What is sin nature?

[Darren]

Oh, puh-leeze. I asked, didn't I? Gave an opportunity to explain? While calling it as I saw it? Don't tell me you do anything less; you're the one that lets people know straight up that you believe they're misinterpreting scripture and using it out of context, no holds barred.

Look at the tone of your posts to DHK and others, and then remove the mote from your own eye. Don't ask for politeness while you're insulting others.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

True enough, I'm usually of the attitude that its best to be blunt. Then I suppose by my own convinctions, you're right and I should have said something. I was actually agreeing with someone and I didn't want to point out their flaws, but, a pretty big mistake was made and something should have been said. Especially a person like me, should have said something.



___________________

You are trying to squirm your way out of your own misconceptions. The Bible never referred to a fetus. When the child came out of the womb, when it was born as the Scripture specifically says. then it is not a fetus, it is a child. There is nothing said about a fetus. You are caught in your own deceptions and misunderstandings.

It's not a missconception that's what it says. Yes, a fetus is a human child, just in a different stage of life. But if you really want to press the issue and insist that David was not refering to one inside the womb, which it sounded to me like he was, it changes nothing. When was the last time you heard a new born lie?

Psalms are prayers. When a man prays his plea to God is quite literal in that he is pleading and interceding with God on behalf of himself and others. How much more literal can one be! Do you pray? Do you ask God to answer your prayers? Are your prayers specific? Do they have meaning? The psalmist didn't just pray: "God bless all the people of the world." He prayed with intent and meaning, and his prayers were quite literal.

I do not dishonor something by calling it what it is. Important, yes, made for a specific reason, yes, but were the Psalms and Proverbs to be taken to the letter? No. But I never said they had no meaning, or were not specific.

If I didn't think Psalm 58 had a specific meaning, why did I mention and insist on one? Also, if you think it does, why do you think it can just be applied to things have have nothing to do with its intent?

The Book of Proverbs is a book of wise sayings meant to be taken literally inasmuch as in the truth that they teach. There are many adages and wise sayings, timeless truths, etc. The truths are simple and easy to understand. But you should be able to see that for yourself. Besides all that, I never quoted from the Book of Proverbs anyway. So concerning this book, your objection is a red herring.

I was likening Psalms to Proverbs because they are often written in the same manner. Yes, it wasn't brought up by you. I didn't mean to imply you brought it up, if I did, or seemed to... sigh... I did not separate the two like I should have, sorry.

Anyway, that's exactly what I was meaning about Proverbs, its not meant to be taken word for word literally, but to take the meanings of the Proverbs, which are by no means difficult to understand. They CAN be obayed by humans and CAN be lived by. I suppose I was making a staw man and I apologize again, since you didn't alledge humans COULD NOT do good things.

As to, can one be justified by faith. Yes. But that's not the question. The question is, can one be justified without?

1. No believer will ever be condemned.

You and I are starting to get on the same page, but think about what you say. Satan himself believes, but it won't save him from anything. You're probably meaning to get at something else, so out with it then, what do you actually mean?

2. Salvation is based on faith. Faith always has an object; it is not some nebulous thing. The object of our faith is Jesus Christ and what he has done for us. Faith is confidence; trust in the word of another; in this case it is confidence in the word of God that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

Same answer, but more to the point, Jesus declared forgiven many people who knew nothing of any of that and even declared the theif next to him on the cross, who also didn't know what was going on exactly (had a vague impression it seems), nor gave a sinners prayer, that he would go to heaven. Those aren't my words. A man who knew little of your faith, went to heaven.

If my son says: "I hate you," he is still my son. That will never change.

If I go on a murderous rampage or something, I think my dad's made it clear to me I'll be disowned. However, I'm not too worried.

Still, the terms I used were more domestic than that. Suffice to say, I believe God will never turn His back on you, but it's a whole other story if you turn yours on Him.

Rejection of Christ is the most serious sin a man can commit. It is the only sin that will condemn a man to Hell.

Rejection is based on knowledge. How can one reject that which He does not hear?

