMMIT sin” then you cannot believe that they are sinners ALSO BY NATURE. For (1) if they are sinners by nature and by choice as your creed says then it is not true that they are sinners ONLY when they commit sin but that they are sinners also by nature. And (2) no one commits sins by NATURE they commit them by choice. So, your own words show that your Creed is teaching something that even you do not really believe. Or you inadvertently stated what you really believe and you are now, after having been caught teaching it, trying to leave the false impression that you did not exactly mean what you said. You did not say anything in your creed about a mere “propensity toward sin” but rather you said that all “all people are sinners by NATURE AND BY CHOICE.

Then you say:

“ It should be obvious by now that E. Lee is simply on a witch hunt when it comes to me.”

No, Brother Davis that is not the truth and you could not prove it to be true to save your life. I am against the false doctrines that you have taught in this forum and I have been consistently responding to such. If you ever teach something that is according to the truth of God’s word I will be happy to agree with you. But thus until then I will oppose false doctrines and it matters not who is teaching them. You are hardly the only one that I have contended with that was teaching false doctrines. And you will not be the last either.

Then you say:

“I can't imagine any person who understands Restoration Theology that would disagree with any of the statements we have made.”

Oh, yes you can. And anyone who knows about the teachings of those great men who despised human creeds and upheld the word of God in bright Contrast to them will find much in their words that would disagree vehemently with your false doctrines and your feeble attempt to write a creed yourself. But what are most important to all Christians are not “restoration theology” but the word of God. Now anyone who teaches that which is contrary to the word of God is in direct conflict with the idea of restoring New Testament Christianity.

Then you say:

“ This is why I don't bother replying to most of E. Lee's diatribes.”

And this is not true either. The real reason that you do not respond is simply because you cannot respond with any answers to the many questions that we have asked you about your teachings. But we still ask you to answer our questions just in case you might want to lower yourself enough to attempt to do so.

Then you say:

“ For one, if God Himself sat down next to E. Lee and tried to explain doctrine, E. Lee would try to argue with Him”

Now how do you know this to be true? How about proving that such is the case? You have judged that I would behave this way if God sat down to teach me. Now how is it that you have made this judgement without being somewhat “judgmental”? You are the one that condemns being judgmental aren’t you? But it is only to be condemned if E. Lee Saffold does it. Indeed the legs of the lame are surely unequal aren’t they?

Then you say:

“ Secondly, I'm too busy doing ministry to waste my time with those who obviously are not on the front lines, but just want to sit back and take cheap shots at those who are.”

Now, we know that you must be extremely busy for you claim that such is the case. But you say it is obvious that those of us who write regularly in this forum are “not on the front lines” like “our brave brother Davis” who is “boldly going where his brethren are too lazy and self righteous to go"! Oh, we are so impressed with the fact that you are out there on the FRONT LINES you poor self sacrificing wonderful superior saint. We are so thankful to have you out there teaching false doctrine at every place you turn and spreading a gospel that is contrary to the very gospel of Christ! Oh, how can we compare with one of your superior spiritual attainments and dedication!

The truth is we have taken quite a few very accurate “shots” at Brother Davis and he does not want to get into the line of fire very often for he knows that he is going to be hit!

You can come and go as much as your “front line duties” will allow you. And we are sure that you must be very busy out there on the front lines because it seems from your words that they is no one else out there BUT YOU. It must be just awful to fight on the front lines all alone like that! For none of us in this forum have ever been near the front lines. Maybe you should come back sometime and tell us just how such a brave and courageous man like yourself is able to stand up to the stress and stain of such duties all alone out there by yourself on the front lines! Why we just have no idea what that kind of life might be like. Surely God is going to give you a glorious crown. And we understand that you are not boasting or anything like that now are you? Yes sir! No one on this forum is as dedicated to Christ as you and if any one doubts it all he need do is simply ask you isn’t that right, Brother Davis? And since we know that you are great "veteran of the front lines" we dare not take any "cheap shots" at you. For that would be dangerous wouldn't it? So we will have to make sure that we take aim and make sure that we have you in our cross hairs before we every so gently pull the trigger, now won't we?

Honestly, anyone can see just how hypocritical those who have left the truth can be. They condemn self- righteousness and yet they are self righteous in the very act of doing so. Those whom they have judged to be “judgmental” outrage them! And no one is more spiritual and dedicated to the “front line duties” than they are!

For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

My immediate response to this conversation is that.....we have equivicated two words......nature and guilt. In addition....one needs to define "sinful nature."

First.....the essence of the Calvinistic doctrine is that we have inherited the "guilt" of Adam's sin...i.e., we bear the consequences of Adam's sin. Thus the need many Calvinists feel for child sprinkling.....or in many Baptist churches to push the kids to be baptized as early as possible.

Second....this belief then leads to another tenet of Calvinism that because of Adam's guilt.....we are totally depraved...i.e., unable to do anything good....including believing in God...thus the need to be miraculously "zapped by faith."

Both of these are extremely unbiblical....and in fact, were in Barton Stone's own words....."the enemy."

Since the Scripture states that we inherit something from Adam......what then is it that we do inherit??? As E. Lee points out....whatever we come up with must be consistent with what the Scriptures say about Christ in His human form.

The first thing we inherit from Adam is death. As we know quite well....Christ was subject to this.

The next thing that we inherit from Adam...is a "bent" (if you will) towards sin. That is.....given the choice between good and evil we normally choose evil. It is not because we have to.....but because before we are converted....it seems the easier choice since there is no spiritual warfare going on.

This.....Christ was certainly susceptible to otherwise the temptations of Christ in the wilderness by Satan.....were meaningless....and the Scriptural statement that "He was tempted in all points as we are"....becomes ridiculous.

So....."sinful nature" biblically defined is not...."sinning because I have no choice"......but rather....."sinning because by nature....it is the easier of the two choices." (That we can thank Adam for....i.e., "through one man sin entered the world.")

Futher evidence of this is the Hebrew writer's declaration that none of us (other than Christ).....have resisted temptation to the "point of shedding blood."

You see the choice to sin...is much easier than the choice to obey.

However, what changes that is the heart converted to Christ. Sin, then, no longer becomes the norm.....but the embarrasing exception to a life that has "risen to walk in newness of life." Sin still survives in the life of the Christian.....but it is no longer to be the ruler.

Therefore, I would not use the language Barry used in his SOF. Reason being....that people coming from a Calvinistic background have a Calvinistic definition of the term "sinful nature".....as opposed to a biblical one.

I mean.....there are some words or phrases that are good words....but....the denoms. have changed the definitions and corrupted the words or phrases to such an extent.....I believe we need to be concerned about our vocabulary.

Another example of a good biblical term I do not use is "born again." That means something entirely different, for instance, to Charasmatic churches than it does biblically.

But....that's another thread.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

E. Lee,

As usual, I appreciate your use of specific scripture in your discussions and your encouragement of others to do the same.

This discussion over "by nature" v/s "a propensity to" seems to be a 'fine line', but... from past discussions with you, I am aware that you are more capable of discerning subtleties than I.

Since "all have sinned", there must be something about our nature that causes us to give in when tempted. Barry's SoF doesn't stop at "by nature", but says, "... by nature and by choice..." Adding "by choice", clarifies the "by nature" portion, doesn't it? In other words, we have "a nature that chooses to sin", right?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Thanks for your post, Danny.

BTW ... does anyone know where I can purchase a newer mouse ...the one with the scroll wheel between the two buttons. It would make it much easier to scroll down through LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG posts and get to the meat of the matter! :)

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Darrell,

Yahoo is marketing a scroll-type mouse now and I believe both CompUSA & Best Buy are offering it on-sale this week - around $15 I believe. Also WalMart carries a scroll gel mouse made by Fellowes that works well and is both PS/2 & USB compatible (I use this one on my box).

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Robin.....

It is only a "fine line" when one doesn't fully understand what Calvinism means by the term "sinful nature."

When one fully understands that.....then the term "bent" or "propensity" towards sin.....becomes a wide chasm as opposed to a thin line.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Danny.....

Good explanation on the differences between "bent" vs "nature".

Here's another verse to consider in this mix:

"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9)

How's that for having a "bent"?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

E. Lee,

Perhaps the following passage will clear things up for you concerning the sinful nature:

(Romans 5:12-21) Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- {13} for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. {14} Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. {15} But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! {16} Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. {17} For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. {18} Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. {19} For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.{20} The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, {21} so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

These verses contrast and compare life in Adam with life in Christ. These men are alike in that each is the head of a race, and thus his actions have far-reaching effects. They differ in that through one death came to all men (v. 12), but through the other life came as a free gift for those who would accept that gift (vv. 17, 18). The passage affirms that in some way Adam's sin has negatively affected the entire human race. Man inherits a sinful nature and sinful state via his identification with Adam as the head of the race. Paul does not explain exactly how all sinned in Adam, but he clearly affirms the fact of it. While a person is not condemned until the sinful nature is acted upon, the sinful nature is present in all of humanity. All humanity is spiritually related to one of these two men. Either we are (1) in Adam by birth and therefore under condemnation, or (2) in Christ by faith and therefore justified and forgiven. We are in Adam naturally by birth. We are in Christ supernaturally by the New Birth.

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Robin,

You wrote: One of the points that sticks out in your SoF is this, "We believe that those who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior, and are baptized are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. " That is fine as far as it goes, but it does leave open for you to hold the belief (as I believe you do from other things you have written) that the person's reason for being baptized doesn't matter... or at least, that they can believe fully that they are already saved (and already have the Holy Spirit) when they are baptized and still be regenerated. I'm not so sure about this... for those that beleive this also strongly teach (falsely) salvation by faith only and lead many astray.

Barry's Reply: Yes, that does leave it open to all who are obedient. We state no more than this, because the Bible states no more than this. We are baptized into Christ, not into a baptismal theology. Don't miss the other section that reads:

About God's New Society . . .

We believe in the universal church, a living spiritual body of which Christ is the head and all regenerated persons are members. We believe in the local church, consisting of a company of believers in Jesus Christ, baptized on a credible confession of faith, and associated for worship, work and fellowship. We believe that God has laid upon the members of the local church the primary task of giving the gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost world.

Notice that they are "baptized on a credible confession of faith". This is the real issue. Are they baptized as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ? The issue is not, "do they understand everything about baptism". If so, none of our baptisms are adequate as none of us fully understand everything there is to understand about it. At what point does one know enough? When they know that Jesus is God in the flesh who died on the cross as their substitute and rose from the dead. Those who require more than this are adding to the requirements of Scripture. Every reference to baptism in Paul's letters was written to those who were already baptized. Were those receiving these letters not saved before they received the theology to back up their previous actions?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Danny,

You have said, "It is only a "fine line" when one doesn't fully understand what Calvinism means by the term "sinful nature."

When one fully understands that.....then the term "bent" or "propensity" towards sin.....becomes a wide chasm as opposed to a thin line. "

I sure don't claim to "fully understand what Calvinism means by the term 'sinful nature'", but I do understand somewhat. BUT, Barry's SoF does not say "sinful nature" it says, "sinners by nature and by choice" (emphasis mine). Doesn't the "and by choice" portion go completely against Calvinism? We are "sinners by nature"... we have it in our nature to choose sin. The 'fine line' that I talked about is between "by nature and by choice" v/s "a propensity to"... not between "sinful nature" and "a propensity to".

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Darrell,

You can also hit the 'End' button... or at least I can. This is a cheaper (and quicker) way to get to the 'bottom of things'!! :-)

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Barry,

You have said, "Every reference to baptism in Paul's letters was written to those who were already baptized. Were those receiving these letters not saved before they received the theology to back up their previous actions? " No, but I don't think they believed or Falsely Taught that they were saved prior to being baptized... as many do today.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Brother Darrel:

I appreciate your kind words and your response even though I must disagree.

You have said:

“Since "all have sinned", there must be something about our nature that causes us to give in when tempted.”

Brother Darrel, it does not follow from your premise “all have sinned” that there therefore “must” be something in our nature that “causes us” to “give in when tempted”. You argument looks like this:

Major premise: Something causes us to give in to temptation Minor premise: All that have been human in nature have sinned Conclusion: Therefore something in our nature causes us to give in to temptation

Now the fact that something causes us to give in to temptation is not questioned by anyone otherwise such would not occur. And your minor premise is true only if all that have ever partaken of human nature have sinned. And as we have now pointed out several times and none but Brother Danny has even noticed it, Christ partook of the exact same human nature as the rest of us yet he did not sin. (Heb. 2:14- 18; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 4:15). Thus your minor premise is flawed in relation to human nature. But even if your minor premise were valid it would not follow from it that “something in our NATURE causes us to give in to temptation.” For your premises have nothing to do with any specific cause but rather with the broad and general idea of causation? Your premise does not speak of anything specific in our nature that causes us to yield to temptation. Nor do they even speak to human nature itself as a specific cause. Rather your premise is that something within human nature causes us to sin. Thus you are arguing from general premises to prove a SPECIFIC conclusion. If your conclusion is to be specific logically you premises must be as well. How do we know that it is not our own choice that causes us to sin? What requires from your premise that the cause is only to be found in human nature itself? Is it not possible that it is to be found in the human WILL to chose? Is it not possible that the deception of Satan through false teachers that deceive us into believing lies that causes us to sin when we think that we re doing right? In essence your simple claim that because we are all human beings by nature and that all human beings have sinned justifies your drawing the conclusion that there must be something in the very nature of being human that causes us to sin. And therefore one would conclude that there is nothing that we can do but sin because we are not responsible for choosing our nature. And our nature is such that it causes us to sin. God made our nature therefore he is responsible for our sins.

God forbids us to sin God made human nature, which causes us to sin Therefore God forbids us to do that which he designed that we will naturally do.

Then you say:

“ Barry's SoF doesn't stop at "by nature", but says, "... by nature and by choice..." Adding "by choice", clarifies the "by nature" portion, doesn't it?”

No, Brother Darrel, when Brother Davis’ creed adds the words “by choice” he contradicts himself and confuses the issue instead of clarifying it. For if we are sinners by nature then we cannot be sinners by choice. For if I chose to sin it is evident that I am able to chose not to sin regardless of what my nature is. If I chose not to sin then my human nature failed to cause me to sin.

Then you say:

“ In other words, we have "a nature that chooses to sin", right?”

Christ had the same “nature” that we have. (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5- 8; Heb 4:15). And he chose NOT TO SIN. And God commands us to chose not to sin. In fact he makes a way for us to escape temptation and expects us to choose to use it. It is our souls within us, and not our nature that chooses to sin or not to sin. And at the judgment God is not going to punish our “natures” for “choosing to sin” he is going to punish the PERSON regardless of his nature, who made the choice to sin. It is not our “natures that sin” but our souls. Ezekiel says, “the soul that sinneth it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20). It is not the “human nature that sins” but the soul that sins, which shall die. There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that teaches that our “nature is sinful”. Those who practice and serve sin have developed the habit of sin and that habit is the reason why say it is their “nature” to sin. And those who have come to Christ have ceased from the service of sin and they did so by their own free will and choice. (Romans 6:16-18). WE are servants of who we obey whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness. We have a choice and the choice is betewwn doing the will of God or gratifying the lust, desires, and ambitions of the flesh. The choice is shall we do God’s will or own will. And nothing but our own choice determines whether we will sin against God or serve him.

Those who practice and serve sin have developed the habit of sin and that habit is the reason why say it is their “nature” to sin. But we do not mean that it is nature that causes them to sin but rather that they have so exercised themselves in the habit of disobeying God that it is a natural response for them to initially chose to disobey rather than obey. But there is nothing innate in our natures that cause us to sin. We sin by choice and only by choice and there is nothing that can absolve us of responsibility for our sins. WE must therefore choose to repent of them and seek God’s mercy or be punished for them as objects of his indignant wrath. But we cannot stand before God in the judgement and claim it was my human nature that caused us to sin. We cannot say to God “I really did not choose to sin. My human nature did it”. Just as Adam who sought to shift blame for his sins away from himself by saying, “the woman you gave to me did give to me and I did eat”. In other words he said “my wife made me do it”. And withiut realizing it he subtly implied that God caused the problem because he gave him the woman, didn’t he? In the same way many today have sough to shift the blame for their sins onto innate human nature and in the process subtly blame God himself for their sins. The old effort of Eve to shift blame is still around, isn’t it? She said, “the serpent made me do it” or in other words she was saying “the devil made me do it. Well today we have changed the shifting a blame to our own human natures for which God and not ourselves is responsible. Oh this is without doubt the cause of the feeble weakness of the convictions of many and their lack of will to remain faithful to the point of death among us. WE whine that we just cannot “help it” because the temptation is so strong and it is after all our human nature that is leading us to do these things and we cannot be condemned for doing what it is our nature to do, now can we. For we did not create our nature, God did! And he knows that we just “cannot help it if we sin” now doesn’t he? Now, I know that Brother Darrel does not behave this way but the idea that it is our human nature to sin is among the root causes of such frailty and weakness and irresponsibility for sin. What we need to do is squarely face our responsibility for sin because it is a matter of our deliberate choices and our will or lack of it that determines whether we will chose to sin against God or obey him. And there is no evidence whatsoever that there is anything innate in our nature that forces us to sin.

