|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/26/2008 5:18:23 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
So are you are saying that man is not born in sin;
If that is just church lingo for "sin nature" then yes. If you care to define "born in sin" along with "sin nature" then we can see if it's the same thing or not.
quote:
that the natural man does not have a nature that leads him to acts of sin?
Good. That is almost a working definition. "Sin Nature is something that leads people to acts of sin"
quote:
What exactly is your point? I'm not trying to wear you out with suspense. Let's get the definition. We can't discuss something without a definition. I could look up three or more different definitions of sin nature that have existed in the past couple thousand years but I didn't come here to lecture people. If anyone is interested we can interact and cooperate and you can judge for yourself once we get somewhere. No one has to if they don't want to. I hope you do want to obviously. I'd prefer if we decided upon a definition together that satisfies everyone who wants to participate. Then we can go from there.
Here are two questions to start. This will require thinking so there will probably be more questions coming. Don't worry I'm not one of these youtube atheist people trying to blaspheme God and discourage people from loving the Lord Jesus.
1) How did people come to have this nature?
2) How does this Sin Nature lead people to acts of sin?
Another way of to put it would be "In what way does....etc."
quote:
I would define sin nature as that in our flesh(mind included) that encourages us to sin , ie survival instinct. This is something Yeshua(Jesus) could have without being corrupted as long as He resisted. I do not think this means we inherit a corrupt spirit Our spirit comes from Adonai, our flesh comes from the dust of the earth. In my opinion, we are all born into conflict. As Job tells us, "We are born to trouble as the sparks fly upward." We have the Breath(Spirit) of Adonai and a body corrupted through "natural" selection by our environment. I agree with you about Yeshua. It sounds like you also agree with Him4all in the way you stated it.
quote:
Nature; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
Sin; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin That's not interactive. Put it into one sentence and we can look at it. You don't have to interact if you don't want to though.
quote:
Don't forget, scripture describes all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Rags as soaked with putrefied pus from an unclean leper.
That's not much of a compliment... no sir, it's not at all a compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/26/2008 5:19:01 PM
|
|
|
graceamazed
Posts: 4
Joined: 11/26/2008
Status: offline
|
benjoseph,
quote:
If anyone has any definitions of a Sin Nature then we can start looking at it. Please don't post huge writings about it or anything like that. You would be able to define it in one sentence.
What kind of response would you get if you walked up to a physicist and asked him to define for you quantum physics in one sentence; let him know you don't want any long explanations, just a simple sentence, after all, if it is legitimate, then he should be able to explain it in only one sentence.
Some valid doctrinal truths, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, aren't precisely defined in one scripture or sentence, but are quite evident and easily inferred from looking at the whole council of scripture. If we're going to talk about the reality of a sin nature, I think we should have a different approach to it than the "define it in one simple sentence" approach.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/26/2008 5:46:17 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5782
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
Once someone understands that the doctrine itself doesn't make sense then they'll know that they don't understand quite a few passages that they thought they understood. People will want to quote romans 5 and 7 and Psalms etc.
Oh so something has to make sense before it is valid?
If that were the case, then we as believers are in a heap of trouble!
God speaks to reason and wisdom in Scripture;
(1Co 1:19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
(1Co 1:20) Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Reason is brought to naught in the light of Scripture and the Truch of Scripture.
I must ask what is reasonable in thnking that some guy died on a cross 2000 years ago, and if I believe on Him as Savior and the Son of some invisible God; I get to leve forever in Glory??
How unreasonable is the Gospel?
The Scrikpture irrefutably speak to the sin nature of man. And I believe that by Faith, no reasoning is necessary; Scripture says it; I believe it.
Thanks
RC
edited for spelling
< Message edited by rcjames -- 11/27/2008 8:45:30 AM >
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/26/2008 6:45:10 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1782
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
floydette,
quote:
I think there is a bit more to it than this, KJ. The authors of scripture didn't used webster's. We can't just put 2008 meanings to words written in scripture. We may want to look at what the author's meant by what they were saying. I am sure I am "preaching to the choir" and you are well aware of this. I just thought it was important to remind us all.
