Is the Flesh Sinful?

[DHK]

To be spiritually dead needs to be defined. I don't think we are ever spiritually dead. We are born with no innate desire to love and serve God, but I don't think that is spiritually dead. This term appears no where in scripture.

If my spirit is dead, I am no longer me. A will in bondage is no longer a will.

This is where Calvin and his followere go wrong. Being born again does not make my spirit come to life, but it is what makes me "alive unto God" as stated by Paul in Romans 6.

Death, as used in the Bible, always means separation.

1. There is physical death.
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--Physical death is when the spirit is separated from the body. That is death.

2. There is eternal death.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--Here eternal life is contrasted to death, which in context would mean eternal life. It is a comparison. Sin separates us from God for all eternity. Death is separation.

3. There is spiritual death.
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
--Sin separates the believer from God. Death is separation. Once the sin is removed the person becomes alive unto God once again.
The Psalmist said (Psalm 66:18): "If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me." Sin separates me frrom God. God will act as if I am dead until I make restoration with him. Sin separates. Death is separation.

4. There is the Second Death.
"Death and Hell shall be cast into the Lake and fire...This is the Second Death."
The Second Death is eternal separation from God in the Lake of Fire. There will never be any kind of fellowship with God, or any chance of fellowship with God from that point onward. Death is separation.
--Death is always separation, as it is used in the Bible.

 

[Brother Bob]

Mat 8:22But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Jesus is speaking of both deaths in this passage. One is spiritual dead and the ones they are burying are physically dead.

spiritual dead, means to be dead "in" sin.

BBob,

 

[trustitl]

DHK said "Sin separates me frrom God. God will act as if I am dead until I make restoration with him. Sin separates. Death is separation."

Death in the literal sense means to no longer be living, to cease to live, be deceased, obtain room temperature...

It is used metaphorically in many ways, some of which you cited.

Sin did not separate Adam from God. After he sinned he was still in the garden and God "walked" up to him and talked with him. God removed him from the garden out of mercy "lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever". People have said Adam died spiritually that day, rather than accept that the death sentence was upon him due to being removed from access to the tree of life. The corruption of his flesh began, that same corruption that you and I are experiencing to this day. Read I Cor. 15 and you will see that flesh is corruptible by nature and without help from God with something like the tree of life would corrupt. In other words Adam would have died were he to have lost access to the tree of life without sinning.

When Adam left the Garden, he still had a "relationship" with God as we like to say. So did Enoch: he walked with God. There sins were not removed as you said, they were merely covered. These men were not spiritually dead at any point in their existence.

We are no doubt not in fellowship with God before we are saved, but are spirit is not dead nor are we "spiritually dead". Dying phsically without our debt paid will place us in the lake of fire which is the second death. Even here our spirit will not be dead.

 

[trustitl]

Jesus is speaking of both deaths in this passage. One is spiritual dead and the ones they are burying are physically dead.

spiritual dead, means to be dead "in" sin.

BBob,

To be "dead in sins" is to be the opposite of being "alive unto God". If you want to call it being spiritually dead, I guess you can. I just don't like where this term will lead.

It will lead you to flat our Calvinism and people waiting for God to save them. I know you don't believe that, but logically it will get there.

If we are dead spiritually we cannot have faith. Calvinism actually teaches that we don't even want to be saved, but God in his mercy saves some poor souls, just to show that he is nice I guess.

 

[DHK]

DHK said "Sin separates me frrom God. God will act as if I am dead until I make restoration with him. Sin separates. Death is separation."

Death in the literal sense means to no longer be living, to cease to live, be deceased, obtain room temperature...

It is used metaphorically in many ways, some of which you cited.

Sin did not separate Adam from God. After he sinned he was still in the garden and God "walked" up to him and talked with him.

No he didn't. After he sinned he hid himself and was ashamed. God called him: "Adam where art thou?" God came seeking Adam, as he calls every man to repentance. Sin had separated Adam from God. That was the death. He was spiritually dead, spiritually separated from God. Not until God provided a sacrifice, shed blood, at the time when he gave the coats of skin, was Adam fully restored to fellwoship with God. It was before Adam sinned that God walked with Adam in the cool of the garden and had fellowship with him; not after the fall. After the fall God sought him out, and sought to bring him to repentance. Our God is a merciful God, and that mercy is portrayed in that chapter.

 

[trustitl]

Scared? For sure. Ashamed as you said? Definitely.

In a heap of trouble.

Without remedy for his situation.

On his way out of the garden.

Under the death penalty.

Spiritually dead? No.

 

[DHK]

Spiritually dead? No.

"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

He didn't die physically that day. He lived 930 years. But he did die spiritually. He was separated from God. Sin separates. Death is separation. He was dead spiritually.