And those who have come to Christ have ceased from the service of sin and they did so by their own free will and choice. (Romans 6:16-18). WE are servants of whom we obey whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness. We have a choice as to who we will obey. We are not by our nature sinners. We are sinners by choice. For if we were by nature sinners we could not by choice be sinners. And if we are sinners by choice it is not by nature for we have no choice concerning our human nature. So, if it is by choice it is not by nature and if it is by nature it is not by choice but it cannot be both simultaneously. And the choice is between doing the will of God or gratifying the lust, desires, and ambitions of the flesh. The choice is shall we do God’s will or own will. And nothing but our own choice determines whether we will sin against God or serve him.

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Brother Robin and Darrel:

I apologize to both of you. My last post was addressed to Darrel but it was supposed to be addressed to Robin. The comments to which I was respopnding was those made by Robin. Darrel's post followed his and all I saw was Darrel's name. I was up very late last night so please forgive the error.

Your BRother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

E. Lee,

What would you say to Romans 3:9, 23? (These are just 2 that came off the top of my head.)

Romans 3:9, 23 (NASB) v.9- "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are ALL (emphasis mine) under sin;"

v.23- "For ALL (emphasis mine) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Are you saying that it is possible for someone (other than Christ) to not sin?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Marc....

We are ALL under the condemnation of sin.....we are not condemned to sin.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Robin....

As my post pointed out....you understand it....I understand it.....the Calvinists coming into our churches....do not.

Therefore....we ought to be very careful about what language we use.....which is why I do not use the terminology...."sinful nature"....in introductory material given to visitors about the church.

Their definition and the biblical one.....are miles apart.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Hi Robin,

I posted that, "Every reference to baptism in Paul's letters was written to those who were already baptized. Were those receiving these letters not saved before they received the theology to back up their previous actions? "

Your response: "No, but I don't think they believed or Falsely Taught that they were saved prior to being baptized... as many do today."

How does that change the effect of baptism on the person's heart? What Scripture verses state anything even close to this?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

E. Lee (and others),

What is the "sinful nature" referred to in Romans 8:4?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Robin....I thought of another good example.

I believe in predestination.

Ephesians 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intetion of His will."

Here it is clear......God predestined the "how" (i.e., through Christ)....but not the "who."

On the other hand....mention the word "predestine" to a Calvinist....and you get a completely different perception.

Again.....I have no problem with the term "sinful nature." However, I think when dealing with new people especially.....we ought to be careful of the language we use since it has been so tainted by Calvinism.

May I suggest the term....."fallen nature??"

Actually....that is not my terminology.....but A. Campbell's.

See my new thread entitled....."Alexander Campbell on the Sinful Nature."

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Danny;

I find myself agreeing with you and disagreeing with Lee on this one.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Lee -- Danny and i (and I believe others) have mentioned in this thread the expediency of using a SofF/SofB/What We Teach or something like that in order to "cut to the chase" with regards to what a person is getting into when attending a congregation.

I understand that we should never let expediency be the rule is what we use in the church ... and I also understand that Paul even taught that expediency could be a good thing.

Can you (in a nutshell please) explain why using something like this for expediency sake is either anti-blbilical, or in some other fashion is something that you would not like to see used.

If need be, feel free to scroll up and see the reasons we gave for using items such as these in our congregations.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Darrell,

I'm not trying to answer for E. Lee, but just wanted to share what I see as a possible down-side to man-written statements of belief.

I believe that all of what is written in the Bible is necessary and that what is written is sufficient. Anything that man writes is in danger of either taking something away or adding to the perfect scripture.

For example, Barry's SoF is quite simple and straight-forward... but we have already seen controversy over the "by nature" portion and also we know that Barry believes that those Faith Only beleivers, who believe and falsely teach that they are already saved prior to and without baptism, are still regenerated at baptism.... This can be seen in the SoF as it does not expressly say that baptism is for the remission of sins.

I do understand why something like a SoF is useful... but it can also be dangerous.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Robin,

The only controversy over the sinful nature portion of our SOF has come from E. Lee. Unless I am reading the posts wrong, everyone else agrees with it. If we get to the point that we can't put such pure doctrinal truth into our SOF because someone might misunderstand it, how can we ever say anything about anything at all?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Barry......Like I said....I agree with it. I simply think the wording is poor.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Danny,

You said, "We are ALL under the condemnation of sin.....we are not condemned to sin." To answer my original question, "is possible for someone (other than Christ) to not sin?"

I am not trying to disagree with you... I want to know how to answer others. If we are not condemned to sin it seems to imply it would be possible not to sin.

Could you also give me a simple way to share with others that we believe children do not sin because they do not know better, yet I know many adults that sin and don't seem to know better (especially those with no religious training)?

Also thank you for your comment on, Ephesians 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intetion of His will."

Here it is clear......God predestined the "how" (i.e., through Christ)....but not the "who."

That helped a lot on that verse... it a simple enough explination that even a simple person like me can remember... if I write it down:)!

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Marc.....a tough question....to be sure. I hope Matt Hartford is reading this thread as I believe he has some things worth listening to. I don't agree with Matt on every point....but I think, in general, he is correct.

Basically....outside of Christ.....I do not believe a man can be sinless. Otherwise....what was the purpose for which Christ died?? If a man could observe the law perfectly....as Christ.....His death was needless. Does not Paul state that when He states that what the Law could not do.....(i.e., provide salvation).....Christ did in the flesh (i.e., provided a perfect, sinless, sacrifice)???

Now.....after a man has been converted to Christ.....and the new man rises to walk in newness of life (Romans 6).....is it possible to live sinlessly?

I would answer...."Potentially......yes.....but pragmatically.....no"....thus the need for the continuing cleansing of the blood of Christ mentioned in 1 John 1.

There are sins I have overcome in my life in my 28 years of being a Christian. This of course I could never do on my own. It was with the power of the Holy Spirit working in me through His word. The question then arises....if not one sin....why not all of them???

Therefore....that is what I strive for in Christ....the daily maturing in Christ that seeks to put sin out of my life....and obtain the holiness for which I have been called.

Pragmatically.....will I ever achieve this?? No!! I know Danny Gabbard far too well. But that never stops the striving.

The key is, however, I do not seek holiness in order to obtain my salvation. I seek it because I am saved.....and seek to be like my Father who is in heaven.

OK....how bad did that muddy things up?? :)

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Danny,

If a man cannot be sinless outside of Christ... is that not the same as saying that man is condemned to sin?

These are the questions others ask!

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

In light of what the Scriptures say concerning what we inherit from Adam....I would be comfortable with saying that we are destined to sin. What does this say about Christ?? Keep in mind....he also came in the flesh as God. His mind did not need to be renewed....it was the original Holy Mind.

For Him it was a matter of the flesh being obedient to the mind of God.

For us....this cannot happen until after the new birth....when we too understand the mind of God....and strive to conform our image to His.

But again......this is all a mute point....for as I said in my other thread.....whatever we got in Adam....we lost in Christ.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

After all of this, I have only one thing to add, and it is to Lee. Lee, although I disagree with you in a lot of things, I still have, for the most part, a lot of respect for you. However, in response to my last post, you wrote, "You imaginary state of shock will pass ..." Now Lee, you have no way of knowing if my state of shock was real or imagined, as you suppose. And to add the word "imaginary" is nothing short of deliberately mocking me and my feelings. Lee, this is a type of ad hominem attack which you are all too quick to make. I've seen you do it toward Barry and toward Connie, mocking their feelings (or supposed feelings as you think), mocking their experiences (or supposed experiences as you think). And now you mock me. Such behavior is beneath a Christian, and it is hurtful. Lee, I let my yes be yes, and my no be no, and if I say I am in somewhat of a state of shock, then that is indeed the case, your opinions as to my mental state notwithstanding. I'm sorry if I sound harsh. I rarely take umbrage, but I don't take mockery and being called a liar lightly.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“In light of what the Scriptures say concerning what we inherit from Adam....I would be comfortable with saying that we are destined to sin.”

Now, Brother, I have searched and as far as I have been able to determine there is not a single scripture that says that we “inherit” anything from Adam other than our physical nature. And no scripture teaches that we are “destined to sin”. Many scriptures teach that we have all sinned but none teach that we were “destined” to do so. For if we were “destined” to do so then God would be the one who determined such a destiny. And I cannot see just how it is that God could justly condemn man for being what He had destined man to be, can you?

Then you say:

“ What does this say about Christ??”

Now that is a good question and one that I have asked now several times in this discussion and you are the only one that has even attempted to approach it. And I greatly appreciate you for the attempt. For it shows that you are willing to objectively consider all of the facts rather than merely ignore them as if they are not there. And I have come to know that I can not expect anything less than objectivity and honesty from you. I thank God for you and your honest willingness to consider objectively all facts even those presented by men like myself that are “ignorant and unlearned men” who have and are, through His inspired word, being taught by Christ, men who have no “theological” degrees and credentials. But remember what the scriptures say about Christ taking upon himself the nature of man.

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Heb. 2:14).

We are partakers of “flesh and blood” and Christ himself “took part of the SAME”. Then the Hebrew writer continues:

“And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.” (Heb. 2:15,16)

Now here we learn that he did not take upon himself the “nature of Angels” but the nature of the “seed of Abraham”. The seed of Abraham were all human beings possessed of human nature. Thus Christ took upon himself the SAME human nature as that possessed by the “seed of Abraham”.

“Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” (Heb. 2:17,18).

From this we learn that Christ was tempted to sin and because of that he can succour them that are tempted. The Hebrew writer says it far more succinctly as follows:

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.” (Heb. 4:15).

Christ, our high priest is touched with the “feeling of our infirmities” and this was because he took upon himself our infirmities and felt them himself. Thus he was “tempted in ALL POINTS LIKE AS WE ARE yet without sin. He took upon himself our nature. He took upon himself the exact SAME nature as ours. If we are “destined to sin” because of anything that was “inherent” or “corrupted” in our nature from the fact that Adam sinned. Then he would have “inherited sin” and possessed a “corrupted nature” and would have been just as “destined to sin” as we are if such were the truth. But we see that he was, though possessed of our same human nature, without sin. He could not have been without sin if sin is “inherent in our nature” now could he? And he could not have been without corruption if our nature is innately or inherently corrupted. And he must have been “destined to sin if our nature is such that it causes us all to be “destined to sin”.

Brother, I love you, respect you and admire you. When you question anything that I affirm I step back and reconsider my thinking. But in this case, after some reflection upon it I just cannot be brought to accept the idea that we have inherited sin from Adam and that our nature was corrupted because of his sin and that we are therefore destined to sin. It just does not square with the facts concerning Christ taking upon himself our nature without being a sinner either by NATURE OR CHOICE.

Then you say:

“ Keep in mind....he also came in the flesh as God. His mind did not need to be renewed....it was the original Holy Mind.”

Indeed it is true that Christ was also “God with us” (Matt. 1:18- 23). But this does not change the facts or the problem posed by these facts concerning Christ taking upon himself human nature. For this only means that GOD took upon himself our very nature. And if our nature is inherently sinful then God took upon himself a “sinful nature”. It only means that if our human nature was corrupted by Adam’s sin then God took upon himself our “corrupt nature”. This would only mean that if our human nature inherited sin from Adam then God himself, when he took upon himself our nature, inherited sin just as all men do, if they really do. This would only mean that if man is therefore “destined to sin” then when God took upon himself our nature he also took upon himself our destiny. In other words God would also have been “destined to sin”.

Now the scriptures teach that sin separates us from God. (Isa. 59:1,2) and that God cannot have anything to do with sin. And sin is disobedience to God. God cannot disobey himself. And he cannot inherit “disobedience to himself” nor take upon himself a nature “wholly inclined to evil”.

Now God cannot be “tempted with evil”. For James tells us, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:” Yet Christ was “tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin”. (Heb. 4:15). Could this not explain the extent to which Christ “emptied himself” of his power as God and took upon himself the form of a servant and was MADE in the likeness of man? Can we not see that God divested himself and placed himself into our very circumstance? And was tempted as a man. And as a man, determined to do the will of God, overcame those temptations so that he understands exactly what we face when we are tempted and the power and strength of Satan’s devices used against us?

But Christ, as God, was not tempted. He was tempted, as a man is tempted. He was tempted “like as we are” yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15). The reason Christ was tempted like as we are is because he took upon himself our nature and as a human being he could be tempted but as God he could not. But if human nature is such that all men are “SINNERS BY NATURE” then God would have been a sinner immediately upon taking upon himself our nature without even being tempted to sin or in any way whatsoever being guilty of having committed any sin. The very reason that the Holy Spirit was given to Christ without measure (John 3:34). Was because he so took upon himself our nature that as a mere man he could not do the miracles that he did. Instead he did those miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Notice how the scriptures talk of God dwelling among us. “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?” (1 Kings 8:27) And again the exact same words are found, “But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!” (2 Chronicles 6:18). But when Christ came he was fashioned as a man. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:5-8). And by this means God did “indeed dwell upon the earth” in our mist in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God. And he took upon himself our nature as human beings. Thus if our nature is inherently sinful then God would have been inherently sinful. And if our nature was “corrupted” then God was corrupted when he took upon himself our nature. And if our nature were such that we are “destined to sin” then God would have been destined, by his own conscious choice to become a man, to sin. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:” (Romans 8:3).

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; (Titus 1:2). But Christ was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. (Heb.4:15). He therefore must have been tempted to lie but he did not do so.

Now, I realize that this subject is filled with questions and concerns. But to speak of our being, by our very NATURE, sinners is to say that which God’s word does not say in any place. TO say that we have, in our very nature inherited sin is to say that which God’s word does not say. And to say that we are therefore destined to sin is also to say that which God’s word does not say. Indeed all men have sinned, except Christ our Lord. And it is likely, as you have said, in a practical way that all men will sin. But this circumstance is not the result of anything innate, corrupted, or inherited from Adam such that we will, because of our NATURE, sin. We will by our own choice, when we are tempted and drawn away by our own lust enticed, (James 1:12-15) most likely CHOSE to sin. But we can CHOSE NOT TO SIN. If this is not true then we could not ever overcome any sin in our lives. For it is not until we determine and chose with strong resolution to fight against sin that we will be able to over come it. “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.” (Heb. 12:4). Why would we “resist unto blood in striving against sin if such was nothing more that striving against our own nature as human beings and if we are destined to sin and cannot do otherwise? This is just one reason this subject is important. For when we believe that we are “SINNERS BY NATURE” we are not likely to think that we have any change to be SINNERS BY CHOICE and thus we cannot by CHOICE be anything other than sinners. And when we think in this way it is all too common to just stop “striving against sin” because it is “in our nature” and we cannot chose otherwise. It is something for which we could, and many have, come to believe that it is beyond our ability to resist or overcome. And we are therefore not likely to think that we are responsible personally for our sins before God and are very unlikely to seek his help in time of temptation. Indeed we do receive help from God because we are told that God will with every temptation make a way of escape so that we can avoid sin. “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].” (1 Cor. 10:13). And I am convinced that this is just exactly what God did for Christ with every temptation that came his way. And Christ by his own choice and free will as a man was therefore tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15). There is nothing in the scriptures that teach that Christ overcame sin because of any advantages in his nature over ours because he was “God with us”. He completely took upon himself our nature. And God made a way of escape for him when tempted just as God makes a way for us when we are tempted and it was then up to him as it is to us to chose that way of escape and take it. If one reads about the temptation of Christ in Matt the fourth chapter he will see this principle in action. Christ did not over come those strong temptations with any immediate of direct help from God. For the Holy Spirit led him out into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil and Angels did not “minister unto him” until after he had overcome those temptations on his own power by his own will as a man, and not as God.