Also, I would like to ask you, and I'm sure you heard them before, about testimonies of people who say they came to Jesus after reading the Bible.

What is false? Being born again is false? I don't think so!
A simple prayer won't save you. Saying words don't save. Commitment means nothing when it comes to salvation.
It is true that there needs to be change when one is saved. That is one thing you have straight.

No I didn't say that being born again was false and you quoted me so to be that far off what I said... sigh, I guess both of our tempers are flaring right now so we're making mistakes.

Anyway, so really, committment to Jesus as your Lord and savior means nothing? Yep, sounds like we both need to just chill since we're both saying things we don't intend.

1. I don't believe you know what faith is.

No, I don't agree with YOU so you have a hard time believing that I'm your brother in Christ. You've probably been taught much like I was. That all Christians believe certain things or simply are not Christians. Yep, I'm one of those guys who gets upset when Catholics are called lost. They're not. I'm not a Catholic, but at the same time, their belief in and committment to God it not false, nor will God throw it away because they didn't do it the Baptist perscribed way.

My mom has cancer. I have no idea why God is allowing it, but I trust that He will see her through. She will soon die, it's only a matter of time. I believe that He will take her into His arms, and there, she will have eternal rest in a place of no suffering. I await the day when I will see her in a place of no suffering. For now, I send e-mails to her from Korea that consist of me asking her whats going on over there, since to say any of what's going on here, would be against regs. That's all for the best to somehow. I don't know how, but I hope some day my Lord will show me, because He's thinking of something. This much I know. I don't know what, but that doesn't stop me from clinging to Him. Pray for her by the way, it's all not easy, and she really wants to stick around at least long enough to see any grand children.

My country is at war and my president, is being mocked for trying to protect it. I know not why terrorism is allowed, and innocent peope are murdered left and right and those who stand up are called terrorists themselves, all I know is, God has a reason. I do know that God is beyond me, and this is all for the best. Don't ask me how because I don't know. I can make scetchy ideas, have a few inclinations here and there, but I'll never understand.

I know what a terrible thing I am, and I hope in Christ that such a creature can be redeemed. I have faith in Him, that though my actions are terrible, -and of them you do not know, so don't even try- He can and did save me, 2000 years ago. In Him, the only one who can save me, I place my soul. When asked why I should enter heaven, I will say I am not worthy, but that I claim the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, my savior.

I believe in a six day creation, though others insist there is no evidence and so few sane men who also support this view. I care not. The Bible says so, so it is true, I need nothing beyond God's word.

But in the end, according to you, that's all not faith. Or maybe you need to stop making assumptions.

Who is God?

The one true and only Lord of all creation and all that ever was and will be. Course I've never contradicted that so maybe you'd like to start actually reading what people say before making assumptions about them!

And finally take heed to this verse:

Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

For your behavior against me, I forgive you already, you needn't even ask. However, for your behavior against God you should go to Him.

I'm striving with YOU not God. It makes me sick to see a Christian man trying to make people believe that disagreeing with him, is like unto attacking God. Are you some prophet? Are you a Pope? Show me your great sign. If you are a simple man, stop acting like you think otherwise.

 

[Don]

True enough, I'm usually of the attitude that its best to be blunt. Then I suppose by my own convinctions, you're right and I should have said something. I was actually agreeing with someone and I didn't want to point out their flaws, but, a pretty big mistake was made and something should have been said. Especially a person like me, should have said something.

Just a caution: "open rebuke" does not give license to hatefulness (you haven't shown any that I'm aware of, just throwing this out). All too often, as is the case with Fred Phillips' types, we see open rebuke used hatefully; the point of rebuke is to restore, and to do so, it must be done in love and lovingly.

 

[DHK]

I believe we have two natures. One good, one evil. Our lives are spent with those two in constant war.

If I were of a far eastern, at this point, I would say, balance is the goal... then probably sit in a funny position and start a wierd chant attempting to cut myself off from the real world. No, balance is not the goal. Victory is the goal. Evil needs nothing more from the good to step aside, then it prevails. Just wanted to clarify, I'm not spouting yin and yang garbage.

