SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The "Sin Nature"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread
UntoBabes
Member



Joined: 2010/8/24
Posts: 1032
Oregon

 Re:

Just to clarify something about Finney, I am posting a short clip from an article titled " How to Win Souls "


quote from Finney.

"1st. They are free moral agents, of course rational, accountable.

2nd. They are in rebellion against God, wholly alienated, intensely prejudiced, and committed against Him."

Finney believed that man has the ability to repent and believe the gospel bacause he is a free moral agent, able to make choices, but man is also depraved and does not desire God.

That means, man is able to choose God but he does not want or desire to.

The main stream in Finney's time believed that man in unable to choose God.


_________________
Fifi

 2010/11/9 10:46Profile
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

For more clarification about Finney's views on depravity, go here www.gospeltruth.net His Systematic Theology is on here. (highly recommended reading.) Also, I have read the article on Phil Johnson's website and since he is a well-known and proud of it Calvinist, he would naturally be against Finney's views. If you want to know what Finney believed, read HIS writings and not someone commenting on him. His complete works are at the above mentioned site.


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 11:57Profile
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 533


 Re:

I read Finney's Total Depravity sermon found here:
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1836SOIS/04sois_total_depravity.htm

What is particularly striking is that he does not quote even one scripture verse. These are the words of Charles Finney but not the word of God.

[edit] He has one scripture at the top of this sermon but it is not used to support his arguments.

 2010/11/9 12:22Profile
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

Read his Systematic Theology on this subject. I think he put Scripture there. He also assumed it to be a self-evident truth with his audience to whom he was writing. They knew him pretty well.


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 12:23Profile
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

If you want a lot of Scripture, look in "Other Authors" link on that site and find "Over 100 Texts that Prove Babies are Born Innocent" by A. T. Overstreet. Availible on the same site.

P. S. Has anyone posted Albert Barnes yet?


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 12:25Profile









 Re:

What do you think of this from the NIV? I think it is weird.

1 Cor 5:4-5
4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,
5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.


Satan can destroy our sinful nature??? Why would he want to do that?

No wonder so many are confused today.

 2010/11/9 12:38
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

That was actually a translator error. The word "sarx" is supposed to be translated "flesh" but for some reason the translators made a doctrinal assumption. There is an article on that as well on www.gospeltruth.net "The Scandal of the NIV"

Good question though, that's pretty funny.


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 12:43Profile









 Re:

SARX is well known even by "amateurs" to be flesh.

Sounds more like an "agenda" error than a translation error. These guys are supposed to be the experts.



 2010/11/9 13:10
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

You know what, that's right. Wescott and Hort who were responsible for finding that text from which the NIV was translated were members of the London's Club of Hermes, a santanist group that is still active today.


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 14:33Profile
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

Here's some Albert Barnes, he was a new-schooler like Finney:

