What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

[Marcia]

Hey thanks Marcia. I've not really looked into gnostic teaching before. Found some sites on it.. very interesting, though dangerous, views.

Yes, you are right, it is a dangerous view.

And gnostic views have never gone away. You can find forms of them in Eastern religions and in the New Age. I've given many talks on this. This is one reason the bodily resurrection of Jesus and our bodily resurrections are so significant!

 

[Marcia]

HP: I don’t get it. How can Gnostic teaching be dangerous, when the dogma of original sin, as believed and introduced into the Church by Augustine, the father of original sin, is held to by so much of the Church world even today? Who cannot see that such notions lie at the very foundation of thought of original sin, i.e., sin being transmitted by natural generation. If that does not place original sin in the realm of being transmitted physically, thus sin lying in the flesh as opposed to the will, ___ _____ __ ___ _ __________. I will let the reader fill in the blanks.

I don't think the idea that we inherit a sin nature is gnostic. The sin nature is not physical - it's in our wills, and can manifest in our body and/or thinking and/or worship, etc.

Man is born in sin. This is not gnostic but biblical. Gnostics believe the body itself is evil (as is the material world, which was made by an evil lower god) and we are trapped in the body and need secret teachings to escape it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: I don't think the idea that we inherit a sin nature is gnostic. The sin nature is not physical - it's in our wills, and can manifest in our body and/or thinking and/or worship, etc.

HP: When one thinks of a will, one thinks of choice as opposed to necessity. When a baby is born it has not developed its sensibilities by or through its will. It’s will has never yet acted. It has no developed will for all practical purposes at birth, and operates by influences from the sensibilities. It is born with the capacity for making choices and the capacity for making moral choices, but moral choice, choices associated with sin and righteousness, moral blame and praise, cannot be acted upon prior to the age of accountability. One has to know that something in and of itself, apart from punishment or praise, is intrinsically wrong or right in order fore a moral , a blameworthy or morally praiseworthy choice is made, a choice of sin or righteousness.

Even as a baby quickly develops a will it’s formed intents are not based upon established principles of moral law, nor the recogniition of the intrinsic worth of certain formed intents, but rather it's intents are formed on impulses of the sensibilities or rewards and punishments. The sensibilities, punishments, or rewards, drive their intents at an early age, not moral reason.

Scripture tells us that where there is no law, sin is not imputed. Why use terms depicting the way an innocent baby is born by Gnostic terms such as original sin, or sin nature (at least in the case of infants and those antecedent to the age of accountability) or any other non-Scriptural term, when in fact no sin is predicated of the will until the will acts in accordance to those propensities subsequent to the first light of moral agency?

When you say that a baby is a sinner from birth or has a sin nature, or original sin, you are attaching sin to the flesh, for the sensibilities are all there is that drives their intents when they are first born. There can obviously be a proclivity to sin present, a tendency to sin, but when you attach the word ‘sin’ to the baby, you are of necessity attaching evil and sin to the flesh. You cannot escape that fact. If you do not believe the flesh of a baby is sinful, original sin or sin nature are not the words for you to clearly relate your sentiments. If you insist on holding to original sin and words of like kind, do not be surprised when others feel that you are indeed supporting gnostic notions even over your clear objections.

The father of original sin, the man that introduced the thought into the Church was none other than Augustine. He indeed did attach sin to the flesh as opposed to the will. Why would some now still allow themselves to be influenced by clearly Gnostic principles when expressing their views, claiming that they despise Gnosticism, is beyond me. Why not develop ways of communicating ideas consistent with more accurate and true sentiments? Why not term it something like this? All men are born with a natural proclivity to sin, and all that come to the age of accountability, sin and become guilty before God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

We have been addressing just what constitutes a depraved nature. I hope is clear that from birth we have a physical nature, and are beginning to develop a spiritual one. Infants are spiritual beings in that they have a capacity for moral choice and moral character that develops through childhood and blooms into full being at the age of accountability. Certainly the Spirit of God and the spirit of selfishness via many avenues have all been working upon the human heart up until that point. God has been working via their conscience and hopefully their training, and the enemy of our souls has been working through their natural sensibilities and quickly developed habits of selfishness. Antecedent to moral agency, sin is not predicated of their intents for they have not reached a point in which they know and understand the intrinsic nature of good and evil in and of themselves apart from punishments or rewards. Up until the age of accountability one is not blameworthy morally nor praiseworthy morally for again they have not the needed developed moral senses to attach moral praise or blame. Thus the constant need for training during the child hood years to hopefully instill good habits that will continue to guide them as they enter the arena of morality.

Just as an newborn infant has no guilt or moral agency, but rather is basically helpless against the influences of the depraved sensibilities, selfish habits have been formed and engaged in by the age of accountability that Scripture informs us that all have sinned and became guilty before God. “All we like sheep have gone astray.” Note that all were not born astray, but that all have ‘gone’ astray. By the age of accountability all have became the victims in one way or another to the selfish habits of the flesh and the wiles of the enemy of our souls. Once morality is predicated of the will at moral agency, and the soul choose sin as opposed to benevolence, the heart upon the first act of actual sin at the age of accountability becomes depraved spiritually and morally. Once sin has occurred, nothing short of the blood of Jesus Christ will wash the stain of sin away. No amount of good the child will ever do will make up or pay for one solitary sin. The sinless Lamb of Christ is the only one that takes away the sins of the world.

In summary, up until the age of accountability, the will has been active with the sensibilities and other influences to selfishness and has developed clear proclivities to sin, habits that will be classified as sinful when they reach the age of accountability, but are not spiritually depraved or sinful until the will acts in harmony with those habits and tendencies that they at the age of accountability know the intrinsic value of them. Jesus pointed out clearly that intrinsic knowledge of the commands is necessary for guilt to be imposed upon the soul. “Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” Knowledge, understanding of the intrinsic worth of a command or issue, is a prerequisite of the formation of a moral intent. No knowledge? No sin. No understanding? No sin when it comes to matters of morality. “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Clearly moral depravity is the results of sinful formed intents subsequent to moral agency. A depraved nature that is properly denoted as ‘sin’ develops as being properly denoted as 'sinful' subsequent to moral agency not before. There again are proclivities, habits and influences that lead to the inevitable choice of sin that certainly exist antecedent to moral agency, but sin and all moral blame and moral depravity sin the results of the personal choices of selfishness as opposed to benevolence, and that ‘subsequent to,’ not ‘antecedent of,’ moral agency. Yes men do have a 'sinful depraved' nature, the results of intents of sin chosen subsequent to moral agency.

Men are spiritual beings, but not properly denoted as sinful or righteous until after forming their first moral intent subsequent to moral agency.

 

[Marcia]

HP: When one thinks of a will, one thinks of choice as opposed to necessity. When a baby is born it has not developed its sensibilities by or through its will. It’s will has never yet acted. It has no developed will for all practical purposes at birth, and operates by influences from the sensibilities. It is born with the capacity for making choices and the capacity for making moral choices, but moral choice, choices associated with sin and righteousness, moral blame and praise, cannot be acted upon prior to the age of accountability. One has to know that something in and of itself, apart from punishment or praise, is intrinsically wrong or right in order fore a moral , a blameworthy or morally praiseworthy choice is made, a choice of sin or righteousness.

Even as a baby quickly develops a will it’s formed intents are not based upon established principles of moral law, nor the recogniition of the intrinsic worth of certain formed intents, but rather it's intents are formed on impulses of the sensibilities or rewards and punishments. The sensibilities, punishments, or rewards, drive their intents at an early age, not moral reason.

Scripture tells us that where there is no law, sin is not imputed. Why use terms depicting the way an innocent baby is born by Gnostic terms such as original sin, or sin nature (at least in the case of infants and those antecedent to the age of accountability) or any other non-Scriptural term, when in fact no sin is predicated of the will until the will acts in accordance to those propensities subsequent to the first light of moral agency?

