|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 25, 2008 13:26:54 GMT -5
That is a Gnostic understanding of sin. To the Gnostics, sin was physical. But to the Early Church, sin was a free will choice.
If the Gnostics are right, then you can "inherit sin". If the Early Church was right, then you cannot "inherit sin".
Is sin physical or is sin moral? Is sin some "stuff" or is sin a choice?
If our flesh was "sinful", then the heavier you are, the more sinful you are! If you cut off your arm, you are cutting off your sin! You don't need Jesus, you just need a diet. Sanctification is simply losing body weight, if sin is flesh.
Our flesh is a source of TEMPTATION. But our flesh is not SINFUL. Sinfulness has to do with choices. Your flesh is not a choice, therefore your flesh cannot be sinful.
In God’s Moral Government, temptation is not sin (Heb. 4:15; Jas. 1:14-15). All sin consists in sinning. Sin is a choice to transgress known law (Jn. 9:41; Rom. 5:13; Jas. 4:17; 1 Jn. 3:4). Sin is not a metaphysical constitution, a physical or spiritual substance, disobedience is a free moral choice (1 Sam. 8:7; 2 Kin. 18:12; Ps. 78:8, 10; Isa. 5:4; 5:24; 65:12; 66:4; Jer. 3:13; 5:3; Eze. 20:8; Zech. 8:17; Lk. 19:14; Rom. 6:12; Eph. 4:26-28; 1 Jn. 3:4), a choice to do evil instead of the good that you know you should choose (Jn. 3:19; 9:41; Jas. 4:17). Sin is not a defect or disability of nature but is rebellion of the will or an unwillingness of heart (Ps. 78:37; Isa. 14:13-14; 30:9; 30:15-16; 31:6; 42:24; Eze. 20:7-8; Neh.9:29; Zech. 7:11-13; Lk.19:14; 19:27). Sin is an unreasonable or unintelligent choice (Isa. 30:1; 47:8; 65:2; Ecc. 9:3; Matt. 7:26; Mk. 6:6; Lk. 6:49; Tit. 3:3).
The flesh has lusts, cravings, or desire, which can be gratified through the forbidden means of sin. (Gen 3:6) These lusts are at first involuntary lusts, cravings, or desires, being strictly physical and not moral. There are involuntary physical desires and then there are intentional committals of the will. One is involuntary while the other is intentional. The former is physical, the latter is moral. But involuntary physical impulses do not bring forth moral (or immoral) sin until the will selfishly serves them supremely (James 1:15) instead of self sacrificially serving the highest well-being of others. (Luke 10:27). Physical temptation becomes immoral sin when the will yields itself to it. It was the natural, physical lusts, cravings, or desires of the flesh which were the source of temptation for Eve in the Garden. (Gen 3:6) She “saw that it was good for food”, “pleasant to the eye”, and “desired to make one wise”. These were all natural, physical appetites for food and wisdom which she sought to gratify through sin or disobedience to God. This was the first case in history when a human being submitted their will to serve their flesh supremely rather then submitting their will to the truth of God revealed to their minds. This was the first case in the history of a human individual doing what feels good over against what she knew was good. And this is exactly what every sinner does.
JESUS HAD THE SAME FLESH WE HAVE BUT JESUS WAS NOT SINFUL
The lusts of the flesh that we inherit are temptations (James 1:14) but they are not sin themselves. Eve herself was tempted by her flesh (Gen. 3:6). But these passions are not a sin or are sinful. Rather, these lusts tempt us to sin and tempt us to become sinful. (James 1:15) All sin is of the heart or of the will (Matt. 15:19) but temptation is of the flesh or lusts (Rom. 7:13, Jas. 1:14).
The same God who formed Christ in the womb also formed each individual in the womb (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:9-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3). Scripture says that Christ was made human, partook of the same flesh and blood that we have (Heb. 2:14), and was made in all points like we are made (Heb. 2:17), so He was tempted in all points like we are (Heb. 2:15). The same lusts that we inherit that tempt us to sin Christ Himself received and so He was tempted to sin. (Matt. 4:1-11) Christ received the same type of body as those who use their bodies for sin, yet Christ condemned using the body for sin by not sinning (Rom. 8:3). There is nothing sinful in and of itself in the human body, it is simply an “instrument” that can be used by free will (yielded) as an “instrument of righteousness” or as an “instrument of unrighteousness” (Rom. 6:13, 6:19).
Because the Gnostic's said that the flesh was sinful, instead of an instrument that could be used either way, they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. So anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is an Antichrist (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7).
