Are Jack Sequeira's teachings Biblicial?

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Everyone, except Christ, is born without the Holy Spirit. Hence we are born "bent to self" (self-consumed). Therefore our natures and our minds are in complete harmony. Remember sin is more than an outward action...it's a mindset.

All babes are born "self-consumed", i.e., bent to self. Why?

Answer: They are an extension of Adam, after the fall.

Keep in mind what James states:

James 4:1 Do you know where your fights and arguments come from? They come from the selfish desires that war within you.

If you don't believe me, watch this:

View video

With all due respect Robert - that is a load of hooey. Babies are born innocent and their apparent "self consumption" is based on a physical and intellectual inability to care for themselves.

[Robert]

.... their apparent "self consumption" is based on a physical and intellectual inability to care for themselves.

So if I'm not too intelligent and I can't seem to hold a job down (physical and intellectual inability to care for myself) it's okay if I punch you in the head and take your money, no?

Babies are born self-centered. Here's David:

Ps 51:5 For I was born a sinner -- yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

[Robert]

When infants are young & fight over a toy we think it's funny, but when they get a little older we pop their little butts. After a butt whipping they then produce outwardly good behavior out of fear. Yet inwardly there's no change! We teach them to be self-righteous from day one.

I've heard many a mom & dad say, "If you are good, Johnny, I'll buy you a toy." So Johnny pretends to be good so he can get reward. That's old covenant....

And the grownup version is "if I keep God's law I'll get a mansion in heaven and walk on golden streets". We are legalist by nature. It comes natural.

Folks, our only hope is "the righteousness of Christ". There's nothing we can offer God. When we are humbled and accept His full and complete salvation, then we can experience His imparted righteousness!

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

.... their apparent "self consumption" is based on a physical and intellectual inability to care for themselves.

So if I'm not too intelligent and I can't seem to hold a job down (physical and intellectual inability to care for myself) it's okay if I punch you in the head and take your money, no?

Babies are born self-centered. Here's David:

Ps 51:5 For I was born a sinner -- yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

If you are an adult that can NOT be taught right from wrong due to a mental/intellectual disability then I would not fault you for punching me in the head. But if you steal my money, that tells me that you are aware of the need for money and likely are aware that you could earn it on your own somehow and that tells me that you can learn basic right from wrong. In that case I will hunt you down and hurt you probably.

So are you saying Jesus was born a sinner? When he as a baby cried and fussed he was sinning?

[M. T. Cross]

When infants are young & fight over a toy we think it's funny, but when they get a little older we pop their little butts. After a butt whipping they then produce outwardly good behavior out of fear. Yet inwardly there's no change! We teach them to be self-righteous from day one.

I've heard many a mom & dad say, "If you are good, Johnny, I'll buy you a toy." So Johnny pretends to be good so he can get reward. That's old covenant....

Maybe I am different, but my kids have always got in trouble for fighting no matter what age they were. I have also never promised a reward for being good. I simply try to instill the concept of being a decent person is its own reward.

[BobRyan]

If you are an adult that can NOT be taught right from wrong due to a mental/intellectual disability then I would not fault you for punching me in the head.

When an otherwise normal person "chooses" to drink - then chooses to drive - then runs someone over - they are guilty of murder - even though they would not have run the guy over HAD they not been stinking drunk at the time.

If you had a "pill" that a drunk or drug addict could take and then "zap" the biochemical addiction would vanish such that all that is left is their own "choice" to do more drugs "if they so choose" just as they once chose in the days before they ever formed the drug habit - can you then charge them with "guilt" if they take the pill - are freed from that slavery and then "choose it again"??

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

To the extent that Jack is in error - it is likely to be seen here -

http://www.jacksequeira.org/personalbeliefs.htm

His notion that the entire planet was in reality - actually - objectively - justified at the cross - in contrast to the Bible doctrine that justification of the individual is (actually, and in reality) at the time of faith "having been justified by FAITH we HAVE peace with God" Rom 5:1 - may have gotten him off on the wrong foot.

Now what I find amazing is that we have people here affirming Jack. Yet Jack's own writings claim that we must stop sinning before the close of probation and that Christ assumed our sinful human nature.