When you say that a baby is a sinner from birth or has a sin nature, or original sin, you are attaching sin to the flesh, for the sensibilities are all there is that drives their intents when they are first born. There can obviously be a proclivity to sin present, a tendency to sin, but when you attach the word ‘sin’ to the baby, you are of necessity attaching evil and sin to the flesh. You cannot escape that fact. If you do not believe the flesh of a baby is sinful, original sin or sin nature are not the words for you to clearly relate your sentiments. If you insist on holding to original sin and words of like kind, do not be surprised when others feel that you are indeed supporting gnostic notions even over your clear objections.

The father of original sin, the man that introduced the thought into the Church was none other than Augustine. He indeed did attach sin to the flesh as opposed to the will. Why would some now still allow themselves to be influenced by clearly Gnostic principles when expressing their views, claiming that they despise Gnosticism, is beyond me. Why not develop ways of communicating ideas consistent with more accurate and true sentiments? Why not term it something like this? All men are born with a natural proclivity to sin, and all that come to the age of accountability, sin and become guilty before God.

Why do you say I insist on "original sin?" ??? I don't think I've ever used the term here. Catholics use that term. I am not Catholic, nor have I ever been.

I say "sin nature." A baby has a sin nature even if he/she has not exercised it yet. The will is naturally bent against God's will and as the baby grows into a child, that will be seen, and of course, as as a teen and adult.

I do not think babies are born morally neutral. They are born with a sin nature, although they are too young to be accountable for it.

 

[DHK]

Why do you say I insist on "original sin?" ??? I don't think I've ever used the term here. Catholics use that term. I am not Catholic, nor have I ever been.

I agree Marcia. HP keeps throwing out the Catholic term of "Original sin," when none of us have used it. We speak of a depraved nature, a sin nature, and reverts back to original sin. It is almost like derailing a topic.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: Why do you say I insist on "original sin?" ??? I don't think I've ever used the term here. Catholics use that term. I am not Catholic, nor have I ever been.

I say "sin nature." A baby has a sin nature even if he/she has not exercised it yet. The will is naturally bent against God's will and as the baby grows into a child, that will be seen, and of course, as as a teen and adult.

I do not think babies are born morally neutral. They are born with a sin nature, although they are too young to be accountable for it.

HP: I have tries to carefully define my terms, although I know full well I have much room for improvement. I have explained why I couch things or try and refrain from couching things, in certain ways to avoid confusion. You say that babies are "are too young to be accountable for it." You sound like a good Nazarene now. I like that clarification. :thumbs: That is why even though the Nazarenes still hold to the words 'original sin' as do multitudes of 'non-Catholic' groups, they believe as you state here that there is no guilt attached to the state they are born in. Well and good, but why call it sin? God condemns sin, but He NEVER condemns the nature man is born with nor do Scriptures state it is sinful. If we desire clarity in our words we should try and use words that depict our true sentiments. Why not say man is born with a proclivity to sin or a bent to sin? Does Scripture ever state that man is born with a 'sinful nature?' No, not once. Does Scripture state that man is born a sinner? Again, not once. Therefore I have chosen to speak to the state man is born in without involving words, i.e., sin, sin nature, or original sin, that always in Scripture carry guilt due to the word ‘sin’ and its Scriptural punishment, eternal separation from God. In that way I do not run the risk of others believing that in fact I do believe guilt is attached to the state infants are born in as has the Church for the most part ever since Augustine introduced the Church to the notion of original sin.



There are only two states of morality. If morality is predicated it either is depicting a state of holiness and righteousness or a state of sin and evil. Technically there is no morally neutral state that belongs to a moral being. That is why I do not attach morality at all prior to the age of accountability. When you say that they are not morally neutral, then tell me whether or not they are morally sinful or morally holy? They have to be morally neutral or you are indeed attaching sin and guilt, for to be born sinful, (the only other possibility for one that is moral at birth can be possibly be other than holy,) is indeed to attach moral blame, a notion that you agree is simply not the case.



Morality cannot be predicated until the will forms intents based upon the intrinsic value of a known command. It has to know that something in and of itself, apart from punishments or rewards, is intrinsically wrong in order for sin or blame to be attached. Sin lies in the will Marcia, and the will is NOT synonymous with the influences upon the will, as sinful as those influences appear. The will is the chooser, NOT the influence or proclivities to sin that we are indeed born with as a result of physical depravity of the sensibilities. Yes, the ‘will’ MUST be born nuetral with the ability to choose something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstances, or it could never be moral, never be blamed for any formed intent. It would be a necessitated entity that morality could not be predicated of period. When you eliminate the possibility of doing anything other than evil, you have eliminated morality period….unless you want to call the actions of a rock that has been kicked off a cliff, landing and injuring a child upon which it falls, sinful or evil.



Not born without a choice to good or evil? No morality can be predicated of the will. Not able to do anything other than sin due to ones nature? Sin in such a case is a misnomer, impossible to conceive of. Sin is NOT the results of force or coercion. Sin is always blameworthy. Sin cannot be the mere results of necessity. Sin always and must involve choice and the will freely choosing it as an end. Sin is the ‘willful’ transgression of a known commandment of God. Our sin nature has to be a result of sin subsequent to moral accountability. We are indeed born with a nature, i.e., the physically depraved sensibilities, that serves as a strong inclination or proclivity to sin, but such a nature is not properly denoted as sinful. Again the will MUST be born neutral, as far as actual sin goes, if it is to ever have morality predicated of its intents.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I agree Marcia. HP keeps throwing out the Catholic term of "Original sin," when none of us have used it. We speak of a depraved nature, a sin nature, and reverts back to original sin. It is almost like derailing a topic.

HP: The most simple way to resolve this issue might be for you to answer these questions. Is sin the necessitated results of this sinful nature you speak of? Can sin be predicated where necessity rules? Can any state of morality be predicated of any state that is driven by necessity? If there is only one possible consequent to a given antecedent, can morality be predicated?

I appreciate the fact that Marcia, and I believe you, do not attach guilt to the state you say we are born in, but why then confuse that state by inducing the word ‘sin’ or ‘sinful’, when no morality, no blameworthiness is involved? If that is indeed what you believe, would it not be better to couch your sentiment in expression that might not be confused with the doctrine of original sin? That goes especially to all Nazarenes listening as well. Why not speak of being born with a tendency to sin, or a proclivity to sin? Would such words better render to the listener your true sentiments than words such a ‘born with a sinful nature,’ if in fact you are again trying to distance yourself from the doctrine of original sin?

 

[InChrist]

I'm trying to understand this concept of being born "morally neutral". I didn't know that the concept of "original sin" was catholic. You learn something new everyday! For the record I thought that "original sin" and "sin nature" were the same thing.

Doesn't the fact that infants' die show that they are born with sin nature? Did Jesus have to be holy to die for our sin? Or just without sin? Couldn't a "neutral" infant have paid the price for sin? (not trying to be facetious)

Also how are these verses explained?

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I await the replies of DHK and Marcia.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

HP:
On what basis do infants go to heaven?
If Christ never died for our sins, would infants go to heaven anyway?

 

[Marcia]

I'm trying to understand this concept of being born "morally neutral". I didn't know that the concept of "original sin" was catholic. You learn something new everyday! For the record I thought that "original sin" and "sin nature" were the same thing.

Doesn't the fact that infants' die show that they are born with sin nature? Did Jesus have to be holy to die for our sin? Or just without sin? Couldn't a "neutral" infant have paid the price for sin? (not trying to be facetious)

Also how are these verses explained?

There is a belief that man is born morally neutral - a blank slate so to speak -- it was propagated by a guy named Pelagius and he was declared a heretic for it. If one believes this view, they are called Pelagian (there is also a "semi-pelagian" but it's more complex and let's not get into that!). Btw, being born morally neutral (that's my term, not sure what Pelagius used) is not the same as being holy, as I understand it. Of course, I do not accept this view anyway.

There are some liberal Christians, I believe, who are more or less Pelagian in their views.

 

[Marcia]

HP: I have tries to carefully define my terms, although I know full well I have much room for improvement. I have explained why I couch things or try and refrain from couching things, in certain ways to avoid confusion. You say that babies are "are too young to be accountable for it." You sound like a good Nazarene now. I like that clarification. :thumbs: That is why even though the Nazarenes still hold to the words 'original sin' as do multitudes of 'non-Catholic' groups, they believe as you state here that there is no guilt attached to the state they are born in. Well and good, but why call it sin? God condemns sin, but He NEVER condemns the nature man is born with nor do Scriptures state it is sinful.

Well, one can be too young to be accountable but still be guilty because of their sin nature. I call it sin because God does. Because of man's sin nature, which God traces back to Adam, we are born with that bent to sin, but this bent means we will sin. There is no scripture implying that man can live and not sin.

For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. Rom 5.19

If we desire clarity in our words we should try and use words that depict our true sentiments. Why not say man is born with a proclivity to sin or a bent to sin? Does Scripture ever state that man is born with a 'sinful nature?' No, not once. Does Scripture state that man is born a sinner? Again, not once.

The reason we are born with a proclivity to sin is because we have the sin nature. Just saying we are born with a proclivity to sin implies or suggests that maybe we could actually not sin, which I think is a false view.

That is why I do not attach morality at all prior to the age of accountability. When you say that they are not morally neutral, then tell me whether or not they are morally sinful or morally holy? They have to be morally neutral or you are indeed attaching sin and guilt, for to be born sinful, (the only other possibility for one that is moral at birth can be possibly be other than holy,) is indeed to attach moral blame, a notion that you agree is simply not the case.

Morally neutral would mean there was no sin nature - no certainty that they would ever sin.

Sin lies in the will Marcia, and the will is NOT synonymous with the influences upon the will, as sinful as those influences appear. The will is the chooser, NOT the influence or proclivities to sin that we are indeed born with as a result of physical depravity of the sensibilities.

Sin lies in the nature and is exercised through the will. Our very hearts and minds are opposed to God from the moment we are born, although this is not seen until we are old enough to show it.


Do you believe it is possible for someone to live and not sin?

Also, I think maybe you trying to cover 2 topics: man's sinful state and moral accountability. I think these are related but not the same thing.

HP, please make your posts shorter. I do not have time to read them when they are this long and I did not read your whole post.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: There is no scripture implying that man can live and not sin.

HP: Here is a clear example from the mouth of God. Ge 4:6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Marcia: The reason we are born with a proclivity to sin is because we have the sin nature. Just saying we are born with a proclivity to sin implies or suggests that maybe we could actually not sin, which I think is a false view.

HP: If the possibility does not exist that one can do something other than what he does under the same set of circumstances, he is under the laws of necessity and as such cannot be blamed or praised. Morality is absolutely impossible for any reasonable mind to conceive of. Sin can only exist where there sin freedom of choice. You deny that choice exists and then try and distance yourself from original sin? Good luck. The system of necessity is precisely the system original sin imbibes.



Quote:
HP: That is why I do not attach morality at all prior to the age of accountability. When you say that they are not morally neutral, then tell me whether or not they are morally sinful or morally holy? They have to be morally neutral or you are indeed attaching sin and guilt, for to be born sinful, (the only other possibility for one that is moral at birth can be possibly be other than holy,) is indeed to attach moral blame, a notion that you agree is simply not the case.

Marcia: Morally neutral would mean there was no sin nature - no certainty that they would ever sin.

HP: I have clarified that point several times in my last posts.

Marcia: Do you believe it is possible for someone to live and not sin?

HP: When you eliminate the possibility you destroy all accountability and morality period.

Marcia: Also, I think maybe you trying to cover 2 topics: man's sinful state and moral accountability. I think these are related but not the same thing.

HP: It is impossible to have moral responsibility if ones actions are necessitated. Morality can only be predicated where choice is a possibility.

Marcia: I did not read your whole post.

HP: In this we are in total agreement.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: On what basis do infants go to heaven?
If Christ never died for our sins, would infants go to heaven anyway?

HP: They are innocent creations of God, loved by Him. “Lu 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God..”

Whatever ‘for such is’ denoted is the basis they go to heaven. That is basically all we are told. I have no idea as to what place or prominence they will have or hold in heaven. They are not moral agents and as such are not moral beings. It is indeed something to ponder but we have too little evidence to make any solid comments on. I believe it is clear that they will be in heaven, but that is all I know.

Sorry, I know that is little help for our inquisitive minds.

 

[DHK]

HP: They are innocent creations of God, loved by Him. “Lu 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God..”

Whatever ‘for such is’ denoted is the basis they go to heaven. That is basically all we are told. I have no idea as to what place or prominence they will have or hold in heaven. They are not moral agents and as such are not moral beings. It is indeed something to ponder but we have too little evidence to make any solid comments on. I believe it is clear that they will be in heaven, but that is all I know.

Sorry, I know that is little help for our inquisitive minds.

Let me help you.
It is only because of the mercy of God that any infant will go to heaven.
If Christ had not died for our sins, not even an infant would go to heaven.
We are all born in our sins, born with a sin nature; born with a depraved nature.
This is what the Bible teaches.

All (and all means all--including infants) have sinned and come short of the glory God. The Bible makes no exceptions there.

There is none good (none--including infants); no not one.
They are all gone out of the way. There are together become unprofitable.
There is none righteous no not one.

The Bible is specific on our nature. It can hardly be any more specific than the verses quoted above. But there are so many more.

Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
--the answer is no. You cannot do good. You are depraved; were born with a sin nature and cannot do good. All men are inherently evil. They have inherited the sinful nature of Adam--the Adamic nature.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 7:16-17 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
--Even the Apostle Paul could not help from sinning because of his sin nature--it was sin dwelling in him.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Let me help you.

HP: I appreciate your intents but your litany of verses are simply misappropriated. There is not one verse in the whole bunch that teaches sinful from birth or morally depraved from birth or any idea commonly associated with the notion of original sin.



DHK: There is none good (none--including infants); no not one.

HP: The Bible does not indicate in the least that this verse applies to infants not those that never reach the age of accountability due to mental disabilities. (depraved sensibilities to the point moral choices are nor possible)

DHK: All (and all means all--including infants) have sinned and come short of the glory God. The Bible makes no exceptions there.

HP: The word ‘all’ does not always mean all in any general sense, but rather ‘all’ speaks directly to a sub set, those directly spoken of. Moral agents, those capable of sin or righteousness is all that can reasonably be seen as those included in the all you are referring to. To think otherwise is to throw reason, including first truths of reason, matters of fact, and truths of immutable justice to the wind. When we start developing theology, we need to take ‘all’ of Gods truth granted to guide our thinking into proper consideration.

DHK: There is none good (none--including infants); no not one.

HP: Infants are neither good nor bad morally, nor can they be.

DHK: They are all gone out of the way. There are together become unprofitable.
There is none righteous no not one.

HP: Are you even reading this verse? How have infants “gone out of the way?” How have they “become unprofitable?” Where does it say what you try to make out of this verse, i.e., all infants have been born out of the way, and are all born unprofitable??

DHK: The Bible is specific on our nature

HP: But what it does not do is claim that our nature from birth is born morally corrupted. You consistent read into every verse about mans nature the notion that such is ‘from birth.’ That is a false and your own conjecture, and no wise a Scriptural position or indication. Your thinking is a by product of the Augustinian notion of original sin, nothing more or less.

DHK: Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

HP: There is not a shred of e evidence that such applies to infants or all men from the beginning. It is amazing how you make every verse you read stand on all four legs in support of the dogma of original sin or moral depravity from birth. It simply is not so.

DHK: Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

HP: All that can be wisly and reasonably taken from this verse is ‘that once one becomes a sinner’ it is impossible for him, in and of himself, to rid himself from the stains of sin. It does not teach the concept of original sin or moral depravity period. Your argument makes as much sense as to blame an Ethiopian for being born with the color of skin he was born with or blaming a leopard for having spots, and then condemning them to hell for those inherited traits. Such thoughts are nothing short of being preposterous, and that is exactly where your ideas lead you.

DHK: Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

HP: Read it again DHK. The reason IN THIS VERSE that is given why death passes upon all men is NOT due to the fact they are born sinner, but that ‘all have sinned.’

DHK: Romans 7:16-17 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

HP: And where does that say that the sin that dwells within him was due to a sinful nature and that from birth as you consistently imply? DHK, kyou cannot read the Scriptures without consistently at every turn insert your unsupported presupposition of being ‘sinful from birth’ or original sin as it is commonly called. Such an approach is simply in error and will lead you astray from the truth.

DHK: --Even the Apostle Paul could not help from sinning because of his sin nature--it was sin dwelling in him.

HP: That is as false of a statement as you can make. To su up the a[posles Pauls life with one passage from him that was NOT speaking of his life as a believer, but rather as his life under the law (Chapter 7 of Romans) is to make a colossal mistake in understanding the ‘freedom from sin’ that comes as a gift from God as we confess and forsake our sins and rely on His proffered help to keep us from sin. Your attempts to drag the Apostle Paul subsequent to his conversion, and subsequent to his new life in Christ, into the camp of those maintaining a sinning religion, is as far from the truth as any idea that has crossed the pages of this forum.

 

[InChrist]

Quote:

Marcia: There is no scripture implying that man can live and not sin.

HP: Here is a clear example from the mouth of God. Ge 4:6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

I'm not so sure that this is a good verse to show that man can live and not sin. I think God was just directing Cain to the fact that if he was obedient to God's acceptable sacrifice for his sin, then he was doing well. It was when he was relying on his own flesh (in which no good thing dwells) that sin was at his door.

And on the other hand, the only reason that his brother Able did not have "sin laying at his door" was because he brought the sacrifice that God required, not because he was without sin.

 

[DHK]

HP: That is as false of a statement as you can make. To su up the a[posles Pauls life with one passage from him that was NOT speaking of his life as a believer, but rather as his life under the law (Chapter 7 of Romans) is to make a colossal mistake in understanding the ‘freedom from sin’ that comes as a gift from God as we confess and forsake our sins and rely on His proffered help to keep us from sin. Your attempts to drag the Apostle Paul subsequent to his conversion, and subsequent to his new life in Christ, into the camp of those maintaining a sinning religion, is as far from the truth as any idea that has crossed the pages of this forum.

Now HP, play by the rules. No false accusations. You know I don't make false statements!:saint:

Seriously, your take on Romans chapter 7 badly flawed. Paul is writing to Christians, not Jews. He is speaking of the Christian life, not the unsaved life. He is speaking of a spiritual battle that rages on within the life of every believer, and uses his own Christian life as an example. It has nothing to do with his Jewish background, the OT law, or any other law. He is speaking of his own sinful nature as he states plainly: it is sin that dwells in me!" It is not the law that dwells in him; it is sin, he says; that is the sin nature that he inherited from Adam. Plainly sin, the sin nature dwells in Paul, as it does in all of us. And Paul struggled with it every day.

Romans 7:15-17 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

If Paul did not have a depraved nature, then why would he say: "For that which I do I allow not.
For what I would, that do I not.

If he did not have a sin nature, why would Paul even want to sin. He is struggling against the nature that is pushing him toward sin. It is a battle every Christian faces. The person that doesn't face it so much is the person who is not saved. He is already doing what the devil wants him to be doing.
But Paul's testimony is "sin dwells in me."

There is a sin nature in me!!!!

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
--This is not the law speaking, or not one fighting the law. It is Paul's testimony of his fight against his sin nature. He testifies that in him there is no good thing. Why? Because only sin dwells in him. It is a sin nature that we inherit. And that sin nature must cohabit a body with the Holy Spirit. And the two struggle against each other, depending on free will of our own mind. We can't "force" the Holy Spirit to win. We can only yield ourselves to Him.

Romans 7:22-23 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
--This ought to be our goal. But:

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
--We have a sin nature. We inherit it at birth. It is also called the Adamic nature. It brings us into captivity to the law of sin which is in our members (and has been there ever since birth).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, we simply are at direct antipodes with each other as to the period of Paul's life he was referring to in Chapter 7. I see no way to reconcile with you at this time on that point, nor do I have any new evidence to set forth. We are both simply fixed in our opinions as to the meaning of that chapter and as such we will have to agree to disagree for now. Fair enough?