|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 6, 2007 14:02:35 GMT -5
If sin is something we are born with, what is it? A gas, solid, liquid? Seriously, if it is some sort of "stuff" that we are born with, what kind of "stuff" is it? I honestly what to know that if sin is not a personal moral choice, what else is it?
The bible clearly says in 1 John that sin is a moral choice. It's absurd to say that sin is something other then what the bible says it is. To say that sin is something physical, or some "stuff" you got from Adam, is to make sin something other then immorality.
You cannot mix ethics with metaphysics! Unfortinately, Augustine and Calvin couldn't tell the difference. But even Van Til said "sin is ethical, not metaphysical" though he inconsistently held to original sin. But Augustine and Calvin squeezed the two entirely different things together, as though ethics and metaphysics were the same thing! But nobody goes to hell for a physical deformity or a physical depravity. People only go to hell for immoral choices.
But Josh quoted a great verse: Ezekiel 18. Unfortinately, in Ezekiels day there were preachers of the Augustinian sort. And they taught a proverb that God hated. That the Fathers ate sore grapes and the childrens teeth were set on edge. But God said no. A child will not be punished for the sins of the Father. But the soul that sins, it shall die. For a soul to be guilty of sin, that soul must be the one who commited the sin! And all souls come from God, not from your parents. Augustine believed the soul was passed from parent to child. Thus we inherited Adams moral guilt, because we inherited Adams soul. But Ezekiel refuted original sin when he refuted that children are punished for the sins of the father, and also when he clarified that the soul comes from God.
You couldn't ask for a better refutation to original sin then the scripture Josh quoted.
And the Early Church, the Ante-Nicean Fathers knew this. Justin Martyr knew this. The 1 Century Church did not believe in original sin or personal predestination. These doctrines originated with Augustine in Church history.
But death is not always a punishment for sin. Animals die. But are they being punished? No, but they are suffering the consequences of death. Babies inherit death. Not because they have sinned. Romans 9 says that babies in the womb haven't yet done evil or good. So a baby dying is not the result of their own sin or punishment for their own sin. But very simply, Adams body became infected with eventual death. His body was no longer going to live forever. Maybe his genes became messed up, so that his body would die. And when we are born, we too do not have bodies that will live forever, but we inherited our physical bodies from Adams physical body.
If babies "sinned in Adam" when they were in the physical loins of Adam, as Augustin taught (contrary to Romans 9), then where do babies go when they die? They would deserve hell. It would be justice to send them to hell, if they were guilty. Augustin said baby baptism saved them (again, contrary to scripture). But what do you think? If babies are born guilty because babies already sinned in Adam, where do they go when they die?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 7, 2007 5:33:56 GMT -5
Amen Jesse.
Original sin was first introduced by Augustine. I think the argument should stop there as it's Augustines opinion not Bible.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jan 7, 2007 6:25:52 GMT -5
But Josh quoted a great verse: Ezekiel 18. Unfortinately, in Ezekiels day there were preachers of the Augustinian sort. Where did you get your information from?
|
|
byhislife
Junior Member
No Compromise
Posts: 78
|
Post by byhislife on Jan 8, 2007 0:30:58 GMT -5
Brother Jesse, I really appreciate your desire for "Sound Doctrine." It is obvious that you have spent hours in the Word. I marvell that there are early twentysomethings in this day and age that actually hunger for Truth! Praise God! I deffinitely see the need for good Biblical doctrine to refute the lame excuses some Christians make for a lifestyle of habitual sin. I realize, brother that this is a burden that you and the other bros carry. Yet, in your quest for Truth, be sure that you recieve it from the Holy Ghost, as he alone can lead us into all Truth, even the Personification of Truth - Christ Jesus. I do a lot of research. My passion is that the young people I minister to are not decieved by the miriad of false prophets that have inundated evangelicalism, especially through the arts. Please understand that by this I am not calling you guys false prophets... I do want to caution you that in your search for Truth, you follow the Holy Spirit. In my research, I found some of Finney's works a blessing - such as "True and False Repentance 1838" and I've found some of his other doctrines to be way off Bibically. I am sure you're aware of this website: www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htmSo, as a concerned brother in Christ, I just want to caution you to seek the leading of the Holy Ghost in all matters of doctrine, whether they be error or true. Always interpret scripture with scripture. Also, I am sure you brothers have older wise men in your lives that you can share doctinal ideas with. If they are full of wisdom and of the Holy Ghost, God can and will use them as well to help keep you and your hearers from going off the deep end. Love you guys! I still want you to come to Montana.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 9, 2007 7:32:54 GMT -5
