-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is sin nature?
- Thread starter Darren
- Start date
Romans 6:6 follows closely after Romans 6:3,4 which explains the purpose of our baptism--a picture of our death to our old life of sin, and our rising again to a new life in Christ. It does not suggest that the old life or old nature is eradicated. Our sin nature is very much alive. Baptism was a picture of what was old (our unsaved life), which is now put to death, as compared to our new life in Christ.TCGreek said:
But what is the teaching of Christ in Romans 6.
Are we ever the slaves of sin?
Yes! Every time that we give into the flesh, or the sin nature. It is a battle that we fight daily. We have two natures. The one might be put to death legally, just as our sin is, but practically it still exists.
Paul says in Romans 6:11
"Likewise reckon ye yourselves to be indeed to be dead unto sin.
It takes effort on the part of the believer to be dead unto sin. Even, Paul in Romans 6, teaches this. We are to "reckon ourselves" to be dead unto sin. That takes volition, wilful work. It is not automatic. It is not a given.
You are dead unto sin (only if).....
--you yield your members to instruments of rightousness unto righteousness.
--reckon yourselves to be dead unto sin., etc.
It is not automatic.
The fact is: often we are slaves to sin in spite of one's interpretation of Romans 6:6. We have a sin nature. We wait for the redeption of our bodies. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (on a daily basis). We must crucify ourselves (on a daily basis). We must take up our cross (a means of execution), and deny ourselves on a daily basis.
bound said:
I will give you one example. The SBC has negated its claim to be Baptist by abandoning one of the most closely held of Baptist beliefs, the separation of church and state.
Why I say this is true .....
In June 1996 the SBC convention approved the following.
It is almost identical in wording with a Vatican statement.
Richard Land, who has served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission since 1988 testified as a friend-of-the-court briefs, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has argued for including religious schools in school choice programs.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:LCCMgVVOI-cJ:www.religionlink.org/tip_060731.php+richard+land+voucher&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=cz
It is not hard to find confirming informatin on the Internet concerning this topic.
I can post on other issues if you like, especially on the SBC becoming creedal and also in watering down the "Priesthood of the Believer" such that they, at least the leadership, do not really believe this now.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
But it is not particularly a Baptist distinctive. The 39 Articles (Anglican), the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian), and the Savoy Declaration (Congregational) all have statements about the sinful nature.Darren said:
DHK, I know that every time I disagree with you, you dig in your heels, but please consider what I say and reconsider your doctrine here. What you are saying is widely accepted but it is terribly wrong.DHK said:
Romans 6 states: "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin."
Paul is not talking about some elevated state of spirituality that he and a select few have attained. Rather it is the reality of all believers. If one is not crucified with Christ he is lost and will not enjoy the resurrection promised to those in Christ. The verse preceeding the above quote is "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection".
DHK said:
Paul is talking about the persecutions that he was facing as he preached the gospel. Note the context of verse 30 "And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" and the example in the verse 32: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?
Were Paul to be speaking here of crucifying himself only those that have attained this high level of holiness would be saved. In other words, we would need to earn our own salvation since we need to "crucify ourselves". You may be able to put the nails in your feet and in one of your hands, but you will never be able to get in that last nail.
Please read all of what I say here before making judgements.
Here goes... I fear I shall regret admitting much of this.
Let's put it this way. I've fallen so far from tradition, I don't adhere to any hard line doctrines, accept the ones I feel follow what I read in scripture. As a result, I'm a six day creationist, who believes in the value of faith in God, that some non-believers will be in heaven, yet hell exists still and people go there everyday, and I also believe some believers will be condemned for their actions as well. I believe in a God beyond the imagination in power, capable of creating a universe in SIX days, (one if He wanted I'm sure), whom has done miracles throughout history and to this day, but I don't believe in total omnipotence (I know, everyone gasps and calls me a heathen at this point). I believe in a God far above any man or angel in wisdom, who created the whole universe, so knows how all of it is run (that's all the knowledge there is to be had practically for knowledge sake), who governs the universe according to wisdom so far beyond me, all I can do is trust, yet I do not believe in omniscience. (Well I'm sure with that I just lost a lot of respect, but it had to come out eventually.) I believe in a God who is always there for His servants, and that He really is present around the world, but I reject the idea of Omnipresence. I believe in a God who lives most likely in THIS dimension, there is no need for others to be made for Him to occupy. Heaven is likely even some place far away, subsisting in a manner we cannot see, not through a strange spritual gateway. Yet, I believe God is above us mere and tiny men, His laws superiour to ours, to the point that not even the angels, are bound by the same rules of nature as us.
