|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/1/2008 7:10:20 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
What might that bigger (than atonement) thing be? You think Jesus is just man's personal maid to clean up after his sin? I think a lot of people DO think that.
You're right, it is a good thing I'm studying.
quote:
As for your assertion about infants not needing the grace of God that is in Jesus, I challenge you to back up your assertions with Scripture. All you are doing is making an assertion from the view of man without the Word of God to back you up. This forum is a community of believers in Christ, and we abide by the basic statement of faith given in the TOS. The Bible, not the philosophy or assertions of man, is our standard whereby we judge all matters.
Which thread are you reading?
Quote the part where I asserted that babies don't need the love of Jesus.
Where are you getting this from?
I said they don't need a substitute for their punishment because they haven't earned punishment.
Am I missing something?
If you're going to suggest that people aren't following the TOS then you need to pay more attention.
The bible says in all you do get understanding. It doesn't seem like your comment was biblical since you said I asserted that babies are independent of God's grace.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/1/2008 10:45:39 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
quote:
What might that bigger (than atonement) thing be? You think Jesus is just man's personal maid to clean up after his sin? I think a lot of people DO think that.
You're right, it is a good thing I'm studying.
atonement is not about getting a bath. it's about being restored to our God intended relationship with our creator and purpose.
aside from our utter falilure to qualify for a relationship with God because of our sin, sin isn't really a big problem.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 12:39:39 AM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
atonement is not about getting a bath. it's about being restored to our God intended relationship with our creator and purpose. I agree. I didn't mean to offend you or belittle what Jesus did. I'm very sorry it came across that way. If I had anticipated that I would have said it differently. My point was that limiting the relevance of Jesus Christ to the forgiveness of sins belittles who He is. Saying that Jesus is only a sacrifice for sinners and nothing more just doesn't sit right with me. It sounds way off. I hope you will understand.
Here's a rough example of what I was thinking: If you and your son were spending time together one day and your son did something wrong and you had to correct him.. When your son apologized to you and repented of his behavior and you forgave him, you wouldn't just call it a day after that. You would then be able to go on with whatever activity you had planned to do together. The forgiveness would be very important but it wouldn't be the entire focus of your time together nor would it have been the final goal. Regardless of whether or not your son disobeyed you, you would still have plans together.
Does that help explain?
I have no intention of belittling what Jesus did so that we sinners can be saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 1:17:07 AM
|
|
|
Josh4LinC
Posts: 115
Joined: 11/11/2008
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
quote:
so obeying our flesh would be the RIGHT thing to do, since it is inherently GOOD.
That's a "false dilemma."
The two options of good and evil do not apply to substances.
Do you think that dirt is good?
Or that dirt is evil?
Our bodies are just dirt.
A man who choose to obey the unlawful cravings of his flesh is evil because of his choice. But his flesh is just dirt and is not good or evil. The word for it is amoral.
quote:
John tells us the nature of all sin:
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. -1 John 2:16
Are you saying that you believe God Incarnate experienced lust and pride and was drawn by the world?
I propose that Satan offered it all to Him but that, though He was fully Man, His divine nature, which is fully God, could not be made to inappropriately lust after His own creation.
Hebrews 4:15 says that the Lord Jesus experienced the same temptations that you and I do.
My understanding is this:
The temptation to lust is different than lust itself.
The temptation to be proud is different than pride itself.
The big difference between a temptation and a sin is a choice.
So if "the lust of the eyes" means choosing to lust with the eyes then NO Jesus never did that but we have. By choice though. We can't blame our eyes.
But if "the lust of the eyes" means the ability to experience temptation then we already know in Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus was just as exposed to temptation as we are.
Which of these two do you think John is referring in that verse?
quote:
1) But how do you know that I have [sinned]?
2) If I were able to [never sin], I wouldn't need Jesus' death.
I'm not ignoring your questions. Thanks for being patient.