The two natures give rise to our chioce. With no desire for evil, I cannot choose evil. If I can't chose not God, isn't it less valuable to choose Him, than if I had a choice? This is why the love of a child, wife or friend is more valuable than a dog's. After all, a dog has no real choice, he's just feeding from his nature of the pack. A dog's love isn't real, not in the sense of human love. They really can't NOT behave the way they do. But humans are different... nay, I say we are superior. Our intelligence and ability to use judgement is why God made us the rulers of this earth (yes, we are stewards of this planet, and as such, nature is subject to us, stick that in your pipe and smoke it eviornmentalists:thumbs.

The above is from the OP posted by Darren.
Just one question Darren:

Why was it necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin?

 

[trustitl]

Why was it necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin?

The only thing we can know for sure is that it was to fulfill prophecies and to show that Jesus was God's only begotten son.

You can surmise about sin being passed through the genetic code, but that is merely doctrinal speculation with no scriptural support.

 

[DHK]

The only thing we can know for sure is that it was to fulfill prophecies and to show that Jesus was God's only begotten son.

You can surmise about sin being passed through the genetic code, but that is merely doctrinal speculation with no scriptural support.

The reason that Christ was born of a virgin was to escape the sin nature passed down through Adam's seed. That is made clear in Scripture. It is the only way that he could be the sinless Son of God.
1Pet.3:18 says that he was the just dying for the unjust.
Only one who was without sin could die for the ones with sin.

In Adam, we all sinned. His sinful nature was passed on to us all.

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:
--Why have all sinned? Because Adam sinned. By one man sin entered into the world. That sin has been passed on from man to man; generation to generation ever since.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
--By Adam's disobedience we were made sinners. That sin nature has been passed down throughout every generation.

Christ could have made an entrance into this world another way, but it was needful for him to enter via a virgin to avoid inheriting a sin nature.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Christ could have made an entrance into this world another way, but it was needful for him to enter via a virgin to avoid inheriting a sin nature.

HP: Why the Augustinian philosophy? Where is the Scripture that states or implies such a thing???

 

[DHK]

HP: Why the Augustinian philosophy? Where is the Scripture that states or implies such a thing???

That borders on a false accusation. I believed in this as a Biblically based belief even before I ever heard of the name of Augustine. So let's leave Augustine to his own devices and discuss the Bible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, you have made a statement that I believe goes far beyond the Word of God. If you think it does not, substanciate your claim by Scripture. Where is the Scripture that states or implies what you have stated is true?

 

[DHK]

DHK, you have made a statement that I believe goes far beyond the Word of God. If you think it does not, substanciate your claim by Scripture. Where is the Scripture that states or implies what you have stated is true?

If it went far beyond the Word of God, why do you ignore the Scripture that I did support it with in post #85, and have done nothing to try and refute it? To sit there and say "We don't like Augustinian doctrine," is no rebuttal at all. It is quite lame.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Christ could have made an entrance into this world another way, but it was needful for him to enter via a virgin to avoid inheriting a sin nature.

HP: And which Scripture of the ones you quoted state or imply your statement here???

 

[DHK]

HP: And which Scripture of the ones you quoted state or imply your statement here???

All three of them (post #85).
He that hath eyes to read, let him read.

 

[Darren]

DHK you didn't respond to a lot of what I said. Do you at least now understand that my faith is genuine? I believe many of your attacks on me were unwarrented. I stated that I woud not demand an apology, so I won't now, but perhaps I would like an explanation. Perhaps I should just let it drop.



Anyway, before we start throwing rocks at one another again, maybe I should just continue with the subject at hand.

The virgin birth was necessary for a sign that Jesus was Holy and not of natural birth. Also, of course, to fullfill prophecy. I do not disagree that Jesus was without sin, but this is because... how do I put this

Jesus is GOD!

Hence, being born of a virgin did not keep Him from sin, who He is, kept Him from sin. God does not sin, Jesus did not sin. Period. No other ingredients needed. Jesus was holy. (Might I also point out, Mary was not.) If a man was involved in the process, Jesus still would have been blameless. Jesus is God. Jesus had no sin because He was and is and always will be, God.

I know you didn't state to the contrary, and I'm not accusing you of such. However, understand, this doctrine that says that Jesus needed to be born of a virgin to be pure, is false. Even if there were a sin nature, of the nature you claim, Jesus simply could have broken it. He broke the law of sin period on the cross, breaking our bondage to it, and broke the law of death, rising from the grave, and some even believe He broke the law of hell, entering it in our place, and returning. (I'm not sure if I believe that Jesus went to hell or not.)

 

[trustitl]

I believe many of your attacks on me were unwarrented.

Sadly, a common occurance on the BB. :tear:

Hence, being born of a virgin did not keep Him from sin, who He is, kept Him from sin. God does not sin, Jesus did not sin. Period. No other ingredients needed. Jesus was holy. (Might I also point out, Mary was not.) If a man was involved in the process, Jesus still would have been blameless. Jesus is God. Jesus had no sin because He was and is and always will be, God.

Wasn't it his obedience that kept him from sin? I think that we are so concerned with the deity of Christ that we forget "the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim 2:5). If he wasn't a man he would not have been able to stand in our place nor would he have been able to be tempted as we are.

We spend so much time on the deity of Christ, but one of the traits of anti-christ is that he will deny that Jesus came in the flesh (I John 4:3).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: Wasn't it his obedience that kept him from sin? I think that we are so concerned with the deity of Christ that we forget "the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim 2:5). If he wasn't a man he would not have been able to stand in our place nor would he have been able to be tempted as we are.

HP: Very well stated. All I can say is Amen!:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: All three of them (post #85).
He that hath eyes to read, let him read.

HP: Seriously DHK. Cannot anyone simply post a verse, or better yet point to the whole Bible and repeat what you said regardless of the validity of their argument? How does that substantiate your interpretation? The truth of the matter is that none of the verses you posted to state, imply, or add any evidence whatsoever to your presuppostion of a 'sinful nature' from birth.

You need to come to grips with the author of this dogma. It is none other than the former heathen philosopher Augustine who brought this heathen nonsense into the Church by way of his postion and power and lack of understanding of the truth. Augustine is noted by many able scholars as the father of the doctrine of original sin. You would do well to admit to the same truth.

 

[Don]

Wasn't it his obedience that kept him from sin? I think that we are so concerned with the deity of Christ that we forget "the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim 2:5). If he wasn't a man he would not have been able to stand in our place nor would he have been able to be tempted as we are.

We spend so much time on the deity of Christ, but one of the traits of anti-christ is that he will deny that Jesus came in the flesh (I John 4:3).

FIRST PART: Simple musing.
*********************
Question: Was He just a man? Or was He God in the flesh?

If the second, then there's a multi-faceted aspect to "the man," meaning all aspects and facets must be considered.

If the first, then yes, it could have been His obedience that kept him from sin.

If the second, then yes, part of the reason He was sinless could be His obedience; but because of His multi-faceted nature, there was more than just obedience involved.

As I like to tell people, the failure of "root cause analysis" is because there's rarely only one root cause. No tree has a single root.
*********************
SECOND PART: What I actually think.

I humbly submit that His obedience was a result of his sinlessness, not the cause of it.

 

[Darren]

Wasn't it his obedience that kept him from sin? I think that we are so concerned with the deity of Christ that we forget "the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim 2:5). If he wasn't a man he would not have been able to stand in our place nor would he have been able to be tempted as we are.

I do not mean to say He was not also a man. But at the same time He was God. He was God in the flesh, literally. He was not just a man, clearly. The part of Him that was man was so that He could communicate with men, and so that He could die for men. It does not take away from who He is and was. As God, He never sinned, but that was not because He was born of a virgin. Jesus was God, perfect and holy before the virgin birth, and so, He was perfect and holy after it as well. God became a man, but God did not become a mere man. Do you understand the difference?

