The think the confusion here stems from our struggle to understand what it means to be born with a "sin nature" and "sin" itself.
Do babies have a "sin nature"? Yes.
Have babies "sinned"? No.
Right. Babies are also born with a human nature but that does not mean at 6 months they know as much as a 20 year old does..they are born with the ability to learn
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Right. Babies are also born with a human nature but that does not mean at 6 months they know as much as a 20 year old does..they are born with the ability to learn
The ability to learn? If humanity is born sinless and has the ability to learn, why aren't there some who have remained in the state of sinless? I mean, everyone seems to have the "ability" to learn sin, yet nobody has the "ability" to learn how to remain sinless? It just seems if we're born in a sinless state, we ought to be able to remain in that sinless state.
Yes Humans are born with that ability, even those that are born mentally deficient have the capacity to learn, though diminished. The point here was to show that merely having a that ability does not make someone at 6 months a brainiac. Same goes for having "the sin nature"...does not mean someone at 6 months is a sinner
Quote:
If humanity is born sinless and has the ability to learn, why aren't there some who have remained in the state of sinless?
Same reason why some remain in a state of never having learned a single thing. It's part of their nature. Unless someone has no brain, is dead or born in a coma etc etc, they will go on and learn something because that is part of their nature
Quote:
I mean, everyone seems to have the "ability" to learn sin, yet nobody has the "ability" to learn how to remain sinless? It just seems if we're born in a sinless state, we ought to be able to remain in that sinless state.
Having the Sin nature does not give anyone the ability to learn how to be sinless.
Having the Sin nature means a person has in innate property about being human that like learning or some other feature of being an adult, kicks in some somewhere in a person's life
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Sin Nature....hum...ever wonder where that doctrine originated from? We are born innocent. If not then we could blame God for making us this way but we cannot.
Sin is by choice. To sin or be a sinner means you are a participant. I also disagree with the Doctrine of Federal Headship...just to name a few.
This is one of the excuses Catholics use for baptizing babies.
Sin Nature....hum...ever wonder where that doctrine originated from? We are born innocent. If not then we could blame God for making us this way but we cannot.
Sin is by choice. To sin or be a sinner means you are a participant. I also disagree with the Doctrine of Federal Headship...just to name a few.
This is one of the excuses Catholics use for baptizing babies.
Just because Catholics use the concept of original to baptize infants, does not mean original sin allows for baptism of infants... and therefore, in turn, does not mean original is error. Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 teach original sin, I believe. Otherwise babies do not need the cross.
It is not blaming God for being born sinful. It is blaming Adam.
We covered some of this together before, but why do you think Paul made these kinds of statements if he did not have a MORAL FORCE of sin in him?
Romans 7:17-23 MSG But I need something more! For if I know the law but still can't keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, I obviously need help! (18) I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it. (19) I decide to do good, but I don't really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. (20) My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time. (21) It happens so regularly that it's predictable. The moment I decide to do good, sin is there to trip me up. (22) I truly delight in God's commands, (23) but it's pretty obvious that not all of me joins in that delight. Parts of me covertly rebel, and just when I least expect it, they take charge.
I only use the MSG version to get the emphasis of Paul across more.
My thoughts, anyway.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Just because Catholics use the concept of original to baptize infants, does not mean original sin allows for baptism of infants... and therefore, in turn, does not mean original is error. Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 teach original sin, I believe. Otherwise babies do not need the cross.
It is not blaming God for being born sinful. It is blaming Adam.
We covered some of this together before, but why do you think Paul made these kinds of statements if he did not have a MORAL FORCE of sin in him?
Romans 7:17-23 MSG But I need something more! For if I know the law but still can't keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, I obviously need help! (18) I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it. (19) I decide to do good, but I don't really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. (20) My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time. (21) It happens so regularly that it's predictable. The moment I decide to do good, sin is there to trip me up. (22) I truly delight in God's commands, (23) but it's pretty obvious that not all of me joins in that delight. Parts of me covertly rebel, and just when I least expect it, they take charge.
I only use the MSG version to get the emphasis of Paul across more.
My thoughts, anyway.
regardless man cannot blame God for sin. I disagree with using the MSG version btw
Are you saying Paul was calling himself a sinner? please clarify
What Moral force are you speaking of and where did you come up with that term?
Yes Humans are born with that ability, even those that are born mentally deficient have the capacity to learn, though diminished. The point here was to show that merely having a that ability does not make someone at 6 months a brainiac. Same goes for having "the sin nature"...does not mean someone at 6 months is a sinner
Same reason why some remain in a state of never having learned a single thing. It's part of their nature. Unless someone has no brain, is dead or born in a coma etc etc, they will go on and learn something because that is part of their nature
Having the Sin nature does not give anyone the ability to learn how to be sinless.
Having the Sin nature means a person has in innate property about being human that like learning or some other feature of being an adult, kicks in some somewhere in a person's life
Prax are we then born with a sin nature or sin potential due to our environment?
Linear Mode