(These aren't the subjects, understand, please, can we not discuss them all at this time?)
I feel justified in these various disagreements when I look at the modern churches. Hundreds of denominations are evidence themselves that something has gone terribly wrong. But most upsetting to me, I can't seem to read two pages of Christian writing, without finding scripture missquoted, by individuals who don't take the time to look things up for themselves.
Am I any better than my brother in Christ? No. I myself use to abuse the Bible constantly, trying to get what I wanted out of it. I became convicted. Anyone can do what I did, and try to change. I still continue to struggle, trying not to violate scripture, dispite any personal feelings about what it "should" say, or what I would like it to say. And yes, I still have those urges, and yes, I still stumble, God help me.
That being said, do I think the convictions of others are not sincere? They most certainly are. As a former hard line Baptist I know it for a fact. But are the Catholics not sincere as well?
I am a minority believer at best. (Course, with all the denominations, there aren't many true majority beliefs left, but even those I have problems with.) I believe things that upset me, that there is a hell for instance, and men earn their way there. I believe things that comfort me, that God is working out things to the best of His wisdom, His love is real, not some wierd idea of love that I can't hope to understand. Sometimes I hope I'm right. Sometimes I wish I were wrong. Sometimes I just don't know. Sometimes I think I'm being arrogant, other times, I think the truth is the truth, not matter how few people accept it. (No, there ARE others who believe as I do.)
PM me on these things if you feel convicted, please. Or start another thread. Sin nature is a big enough issue itself without dragging out a dozen other theologies as well. Though I am eager to discuss these things.
Moving on to the subbject at hand.
___________________________
Just based on that then, is it not good for an athiest to help his fellow man? Is it not good for a Buddhist to help widows and orphans?
One way or another, our actions define our need for our Saviour. We are NOT perfect, whether or not we can be. Fantasy asks what if a man were, but reality says none are. God forgave our sins on the cross. Good and well, even Satan believes that, and dispises it. Now that our sins are forgiven, we should turn from them, or go to hell's flames. (Not the last statement you were expecting was it?)
Andre
I agree and disagree. When Adam bit the apple, a pefect world fell. All kinds of evil were allowed into the world, like the gates of a terrifying hell were thrown open. We were given more choice, I suppose is how I must put it, though even I don't like the term. Liking is not a requirement though.
Adam's sin was his own, not mine. He bore it, not me. But at the same time, I pay the price for it. Our perfect world is destroyed and corrupted. Nature, what was good, is now at best, neutral.
I believe each man is judged for his own evil. And make no mistake, it is HIS evil.
On the enviornment, I just snuck that comment in. I guess it was a hook though, sorry. I mean that man's involvement in nature is required, not evil. We should work to better nature and preserve and control it. Just like a man who has a farm. If he leaves it alone, it becomes of no use to any one, but if he takes possession of it, and protects it from abuse, it becomes profitable.
Perhaps you know more about children than me, but they might just share... course at two, I'm not sure how coordinated the entire affair will be. The one with the club will doubtless not know what to do with it, perhaps drop it and go straight for the sugar, but probably be distressed if he hurts the other. Both will probably eventually fight, but the break down of the fight will most likely result, I suppose, in a destroyed cone and two pouting two-year-olds.
This is what human innocence is. Not knowing how to do wrong.
God's innocence is rejecting what is wrong for all of His existence. A good God indeed, and very different from us.
However, I think you point isn't served too well by your example.
Might I point out, maybe you should have said bowl, sharing a cone is rather impractile.
Good point on Galations 5:16-26. I've always been taught it meant the Holy Spirit. But now just objectively looking at it... does it?
Hmm... I guess I spoke too soon though. But still, does it? I must admit... it seems most likely to be refering to the Holy Spirit. It does NOT seem to support my view or any parallel to it. (Again, I'm sure that wasn't an expected conclusion from me.)