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 5 - Verse 12
Verses 12-21. This passage has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New
Testament. It is not the design of these Notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points
like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical
commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the
Romans. The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole
passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory
on the subject of man's sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove
that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is
this— to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown
(1.) that that doctrine produced peace, Ro 5:1
(2.) That it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, Ro 5:2
(3.) That it sustained the soul in afflictions;
(a) by the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel,
Ro 5:3,4; and
(b) by the fact that the Holy Ghost was imparted to the believer.
(4.) That this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for
us, Ro 5:6; because this was the highest expression of love, Ro 5:7,8; and because, if we had been
reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, Ro 5:9,10.
(5.) That it led us to rejoice in God himself; produced joy in his presence, and in all his attributes.
He now proceeds to show the bearing on that great mass of evil which had been introduced into
the world by sin, and to prove that the benefits of the atonement were far greater than the evils
which had been introduced by the acknowledged effects of the sin of Adam. "The design is to exalt
our views of the work of Christ, and of the plan of justification through him, by comparing them
with the evil consequences of the sin of our first father, and by showing that the blessings in question
not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond this; so that the grace of the gospel
has not only abounded, but superabounded." (Prof. Stuart.) In doing this the apostle admits, as an
undoubted and well understood fact,
1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence, Ro 5:12.
2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the
express commands of God, Ro 5:13,14.
3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of
analogy or resemblance between the results of his act, and the results of the work of Christ. That
analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended
to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, Ro 5:14. But he shows,
4. That there were very material and important differences in the two cases. There was not a
perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the
evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of
Christ are these:
(1.) The sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has
an opposite tendency, Ro 5:15.
(2.) The condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the
result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from
many offences, Ro 5:16.
(3.)The work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in
its influence. It extended deeper and farther. It was more than
a compensation for the evils of the fall, Ro 5:17.
5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all men to secure their condemnation, so the
work of Christ was fitted to affect all men, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which
they might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favour of God. It was in itself adapted to
produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had clone evil; and was thus a glorious
plan, just fitted to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy
had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it
was adapted to the human condition, Ro 5:18-21.
Verse 12. Wherefore. (dia touto). On this account. This is not an inference from what has gone
before, but a continuance of the design of the apostle to show the advantages of the plan of
justification by faith; as if he had said, "The advantages of that plan have been seen in our comfort
and peace, and in its sustaining power in afflictions. Further, the advantages of the plan are seen
in regard to this, that it is applicable to the condition of man in a world where the sin of one man
has produced so much woe and death. On this account also it is a matter of joy. It meets the ills of
a fallen race; and it is therefore a plan adapted to man." Thus understood, the connexion and design
of the passage is easily explained. In respect to the state of things into which man is fallen, the
benefits of this plan may be seen, as adapted to heal the maladies, and to be commensurate with
the evils which the apostasy of one man brought upon the world. This explanation is not that which
is usually given to this place, but it is that which seems to me to be demanded by the strain of the
apostle's reasoning. The passage is elliptical, and there is a necessity of supplying something to
make out the sense.
As. (wsper). This is the form of a comparison. But the other part of the comparison is deferred
to Ro 5:18. The connexion evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of
the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make
room for explanations, (Ro 5:13-17.) "As by one man sin entered into the world, etc., so by the
work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man
had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract
those evils." The passage in Ro 5:13-17 is therefore to be regarded as a parenthesis thrown in for
the purpose of making explanations, and to show how the cases of Adam and of Christ differed
from each other.
By one man, etc. By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of
the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well-known historical
fact, (Ge 3:6,7) without any explanation of the mode or cause of this. He adduced it as a fact that
was well known; and evidently meant to speak of it not for the purpose of explaining the mode, or
even of making this the leading or prominent topic in the discussion. His main design is not to
speak of the manner of the introduction of sin, but to show that the work of Christ meets and removes
well-known and extensive evils. His explanations, therefore, are chiefly confined to the work of
Christ. He speaks of the introduction, the spread, and the effects of sin, not as having any theory
to defend on that subject, not as designing to enter into a minute description of the case, but as it
was manifest on the face of things, as it stood on the historical record, and as it was understood and
admitted by mankind. Great perplexity has been introduced by forgetting the scope of the apostle's
argument here, and by supposing that he was defending a peculiar theory on the subject of the
introduction of sin; whereas nothing is more foreign to his design. He is showing how the plan of
justification meets well-understood and acknowledged universal evils. Those evils he refers to just
as they were seen, and admitted to exist. All men see them, and feel them, and practically understand
them. The truth is, that the doctrine of the fall of man, and the prevalence of sin and death, do not
belong peculiarly to Christianity, any more than the introduction and spread of disease does to the
science of the healing art. Christianity did not introduce sin; nor is it responsible for it. The existence
of sin and woe belongs to the race; appertains equally to all systems of religion, and is a part of
the melancholy history of man, whether Christianity be true or false. The existence and extent of
sin and death are not affected if the infidel could show that Christianity was an imposition. They
would still remain. The Christian religion is just one mode of proposing a remedy for well-known and
desolating evils; just as the science of medicine proposes a remedy for diseases which it did
not introduce, and which could not be stayed in their desolations, or modified, if it could be shown
that the whole science of healing was pretension and quackery. Keeping this design of the apostle
in view, therefore, and remembering that he is not defending or stating a theory about the introduction
of sin, but that he is explaining the way in which the work of Christ delivers from a deep-felt
universal evil, we shall find the explanation of this passage disencumbered of many of the difficulties
with which it has been thought usually to be invested.
By one man. By Adam. See Ro 5:14. It is true that sin was literally introduced by Eve, who was
first in the transgression, Ge 3:6 1Ti 2:14. But the apostle evidently is not explaining the precise
mode in which sin was introduced, or making this his leading point. He therefore speaks of the
introduction of sin in a popular sense, as it was generally understood. The following reasons may
be suggested why the man is mentioned, rather than the woman, as the cause of the introduction
of sin.
(1.) It was the natural and usual way of expressing such an event. We say that man sinned, that
man is redeemed, man dies, etc. We do not pause to indicate the sex in such expressions. So in this,
he undoubtedly meant to say that it was introduced by the parentage of the human race.
(2.) The name Adam, in Scripture, was given to the created pair, the parents of the human
family, a name designating their earthly origin. Ge 5:1,2, "In the day that God created man, in the
likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called
THEIR name Adam." The name Adam, therefore, used in this connexion, (Ro 5:14,) would suggest
the united parentage of the human family.
(3.) In transactions where man and woman are mutually concerned, it is usual to speak of the
man first, on account of his being constituted superior in rank and authority.
(4.) The comparison on the one side, in the apostle's argument, is of the man Christ Jesus; and
to secure the fitness, the congruity (Stuart) of the comparison, he speaks of the man only in the
previous transaction.
(5.) The sin of the woman was not complete in its effects without the concurrence of the man.
It was their uniting in it which was the cause of the evil. Hence the man is especially mentioned as
having rendered the offence what it was; as having completed it, and entailed its curses on the race.
From these remarks it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the man here from any idea that
there was any particular covenant transaction with him, but that he means to speak of it in the usual,
popular sense; referring to him as being the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the
world.
Sin entered into the world. He was the first sinner of the race. The word sin here evidently
means the violation of the law of God. He was the first sinner among men, and in consequence all
others became sinners. The apostle does not here refer to Satan, the tempter, though he was the
suggester of evil; for his design was to discuss the effect of the plan of salvation in meeting the
sins and calamities of our race. This design, therefore, did not require him to introduce the sin of
another order of beings, he says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that
death was the consequence.
Into the world. Among mankind, Joh 1:10 3:16,17.
The term world is often thus used to denote human beings—the race, the human family. The
apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin; but he is stating a simple fact,
intelligible to all: "The first man violated the law of God, and in this way sin was introduced among
men." In this fact—this general, simple declaration—there is no mystery.
And death by sin. Death was the consequence of sin; or was introduced because man sinned.
This is a simple statement of an obvious and well-known fact. It is repeating simply what is said
in Ge 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out
of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The threatening was, (Ge
2:17,) "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." If an inquiry be made here, how Adam would understand
this, I reply, that we have no reason to think he would understand it as referring to anything more
than the loss of life as an expression of the displeasure of God, Moses does not intimate that he
was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this
was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed there is the highest evidence that the case admits
of, that this was his understanding of it. For in the account of the infliction of the penalty after the
law was violated, in God's own interpretation of it, in Ge 3:19, there is still no reference to anything
further. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Now, it is incredible that Adam should
have understood this as referring to what has been called "spiritual death," and to "eternal death,"
when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the sentence, is there the
slightest recorded reference to it. Men have done great injury in the cause of correct interpretation
by carrying their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and phrases in the Old
Testament. They have usually described Adam as endowed with all the refinement, and possessed
of all the knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical acumen and subtility of a modem
theologian. They have deemed him qualified, in the very infancy of the world, to understand and
discuss questions which, under all the light of the Christian revelation, still perplex and embarrass
the human mind. After these accounts of the endowments of Adam, which occupy so large a space
in books of theology, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this is the simple
statement in Genesis. And the wonder cannot be suppressed that men should describe the obvious
infancy of the race as superior to its highest advancement; or that the first man, just looking upon
a world of wonders, imperfectly acquainted with law, and moral relations, and the effects of
transgression, should be represented as endowed with knowledge which, four thousand years after,
it required the advent of the Son of God to communicate! The account in Moses is simple. Created
man was told not to violate a simple law, on pain of death. He did it; and God announced to him
that the sentence would be inflicted, and that he should return to the dust whence he was taken.
What else this might involve—what other consequences sin might introduce, might be the subject
of future developments and revelations. It is absurd to suppose that all the consequences of the
violation of a law can be foreseen, or must necessarily be foreseen, in order to make the law and
the penalty just. It is sufficient that the law be known; that its violation be forbidden; and what the
consequences of that violation will be, must be left in great part to future developments. Even we
yet know not half the results of violating the law of God. The murderer knows not the results fully
of taking a man's life: he breaks a just law, and exposes himself to the numberless unseen woes
which may flow from it.
We may ask, therefore, what light subsequent revelations have cast on the character and result
of the first sin? and whether the apostle here meant to state that the consequences of sin were in
fact as limited as they must have appeared to the mind of Adam? or had subsequent developments
and revelations, through four thousand years, greatly extended the right understanding of the penalty of
the law? This can be answered only by inquiring in what sense the apostle Paul here uses the
word death. The passage before us shows in what sense he intended here to use the word. In his
argument it stands opposed to "the grace of God, and the gift by grace," (Ro 5:15) to "justification,"
by the forgiveness of "many offences," (Ro 5:16) to the reign of the redeemed in eternal life, (Ro
5:17) and to "justification of life," (Ro 5:18.) To all these, the words "death," (Ro 5:12,17) and
"judgment," (ro 5:16,18) stand opposed. These are the benefits which result from the work of Christ;
and these benefits stand opposed to the evils which sin has introduced; and as it cannot be supposed
that these benefits relate to temporal life, or solely to the resurrection of the body, so it cannot be
that the evils involved in the words "death," "judgment," etc., relate simply to temporal death. The
evident meaning is, that the word "death," as here used by the apostle, refers to the train of evils
which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death; but that group and
collection of woes, including temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which
is the consequence of transgression. The apostle often uses the word death, and to die, in this wide
sense, Ro 1:32 6:16, 7:5,10,13,24 8:2,6,13; 2Co 2:16 7:10; Heb 2:14.
In the same sense the word is often used elsewhere, Joh 8:51 11:26; 1Jo 5:16,17; Re 2:11 20:6,
etc. etc. In contrasting with this the results of the work of Christ, he describes not the resurrection
merely, nor deliverance from temporal death, but eternal life in heaven; and it therefore follows
that he here intends by death that gloomy and sad train of woes which sin has introduced into the
world. The consequences of sin are, besides, elsewhere specified to be far more than temporal
death, Eze 18:4 Ro 2:8,9,12.
Though, therefore, Adam might not have foreseen all the evils which were to come upon the
race as the consequence of his sin, yet these evils might nevertheless follow. And the apostle, four
thousand years after the reign of sin had commenced, and under the guidance of inspiration, had
full opportunity to see and describe that train of woes which he comprehends under the name of
death. That train included evidently temporal death, condemnation for sin, remorse of conscience,
and exposure to eternal death, as the penalty of transgression.
And so. Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all men; to wit,
because all men have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for
all have sinned. There is a connexion between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam,
and which subsists in regard to all who sin, And as all have sinned, so death has passed on all men.
Death passed upon. (dihlyen). Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as
pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus death, with its train of woes, with its withering
and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it.
Upon all men. Upon the race; all die.
For that (ef w). This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously
translated. Elsner renders it, "on account of whom." Doddridge, "unto which all have sinned." The
Latin Vulgate renders it, "in whom [Adam] all have sinned." The same rendering has been given
by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the
expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation fix this
interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also
by many other considerations.
(1.) If (w) be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and
not to man. But this would not make sense.
(2.) If this had been its meaning, the preposition (en) would have been used. See Note of Erasmus
on the place.
(3.) It comports with the apostle's argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that
men sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would
not account for that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see
how that could be a cause.
(4.) As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin
is the transgression of the law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned"
meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favours that certainly as much as it does the
other, it is to be preferred.
All have sinned. To sin is to transgress the law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression
does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true,
but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that
all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is
not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into
the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world;
and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact—that all men experience calamity,
condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a
sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a
metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should
be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says
nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring
to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin themselves—as, indeed, how can they sin in any
other way?—and that therefore they die. If men maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties
of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly
that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?
{s} "as by one man" Ge 3:6,19.


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 14:34Profile





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