Will the real gospel please stand up!

[holyrokker]

whoooohooo we agree we can walk together.

We'd probably be able to do that because of Christ, regardless of our unique opinions.

 

[samcarternx]

If two do not agree they cannot walk together, and to expand, If we don't agree with God we cannot walk with Him. And to expand further, if we both agree with God we can walk together. and to eaxpand even further, when we all agree with God we all walk together

 

[jackmt]

But God never refers to newborn babies as being stiff-necked. It's a term only used for rebellious adults.

I can't think of any occasion in the Bible where God holds babies accountable for their parents' actions. If fact, the opposite is plainly stated:

The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. (Ezekiel 18:20)

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Two different things are being talked about here: Sin, and sin. The first refers to the nature we are born with; the second, the individual acts done by individuals. We are by nature at enmity towards God. This is what Romans 7 speaks about - the warring natures in us.

 

[holyrokker]

"sin, and sin"? Does this mean that there is a "sin" that isn't sin?

 

[Near]

Two different things are being talked about here: Sin, and sin. The first refers to the nature we are born with; the second, the individual acts done by individuals. We are by nature at enmity towards God. This is what Romans 7 speaks about - the warring natures in us.

Romans 7 isnt about warring natures. Its a picture Paul drew, in order to show how a man who is unregenerate, is in unknown sin, then he learns the law, and is convicted of sin, note how its written, "sold under sin" and later the plot ends off with giving thanks to God. Read romans 6 and 8, it promotes freedom from sin.

 

[jackmt]

"sin, and sin"? Does this mean that there is a "sin" that isn't sin?

Apparently you missed the significance of the capital "S." We have a Sin nature. We sin. They are 2 different matters and need to be dealt with differently. Failure to understand the distinction leads to many errors.

 

[Near]

Apparently you missed the significance of the capital "S." We have a Sin nature. We sin. They are 2 different matters and need to be dealt with differently. Failure to understand the distinction leads to many errors.

Actually, there is no sin nature. There is a flesh influence, but it is not a nature if sin. Jesus had flesh, and temptation, but no sin nature. No one has sin nature, as in a coersive force that makes us bound to sin. Sin happens becuase people choose what is wrong.
Augustine's the guy who pretty much invented it.
Ask some messianic Jews, or some over at the orthodox, eastern or oriental. Its not an orthodox belief, its invented.

 

[holyrokker]

Failure to understand the distinction leads to many errors.

Very true.

The distinction is between guilty or not guilty.

If we are born sinful, we are not guilty of sin. If we are born sinful, we are "guilty" of an ancestor's sin. However, the Bible is very clear that the children are not accountable for the parent's sin.

If we are born sinful, or carrying Adam's guilt, God is unrighteous and is not God at all, but merely a tyrannical god.

We are all guilty. But we are guilty because of our refusal to do what God requires.

You are correct; failure to understand the distinction does indeed lead to many errors.

 

[samcarternx]

Sin with a capital "s" refers to a condition of separation from God. Not one will extant but two wills. the work of the separated will always produces sins(whatever is not of faith is sin) and sins not only maintains the separation, but renders the sinner blind and unable to see his condition.

 

[jackmt]

Actually, there is no sin nature. There is a flesh influence, but it is not a nature if sin. Jesus had flesh, and temptation, but no sin nature. No one has sin nature, as in a coersive force that makes us bound to sin. Sin happens becuase people choose what is wrong.
Augustine's the guy who pretty much invented it.
Ask some messianic Jews, or some over at the orthodox, eastern or oriental. Its not an orthodox belief, its invented.

So all we have to do is ask somebody else and we get truth? And I thought that one had to study to show oneself approved, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But maybe I don't even have to ask anyone else for truth; you just declared it to me. And that, very authoritatively, without reference to any Scripture.

'Sin happens' because people follow their own will. Even if they seem to choose well, they choose their own will for their own selfish motives.

 

[Near]

So all we have to do is ask somebody else and we get truth? And I thought that one had to study to show oneself approved, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But maybe I don't even have to ask anyone else for truth; you just declared it to me. And that, very authoritatively, without reference to any Scripture.

'Sin happens' because people follow their own will. Even if they seem to choose well, they choose their own will for their own selfish motives.

My arguement came from historical background regarding the subject. I don't claim either groups mentioned to be infallible. However I did suggest looking into how they view things.

Want scripture that proves we dont have to sin?

1 Cor 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Gen 4:7
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

Romans 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

1 John 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God

1 John 5:18
We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

From a historical standpoint, the doctrine of sin nature didnt really exist til agustine

 

[Hismessenger]

Who has to teach a child to steal candy or cookies once they have tasted them. It is our nature we are born into and no one has to teach us to be at odds with Gods will. WE do it because we are born in the flesh and and we were slaves to it until Christ freed us on the cross.

hismessenger

 

[holyrokker]

WE do it because we are born in the flesh and and we were slaves to it until Christ freed us on the cross.

hismessenger

Wasn't Jesus also born in the flesh?

 

[samcarternx]

Wasn't Jesus also born in the flesh?

But, not separated from God as Adams offspring.

 

[holyrokker]

I agree that we are born separated from God, but that doesn't make the flesh sinful.

 

[samcarternx]

I agree that we are born separated from God, but that doesn't make the flesh sinful.

No? With the will of the flesh doing independently from God's will, how can it not sin?

 

[holyrokker]

No? With the will of the flesh doing independently from God's will, how can it not sin?

I'm confused. I really don't follow your line of thinking.

Jesus shared the same flesh as all humanity. There can't be anything inherently sinful about the flesh itself.

James 1:14 tells us that we are tempted when we are enticed by our own desires. Jesus was also tempted by His own desires.

We sin when we allow our desire to become lust.

James 1:15 "When lust is conceived it gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

 

[samcarternx]

I'm confused. I really don't follow your line of thinking.

Jesus shared the same flesh as all humanity. There can't be anything inherently sinful about the flesh itself.

The problem we have with the flesh is its will to fulfill its own desires.

James 1:14 tells us that we are tempted when we are enticed by our own desires. Jesus was also tempted by His own desires.

We sin when we allow our desire to become lust.

Lusts are the desires of the flesh.

James 1:15 "When lust is conceived it gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

Yes, and those desires did not originate from God, but the organic machine. We are getting there,

 

[holyrokker]

Lusts stem FROM the desires of the flesh. The Greek word epithymia is translated into English as both desire and lust. Jesus experienced desire, but not lust. (Luke 22:15 "And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer").

The desires of the flesh are part of how God created humanity. Our desires themselves are not sinful. If they were, temptation itself would be sinful.

 

[Hismessenger]

Wasn't Jesus also born in the flesh?

IN THE FLESH BUT NOT OF THE FLESH. There in is the difference. Those conceived of the flesh are born from lust while Christ was conceived by the spirit by Love. We have a sin nature from birth and no one has to teach us to do wrong once we begin to think for ourselves.

hismessenger