I am not saying anybody uses Websters.
I am pretty sure many people dont.......but it sure would be neat if they would start. 
The topic of the thread is;
"there's no sin nature"
So that is sort of what I am responding to.
He used 2008 words so I guess the rest of us can also use them also......right?
I guess we could all act like we live in the ancient Roman empire and use words none of us understand.
The person that started the thread (using 2008 words) then opened with the first post saying;
there's no inherited sin nature
I notice the word "inherited" has been added.
Since the person that started the thread is using words that we all use in the year of our Lord 2008, maybe we need to know what the words mean?
I really think it may help some people (not all) and that is why I linked to an online dictionary.
Before we can claim there is or is not a sin nature......maybe we need to define the words;
there's....no....sin....nature
We can start with the definition of "no" first if everybody would like to?
I quoted the NIV and was sort of told in a nutshell that it is not that great or reliable of a translation.
Thats fine.
After doing research in a modern 2008 dictionary and research in other translations of Scripture.......I can still see that people do have a sin nature.
We as human beings have a natural inclination to break the laws of God.
How can I prove it?
........no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law........
Looks to me like everybody will sin.
People can stand in His sight and none will be declared righteous by observing the law.
If people are unrighteous there must be some problem.
Do we really need more than that to see the answer clearly?
How about this in the NASB;
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
There you have it! Solid proof. If it is not proof enough all you have to do is read more of the same text in the same area to show how a mind that is hostile changes.
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
The minds that are in the flesh and without the Spirit of Christ are naturally hostile towards God and cannot subject themselves to the laws of God........they are not even able to do so.
Those in the flesh cannot please God.
They are stuck with a hostile (sin) nature and are only changed (another nature) if the Spirit of God dwells in the person.
It only took a very small amount of research to figure it out. 
I see this following stuff from the person that made the thread and I have no idea of what black people listening to hip-hop has to do with sin nature. 
quote:
The perfect person is Jesus but many deny that he came in our flesh. When you see black people listening to hip-hop does that mean they were born that way? You're describing a logical fallacy or mistake. Just because everyone sins doesn't mean they had to sin. That's why God is angry at sinners.
Let me make it a little more clear;
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
I would rather just "fess up" than to try to fight and defend my nature to God.
It is soooooooooooo much easier and it actually works.
It sounds like its going to be a cuckoo thread of some kind.
Take care and have a nice Thanksgiving.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/26/2008 6:50:43 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
It all depends on what one means by "sinful nature".
If the term means - you are born already sinful and cannot help but sin, it is totally wrong and unscriptural.
If the term means - you are born with flesh and a fallen physical nature (you can get sick and die etc.) then it is true.
If one is born with no legs, and is yet required to walk, is there any justice in condemning them for not walking? Of course not.
If one is born already guilty, outside of one's will and understanding of moral law, then what kind of justice would God be exerting in requiring holiness when there is no possibility of holiness?
Is it the guilt of being born? Are humans condemned before they leave the womb? Do babies go to hell when the die?
If the 1st definition of sinful nature is true then they must for they are born in sin in that very sense.
If a parent were to require it's child to get up and fly around the yard, would they be righteous for exerting punishment for the child's inability to do so? Of course not.
So the idea of sinful nature as per, "born already guilty" (since there is no such thing as sinfulness without guilt) or obligated to sin just as much as obligated to breathe, then there is no justice in either heaven or earth and the whole idea of salvation is ludicrous.
I have actually heard sinners use the "sinful nature" excuse in their rebellion against God. They say, "I was born this way so I can't help it. So why does God threaten to punish me with eternal damnation for something that is my very nature to do?" Of course, if that version of "sin nature" were true they're right.