Consider:
- Jesus had the same flesh we have - Jesus was not sinful - Therefore, our flesh is not sinful
|
|
|
Post by logic on Nov 25, 2008 16:15:45 GMT -5
I've been teaching someone and I think the Q&A would be good here.
Rom 7:25 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. How is it not the flesh that is to blame without twisting the passage? Because it is not actually Him who serves the Law of Sin, it is his flesh.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. Rom 7:20 Now if I do that which I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me.
How can he serve the flesh with his flesh without choosing to do so with the mind or will which he is saying is in agreement with God? I don't think there is a choice, the flesh will continue to be weak and have unlawful passions no matter what.I don't think Paul is actually saying that he will "serve" the flesh as in following through with its unlawful desires, nor is he saying that he can choose what the flesh will take pleasure in, but that he is accepting the fact that he will always have them.That is why Paul says, ''O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?''(Romans 7:24However, he has victory over the flesh by walking in the spirit so that he does not fulfill the lust of the flesh(Gal 5:16)
As I said before the flesh is not sentient, can not have a will. It gives pleasure because of the senses. The flesh is amoral, it takes pleasure in what ever, good or bad, for it has no mind to discern. This is unchangeable; the flesh needs to be done away with. That will happen it the resurrection.
The relief comes in Romans 8:20 For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope,
This ''vanity''(temporal, not lasting) along with the ''bondage of corruption'' from the following verse is not because of Adam's sin and the curse that followed, but because of Him(God) who has subjected it in hope of the adoption.
That is, the redemption of our bodies which is the glorious liberty of the children of God(v.21)
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for?
In this hope we are saved.
we are saved by the hope of the redemption of our body.
Saved as in it gives us a reason to keep the faith.
So his flesh serves the Law of sin. What is the law of sin? The ''law of sin'' is the demands of my own fleshly desires & effections against known law that bring me in opposition to God which separates me from Him.
The ''law of sin'' includes the inability of the flesh to deny its own desires apart from the Spirit & faith in HIM.
How can his amoral flesh serve it? The Greek word for "serve" is more of bondage, or to serve as a slave.
The literal Greek helps one to understand it better:
I thank God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Consequently, then I myself with the mind indeed, us a slave to God's law, yet the flesh (is a slave) to Sin's law."
IOW: With our mind or by choice, we give ourselves as a slave to God's law, but the flesh can only be a slave to/of the demands its own desires & affections. It will become clearer after reading to the end of this e-mail.
It's not sinful to have amoral flesh. How can something not sinful serve a law of Sin? I don't understand. You’re correct; his flesh is not sinful unless one uses it that way.
But Paul calls sin, the flesh's unlawful desires. They will always be with the flesh because what it takes pleasure in can not be changed.
Example: Premarital sex. It will always be pleasurable even after you’re saved.
Your flesh will take pleasure in sex with anybody, including ones which is not with a spouse.
The flesh can not stop taking pleasure in sex, and it is an unlawful desire with the flesh to have sex with anyone.
Remember, that the ''law of sin'' includes the inability of the flesh to deny its own desires apart from the Spirit & faith in HIM.
The question: how can something not sinful serve a law of Sin?
By not being able to deny unlawful desires.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. dwells in him where? Obviously not the conscience. Must be the body or the mind(choices) right? He wants to, but he doesn't know how to stop. Verse 18.
He has no alternate action in view.
Remember that Paul is portraying a pre-salvation experience.
He does not have anything else to put his affection on for him to stop. He doesn't have any reason to hate that which he takes pleasure in to stop.
The law is not enough for one to be persuaded to stop; it only tells you that you should stop. Example: You love cotton candy & you don't like all other food.
You don't know how to stop eating only cotton candy. Sure, you may try to eat other good food, but you keep going back to cotton candy; you don't even know why you should stop except that the law told you to.
You don't have anything else that you like to eat in order to stop.
The only way you can truly stop is if your affection is turned away from Cotton candy & onto something else.
The cure is to persuade you that you are dying and that cotton candy is killing you.
With that knowledge, you will be able to quit eating cotton candy, because you will hate what it does to you.
...So then with the mind you hate the cotton candy; but with the flesh you still like the flavor
Romans 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but my own fleshly desires dwelling in me.
Romans 7:20 Now if I habitually do what I actually prefer not to do, it is no longer I who am doing it, but my own fleshly desires that dwell within me. why no longer Paul? Verse 16 is in connection with 17; if then & now then.Now that he consents to the law as being good, he is no longer in agreement with his flesh's compulsions.