 

[DHK]

I do not mean to say He was not also a man. But at the same time He was God. He was God in the flesh, literally. He was not just a man, clearly. The part of Him that was man was so that He could communicate with men, and so that He could die for men. It does not take away from who He is and was. As God, He never sinned, but that was not because He was born of a virgin. Jesus was God, perfect and holy before the virgin birth, and so, He was perfect and holy after it as well. God became a man, but God did not become a mere man. Do you understand the difference?

Christ was totally man and totally God at the same time. The only way that this could be accomplished was through the virgin birth. Right from conception to his death he was man. The Bible states that "he suffered in all points such as we." All means all. He suffered as we did, as a man. It wasn't God that was suffering; it was the man Christ Jesus. Though He was God at all times he chose to lay aside his divine attributes much of the time in order to live as man lived.
He thirsted.
He was weary.
He was hungry.
He wept.
--All of the above are characteristics of a man; not of God. He never sinned because he did not have a sin nature. He did not have a sin nature because he was born of a virgin escaping the Adamic curse. He is the Second Adam, the Bible says. The first Adam was sinful; the Second Adam was sinless. The first Adam brought sin into the world; the Second Adam conquered sin on the cross and defeated Satan in the process.

As a man he suffered. He didn't have to go to the cross; he chose to. He said: I lay my life down; I take it up again. No man takes it from me. There was nothing that the Roman soldiers or the Jews could do to Christ that Christ would not allow them to do. He went willingly as a man.

In the Garden he prayed to the Father: Let this cup (of suffering) pass from me; nevertheless let thy will be done and not my own.
As a man he didn't want to go through the suffering all of the suffering that lay ahead. As God he was omniscient and knew what did lie ahead. He prayed that he didn't have to go through it, but he also prayed that whatever was the Father's will, he would submit to it. He would do the Father's will and submit to it as a man.

When the soldiers came to arrest him, Peter took a sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. Christ rebuked him and told him to put up his sword. He healed the man's ear (a miracle he could do as God). Then he stated to Peter attesting to his omnipotence: Know ye not that I could call 12 legions of angelis from heaven (72,000 angels) and my Father would send them. But no, he went to the cross willingly, as a man. He laid aside his power, his divine attributes and suffered as a man, a sinless man, the sinless Lamb of God, that took away the sins of the world. His physical sufferings were the sufferings were the sufferings of a man (human sufferings). When God the Father turned his back on God the Son ("My God, My God, Why has thou forsaken me!"), then it was as God that he was bearing the sins of all the world. That was the worst and most terrible time that he suffered on the cross. There he was suffering both physically and spiritually.

The only way he could suffer both as a man and be sinless at the same time was to be born of a virgin.

 

[Darren]

How could being born of a virgin HUMAN woman make Jesus pure? (Remeber, I alledge He was pure, but for a different much more important reason.) Did she not have the same sin nature of which you are talking? Was it not in HER genes? Do not women have the same nature as men in this case? Is the curse not also on them? Was not ALL creation cursed through Adam?

Jesus was God and Jesus was a man. Jesus suffered like a man, and died like a man. He did NOT sin like a man, because He was God. Jesus did not stay dead, like a man, He rose from the grave. One of the harder points of the trinity isn't it?

 

[DHK]

How could being born of a virgin HUMAN woman make Jesus pure? (Remeber, I alledge He was pure, but for a different much more important reason.) Did she not have the same sin nature of which you are talking? Was it not in HER genes? Do not women have the same nature as men in this case? Is the curse not also on them? Was not ALL creation cursed through Adam?

Jesus was God and Jesus was a man. Jesus suffered like a man, and died like a man. He did NOT sin like a man, because He was God. Jesus did not stay dead, like a man, He rose from the grave. One of the harder points of the trinity isn't it?

The great demonstration that Jesus Christ was indeed God was His resurrection. No other person has ever done that. We see glimpses of his deity throughout the gospels but never in as much dramatic form as in the resurrection. As God he arose from the dead.

The sin nature is passed down through man, through the Adamic nature. I showed you that through Romans 5:12,19. Thus it became a requirement for Christ to be born of a virgin to by-pass that sin nature, that he wouldn't not inherit it from Adam. He was not born from Joseph and Mary because he would have inherited the sin nature from Joseph, thus he was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit.