PDA

View Full Version : Is it natural?



Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:13 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?

moonglow
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:21 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?

Its 'natural' for some animals to kill and eat their young..or the young of others! But 'natural' does not mean this is how God made them to start with..or what He intended.

Going back to Genesis the word 'good' in God's creation is used seven times. Seven in the bible means perfection..a reflection of God. Now when God creates something 'good' it means is PERFECT..its great, its wonderful, its awesome. There was no death then. No animals killing each other let alone their young...

There was no humans harming each other either until sin entered the world. So their was no rape...no murder ..nothing that went against God.

Isaiah 65:25
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox, And dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” Says the LORD.

I think Isaiah gives us an idea of how it once was.

Now sin has infected everything...animals kill, we kill, disease and suffering and death has come into the world. Nothing is truly 'natural' anymore..its unnatural...:(

Why are you asking these questions anyway? Why would you think those things are natural in the first place?

God bless

mikebr
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:25 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?


I'm not sure about our human nature but they are surely against our New Nature in Christ. CS Lewis covers this in Mere Christianity. http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mctoc.htm

Mograce2U
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:55 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?Do you mean natural to sin? If you had said normal then I would have assumed you meant according to percentages. The problem with having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that we do not know which is which! God is therefore the one who sets the standard and what seems quite natural to us because of sin, is unnatural to the purpose for which He created us. We have it upside down and so we need a guide to set us straight. Sin is natural, however that doesn't make it right. There lies the difference.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:59 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

Yes. It is our nature and it isn't our nature. Humans are a contradiction, which explains all of the problems we have.

It is not our intended nature that we kill, it is not the image of God within us that causes us to want to kill. It is unnatural for us to desire to kill. At the same time, it is a part of our sin nature, it exists within our nature to kill, and genetically there is a desire to kill when put in a certain situation (same with everything else you listed). All of this, however, is because of the fall of humanity.


If all these are natural, then what is the crime?

It is within human nature - both intended by God and even post-fall - to want to procreate. This does not mean, however, that I have to procreate. I can choose not to. This means we can choose to go against our nature.

theothersock
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:17 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?

Is it not natural for a mother to eat her young? I have seen this in nature many times!

Would you call it a crime?



Is it not natural for the healthy siblings to turn on their crippled sister and tear out her neck with their teeth? I have seen this in nature!

Would you call it a crime?



Natural = occurring in nature.

Crime = Cause harm to or oppress rights of another unconsenting individual.

Yes.

I, at least, would call of these things a crime.

You do foolishly err in your attempts to place words in the mouth of the Christian church. None have called homosexuality a "crime".

We call it abomination or sin, because they are such to God.

Will you, somehow, prove to me that the Bible does not say homosexuality is an abomination to God? Disgust is subjective, it depends on the perspective, so there is no ground to argue that anything is absolutely "not" an abomination, therefore it is, accurate for us to say so in that it is stated as being an abomination to God.

Will you, somehow, prove to me that the Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin unto God? That it is condemned? Sin refers to those things that are condemned by our religion, and seeing as this activity is condemned by our religion, then it is appropriate to refer to it as such.

If you wish to fight this battle, then be prepared to do it properly. Do not come into this place putting words in other people's mouths so that you might mock them for "their" speech.

threebigrocks
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:58 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?


Do you need to teach a child to lie? Do you need to teach a child to share? Do you need to teach a child to respect?

To live physically and die is natural. To be murdered is not natural. Even the world agrees that things like genocide should not be tolerated. Preservation of physical life is natural. To have it taken by another is not natural.

Natural affection, what God designed us for, is between a man and a woman. Homosexual relations are not natural.

Rape is a perversion of what is natural. Sex is one of the devils greatest tools to keep us from salvation.

Our nature of sinful flesh makes all of these things temptations to some. Some people murder, some rape, some choose homosexuality. None of them are seen as acceptable, or natural and created or ordained by God.

theothersock
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:35 AM
Do you need to teach a child to lie? Do you need to teach a child to share? Do you need to teach a child to respect?

To live physically and die is natural. To be murdered is not natural. Even the world agrees that things like genocide should not be tolerated. Preservation of physical life is natural. To have it taken by another is not natural.

Natural affection, what God designed us for, is between a man and a woman. Homosexual relations are not natural.

Rape is a perversion of what is natural. Sex is one of the devils greatest tools to keep us from salvation.

Our nature of sinful flesh makes all of these things temptations to some. Some people murder, some rape, some choose homosexuality. None of them are seen as acceptable, or natural and created or ordained by God.

He's arguing with a different definition of "natural" than you and I.

We use the context where "right" is "natural".

While he uses the context where "occurring in nature" is "natural".