The bible writers ubiquitously condemn men for their sin as something they do willfully but could do otherwise.
Ezek 18 describes this very situation quite well - Israel used a proverb to describe their belief that sin was inherited from parents to children - they were wrong.
quote:
Eze 18:1-29 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying,
Why do you make use of this saying about the land of Israel, The fathers have been tasting bitter grapes and the children's teeth are on edge?
By my life, says the Lord, you will no longer have this saying in Israel.
See, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so the soul of the son is mine: death will be the fate of the sinner's soul.
But if a man is upright, living rightly and doing righteousness,
And has not taken flesh with the blood for food, or given worship to the images of the children of Israel; if he has not had connection with his neighbour's wife, or come near to a woman at the time when she is unclean;
And has done no wrong to any, but has given back to the debtor what is his, and has taken no one's goods by force, and has given food to him who was in need of it, and clothing to him who was without it;
And has not given his money out at interest or taken great profits, and, turning his hand from evil-doing, has kept faith between man and man,
And has been guided by my rules and has kept my laws and done them: he is upright, life will certainly be his, says the Lord.
If he has a son who is a thief, a taker of life, who does any of these things,
Who has taken flesh with the blood as food, and has had connection with his neighbour's wife,
Has done wrong to the poor and to him who is in need, and taken property by force, and has not given back to one in his debt what is his, and has given worship to images and has done disgusting things,
And has given out his money at interest and taken great profits: he will certainly not go on living: he has done all these disgusting things: death will certainly be his fate; his blood will be on him.
Now if he has a son who sees all his father's sins which he has done, and in fear does not do the same:
Who has not taken the flesh with the blood for food, or given worship to the images of the children of Israel, and has not had connection with his neighbour's wife,
Or done wrong to any, or taken anything from one in his debt, or taken goods by force, but has given food to him who was in need of it, and clothing to him who was without it;
Who has kept his hand from evil-doing and has not taken interest or great profits, who has done my orders and been guided by my rules: he will certainly not be put to death for the evil-doing of his father; life will certainly be his.
As for his father, because he was cruel, took goods by force, and did what is not good among his people, truly, death will overtake him in his evil-doing.
But you say, Why does not the son undergo punishment for the evil-doing of the father? When the son has done what is ordered and right, and has kept my rules and done them, life will certainly be his.
The soul which does sin will be put to death: the son will not be made responsible for the evil-doing of the father, or the father for the evil-doing of the son; the righteousness of the upright will be on himself, and the evil-doing of the evil-doer on himself.
But if the evil-doer, turning away from all the sins which he has done, keeps my rules and does what is ordered and right, life will certainly be his; death will not be his fate.
Not one of the sins which he has done will be kept in memory against him: in the righteousness which he has done he will have life.
Have I any pleasure in the death of the evil-doer? says the Lord: am I not pleased if he is turned from his way so that he may have life?
But when the upright man, turning away from his righteousness, does evil, like all the disgusting things which the evil man does, will he have life? Not one of his upright acts will be kept in memory: in the wrong which he has done and in his sin death will overtake him.
But you say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Give ear, now, O children of Israel; is my way not equal? are not your ways unequal?
When the upright man, turning away from his righteousness, does evil, death will overtake him; in the evil which he has done death will overtake him.
Again, when the evil-doer, turning away from the evil he has done, does what is ordered and right, he will have life for his soul.
Because he had fear and was turned away from all the wrong which he had done, life will certainly be his, death will not be his fate.
But still the children of Israel say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O children of Israel, are my ways not equal? are not your ways unequal?
Thus a proper understanding of the "sin nature" as something that we're born with which is not a cause but a powerful influence, is vital when conversing with intelligent sinners who understand the implications of doctrines like "sinful nature" as so often preached.
America's greatest revivalist, Chrles G Finney, was one of the best writers on the subject, and though I personally believe he took it too far, his basis in natural law and justice cannot be refuted.
Whenever I hear Christians using the sin nature and "old man" to excuse their own sinfulness I know they've been had and have misunderstood both scripture and the nature of God. You sin because you want to period. You can't blame the devil, Adam, your parents, social circumstances etc., only yourself as scripture teaches everywhere.
quote:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound?
Let it not be! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?
Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection;
knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin.
For he who died has been justified from sin. Rom 6:1- Our old man is (or was) crucified, not will be some day.
Rom 6:11... quote:
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Scripture also says "sin is the transgression of the law" 1jn 3 - Not something you can be born with - unless you're already transgressing from the womb.
To say one is born in sin means what exactly? That one is born violating the law? Transgressing the law from birth or before? Obviously not.
If that were true babies would go to hell upon death. Thankfully they don't. They are neither personally "holy" (though holy unto God) nor "sinful", but innocent and unaware of the moral law until the "age of enlightenment" or moral understanding, whenever that may come to them.
I don't claim to have understood the whole subject perfectly, but if anything is a bad doctrine and even "doctrine of devils", it is that men are born guilty before they start and MUST sin because sin is something in their very being - as though sin were some tangible entity rather than a state of rebellion against God.
Think of it in these terms; What judge would condemn a man for killing another when he had no choice but to do so because his very nature is to transgress? No more than if someone else forced him to pull the trigger. And if sin nature meant that we rebel against God because of some intangible thing in us that makes us do so, we would in fact be no sinners at all for the very nature of the sinfulness of sin is in it's willfully rebellious character as defiance of God in favor of self. But no one is a rebel when they have had no choice in the matter.
I've heard of people complaining against God because they were "born in sin, born sinners and thus it wasn't their fault"!!
Something is wrong with any doctrine that leads people to see God in such a light.
If we're unable to do right then we are guiltless for not doing so.
So sin nature is the influence of the "flesh" (genetic factors, emotions, ill reasoning, selfishness etc.) leading us to do wrong but within our own choices - not some determining force that inhibits us from doing otherwise or means we are naturally unable to obey God.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/26/2008 9:25:51 PM
|
|
|
graceamazed
Posts: 4
Joined: 11/26/2008
Status: offline
|
GHitch,
quote:
America's greatest revivalist, Chrles G Finney, was one of the best writers on the subject
I have great respect for Mr. Finney, but I would not say that he would be, or should be, titled "America's Greatest Revivalist". Perhaps you're aware of a certain Mr. Johnathan Edwards and a certain Mr. George Whitfield (though I know he was British by birth). The power of God moved over our nation through their preaching and ministry in a way that has never been paralleled since, and these two men preached the very doctrines that you claim are doctrines of the devils. Some other names that held to these same "doctrines of devils" are Iraneus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin (though I know he is the Devil himself to many hardcore Arminians), and Charles Spurgeon.
quote:
I don't claim to have understood the whole subject perfectly
I don't claim to perfectly understand the whole subject either (as should no one in this forum), but I do have my convictions as to which way I lean in my understanding. I won't, however, go around calling every one who opposes my view "Palagianists" and heretics.
quote:
I've heard of people complaining against God because they were "born in sin, born sinners and thus it wasn't their fault"!!
Something is wrong with any doctrine that leads people to see God in such a light.
The problem is not the doctrine, but the perversiveness of the sinner that uses the doctrine as a scape goat for sin. I know many people, as we all probably do, who would say, "We're saved by grace and not by works, so what does it matter how I live, the only thing that matters is the blood of Jesus." They have turned the grace of God into a license for sin, but just because they have abused and misunderstood the doctrine of the grace of God doesn't mean it is no longer true. Many true, orthodox Christian doctrines, such as the claim that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through Him, cause some sinners to see God in a very unfavorable light - as being intolerant and unloving, but the doctrine is true nonetheless. Likewise, we can't elimate doctrines based on how sinners might choose to use them to justify their sin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/26/2008 10:20:00 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1782
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
graceamazed,
Some pretty good points there.
People will have quite a hard time in trying to explain Ephesians 2;
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (NASB)
If the flesh and mind is innocent....why is it when we indulge in them we are children of wrath?
I would think if we indulged in innocence we would not be children of wrath.
The only proper understanding is that the mind and flesh are evil and so when one indulges in them they do evil.
All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God’s anger, just like everyone else. (NLT)
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (KJV)
among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:-- (ASV)
If our minds and flesh are neutral, why are we by nature children of wrath?
Makes no sense at all.
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so............
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 7:35:52 AM
|
|
|
Theo-Minor
Posts: 74
Joined: 2/9/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline
|
If "sinful nature" refers to someone already saved, I agree. There is no such scriptural doctrine. The Bible says that through God's divine power we have become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world (2 Pet. 1:1-4).
If "sinful nature" refers to Original Sin, then I also agree. I have often cited the same verses in Ezekiel that GHitch did. Romans 5 says that all have sinned, not that all are born with it. The sins of the father are not passed on to the son. Our sins are our own.
If "sinful nature" refers to the general state of man without Christ, then I have to disagree. That is the whole point of Romans 7. The person outside of Christ wants to do good, but does evil, though it is not they who do it, but the sin that dwells in them. The law in the members wars against the law of the mind, bringing them into captivity to the law of sin. We are slaves to sin before Christ, and free from all righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18). The law gives life to sin and births "all manner of concupiscence," which is our doom. For the sin that exists becomes both sinful and desirous the moment it becomes forbidden. Paul did not know lust, except that the law said, "You shall not covet."
The desire (or lust) to do things that are unlawful draws people away and entices them, and the lust conceives and brings forth sin (Jms. 1:13-15).
To desire, or lust, after sinful things is the nature of the heathen person who does not know God. While "sinful nature" may not appear in the text in those exact words, the message is there repeatedly throughout the Old and New Testaments. The dead man has a heart of stone. He is unable to please God.
For the sake of this discussion, would you mind clarifying whether you mean that there is no sinful nature in the saved person, that there is no Original sin, or whether there is not, was not, and will not ever be a sinful nature in the heathen who do not know God?
It's kind of relevant to the topic.
_____________________________
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 10:11:29 AM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
For the sake of this discussion, would you mind clarifying whether you mean that there is no sinful nature in the saved person, that there is no Original sin, or whether there is not, was not, and will not ever be a sinful nature in the heathen who do not know God? Anything that is by birth and not by choice that makes it harder to live perfectly than it was for Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 10:36:20 AM
|
|
|
Limulus
Posts: 209
Joined: 7/13/2008
From: Omaha, Nebraska
Status: offline
|
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Romans 5:12-21 NIV]
That pretty much sums it up for me.
_____________________________
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
http://myspace.com/jadonchristensen
Prayer Requests: Alcoholism, Depression, Daughter, Singleness
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 11:10:36 AM
|
|
|
Limulus
Posts: 209
Joined: 7/13/2008
From: Omaha, Nebraska
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Theo-Minor
For the sake of this discussion, would you mind clarifying whether you mean that there is no sinful nature in the saved person, that there is no Original sin, or whether there is not, was not, and will not ever be a sinful nature in the heathen who do not know God?
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
Anything that is by birth and not by choice that makes it harder to live perfectly than it was for Jesus.
In response to benjoseph,
Jesus was not from the seed of Adam, "what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit". Hence, He was born without the sin nature that would have been inherited from Adam.
Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Why is the Virgin Birth so important?
http://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-birth.html
< Message edited by Limulus -- 11/27/2008 11:35:46 AM >
_____________________________
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
http://myspace.com/jadonchristensen
Prayer Requests: Alcoholism, Depression, Daughter, Singleness
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 11:21:50 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1782
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Limulus,
quote:
Jesus was not from the seed of Adam, "what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit". Hence, he was born without the sin nature that would have been inherited from Adam.
Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
More great points.
Jesus........God in flesh. God has no sin nature. By nature God is God and naturally perfect.
I am wondering if the person that started the thread is trying to imply we were or can be or become as God?
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 1:01:39 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: graceamazed
I have great respect for Mr. Finney, but I would not say that he would be, or should be, titled "America's Greatest Revivalist". Perhaps you're aware of a certain Mr. Johnathan Edwards and a certain Mr. George Whitfield (though I know he was British by birth). The power of God moved over our nation through their preaching and ministry in a way that has never been paralleled since, and these two men preached the very doctrines that you claim are doctrines of the devils. Some other names that held to these same "doctrines of devils" are Iraneus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin (though I know he is the Devil himself to many hardcore Arminians), and Charles Spurgeon.
With all due respect, there is a reason for Finney's being called that. I'm well aware of Edwards. Whitefield indeed was British and only came to America a few times, along with Wesley.
As a long time student and researcher of historic revivals and traditional doctrines, I have no problem with these men who indeed moved America through their anointed preaching.
Finney however is often called "greatest" simply because he brought approx. 800,000 souls into the kingdom and was one of the main Christian voices against slavery and had a simple logical approach in doctrine than many of the others simply because he was formerly a lawyer and preached and wrote things down in a clear logical manner as though pleading at the bar.
I'm also a big fan of Spurgeon and own many volumes of his sermons and various writings as well as Wesleys works, many volumes of the puritan preachers writings, and dozens of other Calvinist, hyper-Calvinist etc. works. I also have Augustine's "City of God", many of Luther's works and almost everything John Bunyan ever wrote. Not to mention the writings of the "church fathers" which I have researched extensively on this very subject.
You seem to have gotten on the wrong side of my point which is simply that Finney wrote extensively on the "sin nature" doctrine and indeed engaged the Edwardian school of thought on the subject very deeply. Finney's whole basis is the rule and nature of moral Law as taught in scripture and revealed Natural Law, it's principles and foundations.
But you have to understand the circumstances of Finney vs the others who came before him. When Finney was commissioned to preach he came into a church engulfed in hyper-Calvinism wherein the people would come into the churches and sit their waiting for God to convert or save them. They believed that if they were predestined to be saved God would save them in his own good time. And if not then they were doomed to eternal hell no matter what they did.
They also believed that there was absolutely nothing they could or should do to "save themselves" - including repentance and faith. God must induce both in them himself without any movement of their own will or choice being involved (for that would be, in their minds, salvation by works).
They would thus sit in their pews year after year waiting for God to save them if they were indeed among the elect. Many would complain that it was not their fault they were born of Adam's race and thus natural sinners. And even their sinfulness was part of the "will of God" for them.
I hope you can see by this why a different and radical message was required for these sinners. They needed to see that they were responsible for their sin and that God required repentance and faith of them as we see everywhere stated in the scriptures and as Christ preached. "God now commands all men everywhere to repent". Acts
There can be no law without moral obligation.
But then moral obligation intrinsically requires the ability to obey. (the law must be practicable)
Being "disobedient" and "rebellious" by ones very nature (one cannot do otherwise than ones nature) removes guilt by necessity. One cannot be held responsible for that which one does because they cannot do otherwise.
Show us where this is incorrect.
Show us under what principle of justice one who is commanded not to blink or think or breathe can be guilty of disobedience for not doing so.
Now it is well noted in the history of the church that many ill reasoned doctrines have been preached yet with favorable results simply because the basic message was right - "you're a condemned sinner but Christ died for you sins, repent and believe." Not hard to understand. Success in ministry is not a sign of perfect doctrine. No one has perfect doctrine.
Nevertheless my point is that a doctrine which, intrinsically by its founding logic, removes from man his guilt over sin is necessarily wrong. That was my whole point, and you seem to have missed it very nicely. quote:
1Ti 6:3 So teach and exhort. If any one is a teacher of any other kind of doctrine, and refuses assent to wholesome instructions--those of our Lord Jesus Christ--and the teaching that harmonizes with true godliness, he is puffed up with pride and has no true knowledge A doctrine that does not lead to godliness can't be true. So saying, "I am a sinner, but I was born this way thus it isn't my fault." seems to fit the bill rather nicely.
Or do you believe you are responsible for the way you're born?
quote:
I don't claim to perfectly understand the whole subject either (as should no one in this forum), but I do have my convictions as to which way I lean in my understanding. I won't, however, go around calling every one who opposes my view "Palagianists" and heretics. And just where did I say this? Pelagianism may well be the applicable term but no where did I call anyone such and even less a heretic. You seem to be yet another "all or nothing" person. Many great preachers held what today we would call heretical doctrines. Luther, for a long time was anti-semetic. Bunyan taught that children go to hell. Augustine introduced infant baptism. Many of the great old lone preachers held questionable doctrines - that did make them heretics.
If holding a questionable doctrine makes one a heretic then we are all heretics of some sort. None worse than the typical American TV evangelist.
quote:
The problem is not the doctrine, but the perversiveness of the sinner that uses the doctrine as a scape goat for sin. There is a huge difference between a doctrine that is wrongly used as an escapist mechanism by sinners and one that intrinsically tells them they are not responsible for their sin. The standard interpretation of the "sin nature" doctrine is just such a one. It cannot do otherwise. If you are born already sinful by no choice of your own then it is not your fault. Please explain how you can come to any other conclusion. The point is that if sinners who know that doctrine, use it logically, they are right and not sinners at all of their doing. They were born guilty before they started, born with 3 strikes against them before they got to bat.
Is that not the version of "sin nature" you support? Well I do not as it is intrinsically unjust. You did not address this at all.
So
1. How can we be responsible for sin if we are born already sinful? Sin nature is as I said, an influence to selfishness, not an intangible cause of sin outside one's will.
2. What do you say as to babies going to hell? Do they or not? If born already sinful and guilty they must.
3. Sin is the transgression of the law (and thus also the state of being in transgression) so how can one be born in transgression?
4. If sin is natural what is it that directs the character of sin? Why are some murderers, rapists, thieves, liars and others not?
If sin were natural we would bloom under it. It is the very evil of sin that it is not natural, that's why our conscience screams when we knowingly do wrong.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 1:57:33 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
People will have quite a hard time in trying to explain Ephesians 2;
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (NASB)
If the flesh and mind is innocent....why is it when we indulge in them we are children of wrath?
I would think if we indulged in innocence we would not be children of wrath. "among whom also we all did walk once in the desires of our flesh, doing the wishes of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath--as also the others," - YLT
Isn't it obvious that the first part is the reason for the latter as you imply yourself?
We are sons of wrath because we do the desires of the flesh and mind? And not because we are flesh and blood and mind.
The wrath is deserved because of the willful indulging the desires of the flesh without restraint. Because of disobedience.
One cannot indulge in innocence.
And once a transgression has been made, it's too late - innocence is gone and wrath is deserved.
Here is the problem again: If you're born under wrath then are you also destined for hell if you die as an infant?
Let's look at your points here more closely. I'm not saying I disagree entirely, but rather that I question the conclusions are incorrect. You state "...when we indulge in them.." Indeed, it the indulgence that is the sin. Flesh and blood are not sinful, otherwise Christ being made in all things like unto his brethren were sinful just for being born human.
Heb 2:14 "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things..."
Heb 2:17 "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, ..."
In every respect? What does that mean to you? Born in sin, a child of wrath? Christ was no sinner even though born - in every respect - like us.
quote:
The only proper understanding is that the mind and flesh are evil and so when one indulges in them they do evil. Mere mind and flesh cannot be evil. Flesh is matter, mind is just thoughts and identity. Mind and flesh are evil only in the sense of the unlawful indulgence of them against the law of God.
This is clear in James: quote:
1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. - ISV quote:
But each one is tempted by his own lusts, being pulled away and enticed. Then that lust having conceived gives birth to sin, then that sin having become full-grown brings forth death. - ASV You see the order here? Desire precedes the sin. So desire in itself is not sinful unless it is accepted and acted on in the inner man.
quote:
All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God’s anger, just like everyone else. (NLT) Eph 2:3 quote:
Indeed, all of us once behaved like them in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of our flesh and senses. By nature we deserved wrath, just like everyone else. ISV quote:
Among whom we all at one time were living in the pleasures of our flesh, giving way to the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and the punishment of God was waiting for us even as for the rest. - BBE
quote:
If our minds and flesh are neutral, why are we by nature children of wrath? Makes no sense at all. If you interpret "by nature" as = to "by birth" that's where you will indeed have a problem. But your next ref explains this aspect as well ... For God has bound all men over to disobedience so............
Same verse in Rom 11:32 "For God has locked all people in the prison of their own disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." - ISV
In GW Rom 11:32 "God has placed all people into the prison of their own disobedience so that he could be merciful to all people."
But the context is speaking of Israel and it is not at all clear that the meaning here is all men rather than all Israel. Still you have your own answer, this "locking up" is a legal action as in treating them all equally as a fallen race no matter their current actual state until the new birth.
Here's some views of the church fathers:
Justin Martyr said that 'every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praiseworthy, if he had not the power of turning either way'. 'Unless we suppose man has the power to choose the good and refuse the evil, no one can be accountable for any action whatever.' (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61, published by Truth in Heart). Tertullian also argued that no reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice. (ibidem, p. 61). Likewise Origen, Augustine, and Clement of Alexandria
But they also taught that the human race was cursed by the original sin of Adam. Because of the guilt of our first parents, we have been brought into bondage, and made subject to death.
Justin Martyr said, “Let some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever occurs happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Now, if this is not so, but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.”
Justin Martyr said, “I have proved in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault.”
Tatian said, “We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.”
Melito said, “There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.”
Theophilus said, “If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.”
Irenaeus said, “But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.”
Irenaeus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds’…And ‘Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.”
Clement of Alexandria said, “We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”
Tertullian said, “I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.
But those quotes deal more with free will than with the sin nature - yet the 2 are intimately tied together. However you interpret "sin nature" you must allow free will and the ability to choose. You must also allow that infants do not go to hell. If born in sin means born in guilt then there is no other way.
Now Jesus said, "Let the little ones come to me, and do not keep them away: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." If your doctrine means let the little children of wrath come to me for such is the kingdom of heaven then you have a problem!
Paul said, 1Co 14:20 "Brothers and sisters, don't think like children. When it comes to evil, be like babies, but think like mature people. " GW
"Brothers, do not be children in your minds, but in malice be like infants, and in your minds be mature." MKJV
Now if this means "but in malice be like children of wrath" you have a huge problem.
Conclusion, infants are innocent, guilty of nothing, go to heaven upon death, are born "surrounded" in sin and under the law.
The implications are wonderful indeed.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 2:40:05 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1782
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
GHitch,
Whether God takes infants to heaven or hell I am happy to leave as His own perogative.
However, they come pre-packaged with the same nature as every other human being.
They dont come as good natured and then become evil natured.
They come as evil natured creatures even if they are incapable of showing us their thoughts or physical functions.
If they are permitted to live on into the years where they have thoughts and physical functions, they will naturally display what is of their character or nature.
Sin will shine through.
No one is "good" as in perfect except for God.
KJB
< Message edited by KingJamesBond -- 11/27/2008 2:58:45 PM >
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 3:17:32 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
God is not a demon.
He doesn't send babies to hell.
Babies are not born 'evil natured'.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 11/27/2008 3:48:02 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
