Sign in or signup

7,685 active users!!Bandwidth
TUESDAY
NOV 21, 2017
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
BroadcastersNew Stuff!
Local & Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -3 min
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
PhotosNew Stuff!
Stores
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

 
BIBLE, SOCIETY, TECH, PERSONAL SURVEYS | FAVORITES CREATE NEW

All Categories |  Bible & Theology Issues
Cast your vote to see the results of this survey | 108 user comments  ( edit survey )

Sin: How Do You Define It (1 John 3:4)?
Created: 12/5/2008 | Last Vote: 2 years ago | Comment: 8 years ago
Disclaimer: These surveys are created by PLUS or FULL Members of the site and, unless specified, are not created by the SermonAudio staff nor do they necessarily reflect the site's position on any topic.

  By Law Written On the Heart (Hebrews 10:16)

  By the Two Greatest Commandments (Mark 12:28-31)

  By the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20)

  By the Holiness of God (1 Peter 1:15-16)

  By All God's Holy Word

  No answer. Skip this survey, I do not care to vote on this topic.

   

Subscribe to these comments


   11 votes  |  Do you homeschool your children? • 7 years ago
   105 votes  |  Is the 4th commandment binding in the New Covenant? • 7 years ago
   90 votes  |  How many hours a week do you spend in your occupation providing... • 7 years ago
   130 votes  |  How would you describe Brit Hume's recommendation of the... • 7 years ago
   169 votes  |  Do You Celebrate The Christmas Holiday? • 7 years ago
BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..
   2,761 votes  |  Do you use an MP3 player (hardware) to listen to sermons? • 6 months ago
   2,058 votes  |  Have you had any problems listening to sermons? • 7 months ago
   429 votes  |  What is your opinion on the Westboro Baptist church group? • 11 months ago
   3,058 votes  |  When do you think Satan Fell? • 1 years ago
   1,816 votes  |  Polygamy - What do you think the Bible teaches about it? • 1 years ago
BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..
This feature is for PLUS or FULL members only. Please log in first | or learn more about favorites.
   9,507 votes  |  What version of the Bible do you use? • 5590 comments
   6,045 votes  |  What is your view of women pastors? • 873 comments
   5,907 votes  |  Do you think the Pope went to heaven? • 1482 comments
   5,305 votes  |  Are you Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist? • 444 comments
   4,559 votes  |  How old are you? To determine the SermonAudio age groups... • 111 comments
BROWSE SURVEY CATEGORIES | MORE..
FORUMS | USER COMMENTS | add new  

    Sorting Order:  

· Page 1 ·  Found: 108 user comment(s)

Survey11/6/09 8:51 AM
Branston  Find all comments by Branston
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
"Mankind Guilty in Adam

Adam took things into his own hands, revolted from God and trampled His law beneath his feet. It behooves us to study the relation between Adam’s action and the universal miseries consequent on it, for it supplies the clue to all the confusion which perplexes us within and without. It tells us why infants are estranged from God from the womb (Ps. 58: 3) , and why each of us is born into this world with a heart that is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). It is because Adam forfeited his Maker’s approbation and incurred His awful displeasure, with all its terrible effects. In Adam we broke the covenant of works; we offended in his offense and transgressed in his transgression; and thereby we departed from God’s favor and fell under His righteous curse. Scott said: "Thus man apostatized, God was provoked, the Holy Spirit forsook His polluted temple, the unclean spirit took possession, the Divine image was defaced and Satan’s image imposed in its place." Through the sin of its head the race was ruined and fell into a state of most horrible moral leprosy. Ours is a fallen world: averse to Cod and holiness, iniquity abounding in it, death reigning over it, lust and crime characterizing it, suffering and misery filling it"(A.Pink)


Survey11/4/09 5:05 AM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
WOMI wrote:
Scriptures speaks of Christ's incarnation as necessary for him to become us, not merely for him to die on the cross.....
Good morning Yamil

I'm interested to know what you mean by "become us", as it seems you have mentioned this a few times now. I've always thought it necessary for the Lord to become a man that he might live and die and be raised as a man, because it was man that sinned.

In the following scripture "became us" means that Christ was "perfectly suitable for us" as an high priest who was sinless and able to "die for" an unlimited number of sinners, paying the price for sin, and applying that redemption price to whomsoever he would, according to the Father's Will and Purpose.

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Hebrews 7:25-27 KJV

He saves all that come unto God by him.


Survey11/3/09 6:07 PM
WOMI | Pretending to be a Calvinist  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
Mike wrote:
Almost. I would indeed expect a Calvinist to come up with such fuzzy stuff. Or perhaps a devil's advocate.