 

[trustitl]

Adam would have lived forever in the garden after sinning. God said he would. Does that mean he would have had "eternal life" because he ate from the tree of life? No, he would have just kept living, that is his heart would keep pumping and his brain would function.

Living in a body of flesh with a knowledge of good and evil was never God's eternal plan for man. Adam had failed the first test and was now given another: live for God in a body of corruption with it's affections and lusts.

The gospel brought some good news that had never existed before. We can now have an amazing gift not available before Christ.

II Cor. 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. 8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.


How? The circumcision made without hands. Being crucifed with Christ.

Our problem is not being spiritually dead, it is living under the control of the flesh. Without "Christ in you" we are left to our own devices and history has proven that it is a losing battle (for all have sinned...) No man, until Jesus, won. He did and now faith is the victory that overcomes the world. Faith is God's promises.

Rom 6:20 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. :godisgood:

 

[Brother Bob]

To be "dead in sins" is to be the opposite of being "alive unto God". If you want to call it being spiritually dead, I guess you can. I just don't like where this term will lead.

It will lead you to flat our Calvinism and people waiting for God to save them. I know you don't believe that, but logically it will get there.

If we are dead spiritually we cannot have faith. Calvinism actually teaches that we don't even want to be saved, but God in his mercy saves some poor souls, just to show that he is nice I guess.

Glad you know that I would not go there.........

BBob,

 

[DHK]

23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The wages of sin is death (eternal separation from God); but the gift of God is eternal life (eternal glory with God) through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Death is separation.
It is never: soul sleep, annihilation, cessation of life.
You have the wrong definition of death.

 

[trustitl]

The wages of sin is death (eternal separation from God); but the gift of God is eternal life (eternal glory with God) through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Death is separation.
It is never: soul sleep, annihilation, cessation of life.
You have the wrong definition of death.

Death is never cessation of life? Did you really mean to type that?

So Jesus died, but he didn't really die when all that blood poured out of him.

"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. 2:8

DHKRevised version would read "... and became obedient unto separation from God, even the separation from God on the cross."

 

[DHK]

Death is never cessation of life? Did you really mean to type that?

So Jesus died, but he didn't really die when all that blood poured out of him.

"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. 2:8

DHKRevised version would read "... and became obedient unto separation from God, even the separation from God on the cross."

What happened at the cross?
"My God, My God. Why hast thou forsaken me?
In that moment of time God the Father turned his back as it were on God the Son as bore the sins of the world.

Later when the guards came to hasten the deaths of the "criminals" they saw (and were amazed) that Jesus was "dead" already. For proof of his death, one of them thrust a spear through his side and out came blood and water.

What does it say in James say in 2:26
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead...

What had Jesus said just a few moments prior to this:
"Father into thy hands I commend my spirit; and having said thus he gave up the ghost."
Once his spirit had left or separated from his body, he was dead.
Death is separation. This is how the Bible defines it: always, consistently.

Now did you mean to say that God died? Did God cease from being? Do you really believe that? Jesus died, but Jesus is God. Did God die--cessation of life--according to your definition??

 

[trustitl]

Of course I believe Jesus died. It almost sounds like you don't believe Jesus was really a man.

Heb. 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

I John 4:And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Lev. 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Jesus didn't just have to bleed a little bit, he had to die.

 

[Andre]

There is nothing to say that flesh is sinful. Common sense tells us that it isn't. How can an ordinary cell be sinful?

I do not think that Paul uses the word "flesh" the way that you are using it here. For Paul, the term "flesh" (greek "sarx") was never intended to denote "the physical part of us". Paul uses the word "flesh" to refer to our corrupted natures - not to refer to "cells". The conceptual boundaries here a little tricky - Paul would indeed agree that our "very cells" are fallen. But when Paul refers to "flesh", he is not embracing a "material - spiritual" pardagim, but rather an "old nature - new nature" paradigm.

 

[Andre]

Based on Scripture I can assure you all born in our dispensation will sin, but that is based on God’s foreknowledge, not something such as original sin that mandates all as sinners.

I do not think that this position can be sustained in light of texts like these:

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive

For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man

There is a very strong flavour of Adam's action being both causal and, more specifically, fully and sufficiently causal in respect to bringing death to mankind. I suggest that no one would adopt the style of presentation that Paul uses here if he wanted to simply communicate that Adam's sin were not the reason why we all die.

Based on other posts you have written, I get the sense that you object to the idea that each of us is somehow held guilty on account of what Adam did. I entirely share your concern here. There is a way out, however, that preserves what I see as the plain teaching that you and I get "death" from Adam, and yet does not violate the conceptual incoherence of being "punished" for another's deed.

This "way out" entails understanding original sin as "damaging" us so that we will die. We inherit the certainty of dying as a result of what Adam has done. We are not held "morally accountable", but we still die.

Think of a child born with HIV as a result of the mother's sexual sin. Sadly, that child has "inherited death" but there is no moral culpability on the part of the child.