This subject leads us into many interesting areas of study and is worth of far more than a light and shallow approach. It is deserving of diligent study, research and serious though and consideration. I know if anyone is equipped intellectually and academically to give it such a study it would be you, Brother Danny. But for the moment I cannot but disagree with what you have said thus far. But I do look forward to discussing things with you for our discussions are about very important matters, aren’t they?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

Brother John:

I apologize to you. For you are right. I could not know if you were in reality in a "state of shock" or not and should not have doubted your words concerning it. I did so because of the other things you had said about my terrible ignorance. I assumed that you were being rather "sarcastic" in stating your "shock". But it was indeed an assumption that I should not have made. And I most certainly did not intend to call you a liar. For if there is one thing that I know about you from this forum it is that you have not ever deliberately lied to us about anything. ANd my words did in fact imply that you were lying and that was not what I wanted to convey. Please accept my sincere apology and forgive your ignorant brother.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

Lee.....

Whether or not you agree with me or with Brother Campbell on this point....since our views are identical....as I quoted one of my past professors.....is of little importance.

Because what you or I believe we inherited from Adam or did not inherit from Adam...is inconsequential.....since in Christ and because of Christ....it has been undone.

In the same way I cannot, nor do I attempt to explain the exact nature of the Trinity....neither do I try to fully explain what it is we inherit from Adam.

Because in the end....the work of Christ....took care of it all.

I know that in Christ....the power is now within me to resist sin....a power that for some reason was not there before. This is why the Scripture is replete with discussions of the "power of sin"..."the reigning of sin"....."the old man"...."the old self"...."deeds of the flesh"....etc...etc. But as Paul said in Romans 7.....thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ that we have been delivered from the power of sin....(at least...potentially).

Thanks for the discussion...In Christ,

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

Brethren:

We have been discussing Brother Davis’ creed and things in it that are contrary to the word of God. And I believe that we have established that his creed is contrary to God’s word when it teaches that we are “sinners by nature”. And when it teaches that Baptism is nothing more than an ordinance of the church rather than the means of “obeying the gospel of Christ”. And that it deliberately leaves out the fact that baptism is to be done in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins according to Acts 2:38. It implies that baptism is acceptable if it is done only to “obey God” even though there is not one single passage of scripture that teaches such a thing. It teaches that baptism can be acceptable regardless if anyone obeys it from the heart or with the understanding that what they are doing is seeking the remission of their sins. There are those who have been baptized to “obey God” that needed to be baptized again because they were not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Read where the apostle Paul baptized the Ephesians who had been baptized with the baptism of John which was something that God had commanded (Luke 7:29-30). And see how Paul found something wrong with their baptism because they had not received the Holy Spirit when they “believed” which they would have done if they had been baptized by one who was baptizing in the name of Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Notice also how Paul corrected the situation. He not only laid his hands upon them that they might receive the holy Spirit but he refused to do so until they had been baptized properly into the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 19:1-6). So, just because one has been baptized to obey God does not mean that their baptism was sufficient to bring them remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the new birth into the kingdom of God. For these Ephesians had not received either because they had been baptized to obey god’s will after it had changed because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ,

But there is more error in Brother Davis’ creed. And it is found in the following words from it:

“We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom.”

The idea presented in this verse is the Christ is returning to this earth to “establish his kingdom”. Now this nonsense from Brother Davis’ creed denies the truth that the Kingdom of God which is the house of God which is the church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:15; Isa. 2:2; Matt. 16:16-19) is with us now. And it denies that Christ is reigning now as the king over his kingdom and that he will so reign until the last enemy is destroyed and that last enemy is death which will be destroyed when Christ returns. For he will return to raised the dead, small and great, righteous and unrighteous. (John 5:28-29). And he will return to “take vengeance on them that know not God and them that obey not the gospel with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. And he will return to receive his kingdom, which already has existed since the day of Pentecost when the Spirit of God came with power. (Acts 1:8; 2:1-16). For when Christ comes again he all of his saints on this earth, which constitute his kingdom on this earth, shall be “caught up with him in the air” and so shall we ever be with our blessed Lord. (1 Thess. 4:14-18). But there is not a single passage in the entire word of God, which teaches that Christ is returning to this earth a second time for the purpose of “establishing his Kingdom. Because the prophets foretold when the Kingdom of God would be established, records its very establishment in fulfillment of prophecy and speaks there after of it as having been (past tense) established. Therefore it is not true that Christ is coming again “to establish his kingdom” as Brother Davis’ creed falsely claims. For how can Christ come to establish that which he has already established?

Now Brother Davis’ Creed ignores the fact that the Kingdom of Christ has already been established in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel (Daniel 2:44). And that Christians have been translated into that kingdom (Col. 1:13). And that we have received a kingdom that cannot be moved or shaken (Heb. 12:22). And at the end when Christ returns he will deliver up the kingdom which already exist at his coming to God the father (1 Cor. 15:21-28). He will not at that time “establish his kingdom” for he has already established it. For Christ is now reigning over his saints in it and shall so reign until all enemies are put under his feet and the last enemy that is destroyed is death. (1 Cor. 15:25,26). And then he shall deliver up the victorious kingdom of God, which was established by Christ through the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in harmony with the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2, Daniel 2, and Isaiah 2. And which has been in existence since that time and all who have obeyed the gospel by faith by being baptized or the remission of sins are added to it (Acts 2:38;Acts 2:47; Mat. 16:16-18). Having been translated out of the “Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of the Son of his love” (Col. 1:13). And it is a Kingdom of which there is not end and will never be destroyed or shaken. (Heb. 12:22). It exists now and Christ is reigning now. And therefore Christ shall not return to “establish his kingdom” when he returns. And Brother Davis’ Creed is falsely teaching contrary to the word of God on this matter. But, it is not different that every other Creed written by men out there. For men often hold ideas contrary to the word of God in their minds. And when they try to give a written “creed” in order to unify everyone’s thinking about what they should believe they fail. And they fail for the very reason that it is difficult for them to avoid infusing their own human opinions and errors into those Creeds so that the Creed ends us saying that which is contrary to the word of God. Then only way we could have a Creed that was acceptable would be for us to have inspired men to write one. And it does seem that we would be far better off to accept the “statement of faith” given by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. And that “faith was once for all delivered to the saints” by those who sake as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4; 1 Peter 1:19,20; Heb. 2:3,4). Now that is what we should follow. And let us reject all human Creeds including the one Brother Davis is recommending to us.

Now, I will have more details to discuss about the “Kingdom of God” and when it was established in my next post. But you can rest assured that it has already been established and that Christ though he is definitely returning or coming again, he is not coming to “Establish his Kingdom” as Brother Davis’ creed falsely asserts.

Stay away from human Creeds Brethren. They are not only dangerous they a damnable!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

E. Lee,

It is amazing that you can know so much by what our statement doesn't say. We do not say baptism is not for the remission of sins. You erroneously make conclusions based on your own preconceived notions. We say that baptism must be based on a credible confession of faith. Our statement is not meant to be the end all and be all of doctrinal truth--it is simply a summary of what we believe as I've clearly stated before.

As regarding the kingdom -- I agree that the kingdom is here and now, but we are not experiencing the final manifestation of the kingdom in the present age. I, like most in the RM, take an amillenial view.

I must come to the conclusion that you purposely misrepresent the facts about what I do and do not believe. You build a straw man and then attack.

BTW, you've yet to convince anyone but yourself on your views on the sinful nature. Read through the posts and see how many agree with you -- NONE! Yet you have the gall to state that the matter has been settled because of your asinine posts.

God help you, E. Lee, you need it.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

Brother Danny:

AS you know, I always appreciate our discussion with one another and will ever hold you in the highest regard for your faith in Christ and as my Brother in Christ. And this I do even when we disagree.

You have said:

“Lee..... Whether or not you agree with me or with Brother Campbell on this point....since our views are identical....as I quoted one of my past professors.....is of little importance.”

Indeed it is true that I do not agree with either you or Brother Campbell on this matter. And it is also true that one such as myself should be vary cautious and reflecting when I am found to be in disagreement with one such as yourself. Ones who is not only a man of deep faith and piety but one who happens to be in agreement with one of the greatest intellects our Brother hood has ever seen, Brother Alexander Campbell. And it is indeed with much reflection and the best of my feeble ability to reason and think that I do disagree with the both of you. For I am sure that you will agree with me that the fact that you and Brother Campbell’s views might be identical such is not sufficient evidence that either or both of your are in agreement with the word of God. While you have established that you are in agreement with Brother Campbell, neither you nor Brother Campbell has established that you are in agreement with the word of God. And I am convinced that I have established from the word of God that the opposition that I have taken is in harmony with it. And you are correct when you say that it is of “little consequence” whether you agree with me on this matter. For that is the truth. It is of no consequence whatsoever whether any man should agree with me, even if I was, as brother Campbell most assuredly was, among the list of the greatest intellects that ever graced this sordid earth. And it is certain and quite obvious that I am not to be put in that list. But it does matter greatly whether we agree with the teaching of the word of God on this matter, as I am sure you would agree.

Then you say:

“Because what you or I believe we inherited from Adam or did not inherit from Adam...is inconsequential.....since in Christ and because of Christ....it has been undone.”

Christ has undone the consequence of death, which came upon all men as a result of Adam’s sin. (Romans 5:12-22). But no one has shown one single passage from the word of God that indicates that we inherited anything whatsoever from Adam in our innate nature. And the consequences of his sins were not an inheritance related to anything in our nature but rather in the denial of access to the tree of Life that we could, as Adam at one time was allowed to do, eat of that tree and live forever. So, the problem here is that you assume that we have “inherited something in our natures from Adam other than our physical being. But you have not proven it from the word of God. And your response is to say that it does not matter because whatever we inherited has been undone in Christ. Now this is not true. We have our Physical being from him, if we are to say we inherited anything at all, and our lives have not been “undone in Christ”. So it is not true that “whatever we have inherited from Adam has been undone in Christ”, is it? And though a good and wise professor taught this the scriptures no where teaches it.

Then you say:

“In the same way I cannot, nor do I attempt to explain the exact nature of the Trinity....neither do I try to fully explain what it is we inherit from Adam.”

Now, it is obvious that the reason we cannot fully understand and explain all there is about God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit who are the one living God of the scriptures is because God is past our ability to fully comprehend. His “thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways. (Isa 55:8,9). Yet we can show from the word of God that there is one God One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Eph. 4:4).

But no one can even establish that we inherited anything in innate in our nature from Adam for the word of God does not even teach such a thing in any passage. So, while we struggle to explain the nature of God in the doctrine of the “Godhead” which is taught in the scriptures. It is premature to say you cannot explain what our nature as human beings “inherited” from Adam when we have not first shown that the scriptures teach that we inherited anything in our human nature from him resulting from his sin against God. Prove that the doctrine exists and then it is reasonable to express that we cannot explain it. But when you have not yet even established that the doctrine exist in the word of God in any place you cannot just say it is something beyond our ability to comprehend and explain satisfactorily. For one reason that might be assigned for the lack of ability to explain that which is not even suggested by any word from God is the fact that it just might be hard to explain because it forms absolutely no part of the doctrine of Christ. And therefore it appears to be so out of harmony with it because of the simple fact that is did not come from it in the first place.

Then you say:

“Because in the end....the work of Christ....took care of it all.”

If it did not exist in the first place, which you have failed to establish that it did. Then it follows that “Christ work” did not take care of it. For the doctrine never existed in the word of God much less is it true that Christ work was designed to "take care" of that which never existed in God's word in the first place.

Then you say:

“I know that in Christ....the power is now within me to resist sin....a power that for some reason was not there before.”

The power to resist sin was there before you came to Christ. And there is no passage in the word of God that teaches that you did not have such power before coming to Christ. Now you may have, as the rest of us, not used the power within you to resist temptation and sin before coming to Christ. In fact, one cannot even come to Christ without first having this power to resist sin. For it would be sinful to reject Christ, now wouldn’t it. But you must muster up enough power to resist the temptation to reject him. For such is necessary in order for one to actually come to Christ. Thus if you had no power to resist sin before coming to Christ you could not have had enough power to come to him, now could you? And what of the thousands of souls who lived and died before Christ came? How about Abraham who obeyed God many years before Christ Came? And How about Enoch, who walked with God and was not because God took him? “And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.” (Gen 5:24). “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” (Heb. 11:5). Now if Enoch had inherited a “corrupt nature from Adam so that he was a sinner by his very nature then how could he have pleased God so that God spared him from the pains of death? It is not axiomatic that we inherit a corrupted nature from Adam, nor is it axiomatic that we have no power over sin until we come to Christ. For if we had not such power we could not even resist sin enough to even come to Christ. And both Enoch and Abraham could not have pleased God at all.

Then you state:

“ This is why the Scripture is replete with discussions of the "power of sin"..."the reigning of sin"....."the old man"...."the old self"...."deeds of the flesh"....etc...etc.”

Now none of these “replete statements say a single word about anyone inheriting anything whatsoever in our natures because of Adam’s sin. They only speak to the truth concerning our sins, not sins or a sinful corrupted nature inherited from Adam and that sin has power over or reigns over us. But they do not say that we have no ability to have faith in God and obey God until we come to Christ. For without some ability to resist we could not come to Christ for sin if it had absolute power over us would not allow us to come to Christ. There is no passage of scriptures that teaches that we inherited something within our nature from Adam that makes us sinners by nature and absolutely powerless to obey God until we come to Christ.

Then you say:

“ But as Paul said in Romans 7.....thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ that we have been delivered from the power of sin....(at least...potentially).”

Now this passage does not say that we are “potentially delivered from sin. It says Christ delivers us from sin. And we need such deliverance because once a person has sinned he is under the certain punishment of it until it is forgiven. And in Christ our personal sins can be forgiven. But this passage does not say one single word about any inherited sin from Adam that we needed to be delivered from, now does it? When we obey the gospel of Christ we obtain the forgiveness of our sins and we are then to not go back into bondage to sin anymore. (Romans 6:3-6; 16-18). And we come to Christ by our own free choice and thus we are not powerless to resist sin prior to coming to Christ and neither are we powerless against it after we come to Christ. We must choose to resist unto blood against sin even after we come to Christ. And we have the same help that God has always given man when he is tempted (1 Cor. 10:13). God has always given man a way of escape and the means to refuse sin. Just as Joseph “refused the pleasures of sin for a season”. We can fight against sin; Brethren and we are not helpless against it because we have inherited some imaginary “corrupted nature” from Adam because of His sin. This doctrine is popular indeed but it did not originate from the word of God but the imaginations and assumptions of men, even though they may have been good and respectable and intelligent men. This doctrine did not come from God for the scriptures are completely VOID of any reference to it.

Then you say:

“Thanks for the discussion...In Christ,”

Brother Danny, as always I thank you for our discussion and love you as a brother in Christ and appreciate you willingness to face all of the arguments and not ignore any of them. Having a discussion with you is of great benefit top anyone who will patiently engage you in it. Though we do not agree about this matter please understand that my love for you in Christ and my love for the word of God and what it teaches is that which compels me to yet disagree with you concerning this subject.

You Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“E. Lee, It is amazing that you can know so much by what our statement doesn't say.”

Indeed there is much to be learned by what you have “left out” of you creed.

Then you say:

“ We do not say baptism is not for the remission of sins.”

This is true and I did not say that you had said such in your statement. But your statement does not say that it is “for the remission of sins” now does it? And it implies that such does not form a very important part of what you “believe” for according to you this “creed” was intended to express what you believe about various topics. And one reading your creed would not ever get the idea that you believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. I most certainly could not discern it from anything that your creed says. Nor could anyone else. For your creed appears very much to be deliberately vague about this matter. Especially since you and I have already had prior to this a discussion in which you claim that such is not important for one to understand when obeying the gospel.

Then you say:

“ You erroneously make conclusions based on your own preconceived notions.”

Now you could not prove this to save your life. I have drawn conclusions about what you “believe” from our previous discussions and from your own creed, which was intended to express to us what you believe. If you believe that baptism is “for the remission of sins”. And that such is important for one to know when obeying the gospel of Christ then why have you and I argued about that subject because you asserted that it is not essential for one to know this fact when obeying the gospel. And why does your creed say absolutely nothing about baptism being “for the remission of sins” since you addressed the subject of baptism in a Creed that was designed to describe what you believe about the matter? The reason appears to be that you wanted to avoid that controversy in your creed doesn’t it?