Mike wrote:
However, if he became flesh to become us, he became us so he could die in our stead, which he could not do otherwise than becoming flesh.
Scriptures speaks of Christ's incarnation as necessary for him to become us, not merely for him to die on the cross. If that were the case, he could had just incarnated into a lamb and the Father would had accepted it just like he did in the Old Testament. This truth does not negate the importance of his death but rather. Every time the Bible speaks of his incarnation, it's purpose is expressed as the means wherby he becomes us, not as a means for him to die.

Mike wrote:
What race would that be? Indy 500?
Well I will have to look that one up in my Calvinist hand book.

Survey10/31/09 8:53 PM
Alan H | Washington State  Protected NameFind all comments by Alan H
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
"A considerable part of the resistance to the imputation of Adam’s sin is owing to the ground on which the evidence of the fact is often rested. It is not simply placed on the authority of the testimony of God, but is attempted to be justified by human procedure. The difficulty that some persons feel on this subject, arises from the supposition that though the sin of the first man is charged upon his posterity, yet it is not theirs. But the Scriptures hold it forth as ours in as true a sense as it was Adam’s. We may be asked to explain how it can be ours, and here we may find ourselves at a loss for an answer. But we ought to consider that we are not obliged to give an answer on this point either to ourselves or others. We are to receive it on the Divine testimony, assured that what God declares must be true, however unable we may be to comprehend it. We ought not to perplex ourselves by endeavoring to ascertain the grounds of the Divine testimony on this subject. Our duty is to understand the import of what is testified, and to receive it on that authority — not to inquire into the justice of the constitution from which our guilt results."

(Robert Haldane - Commentary on the Book of Romans)


Survey10/30/09 9:51 PM
Alan H | Washington State  Protected NameFind all comments by Alan H
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
"The summary argument commonly used against the imputation of Adam’s sin, namely, that it is ‘contrary to reason,’ proceeds on a mere assumption — an assumption as unwarrantable as that of the Socinian, who denies the Trinity in unity because it is above his comprehension. Most persons are in the habit of considering many things which they cannot fathom, and which they cannot relish, as being contrary to reason. But this is not just. A thing may be very disagreeable, and far beyond the ken of human penetration, which is not contrary to reason. We are not entitled to pronounce anything contrary to reason which does not imply a contradiction. A contradiction cannot be true, but all other things may be true, and, on sufficient evidence, ought to be received as true. That Adam’s sin may, in a certain view, be our sin, and that Christ’s righteousness may, in a certain view, be our righteousness, no man is entitled to deny on the ground of self-evident truth. Whether it is true or not must depend on evidence. Now the testimony of God in the Scriptures leaves no doubt on the subject. Adam’s sin is our sin. Christ’s righteousness is the righteousness of all His people."

(Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans by Robert Haldane)


Survey10/30/09 7:37 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
WOMI wrote:
"He did not nor did he need to become flesh to die on the cross, he became flesh to become us."
Almost. I would indeed expect a Calvinist to come up with such fuzzy stuff. Or perhaps a devil's advocate.

However, if he became flesh to become us, he became us so he could die in our stead, which he could not do otherwise than becoming flesh.

WOMI wrote:
So the type has nothing to do with him being the first of his kind for he is not the first of his kind. He is the ONLY of his kind! Bless God!!!
Sounds very spiritual, but...

1 Corinthians 15:20
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."

Scripture calls him the firstfruits, therefore he is the first of his kind(spiritual man) Can't be firstfruits unless there's fruits to follow.

WOMI wrote:
Romans 5 is speaking of a particular person, while Corinthians is speaking of a different race.
What race would that be? Indy 500?

Corinthians 15 speaks of Christ's resurrection, resurrection order, and the mystery of resurrection. The Lord is highly emphasized in this chapter. In what version is found a different race in this chapter?


Survey10/30/09 5:41 PM
Shore  Find all comments by Shore
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
WOMI wrote:
So the type has nothing to do with him being the first of his kind for he is not the first of his kind. He is the ONLY of his kind!
Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Don't ignore election and predestination Yamil........

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,


Survey10/30/09 4:38 PM
WOMI | Pretending to be a Calvinist  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
You have just annuled the essence of the incarnation. The Bible speaks of Christ becoming man as key to his redemptive act. He had to become one with the human race, because he needed to be us, if he were to be our substitute. And not only so, but I, as a Calvinist, would argue that he needed to become one with us if he is to represent the human race as Federal head. Otherwise it would be like a bunch of Mexican illegals holding office. His incarnation is not a vehicle for him to die, it is a vehicle for him to become us. He did not nor did he need to become flesh to die on the cross, he became flesh to become us. So the type has nothing to do with him being the first of his kind for he is not the first of his kind. He is the ONLY of his kind! Bless God!!!

