How does the Bible define sin?

[reddogs]

I came across the following question...

"Do "hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil" count as sin?
Did Enoch have them when he was translated?"

So how does the Bible define sin and is the inherited propensities and tendencies also sin?

 

[mmksparbud]

One can have inherited the gene for being an alcoholic, if you have not had a drink of alcohol, you won't even know it, and you will never have a problem. If you do take that first drink and you remain in that drunken state, you're lost, in this world and the next. If you get sober and remain sober, you'll have overcome. Even though you may have the strong desire to go back to it, remaining sober will become a lifetime struggle to remain that way. You can insert any other tendency instead of alcohol into that.
It no sin to be tempted, for Christ was tempted. It's giving in to it that becomes a problem.

Have no idea what Enoch may have inherited. All I know is that he walked with God and was so close to Him, that he did not have to have that first death, and neither did Elijah. Whatever tendencies they may have had, they did not give in to those tendencies.
The American Indian is about the only culture I know of that did not have some form of alcohol until the whites arrived and gave it to them. Until then, they had no idea that they had a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. They didn't have teepees dedicated to the sole purpose of hanging out and drinking. They did use mind altering substances, but those were limited to ceremonial times. They had tabbacco, but that also was used for ceremonial purposes. As far as I know, they did not use it like the whites as a daily thing. Have not heard of Indian chain smokers with their pipes.

 

[OldStudent]

I came across the following question...

"Do "hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil" count as sin?

So how does the Bible define sin and is the inherited propensities and tendencies also sin?

No. They are significant contributors to temptation. Temptation is not sin. It becomes sin two ways. If in thought you wish you could but for whatever reason don't actually act on it ("whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" Matt 5:28.) you have a problem. When we actually carry out the action suggested ("each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death" James 1:14,15)

"Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him" vs. 13. If temptation were sin this statement would a hoax.

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" Heb 4:15. If temptation were sin Jesus failed.

Did Enoch have them when he was translated?"

Would there really be a way of knowing? Here is my take on it: to the point of his translation he had the fallen nature with its "hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil." Taking queues from other passages describing the 2nd Coming we lose that at Jesus' call to heaven yet our personality is preserved. Our brokenness and wrong desires are taken from us at that point.

 

[Castaway57]

Would there really be a way of knowing? Here is my take on it: to the point of his translation he had the fallen nature with its "hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil." Taking queues from other passages describing the 2nd Coming we lose that at Jesus' call to heaven yet our personality is preserved. Our brokenness and wrong desires are taken from us at that point.

I am not sure why someone would even ask this question about Enoch's translation. What is it one is really questioning, when they make such a statement?

Passages describing the second coming can all be summed up by saying that we absolutely do not get changed WHEN Jesus comes again; we are already changed, before He gets here:

Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

 

[OldStudent]

So how does the Bible define sin…

"But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin" Romans 14:23

"If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors" James 2:8,9.

"to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin" James 4:17.

"sin is lawlessness" 1 John 3:4 NKJV. "sin is the transgression of the law" KJV.


These are the most explicit "sin is" references I have found. Then there is the idea in my previous post where if we hold and entertain a wrongful desire (Man, I would so like to do that!) rather than promptly deal with it in prayer and dismiss it we are in trouble.

The definitions could probably be expanded further.

Here is another observation: God does not call anything sin just to be ugly, jealous of joy, or vindictive. In short, if it's unsustainable (plunder, injury, death, denigration of ones self or another) - it's sin.

 

[OldStudent]

I am not sure why someone would even ask this question about Enoch's translation. What is it one is really questioning, when they make such a statement?

I kind of hear your observation. I too have some off the wall questions. But sometimes in looking at those something of more significant value comes up. If we are afraid to ask some genres of questions we by definition then limit our opportunities to ask some really good questions. Often behind the "stupid" question is a really good one. The freedom to ask either one is both delightful and profitable.

Passages describing the second coming can all be summed up by saying that we absolutely do not get changed WHEN Jesus comes again; we are already changed, before He gets here:

Let me lay this question beside your statement: How many people died with their love for God perfectly developed and come to perfect, reliable obedience to God? The expected answer is: none. But if we ask the question this way: how many people have died in love with God and demonstrated that they allow Him to work on and through them? By the millions. We may be converted but the work may not be completed - the thief on the cross next to Jesus. If we love Him, consistently seek His presence, allow Him to routinely work on and through us we give Him permission to complete the task at The Call. See the last several verses of 1 Corinthians 15. There is an amazing change yet to be done at that moment.

It may be we are not on the same page with this question.

 

[Castaway57]

I kind of hear your observation. I too have some off the wall questions. But sometimes in looking at those something of more significant value comes up. If we are afraid to ask some genres of questions we by definition then limit our opportunities to ask some really good questions. Often behind the "stupid" question is a really good one. The freedom to ask either one is both delightful and profitable.


Let me lay this question beside your statement: How many people died with their love for God perfectly developed and come to perfect, reliable obedience to God? The expected answer is: none. But if we ask the question this way: how many people have died in love with God and demonstrated that they allow Him to work on and through them? By the millions. We may be converted but the work may not be completed - the thief on the cross next to Jesus. If we love Him, consistently seek His presence, allow Him to routinely work on and through us we give Him permission to complete the task at The Call. See the last several verses of 1 Corinthians 15. There is an amazing change yet to be done at that moment.

It may be we are not on the same page with this question.

We sure are