Then you say:

“ We say that baptism must be based on a credible confession of faith.”

Can one make a “credible confession of faith in Christ” without knowing that he is coming to Christ in baptism in order to obtain the remission of sins? If so then your statement that baptism must be based upon a “credible confession of Christ” does not say anything about whether the one coming to baptism must “obey from the heart that form of doctrine” (Rom. 6:16-18). And it leaves all quite vague whether one must understand that he is not only repenting for the remission of sins but that he is also being baptized for that reason”. For Peter was not so vague when speaking to those who believed in Christ. He said to them, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Acts 2:38). Now if you believe that baptism is for the remission of sins and your creed intended to express what you believed about baptism then you left out the most important reason for being baptized. And from our previous discussions it is clear that you left it out because you do not believe that such is important for one to believe even though the word of God teaches it as very important.

Then you say:

“ Our statement is not meant to be the end all and be all of doctrinal truth--it is simply a summary of what we believe as I've clearly stated before.”

Your Creed was, according to you designed to form a “summary of what we believe” and that baptism is “for the remission of sins” dos not form a part of that summary. And our previous discussion of the matter shows that it formed not part of that summary because you do not believe that it is important that one believe such when they are baptized.

Then you say:

“As regarding the kingdom -- I agree that the kingdom is here and now, but we are not experiencing the final manifestation of the kingdom in the present age. I, like most in the RM, take an amillenial view.”

If you believe that the Kingdom of God is here now, and I do not doubt you for you assert that you believe such. Then why on earth would you state in your creed that you believe that Christ is coming again to “ESTABLISH” his kingdom? You do not say that he is coming that we might see the “full manifestation of the Kingdom”. You say in your creed that he is coming to “ESTABLISH HIS KINGDOM”. If it has already been established as you admit to be the truth then how could he come at the end of time to “establish” that which has already been established, is here now and he is reigning now in his kingdom? If this is what you believe, then your creed has failed miserably to even state what you actually believe hasn’t it? For how could anyone reading your words which were:

“We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom.”

Now this was placed under the heading of “AT THE END OF HISTORY”. Now just how can one not reach the conclusion from your words that you believe and expect Christ to establish his Kingdom at the end of history? Now, if you believe that Christ has already established his Kingdom in history according to the fulfillment of prophecy, then it is quite obvious that you need to change your CREED for it says no such thing. In fact it says just the opposite of what you claim now in you last post to believe doesn’t it?

Then you say:

“I must come to the conclusion that you purposely misrepresent the facts about what I do and do not believe.”

Now from what we have shown above, it is clearly you, Brother Davis, that appears to have “misrepresented the facts”. For it was you in your creed that said at the end of history Christ was going to return to ESTABLISH HIS KINGDOM. Now, if you believe that Christ has already established his kingdom then you deliberately misrepresented your beliefs in your Creed, didn’t you? But you want to blame me for the “misrepresentation”. But I have only responded to your exact words concerning that matter, now haven’t I?

Then you say:

“You build a straw man and then attack.”

I did not write your creed, Brother Davis. And I admit that it is as weak as a straw man and easily destroyed for the several of the doctrines found therein which we have pointed to are false and contrary to the doctrine of Christ. But that is a “real man” that you stood up before us. And though he is as weak as any “straw man” we have ever seen we did not “build him” Brother Davis. He is your creation. And we have sufficiently, effectively and justly attacked him.

Then you say:

“BTW, you've yet to convince anyone but yourself on your views on the sinful nature.”

Now Brother Davis that is just an overwhelmingly powerful argument with you isn’t it? Now you are saying that your false doctrines are true because this man who opposes it has failed to convince anyone that they are false. Now that is the weakest argument you have made thus far and you have tried to use it twice now. I can just see you in the days of Noah saying to that great preacher of righteousness that saved the world from extinction the following: “Noah, you cannot be right about this great flood for you have been preaching now for 120 years and you have not convinced anyone but your own family of it’s truthfulness!” And Brother Davis, where are the descendents of all of those who may have thought that way in the days of Noah today? They are not are they? They do not exist, now do they? For even though Noah only convinced his family after 120 years of preaching of the fact that a great flood was coming he was right because he had his information from the word of God. And though so few were convinced it is true that only those few that were convinced were saved. So that after 120 years of preaching only EIGHT souls were saved from all of humanity. (1 Peter 3: 20-21). So, the fact that no one who is writing in this forum is not convinced does not prove that what I have been saying is not true. And you resort to such flimsy arguments because you have no real substantial arguments from the word of God that proves that your false doctrines are true.

Then you say:

“ Read through the posts and see how many agree with you -- NONE!”

I have read them and it is not the first time I have stood alone against something that is false and it will not be the last. But you cannot take much from the fact that those who are writing in the forum are a good measure of how many are convinced of the truth by reading this forum. I have been writing here for some time and I can tell you that several have been convinced of the truth that only read and do not respond in the forum themselves. SO, you cannot say that NONE have been convinced to agree with what we have shown that the word of God teaches about this matter. For you do not know how our readers who do not respond are reacting to these discussions now do you? But even if you were correct it would not make the things that I have shown from God’s word untrue now would it? For truth is not determined by head counts, is it?

Then you say:

“ Yet you have the gall to state that the matter has been settled because of your asinine posts.”

Indeed I do have the gall to state that the matter has been settled. For it has been settled in God’s words and the fact that you and the others, beside Brother Danny, have done nothing more than completely ignore the arguments that have been made is sufficient to show that you have no credible response. For you have even admitted that you did not consider the matter “relevant” at all. SO, by your own words it was settled that you would not even discuss it. That which is settled in God’s words as the truth is settled. And unless you can show that the word of God teaches in any place that we inherit sin from Adam then it is settled that we do not. And unless you can show that the word of God teaches that we are SINNERS BY NATURE then it is settled that we are not. And you have failed miserably to show that the word of God teaches any such nonsense. So, I do have the Gall to state the truth. That it is indeed settled by God’s word that we do not inherit sin or a sinful nature from Adam.

Our post proved the truthfulness of this claim and if you think otherwise then take up our arguments and show that we have not settled the matter. But so long as you ignore our arguments then we are confident that it has been settled that you cannot answer them. If that is not true then come in here and make some attempt to answer them.

And we do note the use of foul language is not becoming of one who claims to be a Christian. Our post may not please you. And our stubbornness might even anger you. But to use such words as “asinine” is without excuse for one who claims to be a Christian whose speech is to always be “seasoned with salt”. For the word “asinine” means “1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment 2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass”.

And this reminds of the discussion that we had in another thread wherein you called me “Balaam's ass”. And I was proud of that designation and am still pleased to note that you still think of me in such endearing terms. Now I just cannot know how you would accurately judge my “intelligence” but I would heartily agree that I am lacking woefully in that area. But as lacking in intelligence as I am you have shown that you cannot even answer the arguments made by one whom you consider to be so stupid that he “resembles an ass” and is like “Balaam’s ass”. So, I am indeed so stupid, and I will not deny it, why do you not just easily answer my arguments and questions that I have now asked you several times to answer, which you consider to be so lacking in intelligence, and be done with this ignoramus? Could it be that even though I am pathetically stupid you are unable to even answer one as stupid, as you seem to think that I am? If this is true then you might need to return to college if you think they are able to help you. But we wait for you to reply to our arguments and explain to us why your creed states the opposite to what you are now claiming that you believe about the kingdom of God.

“Balaam’s Ass”

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

Hi E. Lee,

I've got to admit, you are quite entertaining!

BTW, "asinine" is not foul language, and it is quite appropriate in the context I used it.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

Lee.....

My problem with your interpretation is that you have as yet not been able to make the case for your equivication of the words "sinners" and "death."

The purpose of the Book of Romans is to show that Jew and Gentile are equally under sin....and Romans 5 is one of the main points of the argument...i.e., since Jew and Gentile originate from Adam....all are sinners...since Adam introduced sin to the human race. Thereby backing up his claim in 3:23 that "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Now for there to be equivication as you have indicated, according to the rules of hermeneutics....once should be able to substitute the word "death" in Romans 3:23...."ALL have DIED and fallen short of the glory of God." Doesn't work.

I need some clarification here....

Are you suggesting that man could live sinlessly after Adam and before Christ???

If so.....explain the need for the death of Christ.

Explain the declaration of Isaiah that "there is none righteous....no not one."

Explain the declaration of Jeremiah that a man's heart is wicked from his youth.

I concur with you that sin is a choice....a choice we make. But you have not yet successfully made your case that Adam's sin had absolutely no effect on our moral fortitude at all.

You are a bit guilty of a "straw man" in your last post when you suggest that if I believe in a "sinful nature" then how could I suggest that one could choose Christ.

It's simple.....I do not believe in TOTAL depravity as those who teach that we are so morally depraved we cannot choose God.

Scripture does not teach that we are TOTALLY depraved. This explains why we meet good men like Corneluis in Acts 10....who was not a Christian man....but he was a good man according to the Scriptures.

Has our spirit been tainted by the sin of Adam? Yes....and I have shown the Scriptures that I believe teach that. Are we morally depraved to the point that we cannot think a good thought or make a good choice? Absolutely not!! That is a Calvinist doctrine. (In fact...it is the "T" in "TULIP.")

So...I don't think you did it intentially....but I think you allowed your brush stroke to go a little too far on that point.

Thank you again!

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

Apology accepted, Lee. And I apologize for my indignation.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

I agree with you Danny. One can believe that mankind inherits a sinful nature from Adam, as I believe Paul very clearly expounds in Romans and Galatians, without believing in the total depravity of man, which is a Calvinist doctrine and unbiblical, as you pointed out very well. I think Lee throws out the baby with the bathwater, and in rejecting the Calvinist doctrine also rejects the Biblical doctrine from whence it spawned.

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“Lee..... My problem with your interpretation is that you have as yet not been able to make the case for your equivication of the words "sinners" and "death."”

I believe Brother Danny that I have made a case against the notion that we inherit sin from Adam. It is simple that sin by its very nature cannot be inherited. “Sin is the transgression of the Law.” (1 John 3:4). Now if you go out and run a stop sign you transgress the law. But your children, though they may suffer from your paying the fine, cannot inherit your transgression of running stop signs. And they may learn from you that running stop signs is fun if you do not get caught and be encouraged by your example to commit the same transgression but your Children yet unborn cannot inherit the propensity to run stop signs. Transgression of the Law of God cannot be inherited; it can only be committed. It is an act. It is not a genetic trait. And I have not made any “equivocation” on the words “sinners” and “death” as you suppose. A sinner is clearly one who disobeys God and death is the consequence of such.

Then you say:

“The purpose of the Book of Romans is to show that Jew and Gentile are equally under sin....”

The purpose of the book of Romans is to demonstrate that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16,17). And it was therefore necessary for Paul to show that all men including the Jew was in need of salvation from the consequences of sin. And to do so he proved that all men are under the consequence of sin, which was death. But he does not have to prove that they all inherited sin from Adam in order for his assertion that “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) to be true. In fact, if all have sinned then none were under condemnation just because of Adam’s sin but all were under condemnation because of the fact that they had ALL SINNED. It does not say all had inherited sin it says that All HAVE sinned. And there is a very big difference.”

“and Romans 5 is one of the main points of the argument”

Indeed this is true. Romans 5 is a main part of Paul’s argument that death reigned over all men because of Adam’s sin. But his argument says nothing whatsoever about any man inheriting sin from Adam. Not one word even remotely implies that any man inherited sin from Adam. But it shows conclusively that All men were suffering from the consequence of Adam’s sin, which was the simple fact that all men die. For because of Adam’s sin God took away the access to the tree of life and man no longer had the means of rejuvenating their lives by eating from it as Adam and Eve once did. And for that reason, because of Adam’s sin all men we under the curse of death. But there is not one single word that indicates that all men had inherited Adam’s sins. For sin cannot be inherited. But the consequences of the punishment of sin can be felt by all. And it is true even to this day we all die because Adam sinned against God and God took away the tree of life and now no one has access to it except through Christ. And the notion of man inheriting sin from Adam does not in the least form a part of Paul’s argument nor is it essential to it. What is essential for Paul’s argument is to show that all men are facing a consequence of sin that Christ alone could save them from. And this would support the theme of the book which was that the “gospel is the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek”(Romans 1:16). And because all are facing the consequence of sin both Adam’s and their own the gospel of Christ is God’s power to save them all, Jew and Greek and they all need that salvation.

Then you say, but Paul does not say, the following:

“...i.e., since Jew and Gentile originate from Adam....all are sinners...since Adam introduced sin to the human race.”

Paul does not say that we are all sinners BECAUSE Jew and Gentile originate from Adam. And it was not Adam that introduced sin to the human race but Satan. Sin did not come from Adam but it came from Satan to the world through Adam. Adam and Eve were the first human beings who sinned against God. But their transgression could not be inherited only that their Children could suffer from the consequence of the punishment of their sin. And that is all that Paul is showing here. He is showing that because of Adam all face the consequence of death and Jew and Gentile are descendents of the same Adam. Thus both suffer the consequence of living in a world deprived of access to the tree of life, as a consequence of Adam’s sin. And hence a world that is “under sin” in the sense that we are all suffering from it’s consequence and are subject to the temptations that it brings to us. But no one has inherited a single sin from another person and it is interesting to note that Paul does not base his argument hinge upon inheritance of sin. In fact he does not even mention the idea of inheriting sin.

Then you say:

“ Thereby backing up his claim in 3:23 that "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."”

He did not write Roman’s 5 to back up the false notion that all have “inherited” sin. But rather that “ALL HAVE SINNED”. For he says nothing in the entire book of Romans, and for John’s benefit again, nor in the book of Galatians, about anyone inheriting sin. He only proves that all are suffering from sin because all have committed transgression of God’s Law, which is what sin is. Notice that this passage says, “ALL HAVE SINNED” which means that all has committed sin. There is not one justifiable reason to draw the conclusion from Roman’s three and five that ALL HAVE INHERITED SIN. For the scriptures do not say any such thing. It says all have sinned and because of Adam’s sin, all are facing physical death. And just as Christ has removed the fear of death through his suffering it and overcoming it thus taking away its power over men. He has also provided salvation from the consequences of our own sins which is spiritual death and separation from God (2 Thess. 1:8,9) through the gospel. It does not even remotely say that any have inherited sin from Adam.

Then you say:

“Now for there to be equivication as you have indicated,”

I have not indicated any “equivocation” as you claim.

Then you say:

“ according to the rules of hermeneutics....once should be able to substitute the word "death" in Romans 3:23...."ALL have DIED and fallen short of the glory of God." Doesn't work.”

Well, I have not "equivocated" the words “sin and death” as you claim but even if I did all have died and come short of the glory of God. Does work. For all men are in fact dead in sin according to Paul. In other words all are condemned to physical death because of the consequences to the world resulting from the punishment of Adam’s sin. The consequence being that the tree of life had been removed from the world because of his sin and none of us have any hope of escaping death because of it until Christ died on the cross and made the resurrection of all men sinners or not from the dead. And this is Paul’s point in Romans 5. That because of Adam we all face certain physical death and because of Christ all men universally will be raised from the dead.

Then you say:

“I need some clarification here.... Are you suggesting that man could live sinlessly after Adam and before Christ???”

Yes, man could live "sinlessly" other wise he would have no choice in the matter, now would he? I am not suggesting that man has lived sinlessly after Adam sinned only that he COULD do so if he choose to. But once a man sins there is nothing whatsoever that can redeem him from it but the sacrifice of Christ for our sins that we might obtain forgiveness of them in obedience to the gospel of Christ. Butone thing is certain, we have no need to repent of Adam's sin when we come to Christ for we are not guilty of his sin for he, and not us, committed it. ANd I for one will never repent of Adam's sin for I did not commit it, nor am I in any way guilty of it. And sin is an act that we commit and it is not a "trait that we inherit".

Then you say:

“If so.....explain the need for the death of Christ.”

Christ died to save sinners, which as it turns out was everyone. But he did not die to save anyone from sin inherited when they were born before they ever had any choice in the matter at all. For if we inherit sin from Adam then we cannot have any choice but to be sinners. And all of this "talk" of “choice" in the matter is pure “nonsense”. Now because it is possible to choose not to sin does not in the least make it less true that men have not chosen to obey God. And this explains your next question:

“Explain the declaration of Isaiah that "there is none righteous....no not one."”

Because all have sinned, but not because anyone inherited a single sin from Adam or anyone else.

Then you ask:

“Explain the declaration of Jeremiah that a man's heart is wicked from his youth.”

Indeed from our youth we have the choice to obey God or to disobey him. And we do choose from a young age to sin against God. But nothing even remotely teaches that we are all sinners from our youth because we inherited the transgressions of our father Adam.

Then you contradict yourself by saying:

“I concur with you that sin is a choice....a choice we make.”

If sin is a choice then when did you or I choose to inherit Adam’s sin?

Then you say:

“ But you have not yet successfully made your case that Adam's sin had absolutely no effect on our moral fortitude at all.”

I have not argued that “Adam’s sin had absolutely no effect on our moral fortitude at all”. I have said that his sin had no effect whatsoever upon our “innate nature” or the essence of our nature as human beings created in the image of God. For anytime we sin we can encourage and teach others to do the same. And the consequences of Adam’s sin has left us looking forward to certain death and that alone has influenced man’s “moral fortitude” in the sense that some could be influence to sin because they sense that they have no hope etc. But influencing man’s moral fortitude is not the same as inheriting “blue eyes” or “black hair” or any of the other things, which we know to be, inherited traits. For if I inherit sin like I did my “green eyes” then I have absolutely no choice about being a sinner and am therefore not in the least bit justifiably responsible for the sin that I inherited. The idea that we inherited the sin of Adam so that there was some innate change in our nature that gives man no chance to be faithful to and obey God until he comes to Christ is just not the truth.

Then you say:

“You are a bit guilty of a "straw man" in your last post when you suggest that if I believe in a "sinful nature" then how could I suggest that one could choose Christ.”

I was not “building a straw man” Brother Danny but dealing with the man that you “put up” with your following words:

“I know that in Christ....the power is now within me to resist sin....a power that for some reason was not there before.”

Now by this statement you were indicating that the “power to resist sin” was “for some reason” not within you before you came to Christ. And I simply pointed our the simple fact that if that power was not with you to some degree before coming to Christ you could not have ever chosen to obey him. Therefore you must have had so power to resist sin or you would not have come to Christ for the cure. But you said that the power to resist sin “was not there before”. Which means it was not there AT ALL. Now, if you had said there was not much power there or that the strength of your power to resist sin was weak it would have made sense to me. But you said that it WAS NOT THERE. That surely indicates that it was TOTALLY ABSENT.

Then you say:

“It's simple.....I do not believe in TOTAL depravity as those who teach that we are so morally depraved we cannot choose God.”

I know that you do not believe in "total depravity" but in your sentence to which I was responding you spoke as if you did believe in total depravity. If you believe in something then it is wise to speak in harmony with what you believe. So, even though you do not believe in total depravity, you said that before coming to Christ the “power to resist sin” was “NOT THERE” meaning that it was TOTALLY ABSENT. For if it was present at all it was there only weak. But you did not say that, Brother Danny. You said it “was not there”. Now that is not a “straw man” that I erected Brother Danny. It is one that you erected yourself. For you are the one who argued contrary to what you believe. I only responded to it.

Then you say:

“scripture does not teach that we are TOTALLY depraved.”

And I say AMEN AND AMEN! You might want to tell John that.

“ This explains why we meet good men like Corneluis in Acts 10....who was not a Christian man....but he was a good man according to the Scriptures.”

Indeed that is my point exactly Brother Danny. Brother Cornelius had the ability to resist sin before he came to Christ didn’t he or how could he have been as you say a “good man”. And he was not suffering from any sin that he inherited from Adam either now was he?

Then you say:

“Has our spirit been tainted by the sin of Adam? Yes....and I have shown the Scriptures that I believe teach that.”

No, Brother Danny, our SPIRITS have not been touched by the sin of Adam nor has our innate nature as human beings. And you have not shown one single passage of scripture that teaches that our “spirits” have been “tainted by the sin of Adam”. And you cannot show one that even remotely implies such for there are none.

Then you say:

“ Are we morally depraved to the point that we cannot think a good thought or make a good choice? Absolutely not!!”

Again I say Amen and Amen! But if we are morally “depraved” at all it is because of our own sins and not because of anything that we have inherited from Adam. As man sins against God and he progresses in such continual disobedience and wonders farther away from God he becomes more “depraved” but no man has any “depravity” whatsoever because Adam sinned. There is not one single passage of scripture that indicates that man is “depraved by nature” or inheritance of sin from Adam.

And as you accurately say:

“ That is a Calvinist doctrine. (In fact...it is the "T" in "TULIP.")”

Indeed it is the “T” in the TULIP.

Then you say:

“So...I don't think you did it intentially....but I think you allowed your brush stroke to go a little too far on that point.”

Indeed, I did not intend to leave the impression that you believe in that Calvinistic nonsense. But it was not because of the strokes of my brush but rather because of the strokes of yours that went a little too far on that point. I was trying to show you that even though you do not believe in Calvinism you were sounding like you did. I do apologize to you for what others could have perceived as my representing you as a “Calvinist”. For I know that you most certainly are not.

Then you say:

“Thank you again!”

You are kind. And I always appreciate our discussions.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“Hi E. Lee, I've got to admit, you are quite entertaining!”

It is good to notice that you have changed your mind about something. For in another thread you claimed that I was “boring”. Ha! You claimed, with your foul language in your last post that my "posts" were "asinine". So, according to you they are "asinine" but entertaining! What a bundle of twisted self contradictions we see in you! Who knows, we might get you to accept the truth of God’s word yet? At the very least you have shown that your mind can be changed.

Then you say:

“BTW, "asinine" is not foul language, and it is quite appropriate in the context I used it.”

Yes, it is foul language in the way in which you used it. And you should remember that we will be judged for every “idle word that we speak”. You have been warned against it. In that regard I have done my duty. The choice of how you will speak remains, as always, with you. But you will be judged for such things in the last day.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Lee....

Cornelius was a good man but....BUT STILL A SINNER!!!....showing as Acts 10 indicates....that a man can be a good and upright man...well spoken of by the Jews.....and still be a sinner in need of the redeeming work of Christ.

Due to the sin of Adam.....it is now within our nature...i.e., the fallen nature...the sinful nature....that...disobedience is easier than obedience.

That is the influence that Adam had. We now have a sinful nature...a fallen nature....that is more prone to evil than good.

The only thing that reverses that is Christ....whereby...the old man is buried....and the new man....who now has the power to say "No!" to ungodliness.....reigns (Romans 6).

Listen to Titus 2:11-12..."For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldy passions and to live self controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age."

You see Lee...your view that men could live sinlessly before Christ....makes this verse non-sensical....for this verse teaches that it is the grace of God that teaches us to say "No" to the deeds of the flesh.

Now...could we have lived sinlessly before the fall of Adam?? Yes. After the fall it is obvious, however,that disobedience became the norm....("the desires of a man's heart are evil from his youth.")I think it is accurate to say that the sin of Adam has made the human race "sick"....i.e., prone to evil.

Thus the need for grace to teach us how and to give us the power to say "No."

I think the sinless life lived by Christ shows what a mind totally submitted to the will of God can do. However, that submission of our will, Scripturally speaking, does not occur until after the surrender of our lives to Christ.

In my mind, the redeeming work of Christ places us in a Pre-Adamic relationship to God....with all the influences of the fall removed.

However, as Paul states in Romans 8....we await the full work of Christ to reverse the effects of the fall....even on creation itself.

You may see it as inconsistent....but I do not see the problem with my statement that we appear to be destined to sin because of Adam's sin.....but that still is not total depravity.

I tend to view it as the reality of the situation.

As far as your equivivation Lee.....so far from my reading of your posts....the only effect you appear to believe the Adamic fall had on man....was death. If that indeed is your position.....then that is what I think you have not been able to establish and this is where we differ.

Your brother in Christ,

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“Lee.... Cornelius was a good man but....BUT STILL A SINNER!!!”

Now, You know that I have not said that he was not a sinner. But he was not a sinner because he inherited anything from Adam. He was a sinner because he disobeyed God just as all other men have done. The scriptures describe him thus, “[A] devout [man], and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.” (Acts 10:2). He was a devout man and one that feared God with his entire house. While he was without doubt a sinner. He obviously was able to resist sin to the point of being devout before God and prayerful and to lead his entire house to be the same as was he and to do the good self-sacrificing things such as giving much alms to the people. So, he did in fact resist sin but not completely to be sure. But the fact that he was able to be devout and obey God to some degree before he became a Christian is conclusive evidence that a man can resist sin before becoming a Christian. If he could not do so he would not be able to become a Christian at all for he would not be able to resist sin to the point of turning from it and moving toward Christ. And there is not the slightest indication that Cornelius inherited any sin from Adam.

Then you say:

“....showing as Acts 10 indicates....that a man can be a good and upright man...well spoken of by the Jews.....and still be a sinner in need of the redeeming work of Christ.”

And to that I agree whole heatedly. But, he does not need the redeeming work of Christ to forgive him of Adam’s sin because he is not guilty of Adam’s sin. He is guilty of his own sins against God. And the fact that he can be upright to any degree is evidence that he could resist sin to some degree before coming to Christ.

Then you say:

“Due to the sin of Adam.....it is now within our nature...i.e., the fallen nature...the sinful nature....that...disobedience is easier than obedience.”

Disobedience has always been easier than obedience but not because of Adam’s sin but because obedience means requires that we do that which is contrary to what we might like to do. And there is not such thing as a “fallen nature” even mentioned in the word of God. And you have not shown one single passage of scripture that indicates that anything happened to our nature as human beings created in the image of God because of Adam’s sin. I notice that you did not quote any scripture to support the idea of a “fallen nature”. Could you please find a passage of scripture that even mentions a “fallen nature”? We sin, but not because there is anything in our nature that requires it.

Then you say, but do not prove the following:

“That is the influence that Adam had. We now have a sinful nature...a fallen nature....that is more prone to evil than good.”

Again you offer no word from God that says we are “more prone to evil than good”. Nor do you show that we are in this condition because of anything that we inherited from Adam.

Then you say:

“The only thing that reverses that is Christ....whereby...the old man is buried....and the new man....who now has the power to say "No!" to ungodliness.....reigns (Romans 6).”

One would have to say “NO” to ungodliness before he could even chose to come to Christ. So, if this were the case it would have to be reversed before one would even be able to come to Christ. But the truth is that there is not a single passage of scripture that says that we have no power to say “no” to sin and ungodliness before we come to Christ. Now, it is certain that we cannot obtain forgiveness of our past sins until we come to Christ. But in the process of coming to Christ we must repent of our sins which is in essence saying “No” to sin and turning from it. One cannot come to Christ unless he is able to turn from sin. And he cannot be forgiven of any sin until he of his own free will and choice comes turns from his sins in repentance and comes to Christ.

Then you say:

“Listen to Titus 2:11-12..."For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldy passions and to live self controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age."”

Now this is true. God’s grace has appeared teaching us to deny ungodliness and worldly lust. And one must do that in order to and in the process of becoming a Christian. And if it were impossible for him to do it because he “inherited sin” from Adam he could not ever come to Christ.

Then you say:

“You see Lee...your view that men could live sinlessly before Christ....makes this verse non-sensical....for this verse teaches that it is the grace of God that teaches us to say "No" to the deeds of the flesh.”

My view of this does not make the scripture “nonsensical in the least”. For this scripture shows that the grace of God has appeared teaching men to turn from sin. And if they could not resist sin how could they turn from it? The fact that one can turn from sin is proof that wee have not inherited anything from Adam that would prevent us from doing it. And if a man can resist one sin he has the power to resist all sin. But this does not mean that he will do it. In fact none have done it. But the scriptures do not teach that they cannot resist sin only that they have not done so.

Then you say:

“Now...could we have lived sinlessly before the fall of Adam?? Yes.”

Now this is the truth and nothing changed this fact after the fall.

Then you say:

“ After the fall it is obvious, however, that disobedience became the norm....("the desires of a man's heart are evil from his youth.")I think it is accurate to say that the sin of Adam has made the human race "sick"....i.e., prone to evil.”

Well, Brother Danny that is an interesting theory and an assertion, but where do the scripture teach that after the fall Adam’s sin made the human race sick? Where does it indicate that man’s ability to resist sin ceased because of Adam’s sin? Where does it teach that we are more "prone to evil" than were Adam and Eve before the fall? Nothing changed in man’s nature as a result of Adam’s sin. And we are still waiting for anyone to show us a passage of scripture that teaches this. You surely have not found one.

Then you say:

“Thus the need for grace to teach us how and to give us the power to say "No."”

We need God’s grace to obtain forgiveness for not saying “no” and if we had no power to say “no” in the first place then we are not responsible for having said no. For if we could not say anything else then we cannot be sinners. If makes no sense that God would command us to do that which was not in our power to do.

Then you say:

“I think the sinless life lived by Christ shows what a mind totally submitted to the will of God can do.”

Indeed it does and he took upon himself our exact nature and demonstrate that it was possible for a man, possessed of our nature to resist sin by the power of a mind totally submitted to the will of God. He did not inherit any sin from Adam, now did he? But he took upon himself our exact nature that we all possess today. (Heb. 2:14- 18; Phil. 2:5-8). Now Christ had our nature and if our nature is more “prone to evil than good” then he was more prone to evil than good. And if our nature was a corrupt nature because of Adam’s sin then Christ’s nature was equally corrupt and for the same reason. And if our nature is a “fallen nature” because of Adam’s sin then his nature was a fallen one for the same reason. But as we know he lived without sin even though he was tempted IN ALL POINTS LIKE AS WE ARE yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

Then you say:

“However, that submission of our will, Scripturally speaking, does not occur until after the surrender of our lives to Christ.”

You cannot surrender your life to Christ without submitting to His will, now can you? So how could it be that it couldn’t come until AFTER? It is essential to the initial submission to Christ, isn’t it?

Then you say:

“In my mind, the redeeming work of Christ places us in a Pre-Adamic relationship to God....with all the influences of the fall removed.”

Well, this is in your mind, but it is not in your Bible. For our nature is the same as it was before Adam sinned. We are made in the image of God and it is our sins and ours alone that corrupt us. But it is not Adam’s sin that has caused our sin. It is our own choice. (Romans 6:16-18).

Then you say:

“However, as Paul states in Romans 8....we await the full work of Christ to reverse the effects of the fall....even on creation itself.”

Now Brother Danny I have read Romans eight again because you said this. And I have not found anything like it. The “effects of the fall” are purely imaginary. There is no mention of any such thing in Romans eight.

Then you say:

“You may see it as inconsistent....but I do not see the problem with my statement that we appear to be destined to sin because of Adam's sin.....but that still is not total depravity.”

I do not see it as “inconsistent” I see it as completely incorrect.

Then you say:

“I tend to view it as the reality of the situation.” But there is nothing in the word of God that teaches that such is the “reality of the situation”.

Then you say:

“As far as your equivivation”

The “equivocation” is in your imagination Brother Danny. I have not made any such thing. And you have not shown that I have. Now we cannot talk about an equivocation until you demonstrate with evidence that there ever was one in the first place, now can we?

Then you say:

“ Lee.....so far from my reading of your posts....the only effect you appear to believe the Adamic fall had on man....was death.”

Well, that was indeed an effect that it had upon us because God denied access to the tree of life as a punishment for Adam’s sin. And so far as the scriptures are concerned that is the only effect that it had upon us. There is not one single passage in the entire word of God that indicates that anything happened to our innate nature as human beings as a result of Adam’s sin. And there is nothing whatsoever that teaches that we inherited his sin. We are not guilty of his sin. And you ignored my question when I asked you when did you repent of Adam’s sin? If you think you are guilty of it and have inherited it from him then why do you not explain when you have repented of it? And if man inherited Adam’s sin then Christ, who took on the nature of man (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil 2:5-8) inherited sin as well. But we know that Christ was sinless. Which is proof that though he took upon himself our nature he did not inherit Adams sin. And you have not effectively dealt with that problem which your position on this matter presents, have you?

Then you say

“ If that indeed is your position.....then that is what I think you have not been able to establish and this is where we differ.”

I do not have to “establish anything to deny your position, Brother Danny. I have established that death is a consequence of Adam’s sin. It is you that believes that Adam’s sin been inherited by us all and that our nature as human beings created in the image of God was changed because of Adam’s sin. If that is your proposition then it is your obligation to prove it. I have proven what I believe to be true that death is a consequence that we all suffer as a result of the punishment of Adam’s sin. And you believe that our very nature was corrupted by his sin and that we actually "inherited" his sin. And every time you try to “establish” that such is the case it is my responsibility to deny it. One can only affirm a positive statement. And can only deny a positive one but no one is expected to “affirm” a negative. We have established our position quite well and you have failed to answer our objections to your position. For we have shown that death is a consequence of the sin of Adam that we all face. And that is our position. It is your position that we inherited sin from Adam and that we have a fallen nature and a corrupt nature. You have tried to prove it and we have successfully denied it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Lee, you wrote, quoting Danny,

“scripture does not teach that we are TOTALLY depraved.”

And I say AMEN AND AMEN! You might want to tell John that.

There is no need for him to tell me that because I believe exactly the same thing, as I so stated in the post immediately following his (are you even paying attention?), when I wrote, "One can believe that mankind inherits a sinful nature from Adam, as I believe Paul very clearly expounds in Romans and Galatians, without believing in the total depravity of man, which is a Calvinist doctrine and unbiblical."

Man has a propensity, a "bent" as Danny put it, to sin and not to do righteousness. That's human nature. You don't have to teach a child how to be selfish, you have to teach it how to be kind and to share. Being selfish and rebellious comes naturally to a child - it comes naturally to all men. We can do good deeds, and many outside of Christ do, but our bent is to do what pleases us, and to go against the "law of nature", as C.S. Lewis put it.

Paul wrote that all men were by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Why were we under God's wrath? Because of our sin (Romans 1:18, 3:23). Our sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2). Now if our sin incurs God's wrath, then how can we be children of God's wrath by our very nature, as Paul says, unless there is more to sin than merely individual acts, unless there is a sinful nature, a nature which must die and a new nature implanted?

Which is why Paul writes, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out" (Romans 7:18) and "Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God" (Romans 8:8) and "For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death" (Romans 7:5). But we who in Christ must "rather clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature" (Romans 13:14). "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24).

If we have the capacity to live sinless lives outside of Christ (which we do not!), then Christ becomes not the Way to eternal life, but rather the Way-shower, as the mind-science cults teach, and His sacrifice is meaningless.

The term translated, "sinful nature" is en sarki, literally, "in the flesh", which must mean something more than merely committing sinful acts, but a whole way of being and living (Romans 8:4-5,13), the "natural" way you are. That this nature is not the act of sin itself is seen in that it is something that seeks to be pleased (Galatians 6:8), has passions and desires, which a mere act does not have (Galatians 5:24), has cravings (Ephesians 2:3), etc. It is in giving into these cravings, passions and desires that stem from our sinful, fleshly nature that we commit actual acts of sin, but the acts of sin themselves are not the same as that which spawns them, our corrupt inner selves. As the prophet said, "the heart [our sinful nature] is deceitful and desperately wicked above all things; who can know it?"

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Barry -- re: the Kingdom issue -- I must agree that the wording MIGHT lend itself to supporting a pre-mill, disp view that many have. I am very quick to point out in messages, teaching, etc. that we are in the kingdom presenlty. I know from some pre-mil and disp holding folks that wording of awaiting Christ's return and the establihment of His kingdom might be misunderstood by many.

Sure, I know what you mean ... but will others know? And herein lies one problem with using S of F, or other works such as these. Won't keep me from using one ... just helps me to see how careful we need to be in the wording we use.

Keep the faith ... and to whomever wrote about the"end" button, it works on mine too ... I have used it a BUNCH on this, and some other, threads! :)

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Let me add a little bit of kindling to this fire and see what comes out:

Most here agree that there is something given mankind, via Adam, that affects us.....THAT, typically being some sort of bent toward or nature toward sin. Not a total depravity, but more like a propensity toward doing those things which appear more pleasurable than doing things God's way.

In opposition to that thought, E. Lee (God bless you for your always excellent scholarship) proposed an equation in opposition that went some thing like this: Man has a sinful nature + Christ came as a man = Christ had a sinful nature.....but of course, we know Christ was without sin.

Now........the writer of the Hebrew Letter tells us that Christ was tempted in all things as we are, and yet without sin. Can someone explain for us how Christ (God in the Flesh) could be tempted in all things if there wasn't something about the flesh that allowed Him to be tempted? Since God is perfect, righteous, holy, etc, one would not think He could be tempted in any way, since He is the originator of right & wrong. Up to that time in which that passage was written, God had previously appeared on earth in the form of a theophany and most likely the pre-incarnate Christ had too and was referred to as the angel of God in multiple passages..............but they were never tempted in those instances! Yet, when Christ came in the actual Flesh of Adam.....then He could actually be tempted. And we cannot just blow off this verse from Hebrews because it is way too important to us in our everyday lives, as it does us little good to have a High Priest that cannot relate to us & comfort us & guide us as we are tempted.

It seems to me, that there may be more truth in E. Lee's equation than he originally thought.

What are your thoughts?..................Let the Games begin!

-- Anonymous, August 12, 2001

Mark.....

I think you mis-stated E. Lee's equation. You said...."E. Lee proposed an equation in opposition that went some thing like this: Man has a sinful nature + Christ came as a man = Christ had a sinful nature.....but of course, we know Christ was without sin."

In fact.....he has not said this. This is more in line with what I have said or John has said.

Let's break it down.....

"Man has a sinful nature".....E. Lee denies this.

"Christ came as a man".....no problem there.

"Christ had a sinful nature".....again....E. Lee denies this.

So how in the world did you come up with this being Lee's equation????????

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Danny

Check Lee's post from August 7th it's there in black and white, double spaced, almost word for word. Of course, he meant it facetiuosly - as being something that can't possibly be true. But as I said, I wonder if there isn't a bit of true there anyway......if Jesus was tempted in ALL things, is there something inherant in the flesh that made Him more subject to temptation than when appearing as a Theophany in earlier times? Especially when you consider James 1:13, " Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God"; FOR GOD CANNOT BE TEMPTED BY EVIL, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." (capitals added by me)

If God (Jesus) cannot be tempted by evil, how can the Scriptures say Jesus was tempted in all things as we are, unless there is something in the flesh which made it possible?

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

"Of course, he meant it facetiuosly - as being something that can't possibly be true."

Mark.....that he did....and.....I get your point.

Let me throw another verse into the fray.....Romans 12:2 says that we are to "be transformed....by the renewing of our mind."

Question?? Did Jesus have to renew His mind since He already had the mind of God??

Of course not!!! Therefore....he could have a sinful nature....with a "bent" towards sin....and still resist sin because His mind was the perfect mind of God.

Paul's point in Romans 12 is...that is how we conform to the "image" of God...."by renewing our minds"....to the mind of God....which can only occur after our conversion.

One of the reasons Jesus lived the sinless life was not to show us what we could have done....but what we can do with the power of God in us....and renewing our minds to conform to His image found in the Word.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Right Danny,

We're on the same wavelength here..........big surprise that, eh?

I bring these questions up because Lee is usually so thorough & so correct in his exegesis, but appears to be far enough off here that I'd like to see how he reconciles this apparent contraction in Scriptures. We know Scripture is always consistant, as it is the very words of God, so the difference must be in interpretation. And the "nature", "bent", or "whatever you wish to call it" view is the only interpretation I have been able to come up with that eliminates the apparent contradictions with these different Scriptures.

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Deep stuff. :-) Mark and Danny, I think you are right on.

(And it saddens me that perhaps fewer than 5 people in my church would even know what you were talking about ...)

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

That is indeed sad, John.....but that is probably the case in most of today's churches. It would seem that the "Christian Navy" is mostly composed of "surface vessels" - with very few willing to "submerse" themselves to the deeper levels of combat. (Sounds like a sermon topic, doesn't it?)

Looks like we have our work cut out for us, don't it?

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

John.....

Mark and I have been accused of "deep stuff" before.....but never so nicely!!! :)

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Brother Mark:

As always I am happy to read your post in the forum and greatly appreciate the work that you do in standing for right and truth. However, in this particular post is seems that you have woefully misunderstood my argument.

You have said:

“Let me add a little bit of kindling to this fire and see what comes out:”

I am sure that your were simply being humorous with this statement. For we would hope that you had a more noble purpose in writing about this very important subject in this forum then merely “adding a bit of kindling to the fire” for no better reason than to “see what comes out”.

Then you say:

“Most here agree that there is something given mankind, via Adam, that affects us.....THAT, typically being some sort of bent toward or nature toward sin.”

You might be able to show that most in this forum agree with such a position and that most in the world agree, but I am not certain that you can prove conclusively that most in the body of Christ agree with such. And even if “most agreed” it would not prove that the word of God agrees with it, now would it? The assumption that we inherited more from Adam that would makes us MORE prone to sin than we inherited from God who is the father of our spirits that would make us as prone to obey him is nothing more than that. It is pure assumption based upon nothing more than theological theories and the various creeds and philosophies of men. Not any word from God that teaches such a thing.

Then you say:

“ Not a total depravity, but more like a propensity toward doing those things which appear more pleasurable than doing things God's way.”

Now, that we are tempted to sin and susceptible to its influence is not doubted here. But that we inherited something innate and essential in our spiritual and physical nature from Adam that makes us more prone to sin then to obey God is what is in question. The idea that we inherited SIN from Adam is what is in question. Not that we are subject to temptation to sin because we have needs, desires, and ambitions that can be used to tempt us to turn from God is not in question. But we have no more propensity to sin than we have a propensity to obey God. For it is our “spirit in deed is willing but the flesh is weak”. It does not say “the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is inherently, and by its very nature because of sin inherited from Adam, SINFUL. The flesh does not become sinful until the spirit agrees to chose to allow the body or the flesh to sin. For this reason Paul said, “I buffet my body daily and bring it into subject lest that when I have preached to others I myself should be a cast away” (1 Cor. 9:27).

Then you say:

“In opposition to that thought, E. Lee (God bless you for your always excellent scholarship)”

And I thank you just here for your kind words concerning what you call my “scholarship”.

Then you say that I proposed the following equation:

“ Proposed an equation in opposition that went some thing like this: Man has a sinful nature + Christ came as a man = Christ had a sinful nature.....but of course, we know Christ was without sin.”

Now, I deny that man has a sinful nature, Brother Mark, and have never proposed that he did. And I deny emphatically that Christ had a sinful nature. And I affirmed from the scriptures the absolute truth that Christ was “tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). So, it is clear just here that you have completely misunderstood the argument that I have made. My question that I had asked was based upon the fact that Christ took upon himself our nature (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8). And therefore I asked those of you who believe that man inherited sin from Adam to answer the question, “Did Christ inherit sin from Adam?”. And none of you have dealt with that question sufficiently yet. For Christ was fully a man while on this earth. Yes, he was God in the form of man. And if man has inherited sin from Adam then did God inherit sin when he took upon himself our nature? That was my question and the intent of the argument.

Then you say:

“Now........the writer of the Hebrew Letter tells us that Christ was tempted in all things as we are, and yet without sin.”

Now I was the one who initially quoted this scripture to show that Christ was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. He was not tempted as “God” is tempted because God cannot be tempted. (James 1:12-15). He was completely living as a man and he was tempted just as we are.

Then you asked us to explain:

“Can someone explain for us how Christ (God in the Flesh) could be tempted in all things if there wasn't something about the flesh that allowed Him to be tempted?”

Now, if I explain this will you make some attempt to answer the questions that I have asked? I hope so. Christ was God who became man while on the earth. He was not part God and part man. Read this passage:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:5-8).

Christ was before coming to this earth, in the form of God. But then he “emptied himself” and came in the likeness of man. He took upon himself our exact nature as a man. “For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Tim. 2:5). “But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” (Romans 5:15). Now, we do not pretend to have sufficient understanding of how it was that Christ was a man while on this earth nor how he “emptied himself” of his deity to become a man. We only know that such is what he did. This explains why the Holy Spirit came upon him after his baptism. “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:” (Matt. 3:16). For the Holy Spirit is how he had the power to do miracles for as a man he had no such power. “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” (Matt. 12:28). But Christ took upon himself our nature as a MAN and he was as much a man as any man in this forum. He did not take advantage of the fact that he was God. For we are told he “emptied himself” which we take to men that he emptied himself of his deity so that he could become a man that could be tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin. And so that he could DIE on the cross. For we do know that if he were God while on this earth he could not have died for no man can kill God. Yes, he was God with us (Matt. 1:19-23) but he was God with us AS A MAN and not as God. And of course there was something about the flesh that “allowed him to be tempted”. Just as there was something about Adams flesh before he sinned that “allowed him to be tempted”. But there was nothing inherent or corrupted in his nature from Adam that allowed him to be tempted. And no one has yet shown one single passage that teaches such. And he did not inherit and sin from Adam and neither do we. For there is nothing in the scriptures that teaches this either. Now we can see this in his temptation recorded in Matthew. He had a body that needed food. And after he had been without food for forty days he could be tempted by the devil to stop being a man and take up his powers as God and make bread out of stone. (Matt. 4:1-12). If he had done this he would have disobeyed the father who sent him to be tempted as a man. If he had done this he would have sinned against God. But it is clear that his physical body having a requirement for food made this temptation under the circumstance of hunger possible. Now this is just one example. But he did not have a single thing in his innate nature, which had been corrupted by Adam’s sin or that he inherited from Adam that made him any more prone to need food when hungry than did Adam before he sinned. And the fact that we live in bodies that have needs makes us under the right set of circumstances susceptible to temptation. But God has always made a “way of escape” for us if we seek it. (1 Cor. 10:13). Christ was, in the very same way that we are, “tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin”. (Heb. 4:15). Now that is what the word of God said. But he was not tempted like we are because he inherited anything in his innate nature as a man that was corrupted in his nature which made him susceptible to temptation any more than Adam was susceptible to such before he sinner in the garden. And there is no place in the scriptures that teach that Christ inherited sin from Adam. For sin cannot be inherited since it is a transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4).

Then you say:

“ Since God is perfect, righteous, holy, etc, one would not think He could be tempted in any way, since He is the originator of right & wrong.”

God cannot be tempted in any way for James says so. (James 1:12-15). But man can be tempted in many ways and AS A MAN on this earth (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8) Christ was “tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). But he was not tempted as God. For he had purposefully emptied himself whatever advantages he might have as God in order to take upon himself our exact nature as a man. (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8).

Then you say:

“Up to that time in which that passage was written, God had previously appeared on earth in the form of a theophany and most likely the pre-incarnate Christ had too and was referred to as the angel of God in multiple passages..............but they were never tempted in those instances!”

This is true.

Then you say:

“Yet, when Christ came in the actual Flesh of Adam.....then He could actually be tempted.”

This is true as well but the reason that some have assigned for this is that man inherits a “sinful nature” from Adam. And that is not the truth. But the truth is that man inherits the same nature that Adam had before he sinned. WE inherit a physical body from him. We do not inherit a spirit from him because the spirit comes from God. God is the father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9). In our case God is the father of our spirits and in the case of Christ his spirit was God. But his flesh came from Adam. Thus he did not inherit sin but a fleshly body that could be tempted by the same things that tempted Adam because of his flesh. He had all that Adam had before he sinned. And all of that was as susceptible to temptation before Adam sinned as it was after. There is nothing in the scripture that even remotely indicates that anything happened to man’s spirit or his innate nature because of Adam’s sin. For that nature was just as susceptible to sin before Adam sin as it was afterwards. And if it is a “corrupt nature” that causes man to sin then how came it to be that Adam and Eve sinned before there natures were supposedly “corrupted”? Please do not ignore this question Mark. And where is any scripture that teaches that when Adam and Eve sinned they “corrupted there very nature as human beings made in the image of God”? And that it was this imagined “corruption of their nature” that we inherited from them? There is not one single passage that states such. And it is certain that no scripture teaches that any man inherited Adam’s sin. For sin is not something that can be inherited (1 John 3:4). For if men inherited Adam’s sin then when Christ took upon himself our nature he would have been as much a sinner by “Nature” as we are if in fact we are “Sinners by nature”. But the truth is that we are not sinners by nature but rather by Choice. So that the difference between Christ and us in this regard is that he chose to obey God and we chose to disobey God.

Then you say:

“ And we cannot just blow off this verse from Hebrews because it is way too important to us in our everyday lives, as it does us little good to have a High Priest that cannot relate to us & comfort us & guide us as we are tempted.”

Now, Brother Mark, I am sure that you are aware that E. Lee Saffold is not the one who is “blowing” this passage off. I have quoted it more that five times before you wrote this post and I have asked a question about other passages such as Hebrews 2:14-18 and Phil. 2:5-8 showing that Christ took upon himself our nature as men. And if man inherited a sinful nature from Adam then Christ inherited it as well. But the truth is that man has not inherited any sinful nature from Adam. And if man inherited sin from Adam then when Christ came in the flesh as a man he would have inherited it as well. But I do not believe that man inherits sin from Adam. And if man is a SINNER BY NATURE the when Christ came in the flesh and took upon himself our nature he was a “SINNER BY NATURE”. But I do not believe that man is a sinner by nature, you do. And I have asked you to explain how that if man is a sinner by nature and Christ took upon himself that nature then how do you escape the truth that he too would have been a sinner by nature? And you have all, except Danny, completely ignored that question. Now it is you who believe that man is a sinner by nature who are “blowing off” these passages. E. Lee Saffold has faced them directly. You may not like or agree with is answer but he has at least tried to answer the questions ask of him in this discussion. Now don’t you agree that it would only be reasonable and just in this dialogue his questions too should be considered seriously?

Then you say:

“It seems to me, that there may be more truth in E. Lee's equation than he originally thought.”

I am convinced that what we have been teaching, from the word of God, on this matter is the truth. But not more than we originally thought rather just as we had originally thought. For I have seen nothing presented from the scriptures thus far that actually controverts this position.

Then you say:

“What are your thoughts?”

WE have given them to you.

Then you say:

“................Let the Games begin!”

This is no game. It is a serious topic and deserves serious attention. The precious souls of men are at stake when we seek to know the truth on a theme with this importance. It is not a subject for “children”. Whether “children in the faith” or silly college “Dons” seeking some pleasure from controversy. It is serious and we would appreciate its being discussed in a serious way.

AS always, Brother Mark, I love you in Christ for your works sake and I thank God for you especially all of the many occasions in which I have seen you come to the support, defense and aide of the truth and those who teach it. I do not expect that you will agree without giving the subject quite a bit of study and serious thought. And you may not agree even after such a study. But at least let us reason together. And I able to be corrected and would appreciate anyone, including yourself, that would correct me when I am in error. But let all remember that only the word of God will correct me. The number of people who disagree has absolutely no impact on me in the least and the statures of the perceived greatness of those who disagree have no impact. And the intellectual capacity and genius of men who disagree have no bearing with me at all. Only a “thus saith the lord” can correct me. And if you can show where the Lord taught that we inherit sin from Adam I will change and consider myself corrected. But thus far no one has shown any word from God that teaches that we inherit sin from Adam or that we are “SINNERS BY NATURE”.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Lee....you stated..."But he was not tempted as God."

In this you are definitely wrong Lee. He was tempted as God.

In the Matthew account of the temptations by Satan, at least three times Satan says to Jesus...."Since you are the Son of God."

A better rendering of the Greek is...."Since you are the Son of God"....for Satan knew full well that Jesus was the Son of God.

Was Jesus not God incarnate??

Then how can you say that "he was not tempted as God??"

Thanks!!

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Brother Mark:

You have said:

“I bring these questions up because Lee is usually so thorough & so correct in his exegesis, but appears to be far enough off here that I'd like to see how he reconciles this apparent contraction in Scriptures.”

Any man can be wrong and “off” concerning any subject and E. Lee Saffold is no exception and would not ever want any one to think otherwise. And if he is wrong it seems that those who are “right” should point out exactly “how” he is wrong and show the reasons that cause them to believe such and thereby allow their Brother to examine the reasons and possibly correct himself. Or show that the reasons given are fallacious and correct those who assumed without good reason that he was wrong. But you do not do this in this post.

All you do is say that you would like to see how he “reconciles this apparent contradiction in the scriptures”. Well we are not sure from your post which “apparent contradiction” you are talking about. But if it was the one that you had brought up in your previous post we have explained it in our last post. The word of God does not contradict itself. And, when it appears to us that it does, then we can rest assured, we have misunderstood it in one place or the other related to the “apparent contradiction”. Or we have misunderstood it in both places. But since you have not specified which contradiction you refer to we will simply assume that it was the one of which you spoke in your previous post to which we have given an answer in our last post. And therefore refer our readers to it for the answer. If there is some other “apparent contradictions” you have in mind then specify them and we will reply.

Then you say:

“ We know Scripture is always consistant, as it is the very words of God,”

Indeed this is true and we know that you believe it to be true.

Then you say:

“ so the difference must be in interpretation.”

Well, surely a faulty “interpretation” would cause any writing to appear contradictory. But there are causes of “faulty interpretations” that are being overlooked here. WE need desperately to set aside theories and look at what the word of God actually says. And one cannot find the words “inherited sin” or “sinners by nature” in the scriptures. And some have tried to show such and we have answered them all and they have not responded to our arguments but simply made more arguments of their own.

Then you say:

“ And the "nature", "bent", or "whatever you wish to call it" view is the only interpretation I have been able to come up with that eliminates the apparent contradictions with these different Scriptures.”

The idea of a “nature” or “bent” would not eliminate the “contradiction” that you spoke of in your last post. It would only create another and worse contradiction. For if Christ inherited a “corrupt nature” or “sinful nature” so that he was a “sinner by nature” as you teach that man is. Then you would thereby make Christ a SINNER BY NATURE” when we are told that he was without sin. (Heb. 4:15). And the scriptures teach that God cannot even be “tempted with evil” much less can he take upon himself a “sinful nature”. SO, if he cannot be “tempted with evil how could he have an “evil nature” which causes him to be tempted with evil? If God cannot even be inclined or “bent” toward sin or evil then how would His having a sinful “bent” or “nature” take away the difficulty that you proposed was apparent?

So, if this so called “bent” or “nature” that you are talking about is the best you can do to “eliminate the apparent contradiction” that you claim exists. Then you can despair of ever eliminating it. For it most assuredly does nothing to eliminate the “apparent contradiction” that you proposed to us in your last post. If you are going to propose apparent contradictions it is wise for you to know the resolution of them before presenting them unless you are seeking help in reconciling them. But to present them and then offer “solutions” to them that are worse than the “apparent contradiction” itself is not very helpful to our young Christians who read our forum. Please think of that when proposing such “apparent contradictions”. We believe that we have reconciled what appears contradictory to you but does not appear contradictory to us in the least. Our last post explains why we do not see any contradiction where you see one.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Brother Danny:

You state:

“Lee....you stated..."But he was not tempted as God."

I did state that.

Then you say:

“In this you are definitely wrong Lee. He was tempted as God.”

Where do the scriptures state that he was “tempted as God”?

Then you attempted to make it appear that he was “tempted as God” as follows:

“In the Matthew account of the temptations by Satan, at least three times Satan says to Jesus...."Since you are the Son of God."”

Indeed Satan called him the “Son of God” at least three times but his temptation was not based upon his being the Son of God. The temptation was directed at his human needs not any needs that he had as God for God has no needs that Satan can use to tempt him. And this is why James says, “For God cannot be tempted with evil neither tempted he any man (Jame1:12-15). Now note this, “GOD CANNOT BE TEMPTED WITH EVIL”. Now, Brother Danny, are you claiming that God was tempted with evil when Christ was tempted? For the inspired word of God says he “CANNOT BE TEMPTED WITH EVIL”.

And then you say:

“A better rendering of the Greek is...."Since you are the Son of God"....for Satan knew full well that Jesus was the Son of God.”

No one is denying that Christ was the Son of God here Brother Danny. But do notice the reason Christ is called the “Son of God” according to the scripture.

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshdow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35).

That “holy thing” which was born of Mary was “called the Son of God”. That “Holy Thing” was the physical body of Christ. And notice that it was a “Holy Thing” not a “corrupted thing” which inherited sin from Adam and was a “SINNER BY NATURE”. It was what was called the Son of God. So it was the human body that was the Christ which was called the Son of God. And it was this body that was tempted to sin because it was the Son of God. But it was not GOD that was tempted. And you cannot show one passage of scripture that shows God being tempted of evil for God cannot be tempted of evil. But one who has a fleshly body can be tempted of evil. And the body of Christ was hungry, tired, and had been lead up into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit to be tempted of the Devil. But the Holy Spirit did not lead God "up into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil” with evil. Rather Christ the man was tempted. And Christ the man was the Son of God. Christ as God was not God’s Son he was God. But Christ the MAN was God’s son because he was born of the virgin Mary as a result of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her and making her with Child without the agency of man. But She was also a Descendent of Adam and if Christ as a man (Heb. 2:14-18; Phil. 2:5-8) possessed our nature and we all inherited sin from Adam then Christ would have inherited that sin as well. And you have not dealt with this issue have you? But he did not have any sin therefore he did not inherit sin from Adam. And neither do we. For he had the same human nature as the rest of us and was tempted “like as we are” as a MAN. WE are not tempted as GOD. WE are tempted as men and the scriptures says he was “tempted in all points LIKE AS WE ARE yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). If he was “TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE” then he was “TEMPTED AS A MAN” and not as God.

Then you ask:

“Was Jesus not God incarnate??”

Well, if you will define that theological word “incarnate” I will tell you from the Scriptures whether it is true or not. But I can say that the scripture says he was Emmanuel which being interpreted is ‘GOD WITH US’( Matt. 1:23). But being “God with us” does not mean that he was tempted as “GOD” when the scripture teaches that he was tempted in the same way that we are tempted. And we are not “tempted as God” or as “children of God” but we are tempted as men and because we are men, but not because we have inherited a “corrupt nature” from Adam. For there is not one single passage that teaches such a thing in the scriptures. And when the scriptures tell us that GOD CANNOT BE TEMPTED WITH EVIL. (James 1:12-15) it means that God cannot be tempted. So there is no way in which God could be tempted even when Christ was tempted as a man. For God has no needs by which he can be tempted but Christ the man had the same needs of the flesh that we have and could be and was tempted because of them. He was hungry but God is never hungry. So Satan could tempt Christ because he was hungry but he could not tempt God for God is never hungry. So, even though Christ was “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). The temptation was directed to his hunger as a man, not as God for God is never hungry. But Christ was hungry because he had a body that needed food. And the other temptations that he received were those that would effect a man but would have no impact whatsoever upon God.

Read the words of James again:

“Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (James 1:12- 15).

This is how men are tempted and this is how Satan tempted Christ. He is the only man that ever perfectly endured temptation. But God has never been tempted with Evil. And when Christ was tempted by Satan God was not even remotely tempted. But the man was sorely tempted for he was hungry and could have relieve that hunger if only he would call upon the powers that he had from the Holy Spirit to do miracles and turn those stones into bread. But, even though his manly body was desperately hungry, he refuses to make stones into bread. And hunger would have been no temptation to God for he does not need food to sustain life. But it was a great temptation for “man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), wasn’t it?

“For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Tim. 2:5)

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 13, 2001

Lee.....

If you believe the purpose of the temptations of Jesus were to tempt His flesly needs....then you have a false understanding of the temptations.

Every single one of the temptations presented to Jesus had more to do with what route He was going to take to the Messiahship...i.e., would He meet the Jewish expecations of the Messiah or not.

Notice, these temptations came right on the heels of the baptism of Jesus.....wherein Jesus said...."It fulfills all righteousness." The baptism of Jesus was the point in where He committed Himself to the will of the Father....i.e., the cross.

Notice....immediately, Satan tests this resolve.

The first temptation concerning bread tempted Jesus to take the economic route the Messiahship. A strong test indeed.....for who would crucify a man who gave them three meals a day.....when many in Jerusalem.....were happy with one. Look how they followed Jesus after the feeding of the multitudes. Jesus made it clear, however, His Messiahship would be based on the words of Scripture.

The second temptation concerning jumping from the temple tempted Jesus to take the religious road to the Messiaship. In fact, the Jews had a tradition that the Messiah would perform a miracle at the temple to show His appearing. Jesus made it clear He would do no such thing.

The third temptation of offering Jesus the world tempted Jesus to take the military road to the Messiahship. Again, another strong expectation of the Jews was that the Messiah would militarily wipe out the Romans and restore the Jews to a world power. Again.....Jesus makes it clear that He will not take this road.

The fleshly desires, as you put it, were only the bait to the real issue......which was....."What type of Messiah would Jesus be??"

God cannot be tempted......but God in the flesh.....certainly can be......otherwise the writer of Hebrews makes no sense now does he?

Which brings us to the question again....what is there "in the flesh" that lends itself to temptation....if God had to put on flesh in order to be tempted as a man??

Why could He not appear as a spirit and be tempted??

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Lee.....

One other thing. I think you should kindly refrain from making the redundant statement that "no one has shown you a single Scripture that says that man has a fallen nature."

Lee....numerous Scriptures have been quoted....pointed out...alluded to....etc.

Now...it is clear that you have taken a different approach to them.....which is fine....we can debate the interpretation....if you would like.

But it is simply not true to infer that you have a market on the Scripture quoting.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Question Lee.....

You stated, and rightfully so.....that Adam was kept from partaking of the tree of life after his sin. We know that happened so that man would not be forever held in the state in which Adam now found himself.

If there was nothing....absolutely nothing, inherited from Adam (with the exception of death)....as you speculate....why did God not allow Adam's descendants to partake of the Tree of Life in their state of innocence??

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Brother Danny:

You have said:

“Lee..... If you believe the purpose of the temptations of Jesus were to tempt His flesly needs....then you have a false understanding of the temptations.”

I was using one example in my last post to illustrate how the man Christ Jesus was tempted, Brother Danny. I was not saying that all of his temptations applied solely to “fleshly needs. But that none of the temptations were applied to any of his “needs” as God. For God has no need that Satan can use to tempt him. And you did not answer my question. We are told that God cannot be tempted with evil. (James 1:12-15). But you are saying that when Christ was tempted God was in fact being tempted with evil. If this is true that God was tempted with evil in the person of Christ then how is it that James could say that God couldn’t be tempted with evil? For God cannot be tempted with evil even if he is in the flesh. For James did not say that God cannot be tempted with evil except when he is in the flesh.

Then you say:

“Every single one of the temptations presented to Jesus had more to do with what route He was going to take to the Messiahship...i.e., would He meet the Jewish expecations of the Messiah or not.”

I am not sure that this is true. But even if it were those temptations would not tempt God. They would tempt the man Christ Jesus.

Then you say:

“Notice, these temptations came right on the heels of the baptism of Jesus.....wherein Jesus said...."It fulfills all righteousness." The baptism of Jesus was the point in where He committed Himself to the will of the Father....i.e., the cross. Notice....immediately, Satan tests this resolve.”

I have no doubt about this but he was not tempting God’s resolve. For God’s resolve cannot be tempted (James 1:12-15) but he was tempting the resolve of Christ, the Son of God who’s resolve could only be tempted because he was a man in the flesh who had a resolve that could be tempted.

Then you say:

“The first temptation concerning bread tempted Jesus to take the economic route the Messiahship. A strong test indeed.....for who would crucify a man who gave them three meals a day.....when many in Jerusalem.....were happy with one. Look how they followed Jesus after the feeding of the multitudes. Jesus made it clear, however, His Messiahship would be based on the words of Scripture.”

I am not sure that all of what you say here is true. It may be. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. For it was the body of Christ that was hungry and not God. For God never gets hungry. Because Christ was hungry in the flesh the temption took its force. Other wise the very mention of his being hungry in connection with this temptation has no meaning.

Then you say:

“The second temptation concerning jumping from the temple tempted Jesus to take the religious road to the Messiaship. In fact, the Jews had a tradition that the Messiah would perform a miracle at the temple to show His appearing. Jesus made it clear He would do no such thing.”

Such a temptation might appeal to a man who is easily susceptible to doubts planted in the mind by Satan. But it has no appeal to God who cannot be tempted in any way as James tells us. (James 1:12-15).