Since He disagrees with his flesh, he puts the blame on it and not on his self.
Example: Your addicted to an illegal drug & know it's against the law, but you don't agree to the law.
However, the law is right & your wrong,
Your liable to the law until you agree to the law, surrender to it and admit your need for help.
Paul is spiritually "dead"?
yes, I believe that he is still not saved at this point, spiritually dead. However, he is agreeing that the Law is good and is surrendering to it. However, Paul is following after the law of righteousness, but not attaining righteousness.
Why is he not yet attaining righteousness?
Because he is not seeking it by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For he is stumbling at that stumbling stone (Romans 9:31-32), he must acknowledge Christ, which is his next step in order to have the victory.
He is bound to the law to live by the law to do it, until he puts his faith in & in Christ & what HE said & done (Galatians 3:10 & James 2:10) so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in him, who should be walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Romans 8:4)
In Romans 7:17&20, he's talking about the pleasure which remains after he hates the desire for the pleasure.
He can only hate the desire by loving the law.
Example: So now it is no longer I who wants to smoke, but my own fleshly desires dwelling in me (I still take pleasure in smoking even though I don’t want to).
Now if I habitually keep smoking, which I actually prefer not to do, it is no longer I who enjoy to smoking, but my own fleshly desires that dwell within me (the addiction).
How is having unlawful passions serving the law of sin? I thought the body was amoral and served our decisions?
I believe that is what the law of sin is.
The flesh does serve our decisions, but as you notice, even though you hate your sins, you "could" still take pleasure in anything your flesh desires, as in the cotton candy example.
Why wretched if God said "very good"? What's the difference? Wretched state that he is in, not being saved yet and being bound to the law.
Romans 8 is the answer for Romans 7.
Paul goes back to speaking in a post salvation position in Romans 8
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 26, 2008 11:34:12 GMT -5
This is from another message board:
There is an alternative explanation. We have natural desires given to use by God, which we can choose to gratify in a forbidden way. Eve was tempted by her natural desires for food. But she gratified that desire in a forbidden way. That does not mean that her desire for food, which was given by God, was "sinful". It simply means that the devil can appeal to our natural desires to get us to sin.
I am arguing that sin is a misuse and abuse of our nature. Sin is when we seek to gratify a natural desire in a forbidden way.
Here are others explaining what I am saying:
“Now temptation is not sin. Temptation is the proposition presented to the mind that you can satisfy a good appetite in a forbidden way. Temptation leads to sin…. Sin is the decision of the will…. sin is the decision to gratify a good appetite in a bad way." Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 141-142)
“Don’t mistake temptation for sin. Temptation is a suggestion to gratify a desire in an illegal way or amount. Temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 83).
“The bodily appetites and tendencies of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasions of sin. So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature. But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for knowledge. These were not sinful but were as God made them. They were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God’s moral government. But being strongly excited led to indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning against God. These tendencies were innocent in themselves, but he yielded to them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin.” Charles Finney (You Can Be Holy, published by Whitaker House, p. 215).
"We have a nature that is capable of being perverted from legitimate to illegitimate, from the natural to the unnatural, from the pure to the polluted." Sin is to "pervert... natural, legitimate, human desires." F. Lagard Smith (Troubling Questions for Calvinists, page 134-135).
"Evil is making a bad use of a good thing." Augustine (Confessions and Enchiridion, trans. and ed. by Albert C. Outler, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, N. D, page 326-338, section 36).
I think you are confusing physical depravity with moral depravity. Our bodies cannot be sinful because they are physical. They are simply dirt. God made us out of the dirt. Can dirt be sinful? No. Dirt cannot be sinful.
But our bodies are corrupt and depraved. Since our removal from the Garden of Eden, we have been subjected to disease, death, etc. God has subjected us to these things. God even said to Moses that He creates some men blind, deaf, etc.
But this is physical depravity, not moral depravity. Moral depravity is a choice made by the will to be selfish. What is moral always has to do with the will. Morality has to do with choices. And the word "sinful" can only be applied to what is moral, it can only be applied to choices.
I agree with you about the temptation of our flesh.
But if they are "temptations", they should not be called "original sin". Inheriting temptation, and inheriting sin, are two completely different things. It is not a sin to inherit temptation! We are not born sinners because we inherit temptation.
And if they are "temptations", they should not be called "sinful nature". Being tempted, and being sinful, are two completely different things. It is not sinful to have temptations. Jesus had temptations. Did Jesus have a sinful nature? No, Jesus had a human nature. And human nature is susceptible to temptation. Our natural desires can be used in sinful ways.
