Well, if I understand anything about grade school grammar, the word "sin" is a verb and not a noun. We tend to refer to sin as the name of a place.... kinda like the term for adultery, "living in sin". We can't "live in sin", its not a place, its not a noun. Its a verb- an action word that denotes activity. A newborn infant is "without sin" because it has neither the ability or the cognizant ability to sin. It cannot commit a sin for its ability to reason as to what sin is is yet to be formed.
When the writer spoke of being "born in sin" he was referring to our environment where the act of sinning is learned.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
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.
Ahem... Present!
Lol!
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
I don't believe we are born with a sin nature. I believe we are born with a human nature, which means we are born with a nature of self-preservation. Think about it... what sins do babies "commit?' One steals a piece of candy from another. A conscious act to break the 10 commandments, or an act to satisfy its own need- an act of self preservation?
Our sin nature develops from our environment. Sin is, in essence, learned behavior.:Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
"Shapen" means to be formed, to devlelop. And, again, "sin" is not a noun (the name of a person, PLACE, or thing, but a verb (an action word). Sin is the wilful act of disobedience to what we know to be right rather than "a state of being.
My veiw, I suppose, in somewhat controversial, but I don't believe we are born with a nature to sin. We are, IMO, born of God, innocent and without sin. Jesus speaks in John 3 of being born again. I believe we are spiritually born at conception. Everyone of Adams race is born of God at conception. At the physical birth, they enter a sinful environment where they learn and act on sin. As sin comes to reign in our bodies, there come a need to be "reborn of God" according to Jesus' teachings to Nicodemus. The sinful nature we incurred from our environment must die at repentance so we can be reborn spiritually. Thats the reason John said 1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Once we are born the 2nd time (born of God), we no longer have the nature (ned, desire) to commit sin.
Lets look at this a little closer: Jesus said in John 3:
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Unless we are RE-born (2nd birth) in God, we cannot SEE (Understand, comprehend) the Kingdom of God ( Spiritual matter, the church. Note: NOT "the kingdom of heaven"' but rather "kingdom of God", the church, etc.) Compare with 1 Cor, 2:14- the natural, un-regenerated mind cannot comprehend spiritual matters)
Nicodemus confused spiritual birth with natural birth and Jesus made it clear he was not referring to natural birth.
Then Jesus says this: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. First, notice the absence of the word AGAIN. Jesus is saying you must be born again (at repentance) in order for us to understand the things of God. Then He is saying we must obey the elements of the Gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord in order for us to ENTER (occupy our place) in the Kingdom of God (or the Body of Christ).
We are born physically without sin, (created in Gods image) but with a freewill. With freewill, we learn and commit sinful acts.
Our sin nature (those acts that we learned by our enviornment) is shed when our sins are forgiven at repentance. We begin to understand the Gospel and spiritual matters by studying and being taught the Word of God. We are RE-born into Gods nature (the nature we had at birth- created in God's image....without sin) by obeying the Gospel of repentance, water baptism and being filled with the Holy Ghost. We are "baptized into One Body" (the church) thru the reception of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 12:13)
There is no sin nature except that which we develop as we mature phyiscally.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
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.
Theres but One was born and remained sinless throughout His lifetime. And that, of course, was Jesus. The difference in Jesus and the rest of humanity is that he was born as the very image (nature) of God, the very manifestation of God on the earth, He was was born for a particular purpose- the redemption of mankind. He was without sin because He was the product of a spiritual union between His mother (flesh) and the Holy Ghost (Spirit).
He was literally "Born of God" and, perhaps because He didn't have a human freewill, He did not have the ability to commit sin. Sure He was tempted to sin, but not because he had a sinful nature, but because it is the devils nature to tempt God creation.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
. . . He did not have the ability to commit sin. Sure He was tempted to sin, but not because he had a sinful nature, but because it is the devils nature to tempt God creation.
If he was incapable of sinning, one could hardly call it temptation. IMO.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
If he was incapable of sinning, one could hardly call it temptation. IMO.
Well, Timmy, my fine friend. I am incapable of sratching my itching back. But that does not keep it from itching.
Jesus was tempted (tried is a better word) because thats what the tempter does...he tempts. Maybe this was to show us that, in fact, "there is no temptation but such as is common to man". His trial was to show us that, by depending on God's grace, we can over come our temptations.
And, my final point, I interjected the word "perhaps' because I'm not sure whether or not He had a freewill and therefore, the ability to commit sin. I lean toward believeing He was incapable of sinning because of His relationship to the Father. But, He also had the human element to contend with. Hence the word "perhaps". Which means I don't know.
Thy sin is forgiven thee, my son. Go and question me no more.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
Well, Timmy, my fine friend. I am incapable of sratching my itching back. But that does not keep it from itching.
Jesus was tempted (tried is a better word) because thats what the tempter does...he tempts. Maybe this was to show us that, in fact, "there is no temptation but such as is common to man". His trial was to show us that, by depending on God's grace, we can over come our temptations.
And, my final point, I interjected the word "perhaps' because I'm not sure whether or not He had a freewill and therefore, the ability to commit sin. I lean toward believeing He was incapable of sinning because of His relationship to the Father. But, He also had the human element to contend with. Hence the word "perhaps". Which means I don't know.
Thy sin is forgiven thee, my son. Go and question me no more.
OK. Perhaps.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
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?
Paul was not a sinner after salvation, but was before.
MORAL FORCE is simply a SYNONYM for Paul speaking of something in him called sin that FOUGHT AGAINST the desire of his mind to do good. He in his mind desired to do good. But something else in him fought against that desire. So it is a FORCE because it was compelling him to do wrong, when he in his own mind sought to do right..
The message version is simply putting this in simplest terms. i agree with the Message version of what Paul was saying, and that was long before I ever saw the message version.
Rom 7:15-23 KJV For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Here he begins talking about a FORCE that affects moral issues in life, such as doing GOOD or BAD. So it is called a moral force.
He says what he wills to do is not what he finds himself doing. So he distinguishes what HIS MIND WANTS TO DO from what he actually does.
(16) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
He does WHAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO DO. See the distinction between HIS WILL and HIS ACTIONS?
(17) Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
He further distinguishes that if it is NOT HIS MIND that desires the wrong, but yet he still does the wrong, then it is not HIMSELF that is the ORIGIN of the wrong he commits. He called it SIN that is inside him that is the real origin of why he did wrong. He distinguished HIMSELF from SIN.
(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.
He explains it more. HE HAS THE WILL to do good, but not the ABILITY. But it is more than not having ability as he further speaks.
(19) For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. (22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: (23) 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.
This OTHER LAW in his members is warring against the law that his mind delights in. Because it is WARRING AGAINST HIS WILL we can call it a FORCE. He distinguishes this something that WARS against his will and his desire to do good. He called it SIN. He called it a LAW. And that is why we then read of the LAW OF SIN.
Rom 7:25 KJV I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but ]with the flesh the law of sin.
Notice we read of the LAW OF SIN. He actually learned something. He said that he noticed HIS WILL and MIND seeks to do good and is in agreement with the law of God he wants to perform. But something in his flesh he called SIN and he called a LAW WARS against that desire in his mind. And since using HIS FLESH to do good is when he always sees himself succumb TO THIS LAW, then the answer is in Rom 8:1.
Rom 8:1 KJV There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
A person has to read Rom 7:25 together with Romans 8:1 to notice that since SERVING WITH FLESH causes him to mess up and serve sin, then stop WALKING AFTER THAT FLESH. Stop resorting to it to serve God. One will always serve sin if one resorts to using the flesh -- and by flesh he is speaking of his human strength all by itself and alone. IOW, if we try serving God with FLESH power alone, we will fail and instead serve sin. This is because A FORCE IN OUR FLESH wars against what we want to do in serving God and defeats us.
I do not see how anyone could not get the idea of a moral force out of this explanation of Paul. And I see nothing out of line in calling this moral force the NATURE TO SIN, or SIN NATURE. It is a power. It wars against what we want to do. It is distinguished from ourselves as something in our flesh.
If we have no moral force or sin nature in us as I believe Paul clearly says we do, then we would be no different from Jesus, meaning we have no more a sin nature than Jesus did. But Paul's words cannot be false. That would mean JESUS HAD TO SAY ABOUT HIMSELF WHAT PAUL SAID ABOUT HIMSELF.
Can you see Jesus saying what Paul did about himself in verses 15-23? I can't.
So why would PAUL say that about human beings and it not be true of Jesus unless we have a nature in us Jesus did not have?
Get over the aversion to the Message version. It really brings things out quite good. In my studies using KJV for many many many years, I came to understand what the bible was saying. And when I saw the Message version translate the same passages, it came up with the EXACT same conclusion I did with the KJV, only in modern terms. But, whatever... the version is not the point. I used KJV to show you my beliefs.
__________________ ...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."
I don't believe we are born with a sin nature. I believe we are born with a human nature, which means we are born with a nature of self-preservation. Think about it... what sins do babies "commit?' One steals a piece of candy from another. A conscious act to break the 10 commandments, or an act to satisfy its own need- an act of self preservation?
It is far more than self preservation. It is self demanding anything that can please self at the expense of others. There are things the infant DOES NOT NEED, but WANTS, and rages into anger if not allowed to have it. It may not be sin -- not sure. But it is certainly not self preservation.
__________________ ...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."
Romans 7 proves sin nature, I believe: I posted this elsewhere but this thread deals specifically with the issue as well.
Romans 7 reveals that Paul discovered through somewhat scientific means that sin as a FORCE dwelt within his flesh.
He analyzed his situation as to why, when he tried doing the good deeds of the good law, that he always committed sin instead. The Law was, as it were, slaying him instead of causing him to do good. He looked at his efforts and looked at his failure and discovered there was a law just as Newton discovered the law of gravity.
Everywhere you drop an apple, whether in Germany, Japan or Iceland, it will fall. This means there is a law at work here. A principle. A law is a way things react whenever in the same circumstances. It happens everytime! And it works everywhere! The law of gravity.
Similarly, Paul discovered that everytime he willed to do good, he sinned instead. It became a new Law or principle to him. (Romans. 7:21).
This led him to understand that it was not himself that was inherently evil, since he desired to do good (Romans. 7:15-19). He, himself, consented that the law was good. He did not willingly rebel against it. He wanted to obey it. Therefore the reason he was not obeying it could not possibly be that he was rebelling against it. It was not him. The only conclusion Paul could draw was that something was in him. It was separate from him in the sense that it was not inherently him, but it was in him.
And since Paul found that this reaction of evil acts always took place when he exerted his flesh or self effort to do good works, he narrowed the thing down to discover its identity. Whatever it was, it worked when "he", himself in his own will power and self-exertion of the flesh, was motivated to work. That act of resorting to himself through the power of his flesh in order to do good was the culprit behind getting this alien element within him to rise up and make him do evil. Therefore it had to be in his "flesh."
Narrowing it down further he realized that the flesh contained something. It was certainly not a "good" thing as the Law was good. It might cause some to think the Law was bad, since trying to keep the Law seemed to always cause this evil to occur. But the Law was certainly not bad (Romans. 7:7). But that something in his flesh certainly was bad and not good at all.
"For I know that in my me (That is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." (Romans. 7:18).
This is most scientific in a very spiritual manner! He called that something in his flesh by the name of "sin". And since he realized that exerting his flesh to work only stirred "sin" up, he had better find a different way in which to see the good deeds come forth through him. All he could think of was to call on God to deliver him from the flesh which held that sin! And that was exactly the answer!! (Romans. 7:24).
He realized that he, himself, delighted in the Law. But another law existed which he then discovered. And that Law warred against the good law that was in his mind, which he willed to obey. And this newly discovered law was actually bringing him into captivity to the Principle of sin.
When He called on God for help, God delivered him through Jesus Christ's death on the cross. Its as though we died to be free of the old cruel husband, since he wasn't going to die (Romans. 7:2-4). And we died, but yet lived on to enjoy the freedom from the old man that our deaths provided. How can this be? Well, we died by faith, believing that Christ died instead us.
So, Paul said God delivered him in Romans. 7:25.
And another Law that existed, which he then found to be the answer, was the reality of the effort to believe and thus walk after the strength of the Spirit rather than the strength of the flesh. And so long as we rely upon God to deliver us through faith in the fact that we died with Christ, we remain above the law of sin and death above that newly discovered law that explained why he could not do good. We must continually realize that we need to rely upon God's Spirit to keep us above sin, and not rely upon our weak human power of self effort to stop sinning.
As much as the law of aerodynamics teaches us that our presence in a certain shaped vehicle that is operating a certain way will keep us above the law of gravity and thus cheat the law of gravity, we can cheat the law of sin and death. And this higher law, the law that cheat sin and death, is called the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. We must be in Christ as much as one would need to be in an airplane to escape the law of gravity. And we are in Christ by having faith in His death for us! And that is what we must understand when we pray and close our prayers saying, "In the name of Jesus Christ."
The explains a sin nature that God did not create in Adam. Can we honestly say that Adam was created with this about himself?: "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 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. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me"
God said IT IS VERY GOOD when he was done creating mankind, after saying it was GOOD earlier in all the rest of creation. Yet those who claim we have no more a difference in our nature than Adam have to conclude that Adam could have said "in my flesh dwelleth no good thing," as much as Paul said it in Romans 7.
__________________ ...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."
Linear Mode
