Is sin only an act and not a moral force also?

[mfblume]

I do not agree the propensity was always in man to sin... not like it is since the fall anyway. Paul said SIN DWELLED IN HIM. That could not be said about Adam before the fall. As i said, sin is a moral force in that context. Adam never had it before the fall. What the forbidden fruit put in him, not in his DNA btw, was this sin.

Originally Posted by ronharvey

I said,"The propensity to disobey was always there, it just had never been challenged till the "don't eat" command came along."

I still disagree. Adam did not have a propensity to sin, If he did, then all things were not "very good" after creation.

I think some of us are missing Romans 7's words about sin dwelling in the flesh. Sin dwelling in us is a moral force.

Sin is the transgression of the Law.
Sin is imputed.

Adam and Eve's eyes were opened after the fact, prior to, they had never disobeyed (esp the be fruitful and multiply command).

Their conscience was struck and they became aware of their wrong.

The command not to eat was to Adam, not Eve (She had not been made yet). This is why, not until Adam transgressed did their eyes open.

So are you saying before the fall it was within Adam to perhaps slay someone as much as it was in Cain after the fall?

The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil was just that the tree of KNOWLEDGE. The KNOWLEDGE was not in the fruit on the tree, but the fruit (result) of their disobedience. We know they gained the KNOWLEDGE of what disobedience is by the phrase; "And the eyes of them both were opened."

You know the feeling,
1. You realize you goofed and you get the sinking feeling all over your being. 2. You say something hurtful and realize it.

You gain KNOWLEDGE in your ignorance.

The propensity to disobey was always there, it just had not been challenged.
Two Laws;
1. Be fruitful and multiply (A fun command to obey! We can HAVE this!)
2. Don't Eat of the Tree (Not so fun, we CAN'T have this. :-( )

Where there is no Law THERE IS NO SIN.

When all my kids were still home and doing the house ape thing, I could set there and as long as I said nothing to them, they were perfectly in my will.

BUT, the moment I uttered the "Be quite" command, being a house ape was no longer in my will and would have consequences if re enacted.

Where there is no Law THERE IS NO SIN.
BECAUSE
Sin is the transgression of the Law.

Sin is more than an act of disobedience and transgression of the law. How can acts and transgressions dwell inside people's flesh? How can acts and transgressions use law to slay someone?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by ronharvey

The transgression of the Law IS disobedience.

Amen.

I wasn't making an argument for two things.

The bible says the LAW of sin dwells in our members:

Romans 7:23 "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"

Reading through Romans, Paul never states that a moral force is in our flesh.

The law of sin IS describing the moral force. LAW in this passage is a principle. It is something you can predict will occur if similar circumstances are involved. The law of gravity states that when on earth something is released into the air, it will fall to the ground. This holds true in Tokyo, London and Toronto. Thus, it is a LAW. And there is a law to sin. Paul said that whenever SELF seeks to do good evil is present with us. What is evil? It is also a moral force. It's like an animal.

Paul learned that this force within him actually caused him to do things contrary to that which he actually desired to do.

Romans 7:14-23 KJV For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (15) For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. (16) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. (17) 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. (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.

Some say Paul is using rhetoric and putting himself in the place of one under Mosaic Law which urges another law of sin to work, but the point is Paul was right about these tendencies.

Notice particularly verses 19 and 23. Paul wanted to do right, but a FORCE in him pushed him to do things he actually did not want to do. Now, why is there something dwelling in his flesh that he claimed succeeded in getting him to do the thing hew did not want to do?

Furthermore, why would Paul said it was not himself doing this since he agreed with and wanted to instead do the things Mosaic law said to do? How could it not be HIM DOING IT? A moral force was in him.

He does state:

Romans 7:5 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death"

Sin is predicated on the LAW, God's commands, Statutes, and judgments.

Your making a case for something happening at the time Adam ate of the fruit that the Bible does not say, nor alludes to happening.

Let me correct what I said. After more consideration, I realize should have said SIN worked in Adam when he first CHOSE to eat the fruit, which occurred before he actually ate, of course. And to fit Paul's words with the entire concept of Adam's sin, we have to conclude that sin was not just the act of disobedience, but became a moral force in Adam upon his disobedience. Paul says it is a force, in the way he speaks of it.

I like what Watchman Nee said about it.

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

The first eight chapters of Romans form a self-contained unit. The four-and-a-half chapters from 1:1 to 5:11 form the first half of this unit and the three-and-a-half chapters from 5:12 to 8:39 the second half. A careful reading will show us that the subject-matter of the two halves is not the same. For example, in the argument of the first section we find the plural word ‘sins’ given prominence. In the second section, however, this changed, for while the word ‘sins’ hardly occurs once, the singular word ‘sin’ is used again and again and is the subject mainly dealt with. Why is this?

It is because in the first section it is a question of the sins I have committed before God, which are many and can be enumerated, whereas in the second it is a question of sin as a principle working in me. No matter how many sins I commit, it is always the one sin principle that leads to them. I need forgiveness for my sins, but I need also deliverance from the power of sin. The former touches my conscience, the latter my life. I may receive forgiveness for all my sins, but because of my sin I have, even then, no abiding peace of mind.

Sin is a POWER. A force.

Nee also said:

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

There is an inward inclination to sin, a power within that draws to sin. When that power breaks out I commit sins. I may seek and receive forgiveness, but then I sin once more. So life goes on in a vicious circle of sinning and being forgiven and then sinning again. I appreciate the blessed fact of God’s forgiveness, but I want something more than that: I want deliverance. I need forgiveness for what I have done, but I need also deliverance from what I am.

This was not in man before Adam sinned.

Paul said he was SOLD UNDER SIN. Are we to think that was the case with Adam before he disobeyed God?

Once again, I disagree with your viewpoint because God said all was very good after man was created. And if Adam was sold under sin the moment God created him, since this tendency was in him since his creation, then all was not very good.

You are using terms that go beyond the actual explanation Paul gives...

Paul says that every sin is committed outside the body...

Right. But that aspect of sin is not the one of which I am speaking. You made the error Bro Benincasa made in assuming all instances of the term SIN refers to an act alone. That idea cannot apply to Paul's words about sin in Ro 7:14, 17, 20. In those verses, sin is a POWER and FORCE.

1 Corinthians 6:18 "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without (Old English; outside/apart from) the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body"

An act of disobedience against ones self who is joined to the Lord.

This verse and explanation is based on Paul's opening remarks about the LAW of her husband. She is bound until he dies, so also we are bound to the law of sin until we die (repentance...etc...).

I agree. But SIN in the verses I quoted is a different sense of the issue altogether. You really must exp[lain how the word SIN remains the same in as your references you quoted in the the verses I listed before this can be settled, I think.

[bkstokes]

Bro. Ron

You posted this:

The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil was just that the tree of KNOWLEDGE. The KNOWLEDGE was not in the fruit on the tree, but the fruit (result) of their disobedience. We know they gained the KNOWLEDGE of what disobedience is by the phrase; "And the eyes of them both were opened."

I am in need of further explanation. Do you believe that knowledge is only obtained by one disobeying God?
__________________

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

Bro. Ron

You posted this:

The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil was just that the tree of KNOWLEDGE. The KNOWLEDGE was not in the fruit on the tree, but the fruit (result) of their disobedience. We know they gained the KNOWLEDGE of what disobedience is by the phrase; "And the eyes of them both were opened."

I am in need of further explanation. Do you believe that knowledge is only obtained by one disobeying God?

In light of this thought, I came to believe that the knowledge of good and evil is similar to the Law of Moses. Both brought a curse. And I actually believe that Mosaic Law was engineered with the same principle the forbidden fruit held in itself in order to ensure that man learn a lesson he seemingly never quite fully learned since the fall. That lesson was that without God's LIFE man cannot improve upon himself through acquiring a complete list of knowledge as to what is good and what is evil. IOW, God brought the forbidden fruit to Israel and demanded they eat of it until they realized, by the time Christ came 150 years later, that man needs God's LIFE in him and not simply knowledge of what is right or wrong to succeed spiritually and be righteous.

[mfblume]

Any thoughts on the recent posts, Ron Harvey?

[mfblume]

The whole concept of there being moral force called sin is also found in Paul's words regarding being in either Adam or Christ. If Adam had a propensity to sin like we do today before he disobeyed God, then what makes the difference of being in Adam or being in Christ? Why the need to be in Christ if we were created with the propensity to sin?

The entire reason we need to leave Adam and come into Christ is because Adam's act fell upon us all and caused us to be categorized underneath his sin. If we did not inherit something from Adam, then why would we be nailed for what Adam did?

Becoming new creatures is incumbent upon us from our very natural births!

We're born in Adam. We were IN ADAM when he sinned, according to what Romans 5 states about Adam making us all sinners before we were born. This is not speaking about Adam's mere existence upon his creation as being cause for us being sinners. It is referring to Adam's disobedience that caused us to become sinners. That means Adam' sin threw something over us all. And I think the sin nature is part of that.

Sin is certainly more than a disobedient act, but an actual force and nature. Otherwise Adam could not make us all sinners.

[mfblume]

We miss Bro Harvey here!