It is not the "desire to disobey God" that we are born with. It is a desire for gratification that we are born with. And there are lawful means of gratification and unlawful means of gratification. Our flesh has no regard or care for whether something is lawful or unlawful. That is the job of our conscience. Our conscience cares whether we gratify our flesh lawfully or unlawfully, but our flesh doesn't care. Our flesh simply desires gratification. That is it's job. That is what keeps us alive. It desires food, sex, well-being, etc. These desires are all good as long as we use them good. They are only evil if we use them sinfully.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Nov 26, 2008 13:53:02 GMT -5
Recap Man has one will not two.; the flesh is not sentient, can not have a will. Flesh created good, for God saw it as such, that never changed. Flesh created weak from the start, for it is why Adam sinned(lust of the flesh and eyes, pride of life). Flesh created dependent on the tree of life, therefore, it is temporal and always was. Flesh created non-sentient, for it has no mind. Flesh created amoral, for takes pleasure in what ever, good or bad. Therefore, the flesh is not responcible, the the one who utilizes it, so if one is to call the flesh the "sin nature" as the NIV, it still does not matter.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 27, 2008 11:12:28 GMT -5
GOOD QUESTION
If we do not inherit a sinful nature, or original sin that makes us sin, why do we sin? Doesn't the universality of sin prove that universal inheritance of a sinful nature?
Let me answer the question with a question. Why did Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels sin, if they do not have a sinful nature? Why did Adam and Eve sin, unless they had original sin inside of them? The answer, because they wanted to. We cannot look to anything but our own free will as the cause of our sin. We have no one to blame but ourselves, it is our own fault.
The cause of sin and the occasion of sin must be distinguished between.
The occasion of sin: temptation (appeals presented to the mind to gratify the flesh in an unlawful manner)
The cause of sin: free will (the choice to gratify the flesh in a forbidden way)
Why has everyone sin? Because everyone is tempted to sin, and everyone has chosen to sin.
The universality of sin does not prove that all men inherit a "sinful nature" or "original sin. The universality of sin proves that all men have a free will and face temptation, and they willingly give into temptation.
HOW THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN IS NOT TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR:
"Moral depravity is not then to be accounted for by ascribing it to a nature or constitution sinful in itself. To talk of a sinful nature, or sinful constitution, in the sense of physical sinfulness, is to ascribe sinfulness to the Creator, who is the author of nature. It is to overlook the essential nature of sin, and to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. Both sound philosophy and the Bible, make sin to consist in obeying the flesh, or in the spirit of self-pleasing, or self-indulgence, or, which is the same thing, in selfishness-in a carnal mind, or in minding the flesh. But writers on moral depravity have assumed, that moral depravity was distinct from, and the cause of sin, that is, of actual transgression.They call it original sin, indwelling sin, a sinful nature, an appetite for sin, an attribute of human nature, and the like. We shall presently see what has led to this view of the subject." Charles Finney (Systematic Theology, 1851, pg 327-328)
HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN:
"The defenders of the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness, or moral depravity, urge as an additional argument—that sin is a universal effect of human nature, and therefore human nature must be itself sinful. Answer: This is a non sequitur. Sin may be, and must be, an abuse of free agency; and this may be accounted for, as we shall see, by ascribing it to the universality of temptation, and does not at all imply a sinful constitution. But if sin necessarily implies a sinful nature, how did Adam and Eve sin? Had they a sinful nature to account for, and to cause their first sin? How did angels sin? Had they also a sinful nature? Either sin does not imply a sinful nature, or a nature in itself sinful, or Adam and angels must have had sinful natures before their fall. Again: Suppose we regard sin as an event or effect. An effect only implies an adequate cause. Free, responsible will is an adequate cause iii the presence of temptation, without the supposition of a sinful constitution, as has been demonstrated in the case of Adam and of angels. When we have found an adequate cause, it is unphilosophical to look for and assign another." Charles Finney (Systematic Theology, 1851, pg 335)
"There may be more than one way of accounting for the universal sinfulness of human actions from the dawn of moral agency. It may be ascribed to the universality and peculiar nature of temptation, as has been said." Charles Finney (Systematic Theology, 1851, pg 329)
======================================== ========================================
WHY DO MEN CHOOSE TO SIN? HOW TO INDIVIDUALS BECOME SINNERS?
Explanations from:
1. From Charles Finney 2. From Gordon Olson 3. From Winkie Pratney
FROM CHARLES FINNEY:
2. All moral depravity commences in substantially the same way. Proof:
(1.) The impulses of the sensibility are developed, and gradually commencing from the birth, and depending on physical development and birth.
