What is Sin?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: 2. Paul's interpretation is explicitly applied to "all the world" leaving out "no flesh" so that "every mouth" is stopped - Rom. 3:19-20

HP: No one denies that sin is universal in our dispensation. The question is to the 'why' all men are sinners.' Your Augustinian argumentation claims it is because of original sin. That is precisely a false philosophical notion based upon the false philosophical notions of Augustine, that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will itself. You are not getting that philosophy from the Word of God, but rather are twisting at every turn the Word of God to fit your philosophy, just as in your last post where you simply took it upon yourself to insert "if."

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: No one denies that sin is universal in our dispensation. The question is to the 'why' all men are sinners.' Your Augustinian argumentation claims it is because of original sin. That is precisely a false philosophical notion based upon the false philosophical notions of Augustine, that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will itself. You are not getting that philosophy from the Word of God, but rather are twisting at every turn the Word of God to fit your philosophy, just as in your last post where you simply took it upon yourself to insert "if."

I present nothing but the scriptures and I interpet the scriptures by context and your responses fail to represent the context and you charge me with extrabiblical notions. I did not get my understanding of scripture by reading Calvin or Augustine but by reading Paul.

Why then do infants as soon as they are able to express themselves need no training to do evil but need restraint from evil if they are born without a sinful nature? Why does evil come naturally and righteousness must be taught them? Can a good tree bring forth bad fruit?

Infants as soon as they are able to express themselves , express selfishness, anger, wrath, and nearly every other fruit of the flesh without one bit of training, or example by others because it all comes NATURALLY from the womb by birth as part of their own nature.

 

[glfredrick]

HP: No one denies that sin is universal in our dispensation. The question is to the 'why' all men are sinners.' Your Augustinian argumentation claims it is because of original sin. That is precisely a false philosophical notion based upon the false philosophical notions of Augustine, that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will itself. You are not getting that philosophy from the Word of God, but rather are twisting at every turn the Word of God to fit your philosophy, just as in your last post where you simply took it upon yourself to insert "if."

Augustine wrote what he wrote concerning original sin based on what he discovered in the Word of God. You are on the outside looking in on this issue, and yours is definitnely not the majority theological position on this issue.

Why would you adopt a semi-Pelagian view and dismiss what it is that God says? Seems rather futile to me. Can man decide to save himself?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Why then do infants as soon as they are able to express themselves need no training to do evil but need restraint from evil if they are born without a sinful nature? Why does evil come naturally and righteousness must be taught them? Can a good tree bring forth bad fruit?

HP: The truth is that infants are not sinners. Sin is a transgression of the law. What law have infants transgressed???? Infants are incapable of sin, for they are not even moral agents.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: The truth is that infants are not sinners. Sin is a transgression of the law. What law have infants transgressed???? Infants are incapable of sin, for they are not even moral agents.

Isn't that the whole point of original sin? They sinned in Adam when Adam sinned as Adam represented all infants because all men enter the world as infants?

Romans 5:15 demands all sinned when Adam sinned because the tense is Aorist and the Greek term for sin is used in Romans by Paul consistently for sin by imputation. And thus when Adam sinned that sin was imputed to all infants because all men come into the world as infants.

Sin is more than willful violation of God's law but OMISSION - coming short is sin also and infants come short ofthe glory of God when they are selfish and hateful against those who love and care for them (parents). You cannot deny those attributes are the fruits of the flesh rather than the fruit of the Spirit can you??

 

[The Biblicist]

Augustine wrote what he wrote concerning original sin based on what he discovered in the Word of God. You are on the outside looking in on this issue, and yours is definitnely not the majority theological position on this issue.

Why would you adopt a semi-Pelagian view and dismiss what it is that God says? Seems rather futile to me. Can man decide to save himself?

Sin is also by OMMISSION - all have COME SHORT of the glory of God!

Do infants when they react to loving parents by anger, selfishness, stubborness come short of the glory of God in those attributes?

Are those attributes of the flesh of of the Spirit???

 

[The Biblicist]

Sin is also by OMMISSION - all have COME SHORT of the glory of God!

Do infants when they react to loving parents by anger, selfishness, stubborness come short of the glory of God in those attributes?

Are those attributes of the flesh of of the Spirit???

From whence does unjustified anger, selfishness, hatred, stubborness, come from? If they do not come from the human nature obtained at conception then from whence do they originate?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you accept that regeneration is by divine fiat, a creation of God (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10) wherein the divine image is restored

How can the divine image be "restored" to a person who, according to you, is born spiritually dead?

Let us look at a verse that speaks of "regeneration":

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

That happens at conception. But according to you a person comes out of the womb spiritually dead!

 

[The Biblicist]

How can the divine image be "restored" to a person who, according to you, is born spiritually dead?

Let us look at a verse that speaks of "regeneration":

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

That happens at conception. But according to you a person comes out of the womb spiritually dead!

No it does not mean one was previously regenerated. It only means that one was previously created in the image of God IN ADAM and when Adam FELL from that image through sin so did the whole human race.