I've got a couple discussions going on in another forum about this.
It seems to me that God had more in mind with Jesus' death than the atonement.
The atonement is real obviously. We all need it. But babies who die don't need someone (let alone the Son of God) to be killed in place of the punishment they deserve. Babies don't deserve punishment. So I believe it would be the same with the hypothetical man who never sinned. I believe there is more to Christ than him being the sacrificial Lamb. He is more than ONLY a sacrifice for your sin and I think his death may have much deeper significance. I'm still studying this though. What do you think? Do you think the only reason Jesus died is because men sinned? Or do you think God has even bigger plans as well the atonement for sin?
I apologize for not quoting that part I was referring to. I was referring to the statement underlined and in bold above which was written in this thread. This assertion is going to need Scripture to back it up. By this, you seem to be inferring that those who die in infancy are somehow saved by some other means. In other words, the salvation Christ provides is not for those infants, but they have some other means to be saved. If that were so, then there exists a way to salvation or passage into the Kingdom of God outside of Christ. I ask that you show us where in the Scriptures it indicates that people are born perfect to start and, therefore, they don't need this saving grace that was provided in Jesus' atoning death on the cross.
If it is as you seem to be asserting that there is no such thing as inherited sin, original sin, or sinful nature and the only thing that condemns us are acts of sin, then it would seem that there exists salvation outside of Jesus. One means of salvation is for those who die before sinning for they are perfect and go straight to paradise. The other is only necessary once someone commits that first sin and that way is through Jesus. However, it would seem that the Scriptures contradict such an implication. It is written,
quote:
19. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22. even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25. whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26. to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Romans 3:19-28
-and-
8. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. 12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13. (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18. Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous. 20. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21. so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:8-21
-and, Jesus says,
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6
The salvation that is in Jesus which was made possible through His atoning death on the cross is available for all people past, present, and future, whether infant or adult. How exactly that grace is applied to infants is open to much debate, but one thing has always been certain: salvation of infants is not possible outside of that grace provided in Jesus' death. Any person who enters heaven does so only because Jesus died that sacrificial death which atones for sin. The Scripture is clear that through Adam all are sinners facing condemnation, but through Christ many are made righteous.
< Message edited by Josh4LinC -- 12/2/2008 7:10:37 AM >
_____________________________
In Christ Jesus,
Josh
“Well,” says one, “I like to be my own master.” Yes, and that involves two things;
first, you have a very bad master; and, next, your master has a fool for his servant.
- Charles Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 1:24:47 AM
|
|
|
Josh4LinC
Posts: 115
Joined: 11/11/2008
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
quote:
atonement is not about getting a bath. it's about being restored to our God intended relationship with our creator and purpose. I agree. I didn't mean to offend you or belittle what Jesus did. I'm very sorry it came across that way. If I had anticipated that I would have said it differently. My point was that limiting the relevance of Jesus Christ to the forgiveness of sins belittles who He is. Saying that Jesus is only a sacrifice for sinners and nothing more just doesn't sit right with me. It sounds way off. I hope you will understand.
Here's a rough example of what I was thinking: If you and your son were spending time together one day and your son did something wrong and you had to correct him.. When your son apologized to you and repented of his behavior and you forgave him, you wouldn't just call it a day after that. You would then be able to go on with whatever activity you had planned to do together. The forgiveness would be very important but it wouldn't be the entire focus of your time together nor would it have been the final goal. Regardless of whether or not your son disobeyed you, you would still have plans together.
Does that help explain?
I have no intention of belittling what Jesus did so that we sinners can be saved.
Ben,
You are somewhat right about this. Jesus is much more than just the Lamb of God. He is the Lion of Judah. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is our King. He is the Son of God. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. He is the One through whom all things were made. Those who believe in Him are His people, and He is their King. However, make no mistake, his purpose in the forgiveness of sin is no small thing. I can't believe there was ever a time where Jesus was thinking, "Alright Father, let's just get this part over with so we can get to the good parts."
_____________________________
In Christ Jesus,
Josh
“Well,” says one, “I like to be my own master.” Yes, and that involves two things;
first, you have a very bad master; and, next, your master has a fool for his servant.
- Charles Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 2:20:21 AM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 937
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline
|
I'm trying to understand everyone's contributions to this long thread so I can make a half-way intelligent contribution myself and not repeat what has been said already, but it all comes down to this...
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond (parenthesis mine)
...It (the Bible) clearly says there is a sinful nature and the sinful nature cannot please God in any way.
How can anyone deny what the scriptures so plainly state? The sin nature is real. Benjoseph, maybe your contention is as simple as the flesh in and of itself is not the sin nature. But surely the flesh is where the sin nature resides, finding it's ultimate expression in us. I don't think that's so hard or unreasonable to accept. And with that being true, and the two being so utterly connected for us as humans, it's not unreasonable to view the sin nature and fallen flesh as the same thing.
And I don't think you can dismiss or ignore the role of the devil (evil influence from without) in understanding temptation and the flesh. And that's what makes Jesus's temptations more meaningful for us beyond having to accept that he must have had a sin nature like ours to have been subject to temption as we are. You may have to read that carefully and thoughtfully to get what I'm saying. IOW, the idea that 'just because Jesus was tempted, and we are sure he had no sin nature, then the concept of a sin nature is not real since we also are tempted' is ignoring other truths about what it means to be tempted in a flesh body.
And I will say the concept and understanding of 'sin nature' goes way back to the time of Moses when he prophesied the future failure of the Israelites...
"20 When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their forefathers, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant. 21 And when many disasters and difficulties come upon them, this song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten by their descendants. I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised them on oath." (Deut. 31:20-21)
Even though the stipulations of the law in and of themselves apart from any consideration of sin nature are just simply things a person can do, the sin nature is what defeats any argument that says we could have kept the law if we chose to do so.
I don't think you can ignore that the Bible teaches us that our predispostion to be enslaved by sin entered the world through Adam, just as slavery to righteousness entered the world through Jesus Christ. We inherit the nature and characteristics of fallen flesh from Adam. We inherit the nature and characteristics of redeemed flesh through Jesus Christ. Very plain teaching in the Bible. Deeds issue forth from the underlying nature that produces them. And we have been given a new nature through Jesus Christ.
"19For 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." (Romans 5:19}
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 5:29:51 AM
|
|
|
pinopolitan
Posts: 42
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
Yes, there is a sin nature. That there is a sin nature stems from humans being descended from the first humans who became sinners (Adam and Eve). Just as you get apples from an apple tree, you get sinners from sinners. Just as you can not get pears from an apple true, you can not get holiness from sin; you must be born again. You must be born from above, by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 5:30:17 AM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benjoseph
quote:
atonement is not about getting a bath. it's about being restored to our God intended relationship with our creator and purpose. I agree. I didn't mean to offend you or belittle what Jesus did. I'm very sorry it came across that way. If I had anticipated that I would have said it differently. My point was that limiting the relevance of Jesus Christ to the forgiveness of sins belittles who He is. Saying that Jesus is only a sacrifice for sinners and nothing more just doesn't sit right with me. It sounds way off. I hope you will understand.
Here's a rough example of what I was thinking: If you and your son were spending time together one day and your son did something wrong and you had to correct him.. When your son apologized to you and repented of his behavior and you forgave him, you wouldn't just call it a day after that. You would then be able to go on with whatever activity you had planned to do together. The forgiveness would be very important but it wouldn't be the entire focus of your time together nor would it have been the final goal. Regardless of whether or not your son disobeyed you, you would still have plans together.
Does that help explain?
I have no intention of belittling what Jesus did so that we sinners can be saved.
you're creating a false dilemma. you're isolating the forgiveness of sin from the big picture and then saying, hmmm....there must be a bigger picture.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 7:06:17 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1782
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Josh4LinC, pinopolitan, SpongeBlog, OLEEguacamole,
Looking at this latest page I sure see alot of enjoyable reading.
benjoseph, thanks for bringing up the topic because I think its one that quite a few people actually wrestle with. I think Scripture gives enough credible teachings to give us a clear picture on the topic and lots of people are coming up with tons of good input.
I think I will lurk and read for awhile cuz there are sure some great posts and points being made and I am enjoying them.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 11:40:11 AM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
But babies who die don't need someone (let alone the Son of God) to be killed in place of the punishment they deserve.
If that were so,
Not "if that were so". It is so. Babies don't deserve punishment.
quote:
then there exists a way to salvation or passage into the Kingdom of God outside of Christ.
On another forum someone asked "How can you say that Jesus is the only way to heaven?"
They were making the same mistake that I think you are making.
The Lord Jesus IS heaven. The kingdom of God is where Jesus Christ reigns.
It's not like babies sneak around Jesus to get somewhere where Jesus isn't there.
quote:
If it is as you seem to be asserting that there is no such thing as inherited sin, original sin, or sinful nature and the only thing that condemns us are acts of sin, then it would seem that there exists salvation outside of Jesus.
What do you mean by salvation?
If you mean eternal life...well Jesus said eternal life is to know Him and his Father.
If you mean forgiveness of sins...well babies simply aren't guilty of any.
quote:
One means of salvation is for those who die before sinning for they are perfect and go straight to paradise.
It's not "perfection" it's innocence.
And it's not just straight to paradise. It's straight to Jesus Christ. The Father and the Son are eternal life.
quote:
The other is only necessary once someone commits that first sin and that way is through Jesus.
Again, it sounds like this separates what Jesus gained for us from who Jesus is.
He's not just the means but the END.
You saying there are "two means" is missing the point. God is love. That is the means.
quote:
How exactly that grace [in Jesus' death] is applied to infants is open to much debate,
It's like if you had two sons and one was handicapped not knowing the difference between right and wrong. If the intelligent son needed your forgiveness and wanted to spend time with you, you would forgive him and spend time with him. If the son who had the handicap also wanted to spend time with you, you wouldn't say, "wait, I have to apply forgiveness to you first." See? It's just 'natural' for a loving father to be loving. It doesn't require any complicated doctrines for him to love his sons.
Now in this story you can see that the WAY for the son who needed forgiveness and the WAY for the son who didn't were both the SAME WAY. The WAY was the love of their father.
quote:
salvation of infants is not possible outside of that grace provided in Jesus' death.
In a way, you are right because the same Word who became flesh and died for sinners is also the same God who declares the blood of children innocent blood and the same man who allowed the children to come to him and be blessed (without repentance) and the same Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world before you and I had ever sinned. We can't separate the atonement for sins from the heart of God. If God is willing to forgive sinners (not only forgive but adopt them into everlasting glory) , how much more is he willing to do the same for those who have never sinned. It doesn't violate anything except bad theology. It doesn't change God's character. It doesn't diminish Jesus Christ. It pleases Christ.
quote:
make no mistake, his purpose in the forgiveness of sin is no small thing.
I very much agree with this.
quote:
I can't believe there was ever a time where Jesus was thinking, "Alright Father, let's just get this part over with so we can get to the good parts." Jesus was 100% willing that His Father be glorified in what He suffered. It says he despised (had little regard for) the shame of the cross for the joy set before him. He was looking forward to "It is finished". But he wasn't impatient at all. He delighted in the fear of God. His food was to do the will of his Father.
quote:
you're creating a false dilemma. you're isolating the forgiveness of sin from the big picture and then saying, hmmm....there must be a bigger picture.
I'm not isolating it at all. The people who say "Well what about if someone never sinned?" are the ones who seem to be isolating things.
There is a bigger picture. Eternal life is to know the Father and the Son. That is the bigger picture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 11:58:46 AM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Benjoseph, maybe your contention is as simple as the flesh in and of itself is not the sin nature. But surely the flesh is where the sin nature resides, finding it's ultimate expression in us. I don't think that's so hard or unreasonable to accept. And with that being true, and the two being so utterly connected for us as humans, it's not unreasonable to view the sin nature and fallen flesh as the same thing.
I think you are on to something here but you might not like to hear it.
It's called the will, or disposition, as you quoted.
The part you might not like is that you control your will and disposition.
The very nature or definition of a will or disposition is just what you will and what you decide to be disposed to do. So in a sense you do "have" a sinful nature, if you desire to sin. But it's just you. Not something you were born with. And God's coming swiftly to judge those with that kind of nature, will, and disposition because they shouldn't have chosen it through their selfishness in the first place. Adam should have controlled himself. Cain should have controlled himself. The angels should have controlled themselves. All sinners could have and should have controlled themselves. Therefore God will judge every man according to his deeds. It is written "they have hated me without cause"
The sense in which you are right is this:
someone who sins will be called a sinner
the moral nature they have chosen is sinful
That's what Paul is writing about when he says "by nature you were children of wrath".
Wrath comes because of choices. God does not have wrath toward babies.
He has wrath for all sinners though. Like Enoch said "Behold the Lord comes"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 12:35:08 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
there is not one righteous. not one.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 12:41:50 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
(Romans 5:19)
This passage disproves sin nature just like the rest of the scripture.
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.
What is that saying? "just as...so also"
It means that in the same way many will be made righteous
In that same way many were made sinners
Well what is that same way?
What is the way that many will be made righteous?
It's got to be the same way that many were "made" sinners.
We know that righteousness is by faith.
Noah had righteousness by faith.
Abraham had righteousness by faith.
David had righteousness by faith.
The apostles had righteousness by faith.
The martyr Steven had righteousness by faith.
But "faith" can't be the answer because faith didn't make anyone a sinner.
That just wouldn't work:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man [by faith ??] the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man [by faith] the many will be made righteous.
Doesn't really make any sense does it? In fact, the bible say it's not faith at all that leads to disobedience and sin. It's actually the opposite of faith: Unbelief.
Lets try it again:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man [by unbelief] the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man [by faith] the many will be made righteous.
Well that makes a little more sense but it says that these two things happened in the same way. How can unbelief and faith happen in the same way? ("just as...so also")
What do faith and unbelief have in common? Anything?
Yes. It's you.
Faith and unbelief are two options that every man has.
God has set before us life and death.
So another way of saying "you" is your "will" or "your own choice"
Let's try it again:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man [by their own choices] the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man [by their own choices] the many will be made righteous.
Now if you want to change what's in the brackets in the first line because it holds you accountable for your own sins instead of Adam then you have to change the second line also. But if the righteousness of faith doesn't come by a man's own choice then you end up with everyone being forced to be righteous in the same way people say everyone was forced to be sinners.
Like this:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man [against their will?] the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man [against their will?] the many will be made righteous.
And that's obviously nonsense once you think about it.
Paul is making a figurative comparison between Christ and Adam. He's not making a doctrine about inherited sin. Paul wouldn't have dared to suggest anything like that. He was very familiar with the scriptures. Much more than we are. The fundamental principle of the free choice to obey or disobey is never called into question. It is a given. That's why I've cautioned about milk and solid food. Peter told us that some of the things Paul wrote are hard to understand. Why doesn't anyone believe Peter? People think it's totally easy to understand. "see Adam made us bad, Jesus made us good" That's not at all the full understanding. That's what people who have already bought into the sin nature excuse think when they read over the passage without having to think much about it. That's what I did before too. Peter warned that ignorant and unstable people twist some of the things that Paul wrote (to their own destruction) as they do the rest of the scripture. What's more destructive than this gnostic view of human nature that says you never could have avoided sin because of the way you were born. As a man thinks so he is. Bad teachers have twisted the meaning of Paul's writing to make them contrary to God's word. They say "the fathers [Adam] have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth [us] are set on edge"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 12:56:24 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
there is not one righteous. not one.
"we know that whatever the law says,
it says to those who are under the law,
that every mouth may be stopped"
Do babies need their mouths to be stopped?
"Why the Law then?
It was for the sake of transgressions"
Do babies transgress the law? Are they transgressors?
If you can't understand Ezekiel 18, you can't understand the bible.
Jesus said "But if you had known what this is, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 12:56:51 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
yes that's right. don't believe what's written, it's all a sort of parable. to help us sort of wrap our imaginations around it.
there is not one righteous. not one.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 1:16:39 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
yes that's right. don't believe what's written,
Do believe it.
But how can someone believe something if they don't understand it?
quote:
it's all a sort of parable. to help us sort of wrap our imaginations around it.
Just because God gave Paul wisdom to write things that Peter said are hard to understand doesn't mean the whole bible is a parable. That's why I keep pointing to Ezekiel 18. That is not a parable, but very simple. We can't give up on drinking the milk (basic understanding) just because we choked on the solid food (deeper things like parables) because we weren't ready to chew it yet and no one warned us. We have to grow strong on the milk. Then we can chew the solid food safely.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 1:24:12 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
and if there's no sin nature, perhaps Jesus wasn't God incarnate exactly, but the most God-like. the most sinless, and the most qualified to be our savior. it's all just a way of trying to get us to understand the concept of savior and faith. the incarnate stuff.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 1:42:50 PM
|
|
|
HardKnox
Posts: 448
Joined: 11/6/2008
Status: offline
|
(Romans 5:19)
Let's try that again, Ben. Your reasoning may seem consistent, but it contradicts scripture. The sameness of the inverse is not "you" its "representation and imputation".
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners (by imputation through headship)
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (by imputation through headship)
There. That's better. Please! Continue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 2:14:47 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
Romans 3:23 all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
This is another example of taking something Paul said out of context.
Romans 3 is not about "inherited sin"
What is the first line in Romans 3?
Rom 3:1 What then is the superiority of the Jew? Or what the profit of circumcision?
That should set the stage for the understanding of the verses that follow.
the superiority of the Jew
the profit of circumcision
Rom 3:1 What then is the superiority of the Jew? Or what the profit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way. For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the Words of God.
[this next segment is a tangent to answer foolish questions and accusations against God]
Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? Will not their unbelief nullify the faith of God?
Rom 3:4 Let it not be! But let God be true, and every man a liar; even as it has been written, "That You should be justified in Your words, and will overcome in Your being judged." LXX-Psa. 50:6; MT-Psa. 51:4
Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who lays on wrath? I speak according to man.
Rom 3:6 Let it not be! Otherwise, how will God judge the world?
Rom 3:7 For if in my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I yet judged as a sinner?
Rom 3:8 And not (as we are wrongly accused, and as some report us to say), Let us do bad things so that good things may come, the judgment of whom is just.
[back to the main topic]
Rom 3:9 What then? Do we excel? Not at all! For we have charged both Jews and Greeks before, all with being under sin;
(under sin means having sinned)
Rom 3:10 according as it has been written, "There is not a righteous one, not even one!"
(In any nation)
Rom 3:11 "There is not one understanding; there is not one seeking God."
Rom 3:12 All turned away, they became worthless together, not one is doing goodness, not so much as one!"
Rom 3:13 "Their throat is a tomb being opened;" "they used deceit with their tongues; the poison of asps is under their lips;
Rom 3:14 whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom 3:16 ruin and misery are in their way;
Rom 3:17 and they did not know a way of peace;
Rom 3:18 there is no fear of God before their eyes."
Rom 3:19 But we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those within the Law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be under judgment to God.
(All the world, Jews AND Gentiles)
Rom 3:20 Because by works of Law not one of all flesh
(not even Jews)
will be justified before Him, for through Law is full knowledge of sin.
(Knowledge of sins that were being and are being committed by choice. It's too late for sinners to be justified through the law when they already broke it. But if they stop being unbelieving sinners and have faith in God they will receive justification and they will obey God's moral law. If they had faith in God they would have followed his ways. Their sins show their unbelief.)
Rom 3:21 But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ toward all and upon all those believing; for there is no difference,
(No difference for the Jew or the Gentile)
Rom 3:23 for all sinned
(not just Gentiles or Jews, both!)
and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, as a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God,
Rom 3:26 for a demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, for His being just and justifying the one that is of the faith of Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then where is the boasting?
(Can't the Jews who have the Law boast? The chosen people of God? Not under the "international" Law of faith.)
It was excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through a Law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Then we conclude a man to be justified by faith without works of Law.
(If any man, Gentile or Jew, has faith he will be justified by God. He's not saying that faith is the opposite of obedience. Faith obeys without question. He's saying that faith transcends skin color, nation, customs, etc.)
Rom 3:29 Or is He the God of Jews only, and not also of the nations? Yes, of the nations also,
Rom 3:30 since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Then is the Law annulled through faith? Let it not be! But we establish Law.
The Law is not done away with or destroyed or loosened. It is established internationally. For all men, Jews and Gentiles. Much of the ceremonial laws are done away with because Jesus Christ has fulfilled them. Therefore Peter and Paul were able to live after the manner of Gentiles even though they were Jews. It doesn't mean they could sin though. God didn't do away with the moral law.
This passage is not making a statement that babies are sinners or that everyone is forced to sin because of the way they are born. It doesn't mention Adam, Eve, or the garden of Eden at all. It's just showing that God is the God of ALL men, not just the Jews and that right standing with God is through faith instead of what culture you were born into.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 2:21:45 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1216
Status: offline
|
no sin nature. no need for God incarnate.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 2:24:38 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 2061
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OLEEguacamole
no sin nature. no need for God incarnate.
Exactly!
Jesus would have never come in the flesh if it were possible for even one person to obtain eternal life without Him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 2:32:57 PM
|
|
|
benjoseph
Posts: 81
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(Romans 5:19)
Let's try that again, Ben. Your reasoning may seem consistent, but it contradicts scripture. The sameness of the inverse is not "you" its "representation and imputation".
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners (by imputation through headship)
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (by imputation through headship)
There. That's better. Please! Continue.
Don't be smug. You call God a liar if you say that guilt is passed down to the sons by headship.
Read Ezekiel 18
Is it chosen imputation or forced imputation?
Watch:
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners (by chosen imputation through headship)
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (by chosen imputation through headship)
How does that work? We chose to be born with a sin nature? That's a double oxymoron.
Again:
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners (by forced imputation through headship)
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (by forced imputation through headship)
That would mean that no one has any choice about being righteous. If we all got forced to do the wrong things because of Adam then we would all be forced to do the right things because of Jesus. That's not biblical.
quote:
and if there's no sin nature, perhaps Jesus wasn't God incarnate exactly, but the most God-like. the most sinless, and the most qualified to be our savior. it's all just a way of trying to get us to understand the concept of savior and faith. the incarnate stuff.
"Incarnate" just means flesh. Like the word "carnivore" means one who eats flesh.
John said "The Word became flesh"
In Hebrews it says He was tempted in ALL points just like us. The point is that it was not easier for Him to obey than it is for us. If it was easier for Jesus then he wouldn't really be a good sympathetic High Priest like it says in Hebrews. He would only be a partially sympathetic High Priest. That's not biblical.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: there's no sin nature - 12/2/2008 2:40:57 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