(2.) The first acts of will are in obedience to these.
(3.) Self-gratification is the rule of action previous to the developement of reason.
(4.) No resistance is offered to the will's indulgence of appetite, until a habit of self-indulgence is formed.
(5.) When reason affirms moral obligation, it finds the will in a state of habitual and constant committal to the impulses of the sensibility.
(6.) The demands of the sensibility have become more and more despotic every hour of indulgence.
(7.) In this state of things, unless the Holy Spirit interpose, the idea of moral obligation will be but dimly developed.
(8.) The will of course rejects the bidding of reason, and cleaves to self-indulgence.
(9.) This is the settling of a fundamental, question. It is deciding in favour of appetite, against the claims of conscience and of God.
(10.) Light once rejected, can be afterwards more easily resisted, until it is nearly excluded altogether.
(11.) Selfishness confirms, and strengthens, and perpetuates itself by a natural process. It grows with the sinner's growth, and strengthens with his strength; and will do so for ever, unless overcome by the Holy Spirit through the truth,
(Lectures on Systematic Theology, page 345-346)
FROM GORDON OLSON:
THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN IN THE WORLD IS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS FOLLOWS:
1. Hereditary physical tendencies tend toward softness and self-sympathy, beginning early in life....
2. Physical consciousness and experiences through the five senses are cultivated prior to the dawn of moral accountability.
3. Moral influences of our immediate and social environment lead us to choose similar habits of life by imitation and often persuasion (I Pe. 1:18).
4. At the dawn of moral accountability, as obligation to God and other beings is beginning to be perceived, moral enlightenment appears to make a dim impact because of our already established manner of living.
5. The will now determines to press on in this self-gratification against these new realizations, the habit of self -indulgence now becoming sinful and involves new concentrations in its pursuit (Is. 53:6; Ro. 3:23; I Pe. 2:25).
(The Truth Shall Set You Free, page 79-80)
FROM WINKIE PRATNEY:
WHY DO CHILDREN SIN?
How, then does a child sin! One does not have to teach a child to do wrong. The explanation becomes clear if we carefully consider the development of a man. A baby enters the world as the object of its parent's fondness, unceasing care, and concession by those who guard it. In these circumstances, the natural, inherited appetites are Just developed; and the child's natural love of conscious freedom begins to express itself. The feelings develop long before the reason, and both are deeply entrenched before the spirit begins to awaken to the claims of God. Much depends at this point on the parents. If they are faithful in their duty to God, they must train their child to yield up its own way when that self- willed way will interfere with the happiness of others. The child will learn at first obedience to its parents only in a love/discipline relationship; it is here that the habit of response to authority must be ingrained in the child's soul, so that later, when God opens up the spiritual understanding, the child will surrender to Him (1 Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 6:20-2 3; 10: 17; 13:18; 15:5;31-32; Ephesians 6: 1; Colossians 3:20).
Since the feelings develop before the reason and conscience, the will begins to form the habit of obeying desire, which deepens every day. The obvious consequence is that self indulgence becomes the master principle in the soul of the child long before it can understand that this self-indulgence will interfere with the right or happiness of others.
This repeated bias grows, stronger each day before a knowledge of right or duty could possibly have entered the mind. Finally, the moment of true moral responsibility arrives.
The child is now old enough to understand wrong. (This will probably be earlier in a Christian home than in a non-Christian one.) Does the child approach this test in a perfectly neutral state? If Adam, in the maturity of his reason, with full consciousness of the morality of his actions could give in to such temptation, is there any doubt that a child will not? The moment that child chooses selfishly, it sins. From this point on (and NOT before) God holds the child responsible for its own actions and destiny. It is significant that all words of the Lord to sinners begin FROM THEIR YOUTH, and NOT from birth, as some have supposed.
(Youth Aflame, page 89-90)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 22:28:25 GMT -5
"Doesn't the universality of sin prove that universal inheritance of a sinful nature?"
That seems like a very common complaint. The error is examining choices through the lens of cause and effect. Some people don't understand what a "choice" is and choke on all sorts of scripture as a result. (eg. The fact that God forgives all the sinners who repent and believe Jesus doesn't prove that he HAS to.)
"...the Gnostic's said that the flesh was sinful, instead of an instrument that could be used either way.."
It's like all these churches take all these baby christians and start cramming meat down their throats until they can't even swallow the simple milk of free-will and being able to make choices (like repentance). That's graphic, but it's not as bad as what's actually happening to people. They need spiritual CPR or something.
|
|