A bad tree cannot bear good fruit nor can a good tree bear bad fruit. Everything I have read of Finney reveals a righteous selfless man who gave his all for Christ. To degrade him to a wolf in sheep's clothing is pitiful. To say this is to imply he was doing wrong in what he was doing. What bad fruits ever arose from his ministry? He was more successful in evangelism than any minister I know yet people still scoff at Him. I guess thats what Christ said would happen though. Ah well, such is life. Christ alone is the judge, who is man to pass judgment on Finney. People who criticize Finney cannot see his intentions. God alone can. As God is the only one who can see His heart, mans judgment is void. Christ alone is judge. Leave the bloke alone. If you dislike his theology, prove it otherwise with scripture. Don't rail on his character though. Especially calling him a wolf in sheep's clothing. I don't think any Christian would like to be called that.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 9, 2007 8:36:20 GMT -5
He was more successful in evangelism than any minister I know yet people still scoff at Him. You didn't mean to refer to Finney as "Him", did you? The article goes into that, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 9, 2007 16:19:27 GMT -5
The information is Ezekiel 18. It says that there was a proverb which said "The Fathers ate sour grapes and the childrens teeth were set on edge". This is the same as saying that we are liable for Adams sin and are held responsible for Adams choice. But God made it clear once and for all that "the SOUL that SINS IT shall die". Each soul is responsible for the sins that it itself commits. No soul is responsible for the sins of another soul.
But Augustines latin translation said "all have sinned in Adam". He himself did not believe that we were responsible for another mans sin. But believed that we ourselves actually sinned in the loins of Adam. That we are responsible for the fall because we ourselves caused the fall, 6-10 thousand years ago. But Romans 9 clearly says that a child in the womb has not yet "done good or evil" so the whole concept that we actually sinned in the physical loins of Adam cannot be true.
In order to understand if we are born with "sin" already in us, we must seek to understand what sin actually is, what is the nature of sin and what is the cause of sin?
What is the source of temptation? I say the flesh. And such was the case with Eve when she "saw" the fruit and "saw" that it was good to eat". Her natural appetite became excited, and when she submitted her will to gratify her flesh, rather then submitting her will to the law of God, she sinned. In her case the flesh was the source of temptation, the will is the cause of sin.
And such is the case with every sinner. The source of temptation is always the flesh, and sin is appealing because of some sort of gratification that it brings. And this temptation influences the will to sin. The will is then put in the position to choose either self-gratification (obeying the sensibilities) or to choose the good of God and others (obeying the law of God). Holiness is obeying the laws of God for the good of others, sin is breaking the laws of God to serve our own self-gratification.
I really believe that what many good Christians mean when they talk about a "sinful nature" is really what would be more properly called physical depravity. We are born with an aggrevated temptation because of Adams sin. That is, our passions and our physical cravings are much more excited then the original passions and physical cravings of Adams body before his sin. The temptation has been aggrevated. And the more you obey the passions and cravings of the flesh, the more excited and the more aggrevated they become. And you can even alter your physical cravings to desire something they naturally never did originally, like for cigarettes or alcohol or drugs.
Physical or "natural" cravings are temptation. A physical craving is never sin in and of itself. Sin itself must consist in the submission of the will to temptation. Sin is not some physical substance that we can have inside our physical body. 1 John says sin is transgression of the law. That law is the law of love. And the opposite of love is selfishness. Love is putting others first, God supremely and your neighbor equally. But selfishness is putting yourself first, yourself supremely and everyone else secondary. Sin can be nothing else then this moral choice to transgress God's law. It cannot be a physical depravity we are born with, that is only temptation. But sin itself is not a substance or a thing or some stuff, but sin is exclusively transgression of God's moral law with the will.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 10, 2007 14:07:35 GMT -5
I don't see how that was inconsistent with his position. You can't be metaphysically separated from God, since in Him we move and have our being. Ethically you can.
I don't know that anyone is metaphysically separated from God.
Who is saying that sin is a physical thing?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 10, 2007 14:21:35 GMT -5
If sin is something we are born with, what is it? A gas, solid, liquid? Seriously, if it is some sort of "stuff" that we are born with, what kind of "stuff" is it? I honestly what to know that if sin is not a personal moral choice, what else is it?
I really believe that what many good Christians mean when they talk about a "sinful nature" is really what would be more properly called physical depravity. We are born with an aggrevated temptation because of Adams sin. That is, our passions and our physical cravings are much more excited then the original passions and physical cravings of Adams body before his sin. Huh? You lost me there. Can you explain the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 10, 2007 16:44:28 GMT -5
Are you saying that spiritual sin turned into physical depravity? I thought you called sin ethical instead of metaphysical. I don't understand your point. Ha! I guess it's ok. We seem to not understand each other.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 11, 2007 3:38:09 GMT -5
He was more successful in evangelism than any minister I know yet people still scoff at Him. You didn't mean to refer to Finney as "Him", did you? The article goes into that, I believe. Yes I was referring to Finney but it should be him not Him. At first I didn't pick up on your criticism but then I noticed it. I must have gotten mixed up with the reference to Christ in the next sentence. Sorry mate. -Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 12, 2007 16:00:32 GMT -5
Brother Josh,
I am sorry that I haven't clarified my position better. I hope the following helps.
METAPHYSICAL verses ETHICAL
Some theologians believe that sin is some sort of metaphysical thing that we are born with. That sin itself is more then a personal choice to transgress God's law, that it is some thing, namely your physical nature, flesh, body, which itself is either sin or full of stuff called sin.
But I believe that sin is entirely ethical. We cannot be born with sin, because sin is a choice to transgress God's law. Sin is not some "thing" to be transferred from one person to another, because sin is not a "thing" at all that can be transferred, but is a choice. It is not physical, but soley moral, and therefore our physical nature, our physical flesh, our physical constitution, cannot of itself be sinful. But can only be a source of temptation to make an immoral choice, which choice would be sinful.
PHYSICAL DEPRAVITY verses ORIGINAL SIN
I believe in both physical depravity and moral depravity, but not what Augustine or Calvin taught as "original sin".
Physical depravity means that your body is depraved, crooked, or off course. Death, disease, and un-natural passions or desires is proof of this. Our body is not subjected to death and disease when it never was created to be, and our body or flesh can be a source of strong temptation to sin. But the body itself is not sin. The flesh itself is not sin. And these temptations to sin is not sin.
And we inherit a physically depraved body from our natural father - Adam. And one characteristic of this physical body is "aggrevated temptation" or "excited passions". These "excited passions" are not sin in themselves, but are a source of temptation to sin.
Moral Depravity consists soley of the will, not of the physical nature or physical body. Moral depravity occurs when a person wilfully chooses to transgress God's law. This choice is sin. And nothing but this choice is sin. Sin is the choice to transgress God's law. Nobody can make this choice for you, but it must your own your choice.
Original Sin Original sin is a sqeezing together of metaphysics and ethics, of physical depravity and moral depravity. Augustine and Calvin taught that your physical nature, body, flesh, itself was morally sinful and inherited at birth. That your nature itself was something sin in itself, that caused you to sin. This greatly differs from physical depravity that says your body tempts you to sin. This doctrine says your body or flesh is sin itslef, that there is some stuff inside of you that is sin, that not merely influences you to sin, but causes you to sin, and is sin itself. And this "stuff" called sin is transmited through birth.
Your nature is your physical constitution. To say that your nature is inherently sinful, is to say something physical can be and is sinful. I believe that your physical constitution tempts us to sin, but does not cause us to sin, and is not sin itself.
A "sinful nature", is not a physical thing or your physical constitution, but truly consists in a series of wilfull habits. In the bible, "nature" can be referring to your physical constitution, or your wilfull habit. Hense, "by nature children of wrath" does not mean we are children of wrath because of our physical constitution, but because of our wilfull habit of life. If I said, "hey don't get that guy angry, he'll punch you in the face. That's just his nature." I do not mean that there is any physical cause that forces him to punch people when he's angry, as though it were his physical constitution, but rather that it's his normal or "natural" habit of life.
Some fail to make any distinction at all in their theology regarding ethics and metaphysics, moral depravity and physical depravity. Thus there are doctrines which teach that our physical body is sinful in itself, that our physical nature or physical constitution is sinful in itself, that causes us to sin, rather then being a source of temptation for sin.
Because I strongly belief in a distinction between metaphysics and ethics, that sin is not physical but is a moral choice, I cannot believe in any sort of physical or forced regeneration, that man's actually constitution changes at conversion. But rather that conversion/regeneration comes about by the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the will of man, that completely changes the heart and conduct of the man, but certainly does not change any of his physical faculties or physical constitution by cause or force.