John 17: 6-26 seems proper context to me (20-26 more narrowly). I would point out that that is Jesus speaking. Maybe you missed that. He and the Father are one in the same. Me and God, are NOT one in the same. God is NOT me, and I am NOT God. I suppose you either made a mistake or I'm reading you wrong.
The passage seems to be refering to general unity as our oneness with Christ and eachother. I agree, Jesus is more than unified with Christ, but I dare not claim THAT level of unity with the Holy Trinity.
Crabtownboy:
I actually view public school with distain. What right does the government have to educate children and attempt to control their ideas and knoweldge? Control the minds of the children of a nation, and you control its future. This is the inevitable essence of a violation of true religious freedom.
Well I suppose here I should say, I believe that a lost man can do good. In fact, I've seen such things with my own eyes and doubtless so have all of you, unless you don't associate with the lost very much. Course perhaps I have a more traditional, perhaps even, dare I say it, secular, view of what is good.
Taking in a child before he's lost and starves to death is good, even if you don't know Jesus. Leaving him to die in the rain is evil, even if you do know God. (In fact, might I put forward, since you are better inclined to know better, might I even call it WORSE, than if you didn't know God?)
Here's a place where I think a "literal" interpretation of scripture is taken for granted. The Bible itself often speaks of good deeds from those whom did not at the time believe in God as we know Him, not even knowing much about Jehovah as the Jews did. It's evident from the world around us they can do good. But there are indeed a few passages, that say man can do no good. My question, can those passages, dependant on context, be expressive? Expressive is NOT the opposite of literal. It is often better than what I call "hyper" literal.
As an example, if a teacher tells her student, he can do anything if he applies himself, he could take her at her word, flap his arms REALLY hard, and jump off a cliff... bad idea. Or, he could take her at her word, study really hard, and build a better plane. She meant to be practical, and likely he's been taught better than to do silly things. But to ask her, she was being "literal", just not that "literal".
DHK said:
Paul specifically says,
"For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin" (Rom 6:6).
I cannot change what Scripture says. I simply cannot.
According to Paul the old self has been put to death.
I do not understand your legal and practical dichotomy of the old self. Where does Paul make such?
The old self has been crucified with Christ, but a residue of it remains, that is where the daily struggle is.
Yes, we await the redemption of our bodies (8:23), because a sin residue remains.
We are still battling the flesh daily, but this doesn't point to two natures within us.
This only speaks to our positon in Christ. It is a picture of the death of our old nature in comparison to our new nature in Christ which will ultimately be fulfilled in the resurrection.trustitl said:
No. The subject is the resurrection. The questions you have quoted are rhetorical questions, asked to get the Corinthians thinking. Why would Paul put his life on the line time after time if there was no resurrection? That would be foolish wouldn't it? The reason he suffers is because Christ has risen, and that he serves a risen Christ, not a dead man. Our hope is in the risen Christ. He is the foundation of our faith.
For that reason Paul is willing to "die daily."
That is nonsense, and it seems like an excuse only to live a carnal life. What did Paul say in Gal.2:20:
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Paul treats himself as dead; as crucified with Christ. He lives, but it is not him, but Christ that lives in him. Though it is his flesh that lives, it is Christ that lives through his flesh. He walks by faith.
--This is only possible as long as Paul does not give into sin. But he does. Read Romans 7. Every man does. We have a battle with sin on a daily basis.
What did Jesus say:
Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
--Jesus said you must take up your cross daily. What does that mean. It is not your arthritis or lumbago. A cross is a symbol of execution. It is the instrument by which Christ died. Every day the believer must put self to die. He must crucify self. "I die daily," Paul said. This is the meaning. It is a command of Christ for those who wish to be his disciple. It has nothing to do with salvation; everything to do with discipleship. Are you willing to put self to death, deny your own desires, and follow Christ. This is what Christ is demanding of his disciples.
It has nothing to do with anything physical.
But if you don't learn how to live a crucified life you will never learn to be a disciple of Christ.
Is the God I discribed really:
A: that foriegn to you
B: you didn't really read what I posted so you don't actually know
Look at the last 4 sentences you quoted from me... obviously B since you didn't even read the end of your own quote. :BangHead:
I will note this. And maybe I shouldn't if I don't want it to enter this into the debate, but I just want to defend myself a little. To me, I see MY God as the one based on scripture, and the traditional version, as the fabrication. Course, arguements like this "God must be omnipotent or He can't be God" -not stated here yet, but I hear it and like unto it, all the time- serve to reinforce my view, seeing as that says God can't exist independant of the speaker's definition. In other words, the speaker believes he defines God. To me, I believe God defines Himself.
Do you have a problem reading? I'm sorry but this is frustrating. You're question barely makes sense to your quote, though I must admit:
Agnus got ya good with this one.
I'm hoping your reaction is not the norm Amy. Perhaps I could learn from you, but now probably not, since you don't look like you're willing to pay enough attention. Sorry, I just don't like it when people who don't read what others post then feel inclined to reply anyway. Especially when they, like you did, show to whole world, in quotes like that, they're disregard for what was posted.
Do you mean to be a troll?
Hmmm... ya know what, why should I debate this? This is not the subject, sin nature is. Am I just being rude? I guess I shouldn't try to dictate the subject matter but I expected this garbage and really, I will not debate a view of how I see God based on several separate short statements. Amy, if I were to think better of you... I guess I would if YOU were the one to drop this.
_________________________
Moving on from the interuption.
Sigh... I'll keep watching but I don't have much to offer what has been said at this point, though it looks like some good stuff, my compliments. Maybe I'm just getting tired. Just worked a 12 hour shift.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: It has been derailed by wild speculation, misappropriation/interpretation of passages of Scripture, and failure to establish the dogma of a sinful nature as anything but a false philosophical remnant of Augustinian philosophy. i.e, that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh as opposed to the will.
I would like to see one participant define the sinful nature by Scripture alone.
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
By scripture alone? You're right, I discribe it mostly by theory. Therefore, lets be clear, an actual "sin nature" is only ever described in Romans 7 and 8.
Romans 7 is talking about dieing to the law. Most of the chapter focuses on the subbject of Paul's difficulty with sin and his own nature of it.
By Romans 7, it is false that Christians do not have a sin nature, Paul himself admitted to having one. It's obvious. It's in context, go ahead, read the whole chapter. The part I'm focusing on is 7-25.
Romans 8: 1-17 continues this section (perhaps I should have said it was context as well, true it's separated by chapter, but not by any purpose of Paul it seems),
It talks about living by the Spirit. I'm pretty sure the Spirit refers to a committment to God, a right Spirit that is put in you after you made that committment.
The chapter even says that the purpose of the law was to save men, but men, weakened by their sin nature, only fell further away from grace. To me, it seems to be saying an expectation was not met. That perhaps we men COULD have obeyed the law, should have, but were so weakened, it were as though we could not.
One who is controlled by sin is indeed set against God, course I would ask exactly what it then means to be controlled by sin?
It says that one who is controlled by sin cannot please God. Does it then not please God for a Buddist to show love, patience and many of the other fruits of the Spirit, even though, the true Spirit is not in them? It talks as though one cannot do good who is controlled by sin nature. But we no for a fact, that simply because you do not believe in God as we, doesn't turn you into a devil... could that mean... possibly... that it's not simply talking about those whom disbelieve? Hmmm...
Course it also says that sin nature must be completely put to death or else you will be condemned... But in chapter 7, Paul has a sin nature, STILL. Explain this paradox, if anyone can. Or is it really a paradox? Or perhaps, just maybe, much of the language is expressive. I would think it pretty easy to guess what that would mean, but it would likely kill the normal definition of sin nature.
On to more theory, though not just mine.
Who has read the Last Battle in the series, the Chronicles of Narnia?
Spoiler:
The story is a parable of the end times. The Calormenes take over Narnia and set up a false Aslan. They continue their myth and eventually try to pass off Aslan and their god Tash as the same.
The false Aslan is stolen and a big riot starts with folks wanting to see him. Finally it is said, with warning, that anyone can go into the tent of Aslan, if they dare, and see him. One Calormene goes in after a while, and young man, seeming of honor and integrity, but angry at the idea that Aslan and Tash are one. He never comes back out.
Later on, the world of Narnia ends and the door to the tent ends up turning into the door to Aslan's world.
In Aslan's world we find that young Calormene. The young man meets Aslan and is scared at first, thinking they were enimies. But Aslan explains all the good the man had done was now counted as for him.
The young man then asked, if Aslan and Tash were truely one. The very idea sickened Aslan since Tash was evil. He went on to say no good deed could be truely done in Tash's name, so the service to Tash from the man was truely to Aslan. Conversely, he also explains, service to Aslan, of a vile sort, counted as service to Tash, and those who did so were condemned by Aslan, as though he never knew them.
I point this out because CS Lewis is a well respected author in Christian circles. Yet even he had problems with much of the more rigid Christian doctrines on salvation.
In the same chapters you mention, it specifically talks about what Paul is warring against: the flesh. Those who are controlled by sin, are allowing their flesh natures to override everything else.Darren said:
You were making a valid argument...but then you started interjecting your own logic into it with the "doesn't turn you into a devil" statement.Darren said:
You claim that context is the primary factor in understanding scripture; but you ignore certain contexts. Your statement above is an example: You've been discussing Romans 7 and 8, talking about the sin nature; and then you make a statement about "not simply talking about those who disbelieve," when the same exact letter to the Romans talks about believing in Jesus, and confessing that He is Lord.
Explained in Romans 7:22-23 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 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.Darren said:
Expressive? Perhaps. An attempt to describe the daily temptations and weaknesses of these frail human bodies, while in our minds, hearts, and spirits we seek to serve Him, and do those things that please Him, and continually battle and struggle against the flesh.
Remember that context can be found in a verse itself; in the passage the verse is part of; and/or in the chapter, or even letter/book it's a part of.
Last edited by a moderator:
Context is my primary factor. This passage is much about belief. Perhaps that was the wrong way to put things. Perhaps if I were to say, that just as a man of faith can sin, so a man of incorrect faith, can do good. But more over, just as a man of faith can be condemned
12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; (verse 12-13a)
Might I ask, can a man of incorrect faith, be saved?
Also, seriously, I don't think it does mean that all not controlled by faith are controlled by sin. Just as it does not say, all whom have faith, are controlled by it.
Do you see what I mean?
Also, my habit of trying to give full context is a matter of discipline. I see so little treatment of scripture as though it were an actual book, rather than a compilation of good separate sayings. That would be why I don't ever address one verse only, since there is no way to know what a verse means out of context. (12-13 was quoted as PART of chapters 7-8:1-17)
That will never happen, but many will continue to try. It has been attempted for centuries, and you and I will not stop it. However, I feel compelled, as I know you do, to shed light on the subject.Heavenly Pilgrim said:
The constitution of our will is not sinful by nature. If it were, we would not be able to be held responsible for our actions and God could not be just in doing so.
Nor, is the constitution of our flesh sinful by nature. It merely wants to do what God designed it to do. Our flesh wants to be in a certain temperature range, have a full belly, feel pleasure, feel rested, ... God created man with all these as attributes of his flesh and called it good. He added woman and called it very good! However, sin entered the world and this flesh became subjected to corruption, something it had been protected from in the Garden with it's Tree of Life.
When man submitted his will to live after the lusts of the flesh outside of the will of God, he sinned and was guilty before his Creator. His flesh was not any more sinful than before, nor was his will inoperative. Neither, did his spirit die nor was he dead spiritually. He was merely guilty and given the death sentence. All men are under this sentence to this day. To die as a guilty sinner will result in eternal condemnation. To die with ones sins atoned for gives a hope for the resurrection and eternal life with the Living God and our brother Jesus.
Last edited by a moderator:
It appears you didn't complete this thought; but I can see the error in logic in which it is proceeding.Darren said:
People of incorrect faith can, indeed, do good; but is it the good they do that saves them? If so, then they have been saved by their works, and not by their faith.
If this is true, then there is no need for God, and there is no need for Jesus' sacrifice.
If this was meant to be the completion of "just as a man of faith can be condemned," well, these verses aren't talking of a man of faith being condemned.Darren said:
To answer your question, a man of incorrect faith can be saved - if he accepts Jesus as his savior. But unless you believe in salvation by works, no, he cannot be saved of his own accord.
I see what you're trying to say; but in both ways that you put it, you're saying that something--sin or faith--is controlling the individual. Paul is talking about our individual free will, and our choice to submit to the flesh, or our resolution to walk in faith.Darren said:
In a larger contextual sense, he's also talking about those that are inflicting certain "sinful" states upon themselves (see Acts 15:1-12, Romans 8, and Romans 14).
Darren said: