1 Pet 1:1-2 and 'Who We Are' After listening I think you all did well to leave Foreknowledge from your Vision because I truly see that the Father's foreknowledge in 1 Pet 1:1-2 is a reference concerning the dispersion and not referring to the election - this indeed is the reformed view as opposed to a 4 point Calvinist or Arminian View. We'll said!
Great Sermon! among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
(Ephesians 2:3 ESV)
Brilliant Debate! The fallacy of original sin is demonstrated very clearly here. One error leads inevitably into the next. The OS proponent makes 2 telling statements that are provably false according to scripture.
1. Christ's righteousness is imputed to you even though you are not righteous.
Not according to scripture.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous (1 John 3:7).
2. God no longer sees you and your sins but instead only the righteousness of Christ.
Not according to scripture.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:14)
That was the true light,which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (John 1:9)
Clearly we are born innocent and into light not darkness. We have a constitutional conscience given to us by God. For God has manifest it in us (Romans 1:19)
It would be interesting to hear how exactly this so-called sinful nature actually got there. Is it the proponent's contention that God put it there? Did God deliberately give man a nature inclined to wickedness? If so then Genesis 6:5,6 would not make any sense at all, because it would be God's own fault.
Brilliant Debate! Evolution and the doctrine of Original Sin.
The 2 biggest lies in the history of mankind. Amazing how these 2 lies are presented in such a way as to make it almost impossible for the unsuspecting to sift what they are hearing and figure out precisely what the real truth is. For example John 3 is mentioned, but the scripture is clearly twisted to "prove" original sin. But man's "deeds" are evil, not his fallen nature. THIS IS THE CONDEMNATION! He chooses darkness by his own free will, otherwise he has an excuse. That is the point. All through scripture man is called to forsake his sins and come clean with God. But if you are incapable of forsaking your sins through total inability, you might as well throw the Bible in the trash. You'd think more people would get it: Satan wants you to think you can't forsake your sins, wants you to think sin is a disease you are born with and really it's not your fault. Original sin is indeed Satan's Masterpiece. It subverts the gospel and freezes it into a state of uselessness at a single stroke, and the lie goes on, and on, and on. But not forever. Jesus is coming soon. Amen.
Great Sermon! This is of great interest of mine as I prepare to teach young moms in our church about parenting and fellowship of parents in the church. Would you mind sending me a digital copy of your handout for this presentation (sounds like a Sunday School class) and the Biblography of your preparation. Thanks so very much!
Great Sermon! Great sermon! I really like the fact that the pastor takes an fair and biblical approach to the topic. The only issue is that some of the people of the congregation don't let him finish his points before assuming he's saying something else. I do see this as a good thing though as it's pricking to the conscience. :) Too many pastors try to cater to their congregation, but this one is diligently trying to please God.
Relevant: Fanaticism, Faith, or Sentimentalism? This is a helpful consideration of true vs. false religious affections, showing they are not an infallible proof for assurance of conviction, salvation or true worship experience, but also could be. This applies much more than just against modern charismatics, but also applies to conservative and reformed Christianity. There is a "faith" today that is really sentimentalism, emotionalized notions, e.g. "I love Jesus". This should even be considered in evaluating the use of instruments in church and uninspired hymns which can manufacture through artificial music (as opposed to heart melody) and men's lyrics a sentimentalism to be confused with true worship or faith. Old Methodists used to fanatically sing very loud, to work up "faith". Modern Christianity works much directly upon emotions through the use of either old hymns or contemporary Christian music to excite the people to a "love of Jesus" that is false and sensual instead of true and spiritual. Preachers that seek to MOVE their audience by example, wavering voices, painting a detailed picture of Christ crucifixion (which the Bible does not) *to appeal directly to human sympathies* (rather than mindful consideration of Christ's suffering as an atonement), should be considered carefully too.
Great Sermon! I have struggled with this particular scripture for many years. Your sermon gave me insight and understanding and even though you could not find anyone to agree with you I think you're right on!
Very Helpful! After listening to this debate several times, it is clear that Pat was not open to correction even when his position was CLEARLY wrong. Even though he often misquoted Stephen's explanations, the debate was civil.