Antichrist

[bcbsr]

Babies die who never consciously sin. Because the wages of sin is death and they have sinful natures.

It doesn't deny there being reasons people die other than one's personal sin. And certainly is not alluding to the innocent (those who haven't sinned, as you propose) being reckoned guilty because of their having a sinful nature. If you look at the context of Rom 6:23 it's talking about behavior.

 

[bcbsr]

Having a "sinful nature" by my understanding does not mean you are a sinner?

What do you mean by "sinner"?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Having a "sinful nature" by my understanding does not mean you are a sinner?

A sinful nature is a tendency. If you say that your car tends to break down, yet it never has broken down, then you would be contradicting yourself. I cannot say that Christ tends to sin if he never has. Therefore, he does not have a sinful nature. Otherwise, the term has no meaning.

 

[bcbsr]

Death is the result of Adam and Eve sinning and not some change in their nature, sin resulted in the cures of death (the payment). Some saints were taken up without dying so did they not sin?

I agree. There are those in this thread who believe Adam and Eve didn't have a sinful nature until they sinned. There's no scripture to support that. If you look at the description of Eve's temptation:

Gen 3:4-6 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.

That seems right in line with the experience of temptation due to one's sinful nature and in line with 1John 2:16 For all that is in the world——the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life——is not of the Father but is of the world.

Rather I view the death that was due to Adam and Eve is referring to physical death, due to the fact that they were restricted from the tree of life which maintained their physical life.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just being born with a sinful nature doesn't make one guilty of sin.

It does, but such nature can be forgiven.

 

[bcbsr]

A sinful nature is a tendency. If you say that your car tends to break down, yet it never has broken down, then you would be contradicting yourself. I cannot say that Christ tends to sin if he never has. Therefore, he does not have a sinful nature. Otherwise, the term has no meaning.

In contrast the "sinful nature" in scripture is viewed as an entity that influences one's behavior. So by "sinful nature" I'm referring to something different that what you're referring to.

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do— this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." Rom 7:18-20

"the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want." Gal 5:17

If the Spirit is an entity, which it is, so is the sinful nature.

 

[SkyWriting]

A sinful nature is a tendency.

Unless you landed on God's lap at birth you were born into a sinful nature.
Is God walking by your side right now? If not, then you are not in the garden paradise.

People are born into Sin just as fish is born wet.
No one is dry, no not one.

You can ask for forgiveness and long for the days of being dry.
And that is righteous living, embracing your future with God.
But those days are not here....you may have noticed.

 

[bcbsr]

He understands how it feels to be hungry, tired, in pain emotionally and physically, because He has lived a life as a man. But that does not mean His flesh was sinful, nor would it have been necessary. In fact that's almost blasphemous - it would be a corruption of God Himself, if that were possible.

Docetists would likewise claim it blasphemous for not agreeing with them. Now in light of what you propose, that Jesus experience the physical feebleness we experience, but not the temptations we have, consider the verses I already mentioned, which apparently you overlooked.

Heb 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are— yet was without sin."

Heb 2:17,18 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

 

[bcbsr]

It does, but such nature can be forgiven.

Realize your saying that people are born guilty, and not because of any action on their part, but rather because God created them guilty. You've just described injustice. The God of the scriptures is just, and therefore you're wrong.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Hi the scriptures show that Jesus was not killed that after He cried out it is finished or better translated paid in full He dismissed His own spirit. Jesus said in John 10
I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Now as far as the anitchrist goes your verses hold much to identify false teachers and prophets. There is coming a singular person who is described very well in Rev and will reign for 42 months as described.

 

[2tim_215]

Romans 6:20-23 (KJV)
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Death is the payback (wages) for sin. When we become born again, we are are now free from sin (no longer obligated to it), in spite of our inherent sin nature which we are born to.

 

[paul1149]

This in contrast to those who assert that God pretended that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world and poured wrath on him.

You're mischaracterizing the position. God "pretended" nothing. He laid the punishment of death upon Jesus knowing full well He was innocent. He did it for our sake. Paul quotes the OT in this regard, saying "cursed in every man hanging on a tree".

 

[2tim_215]

You're mischaracterizing the position. God "pretended" nothing. He laid the punishment of death upon Jesus knowing full well He was innocent. He did it for our sake. Paul quotes the OT in this regard, saying "cursed in every man hanging on a tree".

In order for Jesus to be able to take on the sins of the world He had to be the innocent lamb, otherwise He couldn't have freed the rest of us from the bondage of death. He had to fulfill the Mosaic law which no one else was able to do.

 

[Dave L]

It doesn't deny there being reasons people die other than one's personal sin. And certainly is not alluding to the innocent (those who haven't sinned, as you propose) being reckoned guilty because of their having a sinful nature. If you look at the context of Rom 6:23 it's talking about behavior.

Behavior is the result of a sinful nature, not the cause of it. A corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit.

 

[Dave L]

Scripture? And to be noted, you failed to respond to the scriptures I provided.

Is Jesus God? If so, God cannot sin.

 

[2tim_215]

Is Jesus God? If so, God cannot sin.

And He did not.

 

[bcbsr]

You're mischaracterizing the position. God "pretended" nothing. He laid the punishment of death upon Jesus knowing full well He was innocent. He did it for our sake. Paul quotes the OT in this regard, saying "cursed in every man hanging on a tree".

Ex 23:7 "Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked."

You're saying God murdered the innocent, which by definition is unjust. God is just and therefore you are mistaken.

As for hanging on a tree. Ac 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree." Jesus death was classified as murder. Jesus allowed himself to be mischaracterized as if accursed of God, he opened not his mouth about this false accusation. Yet you yourself accuse him of being accursed of God. Likewise Isaiah says, "yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted." Is 53:4 But the context clearly indicates that the "we" did so falsely. Did God murder Jesus? Peter preaches to the Jews at Pentecost saying, "You, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." Acts 2:23 You're saying that God was one of those wicked men.

 

[paul1149]

You're saying that God was one of those wicked men.

Thankfully, you're not my judge.

 

[bcbsr]

Is Jesus God? If so, God cannot sin.

Yep I already said, and I quote, "Jesus didn't sin". You might want read more carefully before responding, else, "He who answers before listening— that is his folly and his shame." Pr 18:13

 

[hedrick]

The NIV doesn't use "sinful nature" here, for a reason. sarx is a tricky word to translate, because it is often used metaphorically. But not always. It is sometimes simply a reference to flesh. Paul often uses it negatively. It's pretty clear that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with the fact that we have bodies, so when he uses it negatively something like "fallen nature" makes sense -- though it may tend to suggest specific theological implications that Paul may not have intended. But in this case the phrase looks a lot like it's referring to the Incarnation, and that sarx doesn't have the negative implication.

I'm closer to the OP in interpretation than some. If Jesus' victory over sin is to mean anything, he has to have had the same nature that we do. What relevance to us would it be for an angel to be sinless? If his obedience is truly on our behalf, he had to have been dealing the same same challenges we were, whatever those are. I state it that way because the Christian community has differences on the exact nature of the fall and our fallen nature. I think John's condemnation wasn't about this but about people who denied the incarnation. Most likely this is people who were overtly docetic, but it could just as easily be the other direction, e.g. the Word commentary cites "gnostically inclined thinkers, such as Cerinthus, who taught that a heavenly power came upon Jesus at his baptism and left him before the crucifixion."