I empathize with your position, but I think I agree with DHK that the Scriptures strongly imply that what Adam did indeed dooms us to death.

 

[Andre]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Andre]

If in fact man is broken morally and spiritually and that from birth, they are necessitated as they are. It is absurd to try and say that God holds them in any way accountable for either how they have been born or any necessitated acts subsequent to, seeing that no choice is possible. Please do not try and tell us that the necessitated sinner has a choice to sin subsequent to birth. That is an intellectual absurdity. Choice must consist of two or more possible consequents for a given antecedent. When one states that there is only one possible consequent, to sin having been created as a sinner, choice is eliminated regardless of any lip service to the contrary. If there is no choice, moral accountability can in no way be assessed.

I am curious as to why you would post this material in response to what I have written. I indeed share your "conceptual concern" about the whole moral accountability thing. I think, though that my position on all this is "immune" from your objections for the following reasons:

1. While man is indeed born with a fallen nature that indeed compels him irresistably to sin and while death (not eternal torment, but cessation of existence) is the consequence of sinning, this is not punishment. It is merely the natural course of events.

2. I can indeed legitimately claim that "being born unto death" is not a punishment. God is not obligated to give us eternal life. If one believed that the consequence of sinning was an eternity in torment, it would be hard to see this as anything other than punishment. But I do not believe the Scriptures even teach eternal torment.

3. One can legitimately hold that, in order to make the "best possible world", God has no choice but to create world where sin leads to death. We can discuss this point if you wish. On such a view, our "death" is not punishment, but is simply the "way things have to be'.

4. My position never involves anybody being punished for another person's sin.

 

[DHK]

[/font][/color]
4. My position never involves anybody being punished for another person's sin.

1.Your position denies the atonement of Christ.
2. Your position denies eternal punishment of the wicked.
Both of the above are well known heresies.

 

[trustitl]

I do not think that Paul uses the word "flesh" the way that you are using it here. For Paul, the term "flesh" (greek "sarx") was never intended to denote "the physical part of us". Paul uses the word "flesh" to refer to our corrupted natures - not to refer to "cells". The conceptual boundaries here a little tricky - Paul would indeed agree that our "very cells" are fallen. But when Paul refers to "flesh", he is not embracing a "material - spiritual" pardagim, but rather an "old nature - new nature" paradigm.

Other than your doctrine, you have no support for making this statement. Sarx is flesh, not a nature. There is a greek word for nature and Paul would have used it were he to be trying to say it.

You have to be selective in applying this meaning or you would say that Paul teaches the following:
"For though we walk in the sinful nature, we do not war after the sinful nature"
This would leave Paul with being in bondage to sin or having two natures both of which are false. Sadly this is what is being taught by most teahers.

"Though I might also have confidence in the sinful nature. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the sinful nature, I more"
This is absurd and needs no comment.

"For though I am absent in the sinful nature, yet am I with you in the spirit"
This is a clear use that refutes what you say about how Paul uses the term.

 

[Andre]

1.Your position denies the atonement of Christ.
2. Your position denies eternal punishment of the wicked.
Both of the above are well known heresies.

Re point number 1. I do not deny the atonement, I deny your conceptualization of the nature of the atonement. Let's see what Paul has to say on the matter:

For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

I will take Paul over the tradition that would make the claim of heresy. Paul here clearly recognizes that a "foreign power" - sin, as specifically distinguished from the essence of Paul himself, is the "accountable" party.

I see no scriptural support for the notion that God holds us morally accountable for the fallen nature we inherit or even for the sins we commit as a result. I am convinced that this is something we read into the scriptures.

It is true that terms like "condemnation" and "judgement" are used in respect to our status. And it is true that there is a flavour of moral accountability implicit in these terms in our present cultural context. But this is an argument that you (DHK), for one, cannot use.

Why? Precisely because you read the word "death" in the Scriptures and argue that the conventional sense of this term - end of existence- is not the Biblical definition of the term. You therefore cannot ground your argument about our "moral accountability" for the sin of Adam by appealing to words like "condemn" and "judgement" and leverage off the implications of moral accountability that are built into those terms.

Besides, look how the word "condemn" is used in this "atonement" passage from Romans 8:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,...

God does not condemn Jesus, he condemns the "sin" that is in Jesus' flesh. So we have a clear case where the word "condemn" is used in respect to a "non-person" - sin. Unless one is going to claim that "sin" is a person, one needs to realize that the term "condemn" need not necessarily entail the attribution of "moral accountability" to a "person". It certainly does not seem to be used this way in the Romans 8 text above.

Re point number 2: I think the arguments for ultimate annihilation of the lost are strong and convincing.

Simply claiming that my positions are heresies begs the very question at issue. We are here to discuss the issues, not merely to present the statements of a certain tradition and summarily dismiss other views as heresy.