SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : can you prove sin nature?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

rbanks what do you think about this?
If Jesus was able to be tempted in ALL points as we are then how can the sinful nature be a source of or even a contribution toward temptation or stumbling?

That's why I mentioned gnosticism because of the spirit of antichrist who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Well how successful do you think that spirit will be by saying "Jesus Christ didn't have real human flesh"? Not very successful right? It would be almost laughable because they would have practically [b]quoted[/b] the very warning that condemns them! So how can antichrist get around that? Well what if instead of saying Jesus Christ's flesh was not human...we could say that MAN's flesh is SUB-human. But why would GOD make subhuman flesh? It must have BECOME subhuman because of our own fault. So when Adam sinned, his nature, his FLESH CHANGED and there was something about his flesh from that point on that made it DIFFERENT from the flesh of Jesus Christ who was NOT subhuman. It even sounds HUMBLE! Do you see? Think about it. Could this be the pile of wood shavings that proves the idol was originally just a block of wood? It would be SO OBVIOUS for them to say "Jesus didn't come in the flesh" So what if the sneakiest thing they could come up with was to change the definition of the word flesh. Now they're saying "Jesus didn't come in [b]our[/b] flesh" NO! even that is too noticeable! "Jesus came in OUR flesh....but we don't have that same flesh ANYMORE since Adam"

What do you think? Do you understand?

If someone is misinterpreting the scripture then the scripture only becomes a symbol for their belief and we won't get anywhere until we look at the underlying issue. Otherwise we could both post the same scriptures back and forth. You have to understand WHY someone would think this belief is unbiblical. Otherwise you can't show them that it's not, if indeed it were not.

as an example of this:

Quote:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12

Passed

G1330
διέρχομαι
dierchomai
dee-er'-khom-ahee

From G1223 and G2064; to traverse (literally): - come, depart, go (about, abroad, every where, over, through, throughout), pass (by, over, through, throughout), pierce through, travel, walk through.



see? What have I learned from this? Nothing. I know what "passed" meant well enough by the context of the passage! Even a child would understand that. Even if the word implied a contagious epidemic or a genetic disease or water spreading through a dry paper towel, so what? It's good to understand the literal definition of the word but even without the greek you can understand (though it's hard to understand) the [b]figure[/b] that Paul is building up. Unless you refuse to not know what it means for a moment and thus refuse to look at it as a figure. But we all have to 'not know' before we can know. When we 'know' before we read it then we can't learn.

When I was asking roman catholics about transubstantiation (bread idolatry and cannibalistic fantasy) some were pointing to the verse where Jesus said "unless you eat my flesh.."
They did the same thing Mike is doing, they showed how the final verb that Jesus used for eating was "trogos" in greek saying that it implied the physical details of eating, chewing, etc.. They also said that the word is ONLY used literally and CANNOT be used figuratively.

See what I'm saying? It's like seeing the trees but not the forest.

This is the silliest example I've seen so far. I actually thought it had weight at first! look.

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged [b]from the womb[/b]: They go astray [b]as soon as they are born, [u]speaking lies[/u][/b].

Do they? Do newborns lie? I get the impression some here could 'explain' to you how they do indeed lie but that would be ridiculous.

What about this?
Job 31:18
but from my youth I reared him as would a father,
and from my birth I guided the widow

Did he?

These are simple ones and there are a lot of them but the passages in romans and such are extremely deep figures that are built upon other figures and it is taking a while for me to go through it all but I can see how people could have taken stuff out of context or literally when it's meant to be an illustration of an entirely different topic and thus twisted the meaning of the passage. I used to think that romans 7 for instance was talking about christians but it's not at all once you stop holding the book two inches away from your face. Have you noticed that particular example yourself? I think there are other things like that going on with this topic.

Ben

 2008/11/22 12:33









 Re:

Taylor you asked why babies die since the wages of sin is death. Were you implying that there must be something sinful about them even before they've made moral choices? Do you believe that aborted babies get what they deserve?

 2008/11/22 13:27









 Re:

Here's an example from the Dukes of Hazard theme song that my roomate thought of.

"been in trouble with the law since the day they was born."

Well, does that mean there has to be an episode where they break the law as babies? Or maybe there's a law that was broken a long time ago by their great grandfather and so they had to be arrested in the delivery room? Is that their excuse? "Officer we HAVE to break the law, it's our nature." "Well, even so, I'm going to have to arrest you." I know it sounds ridiculous but the logic is similar.

 2008/11/22 13:36
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
crsschk wrote:
Quote:
You only proved human nature.



Which is ... [i]inherently[/i], good or evil?

Our nature is inherently good, nothing changed, even when Adam sinned.
The only thing that changed was that Adam dies spiritualy and could not eat of the tree of life so that his mortal flesh could keep living.

Quote:
Quote:
None of us sinned in our response.

Out loud ... ? Can you speak for "all of us" if none of "us" is one and the same?


The only thing you proved was that man chooses to give in to temptaion.
You gave a temptaion to sin by your stimulous, some went for it.(if some actualy sinned)

Quote:
Quote:
It is human to react to stimulus.

Then why did Jesus not react the way we do? Because He had a differnt nature?

The same reason that we as Christians choose not to sin; Jesus did not choose to sin because He loved the Father.
That is how He didn't sin, that is how we will not sin.
In contrast, the reason why the lost are sinning is because thay don't choose to love God, there is no other reason for their sin.

Sin has nothing to do with our nature, only our choice of affections.

Our affections usually have an effect on the individual choices that we make. The choice that you make will usually follow your affections, even though they do not have to by necessity.

Consequently, if you love(put your affections on) yourself or the world more than one commanding you, you will not consistently do things that please the commander.
Your decisions are effected by your affections so that you might do what you have favor towards.
However, one is always able to do what is right when the affections are wrong.

 2008/11/22 13:40Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1257


 Re:

Quote:

benjoseph wrote:
rbanks what do you think about this?
If Jesus was able to be tempted in ALL points as we are then how can the sinful nature be a source of or even a contribution toward temptation or stumbling?

That's why I mentioned gnosticism because of the spirit of antichrist who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Well how successful do you think that spirit will be by saying "Jesus Christ didn't have real human flesh"? Not very successful right? It would be almost laughable because they would have practically [b]quoted[/b] the very warning that condemns them! So how can antichrist get around that? Well what if instead of saying Jesus Christ's flesh was not human...we could say that MAN's flesh is SUB-human. But why would GOD make subhuman flesh? It must have BECOME subhuman because of our own fault. So when Adam sinned, his nature, his FLESH CHANGED and there was something about his flesh from that point on that made it DIFFERENT from the flesh of Jesus Christ who was NOT subhuman. It even sounds HUMBLE! Do you see? Think about it. Could this be the pile of wood shavings that proves the idol was originally just a block of wood? It would be SO OBVIOUS for them to say "Jesus didn't come in the flesh" So what if the sneakiest thing they could come up with was to change the definition of the word flesh. Now they're saying "Jesus didn't come in [b]our[/b] flesh" NO! even that is too noticeable! "Jesus came in OUR flesh....but we don't have that same flesh ANYMORE since Adam"

What do you think? Do you understand?

Ben



I'm not sure if you understood my post or which part you are replying to, but in answering what I think you are saying here is, different than what I was trying to convey.

The bible is clear about Jesus coming in the flesh like our flesh but without sin.

There are places in the bible that says Jesus came in the flesh but He is not now in that same flesh because He has been glorified.

When the bible says in (Romans 8:3 (KJV) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh :)…he is mentioning the likeness of sinful flesh, for sin, to condemn sin in the flesh. He wants all to know that Jesus has no sin, he is only being a sacrifice for sin.

When the bible says that Jesus was tempted in all points like as we, yet without sinning, he is telling us that he can keep those who are born of God from practicing sin.

The bible is mainly written to Christians on how to grow in grace. Jesus came in our flesh but as I have stated, there was nothing sinful about his flesh. God did not create sinful flesh, everything God created was very good in the beginning.

The apostle Paul said that he was alive without the law but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. The sin nature is dormant within everyone from birth and the more a person tries to keep the law, the stronger sin becomes. The law was holy, just, and good but we are sold unto sin. Jesus came to condemn sin in the flesh so that we can live in the spirit a righteous life before God. There are places in the bible where flesh is referring to the body and other places where it is referring our sinful nature.