Then you say:

“The third temptation of offering Jesus the world tempted Jesus to take the military road to the Messiahship. Again, another strong expectation of the Jews was that the Messiah would militarily wipe out the Romans and restore the Jews to a world power. Again.....Jesus makes it clear that He will not take this road.”

Still, there is nothing in this temptation which would in any way tempt God. For God cannot be tempted with evil. (James 1:12-15). Now, a man might be so tempted but not God.

Then you say:

“The fleshly desires, as you put it, were only the bait to the real issue......which was....."What type of Messiah would Jesus be??"”

Indeed that is the point, isn’t it? The “bait” as you put it was what was used to tempt or “entice” Jesus. Regardless of what the ultimate object of Satan may have been. The temptation was made effective by means of an appeal to the “bait” or the enticement to sin. Which was directed to Christ the man as a man in the flesh and not as God.

Then you say:

“God cannot be tempted......but God in the flesh.....certainly can be......otherwise the writer of Hebrews makes no sense now does he?”

The writer of Hebrews makes good sense, Brother Danny. But in this matter you do not make such good sense. For you have not shown from the scriptures that God cannot be tempted EXCEPT WHEN HE IS IN THE FLESH. James said God couldn’t be tempted. Period. No exceptions stated. And there is not any passage in the word of God that makes the “exception that you make concerning the matter. The Hebrew writer makes excellent sense. For the “man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5) was “tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). And God has never been tempted of evil for he cannot be. (James 1:12-15).

Then you say:

“Which brings us to the question again....what is there "in the flesh" that lends itself to temptation....if God had to put on flesh in order to be tempted as a man??”

We have answered this several times already and the illustration that we used was the appeal to the physical hunger of Christ as an example. The “spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak”. The flesh seeks to satisfy those needs and Satan uses those needs to tempt us. But nothing inherited from Adam such as the purely imaginary “corrupt nature” “lends itself to temptation. For as we have pointed out and you have yet to answer. Adam was tempted before he sinned. Therefore he was tempted before he had anything that men could call a “corrupt nature”. SO what was it in his nature that made him susceptible to temptation before he had ever sinned and become so called “corrupted in his nature”? What ever it was that “lended itself to temptation” before Adam sinned is the same thing that “lends itself to temptation for men today. For there is no evidence whatsoever that men inherited anything in their innate nature that makes them any more susceptible to sin than Adam was BEFORE HE SINNED. For the scriptures say absolutely nothing about Adam’s nature being “corrupted” or changed in any way because of Sin. And none of you have shown any passage of scripture that so teach. Yes, you have shown passages of scripture but you have not shown any that teaches such a thing. Not a single one. And if you have one that so teaches that I have failed to notice then state it for us and show us where it states that man “inherited sin from Adam”. Or where it states that Adam’s innate nature was “corrupted” by his sin and that such a corruption was passed on to his posterity. I will look at it again. But So far no [passage has been given that says such a thing and that is the truth.

Then you asked:

“Why could He not appear as a spirit and be tempted??”

For God cannot be tempted, Brother Danny, (James 1:12-15) but a man can. (Heb. 4:15; 1 Tim 2:5; Matt. 4:1-12). But, as Adam was tempted before he sinned so man can be tempted without having inherited any imaginary “corrupt nature” from Adam. In fact, if Adam had never sinned all men would still be susceptible to temptation to eat of the forbidden fruit in the garden. For sin had nothing to do with a “corrupt nature” or any sins inherited from anyone. It had to do with making a choice to obey God or not. And that is all there was to it.

I haven’t much time at the moment, Brother Danny, for I am at work. But I will respond to the other things that you have said. Please, if you have some time go back through my post and respond to some of the questions that I have asked about this matter.

Brethren:

It seems that I am being asked more questions and then when I answer them I am asked yet more again. But when I ask a question they are all simply ignored. Why is that? I know that if anyone is going to be fair in a discussion it would be Brother Danny and I am not directing these words at him. But asking questions while ignoring those that have been asked is not by any means just, fair or reasonable. And waiting until everyone has forgotten the connection and force of the question to answer it is not reasonable either unless that force is brought to bear again. It is not right that I must repeat my questions so often in this forum to get anyone to even attempt to answer them. For I am taking time to answer the questions asked of me. And it does take time and effort to do so. But to have mine just deliberately ignored as if they are of no importance or significance to the issue is inexcusable and just plain unreasonable. But do take note that most of my questions are being ignored.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Lee.....

I believe your position to come precariously close to the belief that in the flesh....Jesus was something less than God. But my guess is....we are talking semantics.

And Lee....again....numerous Scriptures have given in answer to your very good and very valid questions.

But as you have demonstrated....you do not take the same view of those Scriptures....and that is fine. I do not see this issue as a test of fellowship.

Again....there is not a single person on this board who has demonstrated that they hold to a Calvinistic position. Even some that I have known who leaned towards Calvinism on their view of sin...made it clear...it is undone in Christ anyway....so we end up....with the same result.

Again....I appreciate the discussion and will be happy to allow you to have the final word on the subject.

God bless!

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

E.Lee,

I have to go along with Danny here, in the fact that I think we are closer on some of these things than you might think and that semantics and our ability to communicate in a limited method like this may be more the issue between us.

And because we are "close" in some things, I won't be responding to all you answered me as I don't feel the need and I too have a limited time right now. But I do want to comment/question on a couple of points.

First........While I did make a few brief attempts at levity earlier (comedic relief tends to keep me sane), make no mistake in the fact that my comments & questions are dead serious. Whenever I see what some might construe as inconsistancies between Scriptures or between Scripture & Doctrine, I shift into a mode of having to resolve such issues. I know that if I can notice such things, I know others will as well, as I am no "Brain Surgeon" (just a simple rocket scientist......sorry, just a little more levity there). I know that such questions could well cause a weaker brother to fall away or a potential convert to walk away completely - so I MUST be able to give a logical & reasonable account to prevent the potential loss of a soul. As far as "Games" go - this is No Game, of this you're absolutely correct......Although............in the original Olympic- type Games, many of the contests were fought to the death; and our "Games" of searching and understanding Scripture is also seperated from us only by death.

Second........You wrote, "The assumption that we inherited more from Adam that would makes us MORE prone to sin than we inherited from God who is the father of our spirits that would make us as prone to obey him is nothing more than that. It is pure assumption based upon nothing more than theological theories and the various creeds and philosophies of men. Not any word from God that teaches such a thing."

Of this, I cannot disagree. There is no, "Thus saith the Lord, man is tainted and prone to sin because of Adam's sin". Of course, as has already been pointed out, there is also no "Thou shalt believe in the Trinity" either - yet every Christian-type group in the World (except cults) believes in the concept of the Trinity, even though the word is never used in Scripture.

Now I must point out that even though there is no "Thus Saiths" to back up the idea of a proneness toward sin, neither is there a, "Thus Saith the Lord - Adam's sin had No effect on mankind" either. Kinda looks to me like we are BOTH arguing from a point of no concrete evidence to back us up. And you know as well as I, that an argument based on the absense of information, is the weakest argument of all. However, since Paul feels the need (inspired of the Holy Spirit) to broach the topic of Adam there in Roman's chapter 5; one has to wonder if there is a concept being dealt with even though not specifically spelled out with a "thus saith" (as this would not be the 1st time such happened in Scripture, i.e. the Trinity).

Third.......You wrote, "For it is our “spirit in deed is willing but the flesh is weak”. It does not say “the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is inherently, and by its very nature because of sin inherited from Adam, SINFUL."

Again, that is a very valid quote not to be denied. However, since no description of this "weakness" is given as a "Thus Saith" - is it entirely beyond reason to think that the "weakness" Jesus referred to could be a tendancy, a bent to sin? If not..........why not? Again, We both appear to be arguing from a lack of specific information.

Fourth.......You had said, "Christ was before coming to this earth, in the form of God. But then he “emptied himself” and came in the likeness of man. He took upon himself our exact nature as a man. “For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Tim. 2:5). “But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” (Romans 5:15). Now, we do not pretend to have sufficient understanding of how it was that Christ was a man while on this earth nor how he “emptied himself” of his deity to become a man. We only know that such is what he did".

Again, you are correct in stating that we really have no idea as to what "emptying Himself" actually entailed. But, He obviously didn't empty Himself "Completely" of Deity as He was able to call upon deity at any given time to perform miracles, to heal, and to call down "legions of angels" if he so desired. Only one who was both fully God & fully man simultaneously could do this - my proof of this....I've never been able to heal, do a miracle, or call an angel no matter how hard I tried, how about you? Therefore Jesus HAD to have more going for Him than just flesh. And as such, his temptions had to be presented to the entire being of Jesus, not just His flesh - as Danny has said. And Jesus had the same "weak" flesh as we do, so it had to be His spirit (and/or mind) that allowed Him to resist past the point at which we fail - maybe he had an unfair advantage (maybe not).

Finally... and I belief this to be the crux of our viewpoints, you wrote,

"Then you say: “Yet, when Christ came in the actual Flesh of Adam.....then He could actually be tempted.” This is true as well but the reason that some have assigned for this is that man inherits a “sinful nature” from Adam. And that is not the truth. But the truth is that man inherits the same nature that Adam had before he sinned. WE inherit a physical body from him. We do not inherit a spirit from him because the spirit comes from God. God is the father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9). In our case God is the father of our spirits and in the case of Christ his spirit was God. But his flesh came from Adam. Thus he did not inherit sin but a fleshly body that could be tempted by the same things that tempted Adam because of his flesh. He had all that Adam had before he sinned. And all of that was as susceptible to temptation before Adam sinned as it was after. There is nothing in the scripture that even remotely indicates that anything happened to man’s spirit or his innate nature because of Adam’s sin. For that nature was just as susceptible to sin before Adam sin as it was afterwards. And if it is a “corrupt nature” that causes man to sin then how came it to be that Adam and Eve sinned before there natures were supposedly “corrupted”? Please do not ignore this question Mark. And where is any scripture that teaches that when Adam and Eve sinned they “corrupted there very nature as human beings made in the image of God”? And that it was this imagined “corruption of their nature” that we inherited from them? There is not one single passage that states such. And it is certain that no scripture teaches that any man inherited Adam’s sin. For sin is not something that can be inherited (1 John 3:4). For if men inherited Adam’s sin then when Christ took upon himself our nature he would have been as much a sinner by “Nature” as we are if in fact we are “Sinners by nature”. But the truth is that we are not sinners by nature but rather by Choice. So that the difference between Christ and us in this regard is that he chose to obey God and we chose to disobey God."

I will not ignore your question as to why Adam & Eve could sin before their natures were supposedly "corrupted". I conclude from what you have said, that flesh, from the very beginning has had the ability to sin. That works for me, as it is the only obvious answer. But by that thought you have shown that man DOES have a tendency, an ability, toward sin - just that it didn't start with Adam's sin but with God's creation of Adam. In other words, I must conclude here from your words that God made man (Adam & Eve) with the ability to sin and that all flesh has that same ability to sin - including the Man, Jesus. This must be true, otherwise God wouldn't have had the need to warn Adam & Eve to stay away from the tree of Knowledge.

To some, this conclusion might sure weaken their view of God's Creation when we read in Gen. 1:31 that after creating all things (including man) that He looked over what He had made, and behold, "it was VERY good". Some WILL stumble over the contradiction of God's "Very Good" Creation being made with the ability to sin.

An now, a somewhat related question:

Why was the tree of Knowledge forbidden in the first place?

Typically, God forbids those things which are damaging to us - as He wants the best for His people. Today, we view the obtaining of knowledge to be of the highest priority - especially knowledge of Scripture......which one might conclude is the untimate knowledge of the things that are good and those which are evil.

I must assume then (as there are no "thus saiths") that there was a danger in eating of the tree - something not good for man or mankind that God wished to prevent. I don't believe death was the danger from the fruit, but rather the judgement of God against their sin, because "the wages of SIN is death" not the wages of eating of the "fruit" is death. Could this "knowledge" then, been something that elevated the ability of the flesh to sin to a "heightened" ability or "tendency" to sin? Maybe......maybe not........but neither of us will ever prove it in this life without a "Thus Saith".

Let's keep looking Brother.

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

Brother Danny:

I am still working and have not much time to respond to anyone. But I wanted to clarify something very quickly lest anyone get the wrong idea and falsely think that I hold to a belief that is contrary to what I know to be the truth.

You have said:

“I believe your position to come precariously close to the belief that in the flesh....Jesus was something less than God”

Brother Danny, no one believes that Christ was God more than I believe it. And no one believes more than I do that he was the Son of God. (Luke 1:35). None believe with more intensity than I that Christ was indeed divine and that in him dwelt the “fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 1:18). These things I firmly believe and teach. And I believe that he “emptied himself” in some way according to the scriptures (Phil. 2:5-8) and was made in the “likeness of man” and that he was “tempted in all points like as we are without sin”. (Heb. 4:15). And that since God cannot be tempted, it was not God that was tempted when Christ was tempted but rather the “man” Christ Jesus which was susceptible to being tempted. For God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:12-15). The fact that God was present with and in the body of Christ when he was tempted does not mean that the temptation was directed to or in any way affected or tempted HIM. Because God had no “need” that Satan could tempt him with. The temptation was directed to, based upon, and affected the “man” Christ Jesus who, as a man, had “needs” such as hunger for example, that cried out to be satisfied which formed the basis of the temptation and provided the force of it.

So, I am not even remotely close to believing that Jesus was ever, in the flesh or otherwise, “less than God”. And neither do I believe that, though he was God, he was anything more than man in partaking completely of our nature (Heb. 2:14-18) as a human being living AS A MAN on this earth even to the point of dying as a man dies. He was LIKE us in all aspects of our nature as human beings. He was not “half man” and “half God” but he was “ALL MAN” and “ALL GOD” as the scriptures teach in a way that at least I cannot pretend to fully understand. For we are told that he though he was in the form of God and equal with God he “emptied himself” and was fashioned as a man. (Phil. 2:5-8) And that he took upon himself the nature of man (Heb. 2:14-18). Thus whatever is our nature was his nature and if our nature was “corrupted by Adam’s sin” then His nature would have been equally “corrupted” by it. Otherwise He would not have actually partaken of our nature. And if men inherit, in their nature at birth, the sin of Adam then Christ, who took on our nature, as a man would have of necessity inherited the sin of Adam as well. Otherwise he would not have partaken of our nature but rather a different version similar to but not like our nature. But I do not believe that Man’s nature was corrupted by Adam’s sin nor do I believe that man inherited sin and that Christ was born with our exact nature without inheriting sin from Adam or inheriting a corrupt nature from him. And thus, Christ was not a “SINNER BY NATURE” when he took upon himself our nature (Heb. 2:14-18) because we are not “SINNERS BY NATURE”. But rather he was born, as we are as well, innocent of all sin and uncorrupted by it. And it is not until we are influenced by Satan through other sinners to actually sin against God ourselves by our own free choice. And this is something we have done that makes us sinners, which Christ never did and thus he was never a SINNER by choice though all men are SINNERS by Choice. But if men are “SINNERS BY NATURE” then when Christ took upon himself our nature he too would have been a “sinner” by virtue of that same nature. And this is something that I cannot find taught in the scriptures and therefore cannot accept as being the truth.

Then you say:

“ But my guess is....we are talking semantics.””

If you mean by this that we have possibly misunderstood one another I cannot disagree. But if you mean by this that we are actually saying the same thing with different words I must absolutely disagree for that is surely not the case. For our positions on this issue are far apart and diametrically opposed to one another. I do not enjoy the fact that we disagree but the fact is that we very much do, regrettably, disagree on this matter.

As always, I love you in Christ for your love of the truth and willingness to always stand for it. And this alone makes the disagreement between us more regrettable. But it does not make it “hopeless” for if we ever were to settle the matter we will do so based upon what the word of God says and not by any other means. This is a great comfort to me. For there is always hope to find harmony if we continue to study the word of God and search out the truth from it.

I will respond to the others and the other things you have said when I have some time. But for now I must return to the duties of my occupation. I am sure that you can and will understand that I must tend to such things.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, August 14, 2001

This is perhaps one of the greatest mysteries in all of scripture. For we are told that Jesus existed as God in his very nature, yet took on the nature of a man. Incorruptible God and corruptible Man in the same person. And we have to ask ourselves, just what did He inherit from Man in that transaction? I think we are given a glimpse when it says He was tempted like us in every way, yet was without sin.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001