According to Webster, he may be considered correct in his diction, but it is merely a matter of surface semantics, not deeper meaning.

threebigrocks
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:42 AM
If that is true, then the "human" part of the nature is what's tripping me up. I assumed us human types. ;)

crossnote
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:05 AM
Those all belong to our fallen nature we inherited from Adam and are condemn by God as sin. Those with the new nature though they battle at times with the sinful nature they do not try to justify the behavior as ok but rather agree with God that it is sin and seek help and forgiveness through Christ Jesus.

manichunter
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:43 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?

Homosexuality is not natural to our biology then it is not natural at all.

However, what is natural to man is not natural at all. Man has been corrupted by sin. Sin has become our nature. Hence was is right and nature has been lost to us. We are capable of anything since we can pervert anything against its original intent. So our sin nature is natural now, when it was never meant to be. Hence, anyone can go beyond what could be consider righteous and holy into corruption since the agent of disease called sin is in us waiting to pervert all things natural.

manichunter
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:48 AM
I might sound like a hater here, but I see what is happenning. Homosexually is trying to make its self normal and natural within churches. I know of several all gay christian churches already. I have always seen openly gay choir members since my childhood. Now I am seeing infeminite preachers in the pulpit. I got one I open for what is on the horizon. I do not hate gays, but they cannot push themselves on the saints. I will not have misplaced compassion, that would be sin to me as well.

I love my gay brothers and sisters, but their sin is out in the open, hence they cannot hold office and authority within the church. They can be members, but that is not what some of them are after. They want approval for their actions and authority within the church.

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 12:11 PM
I might sound like a hater here, but I see what is happenning. Homosexually is trying to make its self normal and natural within churches. I know of several all gay christian churches already. I have always seen openly gay choir members since my childhood. Now I am seeing infeminite preachers in the pulpit. I got one I open for what is on the horizon. I do not hate gays, but they cannot push themselves on the saints. I will not have misplaced compassion, that would be sin to me as well.

I love my gay brothers and sisters, but their sin is out in the open, hence they cannot hold office and authority within the church. They can be members, but that is not what some of them are after. They want approval for their actions and authority within the church.
Why would you have gay brothers and sisters (figure you are talking Christian folk). Gay "Christian" just doesn't work.

RabbiKnife
Jul 23rd 2008, 01:45 PM
Gay "Christian" works just as much as "gossiping Christian," "Gluttonous Christian", or "lying Christian."

Christians are Christians not because of their post-regeneration actions, but because of their faith in Christ and his atoning work.

Some Christians stuggle mightily and oftentimes, unsuccessfully, with overcoming sinful actions.

Doesn't mean they are not Christians.

Status as a Christian is faith-based, not works-based.

mikebr
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:13 PM
Gay "Christian" works just as much as "gossiping Christian," "Gluttonous Christian", or "lying Christian."

Christians are Christians not because of their post-regeneration actions, but because of their faith in Christ and his atoning work.

Some Christians stuggle mightily and oftentimes, unsuccessfully, with overcoming sinful actions.

Doesn't mean they are not Christians.

Status as a Christian is faith-based, not works-based.

Great thoughts..............:pp

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:28 PM
Gay "Christian" works just as much as "gossiping Christian," "Gluttonous Christian", or "lying Christian."

Christians are Christians not because of their post-regeneration actions, but because of their faith in Christ and his atoning work.

Some Christians stuggle mightily and oftentimes, unsuccessfully, with overcoming sinful actions.

Doesn't mean they are not Christians.

Status as a Christian is faith-based, not works-based.


Great thoughts..............:ppI see. So believe and continue in sin... but then of course you would say "I am not preaching license!!! Sure you are. You just won't call it that... but it is the exact same message.

Tell me... what sin is the one that the Lord can't empower a person to defeat and put down? Surely there must be some right?

Athanasius
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:35 PM
I love my gay brothers and sisters, but their sin is out in the open, hence they cannot hold office and authority within the church. They can be members, but that is not what some of them are after. They want approval for their actions and authority within the church.

Well no, you'd kick them out of the church... As per 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.
Something Paul and Christ say a lot in the New Testament... Go and sin no more. Maybe they're on to something?

RabbiKnife
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:59 PM
I see. So believe and continue in sin... but then of course you would say "I am not preaching license!!! Sure you are. You just won't call it that... but it is the exact same message.

Tell me... what sin is the one that the Lord can't empower a person to defeat and put down? Surely there must be some right?

I absolutely defy you to find anything in my post that suggests any such thing. Please point out exactly where I said it was OK to practice sin without consequence or thought?

My dear brother, you believe, yet you continue in sin yourself, do you not? I believe, yet I continue is sin every day. So did Paul. I seem to remember some smart guy in a dress telling a story about a speck of sawdust and a telephone pole one day...