When the bible says that Jesus came in the flesh, it is referring to the body. When the bible says in Romans that we are not to walk after the flesh but after the spirit, the word flesh is talking about our sinful nature. Jesus had our fleshly body but not our fleshly nature. Jesus nature was spiritual from birth and he never sinned. Our nature was fleshly from birth and we all sin. We were born separate from a spiritual relationship with God and must be born again in order to have a spiritual relationship with God. Jesus did not need to be born again because he was born from birth with a spiritual relationship with the Father and always does those things that please him.

Jesus was tempted in all points but with out sin because He was born of God from the beginning. He was begotten of God at birth, we were begotten from Adam and spiritually dead to God and that is why we must be born again. When we are born of God through Christ Jesus, the very nature we receive in our new birth is the same spiritual nature that Jesus has and we are able with that nature through our relationship with God to overcome temptation. We cannot overcome without being born of God. The nature we are born with from Adam will lead to sin. The nature we receive from Christ will lead us to holiness of Life. Study the book of Galatians about the Law and how the only way we can be free from sin is through faith in Christ and his finished work to make us new creatures.

I don’t quite understand, why go through extensive work to try and disprove the obvious. The bible says to call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins (the word sins here is plural). The forerunner (John the Baptist) for Jesus said “behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” (the word sin here is singular). This shows that there is sin in principle and there are sins in action.

1 John 1:7-9 (KJV) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice verse 8, where it says to Christians that if we say we have no sin, meaning that we don’t need to walk in the light and have the blood of Jesus his Son to cleanse us from all sin, we deceive our selves. Only the blood can cleanse us from all sin. He goes on to say that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice the words “all sin” , “sins”, and the word “sin” in these verses and compare them with:
Matthew 1:21 (KJV) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
John 1:29 (KJV) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

There are still many other scriptures that show that Jesus is the only one who can save us from sin and give us a new born again nature. Jesus is the only one ever born on this earth perfect without sin, but thank God, Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save. We are the very reason he came and that was to redeem us back to God.

 2008/11/22 17:04Profile









 Re:

Quote:
You sound like this: Can a man enter his mother's womb a second time? Think about it. Sin is transgression. Transgression is intangible. If Jesus himself, physical body and all, literally became wrongdoing then nobody would have been able to see him on the cross and the dying man who asked to be remembered by him would have gotten no reply because SIN, LAWLESSNESS, WRONGDOING, etc. can't talk! If he WAS sin then what? No one in the world was sinning at that moment because all the sin was on the cross? Don't you think the context of the passage and the whole gospel makes it more appropriate to understand that he became a SACRIFICE FOR sin. our sins.

After reading this, I can heartily say, I am glad I am stupid.

If you can't accept the fact that Jesus Christ was made sin for us and tasted death for all men, then we have nothing more to talk about and there are others on here who are well equipped to handle a long drawn out argument with you, I must decline. Good Luck!!

 2008/11/22 17:26
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

DeepThinker:
Your not thinking deep enough.

Quote:
After reading this, I can heartily say, I am glad I am stupid.


Being stupid is nothing to be glad or proud of;

[b]Jer 4:22[/b] [color=990000]For my people are foolish, they have not known me; they are stupid children, and they have no understanding: they are wise to do evil, but how to do good they have no knowledge.[/color]

I'm not implying that this vers it to you, I am only showing you the shame of being stupid.
It is regretful that you want to be or glad to be stupid, I would that you have understanding.

Anyway, the subject at hand:
[b]2Corinth 5:21[/b] [color=990000]For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.[/color]
Sin is a verb, no one can be a verb.
Therefore, it does not & can not literally mean what it says.

What is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer, it cannot be:
(1) That he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be, therefore, in some sense, figurative.
(2) It cannot mean that he was a sinner, for it is said in immediate connection that he “knew no sin,” and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled.
(3) It cannot mean that he was, in any proper sense of the word, guilty, for no one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor of the Law; and if he was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deserved to die, and his death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if he was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.

But all such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings which he endured, border on blasphemy, and are abhorrent to the whole strain of the Scriptures.
In no form, in no sense possible, is it to be maintained that the Lord Jesus was sinful or guilty or even "sin". It is a corner stone of the whole system of religion, that in all conceivable senses of the expression he was holy, and pure, and the object of the divine approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statement that he was in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deserved to die, is “prima facie” a false view, and should be at once abandoned.
But,
(4) If the declaration that he was made “sin” (αμαρτίαν hamartian) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering - an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner.
The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering, is adopted by Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and others; the latter, that it means that God treated him as a sinner, is adopted by Vorstius, Schoettgen, Robinson (Lexicon), Dr. Bull, and others. There are many passages in the Old Testament where the word “sin” (ἁμαρτία hamartia) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin.
(Barnes Comentary)

 2008/11/22 19:08Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Ben,

That is exactly what I am implying. The wages of sin is death and, again, I say it with respect and reverence to all who may have lost a child, the fact is, children die in the womb. Therefore, the reason must be because they are sinful even before making any moral decisions of their own, for that is the only logical and Scriptural conclusion.

Regarding your question on abortion, which I find to be a red
herring argument, I answer thus. When we say abortion is unjust
and undeserved, we are speaking in terms of civil justice. The child has not sinned against fellow man; therefore, it is unjust for man to kill the child. Therefore, abprtion is unjust. However, the fact remains that no man deserves to be born into this world and even see the beauty of God in creation, for it is an extereme mercy that the Lord allows it to be so.

The fact that children die in the womb, when death is the wages of sin (what you receive for being sinful), is manifest proof that man is sinful from birth, even before making any decisions. O let us tremble at the depravity that man has fallen into! Let us not deny with blind eyes so sober a warning that unless we repent we shall all likewise perish.

With care in Christ,
Taylor


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2008/11/22 21:32Profile









 Re:

rbanks, I'm still working through the romans passages I just wanted to see what you thought about my reasoning. But It doesn't seem like you thought about it at all.

Why do you say I'm trying to disprove the obvious?

remember crsschk's thing about "shoot first, questions later"?

Why didn't you ask me a single question in that response? There was one question but it just said that you didn't understand me and I think you left out the question mark.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much effort have you put into understanding where I'm coming from in that post or even where Logic was coming from in the last thread?

 2008/11/22 21:55









 Re:

Taylor you would've made a good evangelist for Molech with words like these.

Quote:
That is exactly what I am implying. The wages of sin is death and, again, I say it with respect and reverence to all who may have lost a child, the fact is, children die in the womb. Therefore, the reason must be because they are sinful even before making any moral decisions of their own, for that is the only logical and Scriptural conclusion.

I hope that anyone who has lost a child will not assume that just because this man thinks something is logical and scriptural that it actually is. Remember people have killed in the name of Jesus and they said it was logical and scriptural also.
Quote:
Regarding your question on abortion, which I find to be a red herring argument, I answer thus. When we say abortion is unjust and undeserved, we are speaking in terms of civil justice.


I don't know what a red herring is or who this "we" is but they sound like they have fried their consciences to a crisp.
Quote:
The child has not sinned against fellow man; therefore, it is unjust for man to kill the child. Therefore, abortion is unjust.


Logically it would follow that since the child has not sinned against God either it would not even enter his holy mind to punish the child.
Quote:
However, the fact remains that no man deserves to be born into this world and even see the beauty of God in creation, for it is an extereme mercy that the Lord allows it to be so.

It is a gift! Mercy is for the repentant!
Quote:
The fact that children die in the womb, when death is the wages of sin (what you receive for being sinful)

Seperation from God, Eternal Death, those are the wages of sin. God didn't say to Adam "Because you listened to Eve and ate the wrong fruit everyone deserves to die" That wouldn't even make sense.
Quote:
is manifest proof that man is sinful from birth, even before making any decisions.

Wrong. Dust returns to dust. It doesn't prove babies are wicked. That is stupid.
Quote:
O let us tremble at the depravity that man has fallen into! Let us not deny with blind eyes so sober a warning that unless we repent we shall all likewise perish.

great swelling words don't change anything
Quote:
With care in Christ


Do you know what care is?

 2008/11/22 22:19





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy