I'll agree with that.
In the old nature, there was nothing possible except to sin. Is that also right? You said "a saved person now has the ability to not sin." From this I conclude that before being saved they did not have this ability. Therefore it was all sin.
Yes.
OK. So what were we talking about? Oh, right. Does having the ability to sin or not sin, the freedom to choose, make one greater than God, who is not in his nature able to sin?
No, you twisted it a bit. I did not say that having the ability to sin or not sin made one greater than God, but the ability to act different than our nature would make us greater than God.
An unsaved person acts according to his nature, which is to sin.
A saved person acts according to his nature, which is to sin or not sin.
God acts according to His Nature, which is to be Just, Holy, etc.
Everyone is still acting according to their nature.
All the children of the net
Baptists, Catholics, Calvinists, Jews and all
Jesus loves the little children of the net.
Cowboy and Cindydawg
OK, I looked back and see I did misunderstand what you were getting at. Yes, we all act according to our natures.
I guess we are stuck on the T then.
An unsaved person acts according to his nature, which is to sin.
I simply don't agree that this is the nature. Unless you radically redefine what "sin" means, this simply isn't true. No one is comopletely sin free and no one chooses the good all of the time.
But there are actions done by the unsaved that are not sinful.
This, then, is where we are stuck. The unsaved person has just as much freedom, actual freedom, to choose good ro bad as the saved person does. But one has his will bent toward evil, the other toward goodness.
It is the freedom that is the constant.
SD