Human Nature versus Sinful nature

[Jerry Shugart]

You are completely ignoring my last post. You are just going in a circle!

no, if the Greek word translated "sin" can be used in the sense which you use it then the greek experts would certainly be aware of that meaning.

I have provided you with the Biblical language in Romans 7:17,18,20 that clearly and explicitly says "sin dwells in my flesh..members...body"

Let us look at what you say about those verses;

Paul makes a distinction between being "in" the flesh versus "walking AFTER" the flesh. However, both have to do with the literal flesh.

How can you say that the following verses are referring to the "literal flesh"?

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death" (Ro.7:5).

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

 

[DHK]

no, if the Greek word translated "sin" can be used in the sense which you use it then the greek experts would certainly be aware of that meaning.

Let us look at what you say about those verses;

How can you say that the following verses are referring to the "literal flesh"?

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death" (Ro.7:5).

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

Paul said "it is sin that dwells in me."
Whether you believe the Word or not is up to you. But sin dwells in believers and must be confessed.
1John 1:9 states that we must confess our sin.

What is sin? Sin has many definitions and takes many forms.
One definition is that it is an attitude of rebellion against God.
That being so, it definitely resides in you. Jesus taught that all sin comes from within, from the heart, and defiles the man. He said: murder, fornication, adultery, thefts, these come from within, from the heart. It was not the things that defiled a man by unwashen hands from without that made a man unclean, but the things that were already within the heart, residing within that made him unclean. Sin resides within.

Jesus taught on the sermon on the mount that it was not the actual act of murder only that was the transgression of the command. But the one that got angry with his brother also committed murder. Why? Because it is conceived in the heart, just like adultery.
He said: "But if a man looks upon a woman and lusts after her, with her already in his heart, he has committed adultery." Sin resides in you. You don't have to physically commit adultery to break the command. You can do it from within. Sin resides within you.

So Paul describes the battle of sin residing in him. He does the things he doesn't want to do, and he doesn't do the things he wants to do. It is sin that dwells in him.
He cries out: "Oh wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death."
And then the answer comes:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (Romans 7:25)
--The battle is in the mind, from within. Sin is conquered with the mind. "Let this mind be in you which also is in Jesus Christ." Submit your mind to the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the only way to conquer the sin that resides within you. Sin always resides within. Sin is rebellion. It is rebellion against God. It is conceived in the heart. Even our secular courts recognize this when the convict a person for premeditated murder.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul said "it is sin that dwells in me."
Whether you believe the Word or not is up to you.

Of course I believe it but I can understand that figurative language is being employed. Let us look at these verses and see if the phrase "the flesh" can be taken literally or not:

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death" (Ro.7:5).

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

 

[The Biblicist]

no, if the Greek word translated "sin" can be used in the sense which you use it then the greek experts would certainly be aware of that meaning.

I never gave any new defintion of "sin." I simply said that sin is at work in your body and this is called by the Scriptures "the law of sin" or the "law of death."

So you are demanding something I never claimed. I never claimed any new defintion of the term "sin." Instead, I am looking at what the Scriptures clearly say is sin at work in the body and that work is called "the law of sin" and it if there is any definition that should be questioned it is Pauls use of the terms "dewlleth in" me.

Let us look at what you say about those verses;

How can you say that the following verses are referring to the "literal flesh"?

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death" (Ro.7:5).

Do you defined "the flesh" in this text as something different than "our members" and if so what is the difference? Does not Romans 7:17,18,20 use the term "flesh" and "members" and "body" interchangably???

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

Sure! "in the flesh" means more than merely living in a physical body as both the unregenerate and regenerate live in a physical body.

"in the flesh" includes the body in its relationship to the reign of indwelling sin seated within the deepest aspect of human nature - the human spirit. Satisfying the cravings of the body is its cheif manifestation.

"in the Spirit" includes the body in its relationship to the reign of the Spirit within the deepest aspect of human nature - the spirit of man. Satisfying the cravings of The Holy Spirit is its cheif manifestation.

 

[DHK]

Of course I believe it but I can understand that figurative language is being employed. Let us look at these verses and see if the phrase "the flesh" can be taken literally or not:

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death" (Ro.7:5).

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

My computer was invented by man. It functions well. It functions according to the information I have put into it. However from time to time someone may feed it malicious malware that will infect it. It may cause great damage. We call them viruses, worms, etc. The same things or words that we term that cause us to get sick. They attack us. They dwell within. But on my computer I have a security system that automatically checks for spyware and other types of malware like viruses.
As long as we keep in the Word and prayer, (our security system) we ought to be able to ward off the spiritual malware that comes our way. Our brain is our complex computer. It is attacked daily. It needs to be guarded. It is guarded by being grounded in the Word, by putting on all the spiritual armor.

(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

My computer was invented by man.

You go on and on with these things which do nothing to answer my question:

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I never gave any new defintion of "sin." I simply said that sin is at work in your body and this is called by the Scriptures "the law of sin" or the "law of death."

We have already been over this but you cannot seem to understand the simple fact that the "law of sin" is not the same thing as "sin."

"in the flesh" includes the body in its relationship to the reign of indwelling sin seated within the deepest aspect of human nature - the human spirit. Satisfying the cravings of the body is its cheif manifestation.

So how is it possible to be "not in the flesh" if the words "in the flesh" includes the body?

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" or the physical body at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

 

[The Biblicist]

We have already been over this but you cannot seem to understand the simple fact that the "law of sin" is not the same thing as "sin."

And you cannot understand the simple fact that where there is no sin there can be no "law of sin" at work.

So how is it possible to be "not in the flesh" if the words "in the flesh" includes the body?

I just answered this in detail - in explicit detail! Did you finish reading my post?

Both the lost and saved are "in the flesh" literally. However, in this context the difference is again as follows:

"in the flesh" includes the body in its relationship to the reign of indwelling sin seated within the deepest aspect of human nature - the human spirit. Satisfying the cravings of the body is its cheif manifestation.

"in the Spirit" includes the body in its relationship to the reign of the Spirit within the deepest aspect of human nature - the spirit of man. Satisfying the cravings of The Holy Spirit is its cheif manifestation.

 

[DHK]

You go on and on with these things which do nothing to answer my question:

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

Man is body, soul, and spirit. The mind is soul--the seat of the affections, reason, etc. The spirit is that part of man which can communicate with God. Every man has a spirit, but the spirit is rendered inoperable because of sin. It is separated from God, until the sin problem is taken care of and it is reconciled to God when a person is born again. At that time the Holy Spirit, in some inexplicable way, is united with man's spirit and indwells him. If any man has not this spirit (the Holy Spirit) he is not of God. He is not saved.
Paul was writing to the Christians at Rome. He said "You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." They had the Spirit of God; they were saved. They needed to yield their fleshly bodies to that Spirit to live victorious Christian lives. If any one of them didn't have that Spirit they were unsaved.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Human Nature versus Sinful nature

Question....whats the difference?

 

[DHK]

Human Nature versus Sinful nature

Question....whats the difference?

Jesus had a human nature but not a sin nature.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Jesus had a human nature but not a sin nature.

HP: That depends on how one defines a 'sinful nature." We both know Christ had no sin. I say one can have what 'could be denoted as' a 'sinful nature,' yet without sin itself. I personally do not use the term 'sinful nature,' because Scripture does not use it and because of the issue of original sin.

Whatever nature I am born with, Jesus had the same. He was made in all points like unto His brethren. He was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin! Thank the Lord for that!!

 

[DHK]

HP: That depends on how one defines a 'sinful nature." We both know Christ had no sin. I say one can have what 'could be denoted as' a 'sinful nature,' yet without sin itself. I personally do not use the term 'sinful nature,' because Scripture does not use it and because of the issue of original sin.

Whatever nature I am born with, Jesus had the same. He was made in all points like unto His brethren. He was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin! Thank the Lord for that!!

"In ALL points." So Jesus needed a Saviour??

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: That depends on how one defines a 'sinful nature." We both know Christ had no sin. I say one can have what 'could be denoted as' a 'sinful nature,' yet without sin itself. I personally do not use the term 'sinful nature,' because Scripture does not use it and because of the issue of original sin.

Whatever nature I am born with, Jesus had the same. He was made in all points like unto His brethren. He was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin! Thank the Lord for that!!

If your interpretation of original sin is correct and if your interpretation of infants is correct then every infant is a potential Jesus Christ who may choose to live without sin and never need to repent, and be suitable as a Savior of other men. Since you make every man equal to Adam by using Ezek. 18:2O then every human being has Christ potential.

Why is it then we cannot find any man before or after Christ that simply lived out the sinless nature he was born with if your theory is true??????

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

After your comment today about Jerry and myself, I am fully convinced you know far less about my beliefs than you think you do. I will leave you to your confusion for now and await DHK's response. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

After your comment today about Jerry and myself, I am fully convinced you know far less about my beliefs than you think you do. I will leave you to your confusion for now and await DHK's response. :thumbsup:

Well good for you! I could use a longer break from all the insults thrown at me today too!:wavey::jesus::thumbsup:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And you cannot understand the simple fact that where there is no sin there can be no "law of sin" at work.

You are really dense.

If there is no "football" then there can be no "game of football."

But a "game of football" is not the same thing as a "football."

I just answered this in detail - in explicit detail! Did you finish reading my post?

Both the lost and saved are "in the flesh" literally. However, in this context the difference is again as follows:

"in the flesh" includes the body in its relationship to the reign of indwelling sin seated within the deepest aspect of human nature - the human spirit. Satisfying the cravings of the body is its cheif manifestation.

If you are right and the phrase 'in the flesh" INCLUDES THE BODY in any relationship then how do you explain what is said here:

So how is it possible to be "not in the flesh" if the words "in the flesh" includes the body?

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" or the physical body at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

When Paul is speaking of the 'flesh" he is not speaking literally. When he is using that term he referring to being self-centered as opposed to being God-centered.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are really dense.

If there is no "football" then there can be no "game of football."

But a "game of football" is not the same thing as a "football."

Poor analogy because we are NOT dealing with a game that may or may not be played but we are dealing with what the scripture define as a "law" or "law of sin".

Now apply your analogy to the law of gravity and the readers will see who really is the "dense" one here!

Certainly gavity is not the law of gravity but there can be no law of gravity without the inclusion of gravity at work. Paul is not talking theoretically but rather about sin in practice as an indwelling principle or law at work in man. Likewise, with the law of sin. This law of sin DWELLS in the flesh, my members, the body. There can be no law of sin where there is no sin at work.

If you are right and the phrase 'in the flesh" INCLUDES THE BODY in any relationship then how do you explain what is said here:

So how is it possible to be "not in the flesh" if the words "in the flesh" includes the body?

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" or the physical body at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

When Paul is speaking of the 'flesh" he is not speaking literally. When he is using that term he referring to being self-centered as opposed to being God-centered.

Now, you talk about "dense" how many times do I have to repeat what I have already said at least two previous times?

Being "in the flesh" is contrasted to being "in the Spirit" but both still exist in the human fleshly body. Hence, the difference is not the physical body but the difference is their relationship to the human physical body.

Those "in the flesh" are those in the sphere controlled by the lusts, cravings and avenues of temptation provided by the five senses found in the flesh. Or under the controlling influence of indwelling sin.

Those "in the Spirit' are still living in their physical body but their immaterial self is no longer under the reign of indwelling sin now located in the literal physical body. They are under the controlling influence of the indwelling Spirit of God and if they have not the Spirit of Christ they are "none of his."

There is a distinction between "IN" the flesh versus "walking AFTER" the flesh. The former describes the lost man's spiritual condition as a sphere of existence. The latter describes the pursuit of life characteristic of a lost man but not restricted to only lost people, simply because those "in the Spirit" do not always consistently "walk after the Spirit" due to internal warfare waged against the soul by indwelling sin. Hence, the spiritual battle that requires spiritual armour be daily put on (Eph. 6:12-17). Hence, the exhortation to children of God to "put on" and "put off." Thus the exhortation to "mortify the deeds of the flesh."

 

[DHK]

You are really dense.

If there is no "football" then there can be no "game of football."

But a "game of football" is not the same thing as a "football."

If you are right and the phrase 'in the flesh" INCLUDES THE BODY in any relationship then how do you explain what is said here:

So how is it possible to be "not in the flesh" if the words "in the flesh" includes the body?

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Ro.8:9).

If Paul is speaking of the "literal flesh" or the physical body at Romans 8:9 then perhaps you can tell me how it was possible that those to whom his words were addressed were "not in the flesh" or not in a "literal" body?

When Paul is speaking of the 'flesh" he is not speaking literally. When he is using that term he referring to being self-centered as opposed to being God-centered.

In a sense it is both. One who is carnal has given into the lusts of the flesh, the actual senses of the body:

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:15-16)
--The flesh does lust.
--The eyes do lust.
--We do have our pride.
--These things are not of the Father; they are worldly; fleshly; carnal. They are the marks of a carnal Christian. John was addressing Christians here. We sin with our senses, and that includes our actual flesh--adultery is a good example.

Still speaking to the Christian, James, in James 4:4 says that if you are a friend of the world you are the enemy of God, for "friendship of the world is enmity with God."

"Being in the flesh" seems to in contradistinction to being in the Spirit.
If being in the Spirit is saved, then being in the flesh is not saved.
--But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9)

But Paul writes to them and says "You are not in the flesh." They were believers. And the rest of the chapter deals with all the benefits we have in Christ as believers in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: That depends on how one defines a 'sinful nature." We both know Christ had no sin. I say one can have what 'could be denoted as' a 'sinful nature,' yet without sin itself. I personally do not use the term 'sinful nature,' because Scripture does not use it and because of the issue of original sin.

Whatever nature I am born with, Jesus had the same. He was made in all points like unto His brethren. He was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin! Thank the Lord for that!!

The sin nature is different than the human nature.

Sin is something that "DWELLS IN MY MEMBERS" rather than part of human nature (Rom. 7:16-20). It is a parasite just as a disease that has entered the body.


Isa. 1:5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

A sick man is not less human than a healthy man both are 100% human in nature. Indeed, sin in man is likened unto a man who is sick from head to toe:

Sin is likened unto dirt that needs to be WASHED away. A dirty man is no less human than a clean man?

Isa. 1:16 ¶ Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;......
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

So your understanding and application of Hebrews 2:17 is unscriptural and fanatical.

Pre-fallen Adam was 100% human in nature yet "without sin" dwelling in his members. Christ was made like prefallen Adam and the evidence is overwhelming that he was made like pre-fallen Adam as he is explicitly called "the LAST Adam" and the "second" man.

However, you theology has every single human being born into the world a potential Jesus Christ. They come already spiritual born of God, incapable of sinning willfully from the womb to late in childhood because they have no comprehension of sin and thus could equally continue without sin just like Jesus Christ.

Your theology not only demands the potentiality of every man keeping the law sinlessless but that very potentiality demands the absurd and rediculous idea that every human being potentially can go to heaven without needing any Savior.