Were humans created with a sinful nature?

Where did i say that? Ohhh yeah nowhere. Whos putting words in my mouth? Are you mad because your arguments are not sufficient enough? Not christianlike .Work on your character. No need to pick up theology books. Im so clever i have figured out many things myself and actually can even counterargue :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

In my view I am maximizing Jesus, not that he needs my help.

Outside of what?

That’s all that matters, right?

I don’t disagree.

I maintain that historical awareness of Christ’s incarnation is not necessary for salvation.

Ah, yes. “Is it or isn’t it necessary?” is a question that I could have–but didn’t–posted in the “Which Faith Questions Bug You?” thread. I haven’t settled on one side of the fence or the other, … yet.

1 Like

It’s all I have.

Some views can be true. Shall we talk about epistemology.

So if a Muslim will not acknowledge Jesus as the Lord, then do they worship the same god as those who do? Since there is only one name by which we can be saved. What about this previous post?

We certainly can.

Yeah, but shall we.

There is only one name by which men can be saved, Jesus.

If other religions are believing in and proclaiming the same god as those who love Jesus, then that god would lead them to Jesus. The Father loves the Son. Jesus said, “All authority has been given to me, therefore go and make disciples of every nation.” So, if you believe other religions worship the Father of Jesus, then the spirit of that god would lead them to Jesus, if it doesn’t, then that god is a false god. If a spirit or so called god does not lead a person to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord, then that spirit or god is false and a liar. They are demons, or idols, or some other thing that mankind has made up.

No way around it. If salvation from the power of sin through trust in Jesus is not the message of a god, then that god is not the Father of our Lord Jesus. He is the father of lies, the devil.

Agreed. It was a total waste of time and achieved nothing

There is no real difference whether God performed miracles directly or whether he did them through Jesus. The latter would just have required an extra step

Again I don’t see any difference between whether God supernaturally created Eve from Adams rib (and air?) by deconstructing these into sub-atomic particles and then rearranging these to form atoms, molecules, proteins, tissues, organs etc into Eve or whether he supernaturally guided evolution to produce humans by choosing which random mutations actually occurred. Both would involve supernatural intervention in the natural world - the only difference is the time and scale over which it is done.

If God were to do everything via the laws of nature, then he wouldn’t intervene in the Universe in any way after he created it. I dont think many Christians believe this?

Nonsense. There is a difference and you know it. The difference was that Jesus was neither a wizard with magical powers nor a magician doing tricks. He simply had a relationship with God and could see what God was doing. Describing this as just an extra step is baloney because Jesus was not in control of what was happening.

No Christian believes that, for that would be Deism not Christianity. I am a Christian not a Deist.

I didn’t say God did everything via the laws of nature. I said God does not break the laws of nature. And if you mean to say that if God were not to do anything contrary to the laws of nature then He wouldn’t intervene in any way, then I would say this does not follow because the laws of nature are not a causally closed system.

God made the universe for a relationship. That requires there is be something other than Himself. Thus he made this existence which operates automatically according to a system of rules. But because it was made for a relationship those rules do not preclude interaction with Him. And that is why it is not a causally closed system as physicists discovered much to their consternation.

P.S. this is not the same explanation as Dale’s below – just to be clear. I am an incompatibilist and do not consider the relationship of an author with the characters of a book He has written to be an authentic relationship.

Check out about God’s ‘normal’ M.O., providential intervention without breaking any natural laws. He is sovereign over time and place, timing and placing – Maggie’s testimony is a great example. There are multiple ‘co-instants’ in a brief period of time.

This one does, apart from intervention by incarnation: One is therefore deist but for Jesus and Sophia the Holy Ghost and theist in those regards. And how did He create the Universe again? As opposed to the infinity of universes from eternity? Did He have to create the laws of nature first?

Eternal nature and it’s absolutely prevenient laws therefore changes God and at-one-ment for the infinitely better, for good, exposing evil constructs like penal substitutionary atonement as of their benighted, unenlightened time.

The thread title question is as non-semantic as asking if God can create an unmoveable object.

It does not change an omnitemporal God. And ‘nature’ is not eternal.

Goofy me! The issue which I haven’t settled on an answer to is: “Whether Jesus had one or two human parents”. Regardless which I decide on, I’m confident that one’s position is NOT necessary for salvation.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.