SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Our Sinful Nature and the Devil

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re:

Hello there, me again. My version of scripture (kjv) reads thus "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the 'carnal' mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." My question to honest inquirers is this "Do you yet have a carnal mind?" "Does a Christian have a carnal mind?" "to be carnally minded is death" "to be spiritually minded is life" so then if the so called 'sinful nature' is synonymus with the carnal mind then we are all, assuming we have a sinful nature, partaking of spiritual death.

Quote:
When man fell, his spirit, mind and body became seperated from God, he set up his own agenda and that is what is meant by the sinful nature


A man setting up his own agenda is what is meant by sinful nature? A man setting up is him doing. A man having a sinful nature is him having something. I can't help but see the inconsistency. Besides 'a sinful nature' is a misuse of the word 'nature'. A man's nature can be sinful, but it is improper to say that a person can have a nature. His nature is what he is not what he possesses. Please reply.


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/1 17:45Profile
jimbob
Member



Joined: 2005/9/25
Posts: 131


 Re:

Randy,
I'm no theologian but my understanding would be that when Adam fell the whole of his being became corrupted.So what he is or what he possesses is moot, outside of Christ he is lost.

 2005/10/1 18:19Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Randy,

Quote:
My question to honest inquirers is this "Do you yet have a carnal mind?" "Does a Christian have a carnal mind?" "to be carnally minded is death" "to be spiritually minded is life" so then if the so called 'sinful nature' is synonymus with the carnal mind then we are all, assuming we have a sinful nature, partaking of spiritual death.



There has been much discussion on these points for some time now. You may benefit from a search on the topic. But a short answer to your question is that everything depends on whether or not we are in Christ. If we are in Christ our old man is dead because of the finished work of the cross. This does not mean we cannot be tempted. What it means is that when we are in Christ Sin shall not have dominion over you. Christ is ruling and reigning where Sin once reigned. Where we once had the Spirit of disobedience- we now have the Holy Spirit. Where once we were in Adam and were by nature the children of wrath; we are now in Christ and are children of God by adoption. We have a new ancestor- Christ, therefor we have aquired His characteristics in terms of obedience- where once we had Adam's. So on and so forth.

The problem is that we still have natural desires (appetites that are not in of themselves bad) and yet we live in a sinful world. Temptation is an appeal to the intellect to satisfy a good appetite in a bad way. A good sermon to introduce these concepts is Paris Reidhead's [url=http://64.34.176.235/sermons/SID0114.mp3]Dangers of Third Generation Religion.[/url]

The question is - is there any residual Sin left in man once he/she is regenerated and in Christ? I am not asking here if we have a "sin nature" as it is generally understood, but is there somewhat left in the Christian that needs to be dealt with? Is the problem merely that Christians are not yet glorified and because of this they are more vulnerable to sinning than they would be if glorified? Why is death still necessary? Why can't the regenerate live forever without passing through physical death? Why can't we now come under the Law and keep the Law since our mind is no longer at enmity with God? Why do my members need to be continually mortified?

It seems to me that there is something residual left, but I can't get my head around the issue. I don't have enough mental RAM to pull up all the variables at once and come to an understanding. I have to keep compartmentalizing the issues and dealing with them individually.


One thing I know- if you stay FULL of the Holy Spirit- He will helpeth our infirmities. When we cease to be 'filled'- we start having trouble.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/10/1 18:39Profile
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re:

Hello Jimbob, I do not profess to be a theologian either however the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness seems to me to be a stumbling block to sinners and Christians alike. From what I understand of the doctrine Adam's posterity has received from him some ailment of the flesh that makes it difficult if not impossible for him to obey God. What happened with Adam when he sinned? Did some change occur in his physical constitution? I can't see that any where in the Bible. I said to a lady once "You say that you sin every day! Why?" "Well it's my sin nature." It seems to be the one-liner excuse for sin.


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/1 18:42Profile
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re:

Thanx for your input Robert. It seems as though people have the idea that without a sinful nature temptation would be impossible however Christ was tempted and Adam and Eve were tempted so was the devil neither of which would have had a sinful nature, according to popular theology. When ever a person under popular theology is tempted they always think of their sin nature
Randy


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/1 18:49Profile
jimbob
Member



Joined: 2005/9/25
Posts: 131


 Re:

Randy, I hope I didn't imply that a regenerated person has a sin nature!I believe a christian has a totally free will to choose right or wrong, but the unbeliever even when he chooses right he himself is still wrong, for he is apart from God. Calvanist call it total depravity (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, I don't believe it is possible for Satan to MAKE a believer do anything, he can only temp.But a temptation is not a sin, for a believer to act on a temptation is.
As far as why we still do sin after conversion, my suggestion would be because the mind has to catch up to what the spirit already knows is true. We must be transformed by the renewing of our minds as Paul put it.
And yes, we did inherit traits from Adam. The first is spiritual death for God told Adam in the garden "the day you eat from it you shall die".The second is physical death, the evidence for that is all around us.

 2005/10/1 20:46Profile
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re:

Jimbob. What do you call sin. As far as I know John Wesly's definition of sin is 'a willful transgression or the law'. Is this your definition of sin. I say that I agree with him. I think that many believe that sin can be unwillful. If you hold that sin can be unwillful than I will not object to your suggestion that our mind has to catch up with what the spirit knows is true. However you said that for a believer to act on a temptation is sin. Now an act of an individual implies the involvement of the will. And if the will is free then sin is not necessary. As for receiving traits from Adam I do not believe that physical death is a trait received from Adam. I think it just as proper, if not more, to say that the tree in the garden was needed by Adam and the rest of humanity in order to survive. I believe that God banished
Adam's posterity from the garden foreknowing that they would sin as well. As for receiving spiritual death from Adam I think it erroneous to say that anyone can receive anything moral from anyone else. What is spiritual death? I think it is a moral state of rebellion against God. Can a child be in rebellion against God? I Don't think so. If so then who will argue against the early Calvanists who believed that unconverted children went to hell. I believe that Adam was a type of all humanity even as Christ was a type of the Christian. Now I don't suggest that Adam's relation to mankind was limited to typology neither do I suggest the same of Christ. God told [b]ADAM[/b] that on the day that he would eat thereof that [b]HE[/b] would surely die. And a text for light.
"and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" seemingly implying that the reason that death passed upon all men was their own sin foreknown.
Ready for correction and/or refining. Randy


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/1 21:49Profile
jimbob
Member



Joined: 2005/9/25
Posts: 131


 Re:

Randy,

Did you ever really have a question in your mind when you started this thread, or were you baiting for a debate for the sake of expressing your own opinion?

So you believe God "foreknew" that the children of Adam would sin, so based on "foreknowledge" he banished them from the garden. Why not just banish Adam immediately after the children were born and give it another go? Surely if God raised the children Himself they would have all the moral upbringing anyone could possibly need to make all the choices so as to avoid sin? Or are you suggesting that God created man with a propensity toward sin and therefore knew they all were just going to do it anyway and so gave them the boot?
In the garden 100% of humanity fell, 100% sinned.
That is a fact. If you are suggesting that unregenerate mankind have some sort of choice NOT to sin, then it would stand to reason that at least some of mankind kind would be born not to sin. But another fact is that 100% of mankind do still sin, and all the arguments in the world will not get you away from the fact that we are spiritually and genetically predisposed to sin.

Can a child be in rebellion against God? Exodus 20:4 " I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the CHILDREN..." Not because He "foresee's" their sin but because the children are going to INHERIT the iniquity of their fathers.

Although I'm no calvanist, I would suggest you read the book Chosen by God (RC Sproul). To me it sounds as if you could use a better understanding of Gods sovereignty, man's sinfulness, and God's grace.
Do not be conformed to the image of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your MIND.

 2005/10/2 8:02Profile
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re:

Jimbob, I guess you're right about my deep down inclination to speak on this topic. The question, however, is genuine "what do 'you' mean when you say 'sin nature'. I don't think many people have worked out this doctrine to it's logical conclusion. I do believe that man is born with a nature that tends toward sin. I do also believe that man's nature can tend toward holiness. Man, I believe, has universally chosen the pleasurable path. I don't think anyone would say that man was so constituted with sin nature that he tends toward homosexuality. The reason for this is that the scriptures plainly declare that such is "contrary to nature". I believe that man was made for God. That the only real satisfaction that can ever come to man is by way of obedience to God. This seems to be an indication that the nature of man is designed to be in obedience. In this way man's nature would tend toward holiness.
Those who suppose that man inherited a sinful nature from Adam think that man has lost the image of God through Adam. The scriptures say "Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God." 'Are made' present tense.
My real quarrel, friend, is that this doctrine seems to imply the necessity of sin. The unavoidableness of sin, if there be such a word. This spell checker says otherwise. Any doctrine that directly states or even implies the necessity of sin slanders God. It has implied libel against the character of God. What do I mean? Well who is to blame for my sin if my sin is necessitated because of my nature received from Adam? Am I, who gave no consent whatever to the receiving of this nature? I cannot be. And if I could not help but sin because of my nature then God is unjust in damning anyone to hell in the same situation. And is not God responsible for making man in such a way that when Adam sinned his posterity would receive his nature? Any way that a person reasons on the subject of the necessity of sin God is by this doctrine impliedly slandered.
Now I don't know whether you or anyone else on this website actually believes in the necessity of sin. In fact I do believe that your God given intelligence must rebel against the very thought. Now as for as I understand of the doctrine it has it's origin in a heathen philosophy, that is Gnostisism. And I do think that Paris Reidhead has mentioned vaguely this very thing in one or more of his sermons.
There is, in spite of it's popularity, a suprising lack of clarity, seemingly, surrounding this topic. I am I am not free from this lack of clarity. I know some things. I know from studying the topic that there are three forms of it.
1)The 'Realistic Theory' originated by Augustine, who by the way spent seven years of his life in a Gnostic cult. This theory teaches that man literally existed in Adam when he sinned and is therefore just as blame worthy as he is for his sin. Why man did not exist in him during his reconciliation has yet to be answered. This theory is supposedly verified by Heb 7:9&10
"and as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."
This I take as a figurative language that is meant simply to defend the superior priesthood of Christ. There is a text, in this regard, that I would bring to the attention of all who read this.
"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" "[b]neither having done any good or evil[/b]". And no one could argue against the doctrine that little children, unsaved, will be in hell if this doctrine were true.
2)The second theory is the 'Federal Theory'. This theory teaches that Adam was the federal representative of the human race. God treats man according to the merits of Adam. This contradicts the 'law of God written upon our hearts' in the plainest fashion. Not to mention that it contradicts the scriptures.
" What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children' teeth are set on edge? 3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, (that...: Heb. judgment and justice) 6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour' wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, 7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; 8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, 9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD. 10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things , (robber: or, breaker up of an house) (that doeth...: or, that doeth to his brother besides any of these) 11 And that doeth not any of those duties , but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour' wife, 12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, 13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. (blood: Heb. bloods) 14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father' sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, 15 That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour' wife, 16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, (hath not...: Heb. hath not pledged the pledge, or, taken to pledge) 17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. 18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."Ezec 18
There are texts that supposedly teaches the 'Federal Theory'. Many are found in Romans 5.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world"vs.12
"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one"vs.17
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation"vs.18
Now may if you read my signature you will find a law of proper interpretation. The law is that a scripture that is adduced in the proof of a theory [b]it may not at all be explicable on any other hypothesis[/b]. These verses may be justifiably expounded as meaning all kinds of things for they speak only of the fact that because of Adam's sin man as a whole fell and was therefore treated according to their personal merit. It speaks not one word of the manner in which Adam's sin made the rest of man sin. It is blindly assumed that 'natural generation' was the manner in which they were made to sin in consequence of Adam's sin.
3) The third theory is the 'Naturalistic Theory'. This theory teaches that man has received nature from Adam that necessitates his sin. This plainly places all the blame for sin on Adam. If I am not the author of my own moral nature then I am not to blame for my sin.
And as I said before God would be the author of the connection between Adam and his posterity that makes his posterity to receive his nature.
And, by the way, if sinners beget sinners then why don't Christians beget Christians.
I say all this for the sake of expressing the real ambiguity involved when speaking on this topic. Some mean one theory, some mean another, most mean some kind of mixture of them all. Anyway I'll finish by saying that the doctrine of the 'freedom of the will' is a universal fact of consciousness and is also implied by the scriptures. And the doctrine of the freedom of the will negates every form of the doctrine of the necessity of sin.
I hope you understand where I am coming from and where I am going with all this.
Loving righteousness and hating iniquity, Randy


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/2 23:37Profile
jimbob
Member



Joined: 2005/9/25
Posts: 131


 Re:

Randy,
God bless your fingers! That would have taken me DAYS to type.

Just a couple of questions;

1. Did you choose Christ or did Christ choose you?

2. If the Lord "does not wish for ANY to perish but for all to come to repentance" 2 Peter 3:9, then why did He harden Pharaoh's heart? Romans 9:14-18

Now please, no lengthy theories, use ten words or less for each answer. Please respond via PM.

The Lord bless you and keep you.

 2005/10/3 2:02Profile





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