You have also contorted the type of the first Adam. What ever is true of the first type has to be true of the antitype and vice versa. Romans 5 is speaking of a particular person, while Corinthians is speaking of a different race.

Thirdly, you have ignored the whole meaning of Romans chapter 5 which has everything to do with imputation and nothing to do with physiology.

Boy, I can make a good Calvinist. Ok which Presby wants to offer me membership?


Survey10/30/09 4:07 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
WOMI wrote:

Hey, you did not answer my objection that I made earlier concerning your post that I responded to.
If we are righteous in Christ, if it is his righteousness that has been imputed unto us, as the last Adam, what does that say of the first Adam as the type?
Didn't realize I was required to respond, WOMI. Is that a rule?

The type is this-, Adam was the first of his kind, a living soul, a natural man, earthy. The last Adam was the first of his kind, a quickening spirit, a spiritual man, heavenly.

1 Corinthians 15:47
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

The type is simply that they are each the first of their kind. Why do we need to complicate it?

As for your question, this is my opinion: If Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us, it says nothing about Adam's sin being imputed, for it is not imputation that is the type, but being the first of the kind(natural vs spiritual) that is the type.

1 Corinthians 15:48
"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly."

Men die in Adam because men are flesh, as was Adam. Flesh is subject to death. Sin brings it about.


Survey10/30/09 3:46 PM
Arlyss  Find all comments by Arlyss
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
WOMI wrote:
(a) rally around "Ban Yamil!"

(b) Now, if Lurker can be a Calvinist and reject one of the most fundamental doctines of Reformed theology, then can I still be a synergist and believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? I mean, its only fair.

(a) You said it Yamil.

(b) There have been a few people come onboard site and said they were Calvinists, but.........

As for you Yamil - we all know for definite that you are a dyed in the wool, member of the SAS.
______________

Mike wrote:
is there something in Scripture that says Adam's sin brought him eternal death?
Hey Mike; You being one of the more intelligent theologians around, can you tell me where it says that Adam 'HAD' eternal life pre-sin?

OH, And why did God say....
Gen 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, AND TAKE ALSO of the TREE OF LIFE, and eat, and LIVE FOR EVER:"

So who gets to munch on the Tree of Life - and why?


Survey10/30/09 3:00 PM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
WOMI wrote:
Come on now. You could just ask me.
I didna know you were theologian Yamil.

Ah well, in that case, please do go ahead full steam and no conferring!


Survey10/30/09 2:56 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
John UK wrote:
And I will attempt to play the theologian.
Come on now. You could just ask me.

Survey10/30/09 2:49 PM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
Mike wrote:
John, is there something in Scripture that says Adam's sin brought him eternal death? If so, verses might help to clarify. If not, how could he representatively spread to his offspring a penalty that did not apply to him?
To the serpent, God cursed the serpent. But to Adam, God cursed the ground. Adam was separated from the garden, but not from God, nor God from him. At what point did eternal death come in?
Mike, good questions!

And I will attempt to play the theologian.

#1 If Adam's sin did not bring him eternal death, then the 'wages of sin is death' means that Adam dies and is no more existent. Or

#2 As the JW's incorrectly believe, Adam dies, dies again at the judgment, and is extinct.

#3 Now we know that the words 'death' and 'dead' in the Bible cannot be simply understood, Mike, don't we? For eg. I was 'dead' and 'alive' until the age of 26, when I 'died' and was 'made alive'. Or to be even more correct, I was 'made alive' and then 'died', thus gaining 'life'. I also seek to 'die' daily, but somewhat unsuccessfully.

Thankfully I have 'died' with Christ, been 'raised' with Christ, and will be 'glorified' with Christ. Praise the Lord!!!!!!!! And Amen!!!!


Survey10/30/09 2:47 PM
WOMI | Pretending to be a Calvinist  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
Mike wrote:
I don't think WOMI believes that. Or at least he didn't used to. Perhaps he was being facetious?

Hey, you did not answer my objection that I made earlier concerning your post that I responded to.

If we are righteous in Christ, if it is his righteousness that has been imputed unto us, as the last Adam, what does that say of the first Adam as the type?


Survey10/30/09 1:58 PM
Alan H | Washington State  Protected NameFind all comments by Alan H
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
John UK wrote:
Bro Lurker,
If you choose to depart the forum, you should at least declare your position. We all have a Bible and get our doctrines from IT, so what is your doctrine, which you say is biblical?
I can't speak for Lurker, but from what I gather from the comments which he has made, he does not believe that either Adam's "sin" or "guilt" was imputed to all of mankind (all men), but rather he believes that sin was imputed only after the Moral Law was given by Moses (or rather by God).

He said to me, "I've not been contending for infused sin. Imputed when the Law was published by God through Moses."

While that statement is very confusing, I think that was his meaning; however, I can't quite figure out whose sin is imputed. Certainly not Adam's, because "that" Lurker adamantly denies. He seems to conclude that there was no law previous to the Mosaic Law being given.

There can be no sin where there is no law, for sin is always a violation of some law (except unrighteous laws, contrary to the revealed will of God - as there are many in our day, and new ones daily, which to obey is sin). Also, the fact there is death proves there was law, "for the wages of sin is death." And where is there sin without guilt, whether felt or not?


Survey10/30/09 1:46 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
John UK wrote:
---
Representative Adam spreading to his offspring the penalties of spiritual death, physical death and eternal death.
---
John, is there something in Scripture that says Adam's sin brought him eternal death? If so, verses might help to clarify. If not, how could he representatively spread to his offspring a penalty that did not apply to him?

To the serpent, God cursed the serpent. But to Adam, God cursed the ground. Adam was separated from the garden, but not from God, nor God from him. At what point did eternal death come in?


Survey10/30/09 1:20 PM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
Mike wrote:
I don't think WOMI believes that. Or at least he didn't used to. Perhaps he was being facetious?
Perhaps he has been studying scripture?

Survey10/30/09 1:13 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
John UK wrote:
Yammy, my dear ol' thing
You believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few?
Can you show that from scripture?
Just for my edification, you understand.
p.s. Lurker isn't a Calvinist, but a free thinker.
I don't think WOMI believes that. Or at least he didn't used to. Perhaps he was being facetious?

Survey10/30/09 12:55 PM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
WOMI wrote:
Now, if Lurker can be a Calvinist and reject one of the most fundamental doctines of Reformed theology, then can I still be a synergist and believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? I mean, its only fair.
Yammy, my dear ol' thing

You believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few?

Can you show that from scripture?

Just for my edification, you understand.

p.s. Lurker isn't a Calvinist, but a free thinker.


Survey10/30/09 11:31 AM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
• Groups | Comments
Alan H wrote:
This discussion has prompted me to that effort. Don't assume you have it right; neither shall I. Only the Holy Spirit can reconcile that which seems contrary to us while we place the Scripture under the bare scrutiny of our own natural reason (or some one else's).
May the Lord bless you my dear friend.
So I have been used by the Holy Spirit here at SA. You see folks that is one more reason why you should be nice to me and not rally around "Ban Yamil!"

Ha!

I would agree with Alan's sentiments. We are dealing with one of the most profound and difficult portions of Scripture. We can glory in the fact that no matter what the interpretaion may be correct, Christ is the answer. If it leads us to a more awesome reverence and adoration of the work and person of Christ, then I say that your particular interpretation is close enough.

_______________________________________

Now, if Lurker can be a Calvinist and reject one of the most fundamental doctines of Reformed theology, then can I still be a synergist and believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? I mean, its only fair.

There are a total of 108 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments

Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 | last




Mike Allison
Aww...

Genesis 47:7-12
Sunday - AM
Madison Baptist Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS

Lost and Found
Randy Wages

Hourly: The Eccentric Employer
Rev. Kevin DeYoung
10th - Tenth Presbyterian
Staff Picks..

Ron Lewis
Under His Wings

Faith Bible Church
Sunday Service
Play! | MP3

Kevin Swanson
Did Moore Commit Sexual Sin?

Most Americans Need to Confess
Generations Radio
Play! | MP3

Sermon:
Cowards and Heroes
David Bodanza

SPONSOR | 7,200+

SPONSOR




                   
My God and I are good company. ... Richard Sibbes

Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal


MOBILE
iPhone + iPad New!
Church App
Watch
Android
Church App
Kindle + Nook
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV New!
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV New!
Amazon Echo New!
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
SA Newsroom New!
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES | ALL
Church Finder | Info
Sermon Player
Mobile & Apps
Podcasting | Videos
Live Webcasting
Events Support
Transcription | PowerClips
Billboards New!
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI | Domain
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Goodies
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BW
JSON API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Auto-Upload Sermons
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox
Picasa
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Support Us | Feedback Fridays | Stories