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
holiness1214
Member



Joined: 2008/7/31
Posts: 9


 Re:

"Disclaimer" While I did read some of the posts I did not take the time to read all of the other posts so I am sorry if I repeat someone else.

First look in Genesis, Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Here it tells us that when God created us we were in His likeness and in His image, but now move on after the fall of man and read Gen 5:3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:. Just by looking at these two verses alone we can see that there was a change from what we were to what we now are. and lest anyone should say that these verse are simply talking about physical likeness, they need only look in Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Two other verses I wan to mention before I move from Genesis. Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. In both of these verses God sates that man is not good by nature but rather evil by nature.
Now look in Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. All three of these verse say that from the very womb we are sinners, and lest someone should say that these verses only apply to certain individuals or certain groups of people compare them to Eph 2:3 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. In this verse the all inclusive word "all" is used. Furthermore this verse goes so far as to say that we are by nature the children of wrath. Many more verses could have been cited but to save space I hope that these will suffice to give an answer to your question that YES there is a sin nature.


_________________
Luke

 2008/11/24 1:51Profile
passerby
Member



Joined: 2008/8/13
Posts: 642


 Re:

That unborn babies and infant die is an evidence that all humans sin and are sinful even before they are born. Death is an evidence of having committed a sin or being sinful.

Following this line of thinking, therefore, since the Lord Jesus Christ also died He must also had committed sin___or it could be that He also had a 'sin nature' but did not sin___ or He had no 'sin nature' and He did not sin for He had no ability to sin, but why did He die? Is death really an evidence that someone had sinned or sinful. Do animals also sin because they also die?

What really are being meant by the terms 'sin' and 'sin nature' their extent and limitation.

 2008/11/24 3:14Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Passerby, firstly, our Lord said he was going to lay down his life (voluntarily), and that nobody could take it from him. Secondly, as Isaiah says, our iniquities were laid upon him.

Grace to you,
Taylor


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2008/11/24 7:27Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Ultimate Sin

It occurred to me that one of own, a Pastor of some 40+ years has given us a great deal of exegesis in the past over this matter. Here is an excerpt:

[i] "Do we inherit the sinfull nature of Adam? or Do we inherit the sin of Adam and therefore his guilt?"

This is the key question but I would like to sharpen it a little. A 'sin' is a transgression of the will of God. It is identifiable and, theoretically, quantifiable. Romans 5:12 tells us that it was as a result of one man's 'sin' ( a transgression of the known will of God) that SIN (the dynamic) entered the world. This is a unique revelation. It occurs nowhere else in the Bible or in the history of man's search for truth. The revelation is that SIN entered the world (kosmos) at a point in time as a result of Adam's action. The important implication is to see that this shows that SIN is older than the human race! This is a staggering revelation but the only thing that makes sense of our world. SIN existed in another person, Satan, as a result of Adam's opened door, SIN entered the world (and in particular, our race) and DEATH followed. This SIN has passed through to the entire race, according to Romans 5:12)

The key thing is to realise that 'a sin' opened the door to SIN. Adam was the federal head of our race and this action changed our race forever. It is not just hereditary, passing to his children, it passed sideways too to Eve. Have you noticed how the Bible never holds Eve accountable for this. Eve committed 'a sin' before Adam but as she was not the federal head of the race her 'sin' only affected herself. Adam, on the other hand, committed a 'sin' which opened a door to an alien spirit that has radically changed the nature of our race. Reidhead accuses Augustine of contradicting God in that God said the human race was 'very good' whereas Augustine describes it as 'very bad'. Augustine, of course, was not contradicting God's description in Genesis 1, but was moving on to the events of Genesis 3. Genesis 6 shows that Adam 'begat'children 'in his own likeness, after his own image'. The problem is that Adam was no longer in the perfect image and likeness of God, and it is that distored and spoiled likeness that has become our inheritance.

Back to your question.. It is not necessary to conclude that having inherited Adam's SIN we therefore inherit his guilt. Guilt is blameworthiness (never a feeling in scripture). Does God hold me accountable for what Adam did? I don't read that in the scripture. I see that the consequences of Adam's action have a continuing effect on the human race, but I don't describe that as 'guilt'. Personally, I distinguish between 'original sin' and 'original guilt'. I believe I inherited the former but not the latter. (SIN here being the nature not the act). It is not the nature (SIN) that is judged 'guilty' but sin. (James 4:17 gives a useful definition of 'sin' as an act)

SIN cannot be forgiven, it needs a far more radical solution... you must be born again!

We need to distinguish between 'sins' and SIN if we are to be true to the biblical revelation.[/i]

Philologos

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=293&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Original Sin[/url]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote:
That unborn babies and infant die is an evidence that all humans sin and are sinful even before they are born. Death is an evidence of having committed a sin or being sinful.

Following this line of thinking, therefore, since the Lord Jesus Christ also died He must also had committed sin___or it could be that He also had a 'sin nature' but did not sin___ or He had no 'sin nature' and He did not sin for He had no ability to sin, but why did He die? Is death really an evidence that someone had sinned or sinful. Do animals also sin because they also die?

What really are being meant by the terms 'sin' and 'sin nature' their extent and limitation.



This may also go a long way in expressing how the Lord was made an offering for sin.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1212&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Propitiation and the red heifer[/url]

And one more if anyone is up to it, it is a series of devotionals if you will;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=2034&forum=45&post_id=&refresh=Go] Abraham, My Friend (weekly devotional archive)[/url]


My recollection tends towards blurring them altogether so it is difficult to pull different aspects from each. Nevertheless ...

Likely in [i]Propitiation and the red heifer[/i] is the explanation of what we come to term the [i]"Scapegoat"[/i] in answer to the question;

Quote:
since the Lord Jesus Christ also died He must also had committed sin___or it could be that He also had a 'sin nature' but did not sin___ or He had no 'sin nature' and He did not sin for He had no ability to sin, but why did He die? Is death really an evidence that someone had sinned or sinful.



[i]For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.[/i] 2Co 5:21

I will bow out here and leave it in better hands but a thought occurred to me this morning over this whole matter and others like it ...

Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Trinity. Predestination. Original sin or the nature that is sinful. Just to mention a few, these things that always amount to a great deal of controversy. My observation so far is the commonality of prying into or having what might be termed [i]ultimate conclusions[/i] when at length they all have [i]mystery[/i] at the very bottom.

"How can these things be?"

Is what came up in my thoughts. The best of the saints in scripture when coming face to face with the majesty and overwhelming sense of God found themselves in [i]Awe[/i] and their selves as practically guilty by just sheer contrast;

Isaiah,

[i]Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.[/i] Isa 6:5

John,

[i]And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:[/i] Rev 1:17

Moses, Peter, Jeremiah, David and so many others.
That God would condescend, to leave that place of glory, come down to our poor level, [i]be[/i] as one of us, live as one of us, be tempted and tried as one of us, in the [i]likeness[/i] of sinful flesh, yet without sin is very much a great mystery.

Something that Philologos forwarded a long time ago and that has always stuck very profoundly was centered around this thing we call the 'will'. It is often spoken of as if it was something detached, as if it was like unto an organ of the body such as your liver or kidney but the retort was; [i]There is just [u]You[/u][/i]. And that I have found is completely true. Even in this discussion of what our nature is, there is [i]just you[/i], it's the [u]whole[/u] enchilada - Your nature or bent or disposition, however you want to term it, the whole of us has a seedbed of corruption, we are sinful in that way and do sin, it is both. Why else do we flinch greatly in such a Presence as God? Why else did otherwise 'good' men as we might term them, those mentioned above pronounce themselves 'unclean', under a 'woe', even to turning away - '[i]Depart from me, Lord ... [b]I am[/b] _____[/i].

Somewhere along the line or at bottom it seems to me we are left with the only right conclusion, the same that Paul came to when he said;

[i]O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out![/i]

Rom 11:33

What is it about scripture that tends not towards these 'seeming' contradictions, but more towards, "[i]Have you considered[/i]?". Isn't this where the controversy often comes about? If we camp on a subset and craft complete explanatory doctrines out of them sooner or later someone will find those verses that are also applicable. And I forward that this is just how it ought to be, the whole of scripture to bear, all of scripture to be considered. I am speaking towards those things that are 'hard to understand' and if they have confused or confounded greater minds then our own all these years I must wonder what seedbed of thought is ours that thinks it now has a satisfactory conclusion or a new and different revelation to things already put to the greatest of stress testing.

We can get quite bogged down into the technicals of matters while greatly overlooking what is plainly evident.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/11/24 9:20Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Physical death is not the wage of sin.
Spitirtual death is.
Sin is only willful disobediance to God.
Therfore, infant's can not be sinners. Just because they die does not prove anything.

 2008/11/24 10:01Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1257


 Re:

Quote:

Logic wrote:
Physical death is not the wage of sin.
Spitirtual death is.
Sin is only willful disobediance to God.
Therfore, infant's can not be sinners. Just because they die does not prove anything.



Praise God Logic, you have written a post that I can totally agree with.

Mt 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mt 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

When Adam sinned it resulted in spiritual death. Then God kept him from the tree of life so that he would die physically.

Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 2008/11/24 10:50Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
rbanks wrote:
Quote:
Logic wrote:
Physical death is not the wage of sin.
Spitirtual death is.
Sin is only willful disobediance to God.
Therfore, infant's can not be sinners. Just because they die does not prove anything.



Praise God Logic, you have written a post that I can totally agree with.

Good.
However, it can not mean that the rest of humanity is born spiritualy dead or even sinners.

 2008/11/24 10:59Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1257


 Re:

The very reason that we need to be born again is because we are spiritually dead and are sinners.

 2008/11/24 11:03Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1257


 Re:

Quote:

crsschk wrote:


{Quoted}
Back to your question.. It is not necessary to conclude that having inherited Adam's SIN we therefore inherit his guilt. Guilt is blameworthiness (never a feeling in scripture). Does God hold me accountable for what Adam did? I don't read that in the scripture. I see that the consequences of Adam's action have a continuing effect on the human race, but I don't describe that as 'guilt'. Personally, I distinguish between 'original sin' and 'original guilt'. I believe I inherited the former but not the latter. (SIN here being the nature not the act). It is not the nature (SIN) that is judged 'guilty' but sin. (James 4:17 gives a useful definition of 'sin' as an act)

SIN cannot be forgiven, it needs a far more radical solution... you must be born again!

We need to distinguish between 'sins' and SIN if we are to be true to the biblical revelation.[/i]

Philologos




This is a very good explanation!

 2008/11/24 11:10Profile









 Re:

hi crsschk,

Quote:
We can get quite bogged down into the technicals of matters while greatly overlooking what is plainly evident.

That's what I've been explaining here. Remember just because you don't get something doesn't mean it's a mystical, unfathomable mystery. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out.

Quote:
Adam was the federal head of our race and this action changed our race forever. It is not just hereditary, passing to his children, it passed sideways too to Eve. Have you noticed how the Bible never holds Eve accountable for this.

I've noticed. But Federal headship is nonsense. Maybe it's not as silly as Augustine and concupiscence, maybe it is. But it's still nonsense.

Eve was deceived. By definition, when you are deceived, you don't know it. If you knew it you wouldn't be deceived. If you don't know what you're doing then you're not to be held accountable. It's like a baby chewing on an adults finger. Cannibalism is a sin. But the baby doesn't have any clue about other people and causing pain, etc. Good thing it doesn't have teeth. Same thing, if Eve was deceived then she didn't know what she was doing. She didn't possess a strong enough faculty of reason to handle what the serpent threw at her. It was too heavy for her mind to catch and examine. So she was deceived. It doesn't say she chose to be deceived. She just didn't get. Adam got it. He willfully ate. God used logic when he pronounced the punishment on Adam. He said "Because you...". To Eve, God did not use logic. Just like you wouldn't use logic to teach a baby not to crawl into the street. God gave Eve a logical solution to her weakness but he didn't say "Because you..". That doesn't mean that women are not accountable for anything, just that somethings are over their heads so-to-speak and they might require more patient explanation than a man. That's why Paul did not allow women to teach, he trusted God's logic. Women can understand, explain, and do lots of things but they are too easily deceived by the craftiness of the serpent to be held accountable for it.

So the reason women shouldn't teach or have authority over their husband is because of the way God made them, not at all because of Adam's sin and federal headship. Eve proved that by her mistake before Adam even ate. Eve also added to the word of God by saying that they were not to even touch the tree. Teachers are never to add to the word of God. She's not wicked for it just weaker than man. She should have heeded the command rather than the serpent but she didn't even know she was deceived until afterward.

If Adam is the "federal head" of humanity then God is the "federal head" of all beings. If our nature, even Eve's nature, could be changed through this abstract concept of federal headship then it would follow than we would all have God's nature which is not the case. If it's not federal headship then it's hereditary which is silly.(there's one other version of it taught that I learned about recently which also didn't make sense)

SIN and death "passed" to all men FIGURATIVELY. This is the mystery right here. Sin is disobedience, not an "alien spirit" boogieman.
[color=009900]
[b]It "passed"
[size=large]***[/size] FIGURATIVELY [size=large]***[/size][/b][/color]

How? Because all sinned. Since all sinned and the wages of sin is spiritual death (not just figurative death either, but real, imminent, eternal death coming quickly)
Since ALL men chose to disobey, it is "LIKE" sin and death entered the world and oozed all over everyone. It's "LIKE" that for the purpose of Paul's figurative comparisons. Not literally. There's no ooze. Not physical, Not soulish or spiritual. Not federal headship ooze. There's no moral stain at birth. There's no genetic predisposition, no inborn spiritual predisposition. Just people who can and should have lived the way Jesus lived but didn't. That's why we needed a sacrifice, not cause of our birth. That's like infant baptism logic. We needed a sacrifice because we chose to sin and earned hell. The wages of sin is hell. The gift is by faith which produces obedience. NEVER in scripture is there a question of disobedience. There is no excuse whatsoever for sin. There is grace, faith, repentance, righteousness, hope, glory. The reason people misinterpret Paul is because they don't have the faith of Paul. Paul was not softening the penalty on sin. Paul was not showing it's not that big a deal to sin because of Jesus. Paul wouldn't even think like that. He addressed some of those issues but he didn't think like a sinner. He didn't think like a drug addict. He thought like a righteous man. Like one among a thousand as Solomon said. Like Jesus.

Jesus died to save wicked sinners from hell. Not just to atone for a passed on weakness of ours. The atonement is because we chose wickedness. Now God wants everyone in the world to stop choosing wickedness. He commands all men everywhere to repent. Atonement for "passed"-on sin nature trivializes the crucifixion of Christ.

crsschk, it was starting to sound like you were closer to understanding by some of what you wrote. Until you admit your sinfulness is 100% your responsibility and 0% Adam's doing, 0% your "natures" doing (like you said, it's just you, you ARE your free will), it won't make complete sense and you won't be able to grasp a clear definition of "sin nature" because, what you think it is, does not exist. It will continue to seem like a mystery because of that.

 2008/11/24 11:56





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