This affirmation for Jack by those who reject his teaching is odd indeed.

in Christ,

Bob

[Robert]

In that case I will hunt you down and hurt you probably.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

If you are an adult that can NOT be taught right from wrong due to a mental/intellectual disability then I would not fault you for punching me in the head.

When an otherwise normal person "chooses" to drink - then chooses to drive - then runs someone over - they are guilty of murder - even though they would not have run the guy over HAD they not been stinking drunk at the time.

If you had a "pill" that a drunk or drug addict could take and then "zap" the biochemical addiction would vanish such that all that is left is their own "choice" to do more drugs "if they so choose" just as they once chose in the days before they ever formed the drug habit - can you then charge them with "guilt" if they take the pill - are freed from that slavery and then "choose it again"??

in Christ,

Bob

With the possible very rare occasion any addiction in the last 50 or so years is chosen. What the person does while intoxicated they should be held accountable for. Gods know I have been held accountable for the things I did while an addict and I readily accept that.

[bonnie]

.When infants are young & fight over a toy we think it's funny, but when they get a little older we pop their little butts. After a butt whipping they then produce outwardly good behavior out of fear. Yet inwardly there's no change! We teach them to be self-righteous from day one.

I've heard many a mom & dad say, "If you are good, Johnny, I'll buy you a toy." So Johnny pretends to be good so he can get reward. That's old covenant....

An infant has one way to communicate. God did not cause them or allow them to be born that was so they could be considered .He certainly could have given them the ability to cummunicate without fussing or crying.In His wisdom He chose not to.

A hungry infant is not sinning when it communicates to his mother that he is hungry.

Some parents do offer bribes and rewards,not all of them.

Children can be taught to share without parents instilling fear in them

Maybe I am different, but my kids have always got in trouble for fighting no matter what age they were. I have also never promised a reward for being good. I simply try to instill the concept of being a decent person is its own reward.

[BobRyan]

Babies not only demonstrate joy and sadness - but they exhibit rage and anger. However they start out too young to understand much of anything about what they are doing - so discipline is out of the question - so we just pamper them (and manipulate them as gently as we can) until they are old enough to connect cause and effect and to understand that they are being disciplined for doing something wrong.

Thus parents help infants gain control over their rage, and selfishness and anger. Yet it is undeniable that those early toddlers love to "play alone together" and will often steal from a fellow toddler as soon as look at him/her.

in Christ,

Bob

[Robert]

An infant has one way to communicate.....A hungry infant is not sinning when it communicates to his mother that he is hungry.

When it has a temper tantrum it is revealing its nature as a child of Adam. Besides, the video wasn't about communication, it was about fighting over a toy.

[Robert]

Thus parents help infants gain control over their rage, and selfishness and anger.

[Robert]

"Man was originally endowed with noble powers and a well-balanced mind. He was perfect in his being, and in harmony with God. His thoughts were pure, his aims holy. But through disobedience (do not eat of the tree), his powers were perverted, and selfishness took the place of love (agape)." SC

When did Adam produce children, before or after the fall?

After!

Therefore, Adam could only pass on a humanity to his offspring (through procreation) that was spiritually bankrupt - a humanity dominated by iniquity (selfishness).

[M. T. Cross]

In that case I will hunt you down and hurt you probably.

[Robert]

Keep in mind that I'm not discussing the believer. I'm speaking of our birth into this world. Are we sinners by birth, or are we sinners when we sin? Clearly by birth!

Again, go back to Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Not at birth, but at conception. What happens at conception. The cells begin to multiply and you began to form. During this process Adam's life, after the fall, becomes yours. It is a life,

1] indwelt by iniquity (selfishness)

2] and a slave to it's own way (i.e., our bent to self).

This alone condemns us. So before you could outwardly sin your very DNA was polluted with iniquity. Hence, babies need Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Furthermore, I believe (Ellen wasn't sure) that all babies who die before they can intelligently make a choice for or against Christ will be in heaven. All those billions aborted - they'll be in heaven. Why?

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression [Adam's] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Jesus has already legally saved all men in himself, but infants that die prematurely have not been able to accept or reject this justification. Again, I believe they will be in heaven because of Christ alone.

White Estate

[Robert]

I love my kids and wife Robert, steal money from me and you steal food, shelter and heat from them.

You love your own....That's a form of self-love because they are an extension of you!

Luke 6:32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. (You love your own) 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.

Christ, as the God/man, died so that His enemies could have heaven in His place. That's agape. All we know is self-love, which is unrighteousness. We need Christ's righteousness...both imputed and imparted.

[Robert]

Again, I believe they (infants/children) will be in heaven because of Christ alone.

And, I might add, our pets. Why?

Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

I know, speculation. But that's my belief....

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

I love my kids and wife Robert, steal money from me and you steal food, shelter and heat from them.

You love your own....That's a form of self-love because they are an extension of you!

Luke 6:32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. (You love your own) 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.

Christ, as the God/man, died so that His enemies could have heaven in His place. That's agape. All we know is self-love, which is unrighteousness. We need Christ's righteousness...both imputed and imparted.

Ah there you see, if the person asked me for a loan and I was at all able they would receive it and I would not pursue repayment.

Yes Robert I do love myself. I think of this life as a divine gift and I refuse to treat that gift with disrespect by spending my time beating myself up trying to live up to an impossible standard of perfection. I don't love my family because they are an extension of me. I feel a responsibility to them for that reason, but I love them because I think they are wonderful people. I love my friend Colin and my friend Les for the same reason.

The whole idea of loving your enemy is an a contradiction. If you love them then they are not your enemy......

en·e·my

/ˈenəmē/

Noun

A person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.

A hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, esp. in time of war.

Synonyms

foe - adversary - opponent - antagonist

[Robert]

Ah there you see, if the person asked me for a loan and I was at all able they would receive it and I would not pursue repayment.

Not any "person" - rather your enemy.

Christ's enemies were having Him murdered in a most horrific manner, yet He loved them much more then simply not collecting on a loan; He gave up eternal life so they could take His place. That's agape!

[Robert]

Yes Robert I do love myself.

Self-love isn't a gift from God. Self-love is our problem. Self-love was invented by Lucifer.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The sinful nature produces sin in us - it is propensity - inclination toward sin.

Here's Paul: Romans 7:17 So now it is no more I (my mind's desire) that do it (sins), but sin (singular) which dwelleth in me (my humanity). 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh (my humanity), dwelleth no good thing....I see a different law in my members (my body), warring against the my mind (my desires to do right),.... the law of sin which is in my members (my body).

Clearly, we have sin (singular) in us. This alone disqualifies us for heaven.

Yes, the last generation of believers will experience Christ's victory over indwelling sin (our bent-to-self - iniquity), but nevertheless, we are still imperfect (sinful) because of indwelling sin.

If not then we should be able take our indwelling sin (iniquity) into heaven with us....

Quote:

But the new creation ....

Ellen White already touched on this:

All may now obtain holy hearts (the converted mind), but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh. The apostle Paul declares, "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18).

I agree, the problem is "sin", not "sins".

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Ah there you see, if the person asked me for a loan and I was at all able they would receive it and I would not pursue repayment.

Not any "person" - rather your enemy.

Christ's enemies were having Him murdered in a most horrific manner, yet He loved them much more then simply not collecting on a loan; He gave up eternal life so they could take His place. That's agape!

So Jesus does not have eternal life? Is that what you are saying?

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Yes Robert I do love myself.

Self-love isn't a gift from God. Self-love is our problem. Self-love was invented by Lucifer.

So you are saying I should love my enemies but loathe myself?

[BobRyan]

Okay, let's explore the following video:

Click here for viewing

Start watching from about minute 28 to the end to try and cut it down to the essence of what he is saying.

He says that the basis for salvation is entirely dependent on the first coming of Christ and nothing more for believers. His only error there is that He should have said that the basis for all the world (saved and unsaved) is based on the first coming of Christ so that it would be clear to the viewer that this "objective fact" does not mean you are among the lost or among the saved. You must choose.

I believe Jack accepts the point that "you must choose" - but he is carefully filtering out details in 1John 2 and 1 John 5 when he directs his viewers to 1John 4 as the "solution" to the fears he finds in the Investigative Judgment. (which he also accepts by the way).

I agree with a lot of what he says in this video - there are only a few somewhat-subtle red flags that stand out.

in Christ,

Bob