Where Last Time The Truth Was Dismissed Without The Truth Being Mentioned

 It's simply amazing to me how a leftist can be shown the facts, given the evidence and yet still cling to that which ignores what has been proven.  I refer of course to my previous post, in which I present a selection of verses which proves as false the claim that the principle that we are each born with a sin nature is not Biblical.  Merely citing the verses I chose should have done the trick.  They clearly come from Scripture and speak to man's nature being sinful.  There's no doubt about that.  Nonetheless, the assertion that it does not remains as if no evidence of any kind was brought forth.  It's not that the evidence wasn't direct in proving that "sin nature" is a Biblical concept, it's that the very fact of it is too troubling to accept for some reason not explained or even worthy to make mention.  It's just that the whining that "sin nature" is not a Biblical teaching must be accepted for reasons also not explained (that it's allegedly not Biblical is not a reason...it's a premise which must be supported but never was).

Rather than giving something akin to a reason why any of the rest were not the evidence demanded to support the premise the "sin nature" is a Biblical teaching (one or two weak attempts notwithstanding), tons of keystrokes were wasted trying to refute the very words of Jesus Himself, wherein He states plainly and without caveat that there is no one good but God alone.  This is a truth with which I have no personal trouble.  It worries me not.  And it was lost that the distinction is not at all a nuanced one to grasp:

First is the truth claim itself.  It was stated by Jesus directly, thus confirming He meant it to be taken as given.  If this is not so, there would've been some clarification given.  There's not even any hint that anyone who heard Him say this was dismayed by it in any way, nor did anyone even ask Jesus to explain what He meant by it.  Everything else in the story referred to the Rich Young Ruler's question, and clarification was asked about Jesus's response to what the RYR needed for salvation.  His response was the Good News we're told was intended for the materially poor primarily.  And it is there where the clarification for the truth stated in Mark 10:18 appears.  That is, why the statement was a statement of actual fact, and not hyperbole or metaphor or figurative speech.  More importantly, that actual fact relates to the rest of the list and why it was put together for the post.

What is it which makes God alone "good"?  Well, among all answers anyone might offer, primary of them, and that which is most relevant to the discussion of the previous post, is that He is without sin.  Sin is not in Him.  No solely human person can say that about themselves.  Jesus wasn't as much telling the Rich Young Dude to lighten his purse, but to follow Jesus, for Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but through Jesus, because Jesus came to pay the price...the wages of our sin.  His shedding of His Blood is the payment, and it washes away our sin and we are then redeemed.  

It is sin which separates us from God.  Not the specific sinful acts we commit, but sin itself...the sin which is our nature due to sin entering God's "very good" Creation when Adam ate of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It infected everything which God had said was "very good" when He was finished creating creation.  All the warm and fluffy, feel-good, Kumbaya, Pollyanaish talk of "Grace" of my interlocutor of the last post ignores what was required for us to receive that Grace, and it required something being done to pay the wages of sin...death...just as atonement for God's Chosen People required death for sin, either the sinner's life, or the life of as most perfect a sacrificial animal as could be found.   But they were insufficient both because they were not truly perfectly unblemished animals, but because they only atoned for specific sins committed.  It did not atone for the sin nature.  That's where the final sacrifice took care of that business.

But it's all "human tradition", you see.  But it's the human Christian tradition of accepting the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture, which is the teaching of God revealed to us by a plain reading of Scripture, written to be easily understood.  It's not cryptic or mysterious with "layers of meaning" such that multiple meanings can exist which are contradictory, were any secondary meaning actually be presented with evidence which withstands scrutiny.  

And that, of course was the point of the last post.  "Sin nature" was asserted as no more than personal opinion rather than a Biblical doctrine.  Challenged to back up the counter claim, I gathered verses which attest to the doctrine and counter-challenged that if the verses don't mean what is conveyed by a plain reading of them, then what do they REALLY mean, and what evidence can be brought forth to support the claim.  I was presented with nothing more than weak attempts to provide verses which don't do what they were claimed to do.  To counter "there are none good but God alone", I was presented two or three times with the same passage wherein Jesus speaks of what "a good man" does as if it proves there are "good" people aside from God.  The problem, of course, was that the verse doesn't name any specific person, but simply describes what a good person would look like, very much like the passage which contains "ye shall know them by their fruit" describes what a follower of Christ would look like.  I also was given the marxist, liberation theology "tradition" of the "context" from which the Mark 10:18 verse was drawn being about "oppression" of the Pharisees, as well as indicting the Rich Young Ruler as one of them simply because he's wealthy as if no wealthy people in Scripture are regarded as righteous in the eyes of God.  

But here's what it's really all about:  Universalism.  Marxist, liberation theology universalism.  Everybody gets a trophy!  It's about rejecting the purpose of Jesus having walked among us.  It's about rejecting the crucifixion as no more than "Some people did something", not as a willing act of self-sacrifice by Jesus.  This makes His resurrection worthless, as it shows His power over death, which is what sin has done for us since it first entered Creation in Eden.  

Furthermore, since God took on the flesh to be the Perfect sacrifice necessary to wash away all sin of those who believe in Jesus, it's pretty clear He takes sin rather seriously.  It's not merely a "misstep" or "missing the mark" and it's not about any specific sinful act which required this great sacrifice to save us from His wrath and justice.  It was the great Passover.  The Blood of Christ adorns our doorframes so that the Angel of Death knows we are not condemned by our sin nature.   This truth is rejected by the vile response that it denotes a "petty godling" who acts with caprice and evil intent.  "The Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world" is just a catchy title.  It doesn't mean He would be sacrificed as a Penal Substitute for our Atonement.  That would be petty.  

The Black Knight fancies himself the victor!