Again, sin is also by OMMISSION or to "come short of the glory of God"

Do infants who routinely manifest unjustified anger, wrath, deception, stubborness toward those who love them (parents) come short of the glory of God in these things?

From whence do these attitudes originate? Do they originate as fruits of the flesh or the fruit of the Spirit?

If they are not born with such a nature then from whence does it originate? Does God express such a nature? Can such attributes be found in God?

Why is it these things come naturally without training but must be restrained by discipline if such things are not part of the nature they are born with?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No it does not mean one was previously regenerated.

No one is saying that anyone was previously "regenerated." You have problems understanding the most simple arguments.

It only means that one was previously created in the image of God IN ADAM and when Adam FELL from that image through sin so did the whole human race.

You repeat your same old mistaken ideas while IGNORING what I said here:

Let us look at a verse that speaks of "regeneration":

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

That happens at conception. But according to you a person comes out of the womb spiritually dead!

[Do infants who routinely manifest unjustified anger, wrath, deception, stubborness toward those who love them (parents) come short of the glory of God in these things?
From whence do these attitudes originate? Do they originate as fruits of the flesh or the fruit of the Spirit?
If they are not born with such a nature then from whence does it originate?

If it takes a corrupted nature to explain the behavior of children then how do you explain the sin of Adam and Eve, neither who were born with a corrupted nature?

Why is it these things come naturally without training but must be restrained by discipline if such things are not part of the nature they are born with?

"We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time" (Ro.8:22).

The "whole creation" has been groaning due to Adam's sin but that does not mean that people come out of the womb spiritually dead. That idea is ridiculous since the Scriptures declare that we are "wonderfully made":

"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and WONDERFULLY MADE: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:14).

Your teaching makes the Lord Jesus out to be born spiritually dead because if we are born that way then so is He since He was made like us IN EVERY WAY:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

 

[The Biblicist]

No one is saying that anyone was previously "regenerated." You have problems understanding the most simple arguments.


It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

I understood exactly what you said! All your presumptuous conclusions are incorrect.

1. First, "regeneration" is always in contrast to physical generation and Christ makes this very clear:

Jn. 3:66 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So your presumptuous and false idea that "re-generation" demands a previous birth of the Spirit is absurdly false and irrational because that would mean that every infant is born of the spirit but produces fruits of sin by nature he is born with as sin is OMMISSION or coming short of the glory of God and anger, wrath, stubborness, deception are all fruits of the flesh not of the Spirit.

2. Regeration is equal in scripture to new birth and thus you are demanding TWO regenerations; new births while ignoring that Christ contrast the new birth with the physical birth and thus a "re-generation" but from above not from beneath.

If it takes a corrupted nature to explain the behavior of children then how do you explain the sin of Adam and Eve, neither who were born with a corrupted nature?

Again, Adam sinned reprsentatively and did so by CHOICE whereas infants WITHOUT CHOICE prove Adam represented them in his sin because they sin BY NATURE!

Your teaching makes the Lord Jesus out to be born spiritually dead because if we are born that way then so is He since He was made like us IN EVERY WAY:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

Again, Jesus was not "made" man by conception in connection with a human father but by the Holy Spirit. Adam is the FATHER of the human race and the sin nature is passed down through the FATHER not the mother.

The virgin birth is predicted in Genesis 3:15 because the savior would be the "seed of the woman" without the involvement of a Father in contrast to the seed of Eve and every woman after her whose seed were conceived by a father.

Again, sin is also by OMMISSION or to "come short of the glory of God"

Do infants who routinely manifest unjustified anger, wrath, deception, stubborness toward those who love them (parents) come short of the glory of God in these things?

From whence do these attitudes originate? Do they originate as fruits of the flesh or the fruit of the Spirit?

If they are not born with such a nature then from whence does it originate? Does God express such a nature? Can such attributes be found in God?

Why is it these things come naturally without training but must be restrained by discipline if such things are not part of the nature they are born with?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First, "regeneration" is always in contrast to physical generation and Christ makes this very clear:

Jn. 3:66 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

I never said otherwise!

So your presumptuous and false idea that "re-generation" demands a previous birth of the Spirit is absurdly false and irrational because that would mean that every infant is born of the spirit but produces fruits of sin by nature

Adam and Eve were born of the Spirit so if you are right then they would not produce fruit contrary to that nature. But they did!

Regeration is equal in scripture to new birth and thus you are demanding TWO regenerations; new births while ignoring that Christ contrast the new birth with the physical birth and thus a "re-generation" but from above not from beneath.

No, I am not demanding two "regenerations." the following is obviously above your understanding:

Let us look at a verse that speaks of "regeneration":

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

That happens at conception. But according to you a person comes out of the womb spiritually dead!

 

[The Biblicist]

I never said otherwise!

Adam and Eve were born of the Spirit so if you are right then they would not produce fruit contrary to that nature. But they did!

Text please? Where does it say in Scripture that Adam or eve were "born of the Spriit"???? They were created in the image of God but they were never "born" of the Spirit.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

HP: How about saying Adam and Eve were born of Christ? Life was not, and could not have been, created apart from Him. Christ was and is the light of men.

 

[The Biblicist]

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

HP: How about saying Adam and Eve were born of Christ? Life was not, and could not have been, created apart from Him. Christ was and is the light of men.

Does not John use the plural "men" rather than the singular "man" as in one man Adam?

John is merely identifying where the true source of all life is found (material and spirit) which identifies Christ as the Creator and source of all life! If he means eternal life, then why was God concerned that Adam might eat of the tree of life if he already possessed eternal life? If he means eternal life/spiritual then how can that be true of "men" in general?

You are forced to defend your false doctrine by forced INFERENCES rather than by explicit and plain precepts, while at the same time you are forced to deny plain and explicit precepts that condemn our doctrine! That tells a lot!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Does not John use the plural "men" rather than the singular "man" as in one man Adam?

HP: Men could be denoting mankind in the garden consisting of Adam and Eve. They were both "IN A SENCE" men. Tke the words, "Children of men." Does that include girls also, and do men give birth? We need to recognize the manner in which language cannot be placed in a straight jacket nor verb tenses in a box of ones own critical approach. Common parlance means just that. A common sense, not critical, means of expressing thoughts and conveying ideas. Scripture is writen in common parlance.

Biblicist: John is merely identifying where the true source of all life is found (material and spirit) which identifies Christ as the Creator and source of all life! If he means eternal life, then why was God concerned that Adam might eat of the tree of life if he already possessed eternal life? If he means eternal life/spiritual then how can that be true of "men" in general?

HP: Living proof that to be granted eternal life in this world is not necessarily forever. We must continue in faith and obedience if we are to see the earnest of eternal life we now hold by faith, come into full fruition in its fullness at the judgment. We both will be there.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Men could be denoting mankind in the garden consisting of Adam and Eve.

Wrong! The singular term "man" is used for both Adam and Eve together as one. The term "men" is used for the whole human race including male and females.

You arrogantly use the idea of "common parlance" to twist and change the Scriptures to mean whatevery you desire! Once you introduce such a principle in regard to terms and tenses you invalidate the inspiration of scritpures and make a mockery of God's Word!

Tell me, what keeps you from saying "common parlance" to ANY and EVERYTHING in scripture you disagree with????? NOTHING keeps you from doing it! If you can assert that demonic idea in one place you can do it in every place thus denying any value of inspiration whatsoever!

HP: Living proof that to be granted eternal life in this world is not necessarily forever. We must continue in faith and obedience if we are to see the earnest of eternal life we now hold by faith, come into full fruition in its fullness at the judgment. We both will be there.

So it is "temporal" life rather than "eternal" life? So Christ fibbed when he claimed WITHOUT CONDITIONS every single one the Father gave him would come to him and he would never lose a single one but would raise them up to eternal life (Jn. 6:37-39). I will take His word over yours.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Text please? Where does it say in Scripture that Adam or eve were "born of the Spriit"???? They were created in the image of God but they were never "born" of the Spirit.

When I used the term "born of the Spirit" in regard to Adam and Eve I was using that term in a figurative sense.

They were both created in the image of God so therefore they were alive spiritually when they were created so their nature can be described as a spiritual nature.

But you attribute a person's actions as being a result of their nature

Why is it these things come naturally without training but must be restrained by discipline if such things are not part of the nature they are born with?

If you are right then Adam and Eve could not have possibly sinned since they had a spiritual nature, a nature which is created in the image of God. But they did sin proving once again that your ideas are WRONG!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Why did the angels sin Biblicist? You seem to think you know precisely why we sin. Show us why Adam and Eve and the angels sinned? I want to know what 'self' they had that determined their sin, and how a self, holy until that point, can violate with impunity the fixed principle of God and His Self dictating only righteousness eliminating any possibility, theoretically or otherwise, of contrary action according to you. Who or what tempted Satan to sin or the angels that followed him?

Explain to us what holiness, righteousness, love, hate etc. are apart from contrary choice existing? Why are rocks and inanimate objects not referred to in moral terms, such a holy rock, or a righteous or loving log? Consider animals and plants. All are driven by their driven by their 'self' or coerced by punishments or rewards. Why are they never spoken of in moral terms such as holy or righteous?

Could it just be you have a skewed view of morality and what constitutes holiness, righteousness, evil, and all other moral concepts?

You deny that man can create anything remember? How can God, that cannot do anything apart from His own nature, according to you, (not even theoretically), create a man that can violate His very nature? Is man greater in power, able to do that which even the God that created him cannot, (even if only theoretically), do? If God can only do what his self mandates, can God create or grant powers to His creation that are not even a part of His own Self? Is man, and the powers he was created with, just the product of random chance, unknown to God until chance formed such powers?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Wrong! The singular term "man" is used for both Adam and Eve together as one. The term "men" is used for the whole human race including male and females.

HP: Says who? What set grammatical principle drives your absolute knowledge of the GK and or English for that matter? Show us plainly the rule set in stone for the use of the words 'men and 'man' and how, without the slightest degree of error, what you say is the truth and the only manner one can use these words in common parlance or even in the strictest sense demanded by these absolute grammatical notions you alone know so much about.