Because there is no physical sin, there is no need of physical regeneration, but because the problem is with the will, regeneration consists in the submission of the heart (will) to the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Man has every natural ability needed to obey all of God's direct commands to Him. Thus man can "naturally" obey God, because there is no natural or physical cause stopping him, but man "will" not obey God, without the influence of the Holy Spirit to enlighten Him. The Holy Spirit enlightens the mind to influence the will, but does not enable the physical faculties to make obedience naturally possible.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jan 15, 2007 10:37:49 GMT -5
The information is Ezekiel 18. It says that there was a proverb which said "The Fathers ate sour grapes and the childrens teeth were set on edge". This is the same as saying that we are liable for Adams sin and are held responsible for Adams choice. But God made it clear once and for all that "the SOUL that SINS IT shall die". Each soul is responsible for the sins that it itself commits. No soul is responsible for the sins of another soul. From what I can see from this text, and looking at commentaries it seems to be saying that the Jewish people which were in captivity were complaining because they were there because of their father's sin. Then God says "No more". I don't see how this is opposing Orignal Sin, since it is a narrative of a literal event, and not a spiritual event applying to orignal sin.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jan 15, 2007 10:40:30 GMT -5
Charles Spurgeon comments on Original sin:
Q Wherein consists the sinfulness of that state whereinto man fell?
A The sinfulness of that state whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin (Ro 5:19), the want of original righteousness (Ro 3:10), and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin (Eph 2:1 Ps 51:5), together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it (Mt 15:19).
|
|
|
Post by michaelsei on Jan 16, 2007 19:15:46 GMT -5
Because there is no physical sin, there is no need of physical regeneration, but because the problem is with the will, regeneration consists in the submission of the heart (will) to the influence of the Holy Spirit. I Corinthians 15:35 But someone will ask, How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come? 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being;the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. There is a physical regeneration, thus your first premise is not supported, in fact it may be seen from this passage that there exists something fundamentally wrong with our natural bodies giving rise to a need for regeneration of our bodies to a spiritual form. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (emphasis added) According to scripture though there is some relationship with the ethical sin to the physical death that we experience. I'm assuming you mean "physical" when you say "metaphysical" or else I don't know what you mean by it. You need to define the word metaphysical in your own words, please.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 16, 2007 21:11:19 GMT -5
Metaphysics deals with the question of "what is real." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaphysicsHe isn't saying that sin isn't real, but that it isn't a physical substance or can be transmitted from something physical, such as the doctrine of "original sin" teaches. In essence I believe Jesse is saying that sin is only a moral transgression. It stands in the ethical category of philosophy rather than what we are made of (our metaphysical composition). Is that right Jesse? I would contend that sin is not always spoke of as a transgression. I make a distinction between Sin and sins. Or in other words Sin as a power and sin(s) as an action.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 19, 2007 21:22:34 GMT -5
Josh is correct in explaining my view. I hold that sin is always a moral thing, and morals pertain to choice and intention. And that sin is not a metaphysical thing, that is, that it is not a substance in our physical constitution.
Sins are just plural. Sin is singular. But both are moral transgressions. Or "sin" may be used to just sum up all "sins".
Ro 6:2 - God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
The flesh itself influences man towards gratification. And this gratification can come through forbidden means that are harmful and selfish. But the will of man is what chooses the sin voluntarily.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 19, 2007 21:51:34 GMT -5
More simply, I believe that the flesh craves or desires sin. But that these cravings and desires are not sin themselves, while they are involuntary, until they are wilfully submitted to by the individual. I hold that no involuntary feeling or emotion or desire is sin, but that sin is the wilfully obedience of the individual to these feelings, emotions, desires, cravings.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jan 19, 2007 22:04:52 GMT -5
So Jesse, it would be possible to go a whole life without sinning, since people should be able to control their 'urges'
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 20, 2007 12:31:13 GMT -5
Why do you believe sin is personified so many times in the Bible then?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 20, 2007 12:34:36 GMT -5
I don't believe sinners have it in the physical constitution. But I do believe they have it in their constitution in the archaic sense of the word.
10. Archaic. character or condition of mind; disposition; temperament. From Dictionary.com
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 20, 2007 17:52:52 GMT -5
Ga 5:16 - This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
I can assume what scriptures I think you mean. But it would be better if you quote them.
I believe that man's flesh has a tendency towards gratification. The lusts of the flesh seek fullfillment.
Eve, without a sinful nature, desired the apple because it was "good for food" and "knowledge". This was a natural appetite that became excited and acted upon in a prohibited manner.
The bible describes the "flesh" as warring against the "Spirit". The natural flesh is the source of temptation. Man's flesh has a disposition towards gratification. This gratification can come through many different prohibitted means, such as the apple in the garden, adultery, etc etc.
The bible says that "corruption" "in the world" has come "through lust." 2 Peter 1:4
The bible credits the temptation to sin to the flesh or to the lust of the flesh:
Jas 1:14 - But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
But this "lust" in this scriptural sense means desire, but not sin. Because the next verse says:
Jas 1:15 - Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The "lust" proceeds the "sin". Eve had a lust for food and a lust for knowledge. That is, her natural appetite desired them. And once she submitted her will to these desires, and sought to gratify them by prohibitted means, she sinned against God.
The involuntary or natural desire is not a sin. But the desire is for gratification that can be brought about by sin. And once the will voluntarily submits to this desire, and seeks the gratification brought by sin, the soul sins against God.
Involuntary "lust" or "desire" or "feeling" is not sin. But the wilfull acting upon these lusts, desires, feelings, in a prohibitted manner, is sin. Man is never responsible or guilty of anything that is out of his control. Any involuntary state of mind or involuntary state of flesh cannot be sin. But any voluntary action, any voluntary state is entirely and absolutely within the control of man, and therefore makes him responsible and guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 21, 2007 17:57:47 GMT -5
I think that a perfect example of what you are talking about is Genesis 4:7. If any verse personified sin it's this one:
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
Now, are we to literally believe that sin is a male individual? Does he literally wait outside of our doors? Honestly, is there a male individual name sin who waits at our doors to pounce on us?
I don't know of any serious theologian that has ever seriously considered sin itself to be a male individual.
I personally cannot see this scripture to mean literally, but symbolicly. I'd say that such language has to be poetic.
Would you agree Josh? I don't see any alternatives. It's either literal or symbolic, actual or poetic.
What do you make of this verse?
|
|
|
Post by bbomar on Jan 23, 2007 14:40:16 GMT -5
And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it. Genesis 4:6
|
|
|
Post by bbomar on Jan 23, 2007 14:43:22 GMT -5
But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. Rom 7:17
|
|
|
Post by bbomar on Jan 23, 2007 14:44:56 GMT -5
Sin, in Romans 7, and in Genesis, are nouns, not verbs.
|
|
|
Post by sermonindex on Mar 23, 2007 16:26:36 GMT -5
This is address to BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS not unbelievers. It is amazing how many versesof holy scripture are being used out of context in this thread!
This is wrong you cannot put a parallel between the "flesh" of eve and the "flesh" of fallen man. You are mis-interpreting the bible. You need to stop doing this it is very unhealthy. Your "bible says" statements seem to carry the weight and authority of scripture yet they do not because of your wrong use of them.
It is the lust of "tainted" sinful flesh that concieves sin as in childbirth. There is sin in the womb but it comes out in form when born. And when it grows up it turns back and stabs the mother.
yes.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 23, 2007 16:38:34 GMT -5
The flesh (body in Greek) that you had as a sinner, is the same flesh (body) you now have as a saved person, and will remain the same until you recieve a glorified body.
There is a difference between the body (flesh) Eve had and the body (flesh) we inherit. That is physical depravity. That is why we are now subjected to disease and death. We are victims of physical depravity just as a crack baby is a victim.
Physical depravity tempts you to sin, but physical depravity is not moral sin, because it's involuntary. It's temptation, not sin. That is why Paul said "sin (in greek depravity) dwelleth in me" and "who will deliver me from this body of death (depravity). There is moral and there is physical depravity. The one is inherited and is involuntary, the other is wilfully and personal.
---------------------------
Ephesians 2:3 “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the others.”
The Greek word for “by nature” is “phusis” which Strong’s says can actually be translated as “constitution” or “use of constitution” or “usage of nature“. The English translations divide “phusis” into two words, “by” and “nature” but in the Greek it is one word which means “usage nature”.
In context of the whole verse this passage means that those who choose to walk after the flesh, to gratify it’s lusts and desires, and are children of wrath because of their usage of their constitution, because of the usage of their nature.
The flesh naturally has lusts, cravings, or desire, which can be gratified through the forbidden means of sin. They are involuntary lusts, cravings, or desires, being strictly physical and not moral (willful), and so they do not bring forth moral sin until the Will selfishly serves them supremely (James 1:15) instead of self sacrificially serving God and others supremely (Luke 10:27).
These natural lusts, cravings, or desires were the source of temptation for Eve in the Garden (Genesis 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 the history of human beings when a human being submitted their will to their flesh rather then the truth of God revealed to their minds. This was the first case in human history of a human individual doing what feels good rather then what she knew was good. And this is exactly what every sinner does.
Sin is a corruption of yourself (Exo 32:7, Deu 9:12, Deu 32:5, Jdg 2:19, Hos 9:19), sin is a corruption of what was meant to be good (Gen 1:31)
The physical constitution of man is a mere tool without any inherit moral character in and of itself. The body is neither moral nor immoral, good nor bad, sinful or holy in and of itself apart from the usage the human will uses it for. As a tool, the body can be an “instrument of sin” or an “instrument of righteousness“, depending on what the human will “yields” it to:
Romans 6:13 “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.”
Romans 6:19 “I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.”
Galatians 6:8 “For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”
The physical body that Christians have is the same exact physical body they had when they were children of wrath (Philippians 3:12), and will remain the same until the glorification (1Corinthians 15:53-54). While the constitution itself is the same, the usage of the Christians constitution has changed. Christians have obeyed the command to “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Romans 12:1. “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.“ Galatians 5:24.
Sin is when the Will is submitted to the Sensibilities, to the lusts or desires of the flesh. Sinners do what “feels good,” seeking their own pleasure. But obedience is when the Will is submitted to what is “reasonable”, performing it‘s “reasonable service“, when the Will submits to the Intellect, or to the moral truth of God which the Spirit reveals to the Mind. So Christians do what they “know is good” for the well-being of others. So those who walk in the Spirit do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, Galatians 5:16. And those who submit their Will to the Spirit, rather then the flesh, have no condemnation in Christ, Romans 8:1.
It is by willfully escaping “the corruption that is in the world” that comes by obeying “lust“, by yielding unto the moral demands presented by the Spirit, that we become “partakers of the divine nature“, 2Peter 1:14.
Because sinners are enemies of God in their mind through wicked works (Col 1:21), because they are obeying the lust of the flesh or wrongly using their natures, constitutions, or faculties (Ephesians 2:3), all sin in essences consists in a wrong moral choice to serve self as opposed to serving God‘s glory and the well-being of others (Luke 10:27).
This is why there is no scriptural reason for any sort of “physical” regeneration in this life in order to be saved, because there is no such thing as “physical” sin. Rather the Spirit of God brings about a “moral” regeneration at conversion, because all sin is a moral choice, all sin consists in sinning. Christians are spiritually, not physically, transformed in this life (Romans 12:12).
“No reward, can justly be bestowed, no punishment can justly be inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.” Turtullian
|
|
|
Post by sermonindex on Mar 24, 2007 11:32:02 GMT -5
This is grevious error. Our spirits are the ones that choose to sin and are defiled. The body is just a shell. This type of theology and reasoning leads down paths with scripture that are not correct.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2007 22:07:55 GMT -5
I agree with you that the body is just a shell. But there are other theologians who say otherwise. Take Wayne Grudens Systematic Theology printed by Zondervan for example. He says that sin is not only a spiritual choice, like you said, but that sin is also a physical condition or nature that you inherit. So he teaches, like Augustine, that babies are born sinners because of the body they inherit and therefore deserve hell from the start and never had any possibility to live without sin.
Such theology leads people to believe that they have to sin without any choice so long as they have a human body, until the glorifification. But the sin problem is a heart problem, not a physical body problem. Such a concept that the human material body was sin itself, and that therefore we are born sinners, is a concept completely foreign to the Early Church Fathers and is a pagan dogma that long ago should have been rooted out of the Church.
I am beside myself when I hear of theologians teaching that the physical body is sin, or that we have a nature that is sin. Scripture is so clear. Sin is a moral choice to violate the law. Sin is a personal choice that is always optional and voluntary. But to say that sin is anything other then a choice, and to say that it is a physical body or physical nature that we inherit, is such grevious error that slanders the justice and character of God.
The body is just a shell, or an instrument, without any inherit moral character in and of itself apart from it's use by man's will. It can therefore be an instrument of sin or an instrument of righteousness, depending on what we yeild it to as the scripture says.
|
|