Grace is not licencse, but neither is it condemnation. Every sin is capable of being defeated in the life of an individual believer through the power of the Holy Spirit. Some victories are instantaneous. Some require a lifetime of work, prayer, and discipline, yet are a constant battle. Some victories are not accomplished in this life, yet the life of a believer is to strive toward the victory over sin.


Each believer, at least while on this earth, struggles with their flesh and with their old sin nature. Those that say otherwise are either deceived or liars.

And no, sir, I do not preach license. I preach grace. The two are very, very different.

Mograce2U
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:07 PM
Gay "Christian" works just as much as "gossiping Christian," "Gluttonous Christian", or "lying Christian."

Christians are Christians not because of their post-regeneration actions, but because of their faith in Christ and his atoning work.

Some Christians stuggle mightily and oftentimes, unsuccessfully, with overcoming sinful actions.

Doesn't mean they are not Christians.

Status as a Christian is faith-based, not works-based.It doesn't mean they are not Christian, but it does mean that they ought not to be given positions of leadership over the body. The leadership should be one which sets the example of overcoming and walking by the Spirit. Those who have not yet repented and forsaken their sin cannot exemplify - nor edify the body in the way they should go.

RabbiKnife
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:18 PM
Agreed on that.

threebigrocks
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:47 PM
It doesn't mean they are not Christian, but it does mean that they ought not to be given positions of leadership over the body. The leadership should be one which sets the example of overcoming and walking by the Spirit. Those who have not yet repented and forsaken their sin cannot exemplify - nor edify the body in the way they should go.

Agreed, in part. We are all walking toward a more holy life and less with sin. Sometimes we can shed sin easily and it's gone, and sometimes we struggle. A person of leadership needs to be one who is mature in the faith, of good character and respected for how he lives. Indeed leadership should set the example.

Yet, if someone is still being a gossip, liar and a glutton and not changing - living yet according to the world are they really of the faith no matter how strong and right the leadership is? If some have not yet repented are they of Christ? Once we come to Christ and have repented, we are left with the process of ousting sin from our lives. We have the power to overcome because we are of Christ, and He is bigger than anything.

It's not a continuous repentance and remaining focused on sin. It's walking in the new life and moving on. Go and sin no more, it's been forgiven.

Mograce2U
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:20 PM
Agreed, in part. We are all walking toward a more holy life and less with sin. Sometimes we can shed sin easily and it's gone, and sometimes we struggle. A person of leadership needs to be one who is mature in the faith, of good character and respected for how he lives. Indeed leadership should set the example.

Yet, if someone is still being a gossip, liar and a glutton and not changing - living yet according to the world are they really of the faith no matter how strong and right the leadership is? If some have not yet repented are they of Christ? Once we come to Christ and have repented, we are left with the process of ousting sin from our lives. We have the power to overcome because we are of Christ, and He is bigger than anything.

It's not a continuous repentance and remaining focused on sin. It's walking in the new life and moving on. Go and sin no more, it's been forgiven.Actually I agree with you. Yet it seems when new in the faith ie, that walking in forgiveness is not stressed near as much as "repenting" (interpreted as "hide it") your sin is. And so people struggle with sin because they can't seem to repent of it. But the key is as you said - learning how to walk in the Spirit. And that seems to be what many do not know how to do, nor is it taught much.

So the real secret of overcoming in the Christian life is not being focused on sin and its struggles, but learning how to trust in Christ by doing those things He says. Doing the loving thing when confronted, instead of giving into the sinful emotional response, turns the mind towards the things of Christ which is how repentance works to overcome sin. If we focus on love and forgiveness and mercy, sin will wither and not be the stronghold it once was. Then to our joy we will discover that we are walking in the spirit and not in our sin like we always used to do before so naturally.

threebigrocks
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:26 PM
Actually I agree with you. Yet it seems when new in the faith ie, that walking in forgiveness is not stressed near as much as "repenting" (interpreted as "hide it") your sin is. And so people struggle with sin because they can't seem to repent of it. But the key is as you said - learning how to walk in the Spirit. And that seems to be what many do not know how to do, nor is it taught much.

So the real secret of overcoming in the Christian life is not being focused on sin and its struggles, but learning how to trust in Christ by doing those things He says. Doing the loving thing when confronted, instead of giving into the sinful emotional response, turns the mind towards the things of Christ which is how repentance works to overcome sin. If we focus on love and forgiveness and mercy, sin will wither and not be the stronghold it once was. Then to our joy we will discover that we are walking in the spirit and not in our sin like we always used to do before so naturally.

;) And how important is fellowship, discipleship in all that? Huge! Pray together and for each other, help others along and be willing to be helped to escape those things which don't so easily fall away. When we struggle, that is when we ought to come together in His name, in His strength to help each other walk together by Him. Walking the faith isn't always easy. What a testimony our gathering is!

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:29 PM
I absolutely defy you to find anything in my post that suggests any such thing. Please point out exactly where I said it was OK to practice sin without consequence or thought?

My dear brother, you believe, yet you continue in sin yourself, do you not? I believe, yet I continue is sin every day. So did Paul. I seem to remember some smart guy in a dress telling a story about a speck of sawdust and a telephone pole one day...

Grace is not licencse, but neither is it condemnation. Every sin is capable of being defeated in the life of an individual believer through the power of the Holy Spirit. Some victories are instantaneous. Some require a lifetime of work, prayer, and discipline, yet are a constant battle. Some victories are not accomplished in this life, yet the life of a believer is to strive toward the victory over sin.


Each believer, at least while on this earth, struggles with their flesh and with their old sin nature. Those that say otherwise are either deceived or liars.

And no, sir, I do not preach license. I preach grace. The two are very, very different.Struggle? No one struggles that gives into it every day. That isn't a struggling at all. The one that struggles will be the one that stops. Then the war begins.

And even in this post you ultimately say that sin is normal thus okay. Like I said... you would never use the word license but yet where is the "stop sinning as you should" in your message?

Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:49 PM
Going back to Genesis the word 'good' in God's creation is used seven times. Seven in the bible means perfection..a reflection of God.

Don't get into numerology.
The term "good" means whatever is good is ideally suited for the intended purpose.


Now when God creates something 'good' it means is PERFECT..its great, its wonderful, its awesome. Where do you get that?



Why are you asking these questions anyway? Why would you think those things are natural in the first place?

God blessI want to know why people call human nature "sin nature" and where they get the idea from.

Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:52 PM
Do you mean natural to sin? If you had said normal then I would have assumed you meant according to percentages. The problem with having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that we do not know which is which!
If that is true, then neither is sin, becuase we do not know good or bad.


God is therefore the one who sets the standard and what seems quite natural to us because of sin, is unnatural to the purpose for which He created us. We have it upside down and so we need a guide to set us straight. Sin is natural, however that doesn't make it right. There lies the difference.Please give explainations for the things you claim as truth.
How is that which is "quite natural to us" unnatural?
Why/how is the unnatural natural?

Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:54 PM
Yes. It is our nature and it isn't our nature. Humans are a contradiction, which explains all of the problems we have.Please explain how & why.


It is not our intended nature that we kill, it is not the image of God within us that causes us to want to kill. It is unnatural for us to desire to kill. At the same time, it is a part of our sin nature, it exists within our nature to kill, and genetically there is a desire to kill when put in a certain situation (same with everything else you listed). All of this, however, is because of the fall of humanity.

It is within human nature - both intended by God and even post-fall - to want to procreate. This does not mean, however, that I have to procreate. I can choose not to. This means we can choose to go against our nature.Do you mean natural to sin? If you had said normal then I would have assumed you meant according to percentages. The problem with having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that we do not know which is which!

Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:55 PM
Is it not natural for a mother to eat her young? I have seen this in nature many times!

Would you call it a crime?

Is it not natural for the healthy siblings to turn on their crippled sister and tear out her neck with their teeth? I have seen this in nature!

Would you call it a crime?

Natural = occurring in nature.

Crime = Cause harm to or oppress rights of another unconsenting individual.

Yes.

I, at least, would call of these things a crime.

You do foolishly err in your attempts to place words in the mouth of the Christian church. None have called homosexuality a "crime".

We call it abomination or sin, because they are such to God.

Will you, somehow, prove to me that the Bible does not say homosexuality is an abomination to God? Disgust is subjective, it depends on the perspective, so there is no ground to argue that anything is absolutely "not" an abomination, therefore it is, accurate for us to say so in that it is stated as being an abomination to God.

Will you, somehow, prove to me that the Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin unto God? That it is condemned? Sin refers to those things that are condemned by our religion, and seeing as this activity is condemned by our religion, then it is appropriate to refer to it as such.

If you wish to fight this battle, then be prepared to do it properly. Do not come into this place putting words in other people's mouths so that you might mock them for "their" speech.My point was , why do people call humsn nature "sin nature"?

Sin is fruit from that which one is rooted in.
All men are either rooted in the world & themselves or in Christ.

To call ones nature by the fruit he bears is like calling a tree that bears apples an "apple nature"

Our natuer comes from what we are, which is human, and that is to grow and bear fruit.

Our fruit, weather sin or righteousness comes from what we love.

To know Jesus is to love Him.

One who doesn't know God can only put hs effections on himself &/or the world, therefore, he will naturally sin.

A better way to explain "sin nature" is this:
When one does not know the right answer, he will naturally get the question wrong. So it is with our nature, if one does not know/love Christ, he will naturally sin.

Another example is this:
Do you try not to cheet on your wife?
No, there is no need to "try" because you naturaly don't cheet on your wife because you love her.

You naturaly sin because you love yourself, the world or sin, However, if you love the one who keeps you from sin and shows you the truth, you would naturaly not sin.

The effections of our will effects individual choices that we make. The choice that you make will naturally follow your effections. Consequently, if you love yourself or the world more than the one commanding you, you cannot consistently do things that please the commander. Your decisions are in bondage to your effections and inclinations so that you only do what you have favor towards.
Love God, hate sin; Love yourself and the world, hate God.

John 15:4b ...As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Romans 11:16b ...and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Romans 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree...

While we were not yet grafted into the cultivated olive tree, we were of our own tree with the root of ourself or in this world. If our root is of ourself or the world, we are selfish &/or worldly.

One is born selfish and in reliance on the knowlege of God, not born with a sin nature.

People do not have a "sin nature" just as an apple tree does not have an apple nature.
All sin is fruit from what man is rooted in, which is of eather three things. Rooted in Christ, the world or self.

Since Christ is the Root/Vine & man a tree/vinebranch.
If man is not grafted into Christ, he is selfish &/or worldly, because he has his own self as his root. Or he may also be worldly, for that is all he has(John 15:9, 1John 2:15)
This is the cause of all mans wickedness, that man is of the world and selfish and not of Christ and loving.

Therefore, the fruit does not make its nature, nor does the nature deside what its fruit is.

What makes it's fruit is what kind of tree and what it's root is of.
James 1:24 for he studied himself, and has gone away, and immediately he forgot of what kind he was.

What ever fruit it bears, the tree still has a nature of a plant, not an apple nature, oriange nature or banana nature.
The kind of fruit obviously does not change what it is or what nature it has, it will always remain a plant, it will always have a plant nature no matter what kind of fruit it bears.
However, what ever it is grafted into does change it's fruit, just as my analogy shows, which is of Scripture as I have shown.

What ever fruit man bears, sin or righteousness, it is still human nature.

Just as a trees nature is to bear fruit, so is mans.

RabbiKnife
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:57 PM
Struggle? No one struggles that gives into it every day. That isn't a struggling at all. The one that struggles will be the one that stops. Then the war begins.

And even in this post you ultimately say that sin is normal thus okay. Like I said... you would never use the word license but yet where is the "stop sinning as you should" in your message?

So let's see...

You have determined (arbitrarily, I might add), that if one commits a particular sin each day then that is proof that the person is not struggling with that sin? You have determined that if one is truly struggling will stop. 100% of the time. Absolutely without any possiblity of falling.


Thank you, Holy Spirit, Jr. Glad we got that cleared up.


Please show me where I said that "sin is normal thus okay."

I very clearly stated that "the life of a believer is to strive toward the victory over sin."

In case that isn't clear enough, how's this.

STOP SINNING! DON'T SIN! SINNING IST VERBOTEN!

But if you sin, you have an Advocate with the Father, and your salvation is not determined by the acts you do or do not perform each day. Period. Your salvation is not even determined by sins you have committed that you have not confessed prior to your death.

Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:57 PM
Do you need to teach a child to lie? Do you need to teach a child to share? Do you need to teach a child to respect? These are according to knowlege.
Why is it ones nature only because he does not know the contrary?
According to your respons, nature is taught.
Therefore, if you teach one to always do the right thing, you have just changed his nuture.

We know this is not correct, therefore, your questions are invalad as proofe of a "sin nature"

Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:59 PM
He's arguing with a different definition of "natural" than you and I.

We use the context where "right" is "natural".

While he uses the context where "occurring in nature" is "natural".

According to Webster, he may be considered correct in his diction, but it is merely a matter of surface semantics, not deeper meaning.Please difine "sin nature" as it realy is.

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:07 PM
I absolutely defy you to find anything in my post that suggests any such thing. Please point out exactly where I said it was OK to practice sin without consequence or thought?

My dear brother, you believe, yet you continue in sin yourself, do you not? I believe, yet I continue is sin every day. So did Paul. I seem to remember some smart guy in a dress telling a story about a speck of sawdust and a telephone pole one day...

Grace is not licencse, but neither is it condemnation. Every sin is capable of being defeated in the life of an individual believer through the power of the Holy Spirit. Some victories are instantaneous. Some require a lifetime of work, prayer, and discipline, yet are a constant battle. Some victories are not accomplished in this life, yet the life of a believer is to strive toward the victory over sin.


Each believer, at least while on this earth, struggles with their flesh and with their old sin nature. Those that say otherwise are either deceived or liars.

And no, sir, I do not preach license. I preach grace. The two are very, very different.Struggle? No one struggles that gives into it every day. That isn't a struggling at all. The one that struggles will be the one that stops. Then the war begins.

And even in this post you ultimately say that sin is normal thus okay. Like I said... you would never use the word license but yet where is the "stop sinning as you should" in your message?

RabbiKnife
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:09 PM
I already replied to this in #29.

Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:10 PM
Homosexuality is not natural to our biology then it is not natural at all.

However, what is natural to man is not natural at all. Man has been corrupted by sin.How did man become corrupted by sin?


Sin has become our nature. Hence was is right and nature has been lost to us. We are capable of anything since we can pervert anything against its original intent. So our sin nature is natural now, when it was never meant to be.What is sin that it is our nature?


Hence, anyone can go beyond what could be consider righteous and holy into corruption since the agent of disease called sin is in us waiting to pervert all things natural.Seems that you have a different definition of sin than what the bible defines it as.

moonglow
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonglow
Going back to Genesis the word 'good' in God's creation is used seven times. Seven in the bible means perfection..a reflection of God.

Don't get into numerology.

Its NOT numerology...its bibical. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6449) Ever heard of the seven spirits of God?


The term "good" means whatever is good is ideally suited for the intended purpose.

I have no idea what you just said.


Quote:
Now when God creates something 'good' it means is PERFECT..its great, its wonderful, its awesome.

Where do you get that?

Jesus said no one is good but God. Is God not perfect? Wouldn't whatever He deemed as being 'good' also be perfect? Is God capable of creating something less then perfect?


Quote:
Why are you asking these questions anyway? Why would you think those things are natural in the first place?


I want to know why people call human nature "sin nature" and where they get the idea from.

From the bible:


Romans 3:22-24

23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

God bless

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:17 PM
So let's see...

You have determined (arbitrarily, I might add), that if one commits a particular sin each day then that is proof that the person is not struggling with that sin? You have determined that if one is truly struggling will stop. 100% of the time. Absolutely without any possiblity of falling.


Thank you, Holy Spirit, Jr. Glad we got that cleared up.


Please show me where I said that "sin is normal thus okay."

I very clearly stated that "the life of a believer is to strive toward the victory over sin."

In case that isn't clear enough, how's this.

STOP SINNING! DON'T SIN! SINNING IST VERBOTEN!

But if you sin, you have an Advocate with the Father, and your salvation is not determined by the acts you do or do not perform each day. Period. Your salvation is not even determined by sins you have committed that you have not confessed prior to your death.If you sin every day is that struggling or giving into that sin? That's not a trick question... how is giving in every day a struggle? Shoot... that is easy to do and no struggle about it.

As to your thank you Holy Spirit Junior comment... the official Admin hat on... you need to stop that stuff.

Hat back off now.

I know what you say as to striving. But then you make such comments null by saying "hey... you're going to do it!" (my paraphrase)... Then give example such as you yourself sin every day. If you are sinning every day then how is that even close to victory over sin?

Your past sins have been forgiven. Not that "sin I am doing now and my future ones"that everyone likes to talk about although it really isn't at all in the Scripture. If your future sins were already forgiven then you don't need an advocate. It would already be a done deal. Again... ponder it.

Firefighter
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:42 PM
Project Peter, may I ask a question or two?

How are we saved?

How do we stay saved?

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:52 PM
Project Peter, may I ask a question or two?

How are we saved? By believing and confessing Christ.


How do we stay saved?By enduring in that belief and confession until the end.

Firefighter
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:57 PM
Then how does that exclude the Christians that struggle daily with homosexuality??? I don't get it.

Without adding anything to your answers (which were outrageously correct BTW), you have to include the Christian that struggles with that or exclude Christians who sin, hence making "not sinning" and additional requirement of salvation, which you and I both know is simply not true.

RabbiKnife
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:01 PM
If you sin every day is that struggling or giving into that sin? That's not a trick question... how is giving in every day a struggle? Shoot... that is easy to do and no struggle about it.

As to your thank you Holy Spirit Junior comment... the official Admin hat on... you need to stop that stuff.

Hat back off now.

I know what you say as to striving. But then you make such comments null by saying "hey... you're going to do it!" (my paraphrase)... Then give example such as you yourself sin every day. If you are sinning every day then how is that even close to victory over sin?

Your past sins have been forgiven. Not that "sin I am doing now and my future ones"that everyone likes to talk about although it really isn't at all in the Scripture. If your future sins were already forgiven then you don't need an advocate. It would already be a done deal. Again... ponder it.

That's the glory of it. ALL of my sins have been forgiven.

The deal is already done.

Ponder that.

Unless you believe in a limited atonement, in which case we will never come to a point of agreement.

If you believe in sinless perfectionism, then we will never come to a point of agreement.

Paul seems to mitigate against your position.

I am delighted for you that you have reached the point in your maturity in Christ that you do not sin.

I have not accomplished that place.

I sin every day. And I struggle with my flesh every day.

It appears as if we have different experiences and different understandings of the Scripture.

tango
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:20 PM
Then how does that exclude the Christians that struggle daily with homosexuality??? I don't get it.

Without adding anything to your answers (which were outrageously correct BTW), you have to include the Christian that struggles with that or exclude Christians who sin, hence making "not sinning" and additional requirement of salvation, which you and I both know is simply not true.

Being tempted isn't a sin, sin comes when we dwell on thoughts or act on them. For the sake of clarity I'm going to use a Christian man as an example.

If our Christian man struggles with lustful thoughts of other men but does not act upon them, giving them up to God, he is not sinning. If he were to enter into a physical relationship with a man he would be sinning.

If our Christian man struggles with lustful thoughts of women but does not act upon them, giving them up to God, he is not sinning. If he were to enter into a physical relationship with a woman (other than his wife, of course) he would be sinning.

If we sin we can be forgiven if we repent of our sins. But repenting of our sins involves an effort on our part to stop sinning. If our man in the example repented of his sins but continued living the same way as before (in an ongoing physical relationship, regardless of whether the partner was another man or a woman who wasn't his wife), we might ask whether he was sincere in his repentance.

Mograce2U
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:20 PM
Then how does that exclude the Christians that struggle daily with homosexuality??? I don't get it.

Without adding anything to your answers (which were outrageously correct BTW), you have to include the Christian that struggles with that or exclude Christians who sin, hence making "not sinning" and additional requirement of salvation, which you and I both know is simply not true.Daniel's advice to King Neb was good:

(Dan 4:27 KJV) Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

If the homosexual keeps practicing his sin then he will never gain power over it. Nor the gossiper, etc. First one must agree with God and then seek the remedy provided by faith. Doing right is the remedy. When one does what is right he will not be doing wrong.

Edit:
The effort we must exercise is in doing that which is right, not to merely struggle against not doing what is wrong as Tango mentioned.

(Phil 4:8-9 KJV) Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. {9} Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:20 PM
Then how does that exclude the Christians that struggle daily with homosexuality??? I don't get it.

Without adding anything to your answers (which were outrageously correct BTW), you have to include the Christian that struggles with that or exclude Christians who sin, hence making "not sinning" and additional requirement of salvation, which you and I both know is simply not true.Well no sinning is part of believing because if one believes one loves the Lord and if they love the Lord they obey the Lord eh? And again... struggling can mean a whole lot of things to a whole lot of people. Most use it as an excuse to why they sin... I'm struggling! If they are continuing daily in that sin... they aren't struggling. It is not a struggle to give in. 1 John would be a very good reference for the whole practicing sin thing. :)

And keep in mind that I am attempting to not turn this into an OSAS/NOSAS discussion but you guys are pushing that envelope. ;)

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:27 PM
That's the glory of it. ALL of my sins have been forgiven.

The deal is already done. Again... then why do you need an advocate with the Father? One doesn;t need that if it is a done deal. ;)




Ponder that.

Unless you believe in a limited atonement, in which case we will never come to a point of agreement.

If you believe in sinless perfectionism, then we will never come to a point of agreement.

Paul seems to mitigate against your position.No... he doesn't. But you might want to start a different thread on that because it will be a NOSAS/OSAS that.


I am delighted for you that you have reached the point in your maturity in Christ that you do not sin.And you see that I said that where exactly?


I have not accomplished that place.

I sin every day. And I struggle with my flesh every day.

It appears as if we have different experiences and different understandings of the Scripture.Experiences are cool but don't confuse that with truth. It isn't always truth. ;)

Firefighter
Jul 23rd 2008, 06:38 PM
Neither of us are OSAS, so you are barking up the wrong tree...



Well no sinning is part of believing because if one believes one loves the Lord and if they love the Lord they obey the Lord eh?


Are you saying that you are without sin then???:o

You love the Lord, right? You still sin, right? You even still commit some of the same sins that you did before you were saved, right?

I can only assume that you answered "yes" to those questions, but if you did then how does that line up with your veiws on salvation???

What you are saying is "we get saved by faith, but we stay saved by not sinning." That is CLEARLY not biblical.

*** FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT***
Let's define "struggling" as an ever present temptation that a believer only occasionally imbibes in.

Diolectic
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:36 PM
Its NOT numerology...its bibical. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6449) Ever heard of the seven spirits of God?Yes, I have heard of the seven spirits of God, but that has no relivence to the matter.

You say that just because a word is used 7 times makes it to mean perfection..a reflection of God.
When in fact the word "good" is used once for each of the 8 times that HE called things good in creation.
The 7th time God called creation "good" was the whole of creation, not one specific thing.

1: the light was good

2: The dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters was good.

3: the vegetation, and plants yielding seed after their kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind was good.

4: The firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness was good.

5: The great sea creatures, and every living thing that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind was good.

6: The beasts of the earth after their kinds, and cattle after their kinds, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind was good.

7: God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

8: Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land is good:

Why did you stop a 7 when there ar 8?



The term "good" means whatever is good is ideally suited for the intended purpose.I have no idea what you just said. When God calls things good it means that what HE created is perfectly compatible or perfectly consistent with what HE had in mind when He created it for a certain function.
"Good" deos not mean that Adam was created other than how we are today.
There is no diference between Adam and the next person accept that Adam lived over 900 years and we don, but that is mostly an enviremental reason.





Now when God creates something 'good' it means is PERFECT..its great, its wonderful, its awesome.Where do you get that? Jesus said no one is good but God. Is God not perfect? Wouldn't whatever He deemed as being 'good' also be perfect? Is God capable of creating something less then perfect?Just because Jesus calls God "good" does not mean the the word "good" means perfect.

Why did Jesus say that HE makes the sun to rise on the evil and on the good?
Same Greek word.

Who were the "good"?
Where the good ones perfect?

God will even say, "Well done, you good and faithful servant:"
Does that mean they are perfect when HE says this?



Why are you asking these questions anyway? Why would you think those things are natural in the first place?I want to know why people call human nature "sin nature" and where they get the idea from.

From the bible:

Romans 3:22-24

23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

God blessThose verses say nothing about sin nature.

ProjectPeter
Jul 23rd 2008, 08:04 PM
Neither of us are OSAS, so you are barking up the wrong tree...I am simply saying that this is the road it will go down.


Are you saying that you are without sin then???:oYes, that is what I said when I said... (I will highlight some words to help you gather together the ACTUAL context of my post. :rolleyes:


Well no sinning is part of believing because if one believes one loves the Lord and if they love the Lord they obey the Lord eh? And again... struggling can mean a whole lot of things to a whole lot of people. Most use it as an excuse to why they sin... I'm struggling! If they are continuing daily in that sin... they aren't struggling. It is not a struggle to give in. 1 John would be a very good reference for the whole practicing sin thing. :)

Since we have already determined that IF we do sin then we have an advocate with the Father in Jesus... since we know what John says about practicing sin in that very same letter... "struggling" daily with a sin (so far translated sinning daily) ... sounds like practicing sin to me!


You love the Lord, right? You still sin, right? You even still commit some of the same sins that you did before you were saved, right?

I can only assume that you answered "yes" to those questions, but if you did then how does that line up with your veiws on salvation???

What you are saying is "we get saved by faith, but we stay saved by not sinning." That is CLEARLY not biblical.Uh... if I do sin then I have an advocate with the Father. That being said... sin should be a rare thing in someones life that has believed as long as I. Not the norm. ;) If it is the norm... then I certainly need to check that faith and make sure I am really in it.

And as to we get saved by and stay saved by and it not being biblical... sure it is. You are saved, by faith. But none of us are saved in actuality until we have endured to the end. Folks have all sorts of ways they try to spin that "final salvation" but the Bible lays it our right nicely for us.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.
18 ¶For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees?
25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.




*** FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT***
Let's define "struggling" as an ever present temptation that a believer only occasionally imbibes in.Temptation is just that. tBeing tempted daily even... there is no sin in that. If a person struggles daily with temptation... that ain't a sin. That's temptation. That is not what has been said nor even remotely implied thus far. There lies the problem. ;)

moonglow
Jul 24th 2008, 01:02 AM
Diolectic...ok I am skipping though all the extra stuff and getting to the meat here...you believe we don't have a sin nature...we aren't fallen and hence have no reason for a Savior..is that what you are getting at? Or what? That appears to be what you are saying.

I really don't want to do this quoting each other...responding to each little bitty thing which takes forever and most of it distracts from the real issue at hand. You want a verse that shows we have a sin nature...you won't find one phrased exactly like you want though...that doesn't mean the idea isn't there though...its like the word trinity is not used in the bible but the concept is still there. So what are you getting at? lets get to the point of this so maybe some process can be made...ok? :)

God bless

diffangle
Jul 24th 2008, 01:27 AM
Project Peter, may I ask a question or two?

How are we saved?

How do we stay saved?
1Jo 2:4 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#4)He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jo 3:24 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=3&v=24&t=KJV#24)And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1Jo 5:2 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=5&v=2&t=KJV#2)By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Rev 14:12 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=14&v=12&t=KJV#12)Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&t=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Diolectic
Jul 24th 2008, 02:12 AM
Diolectic...ok I am skipping though all the extra stuff and getting to the meat here...you believe we don't have a sin nature...we aren't fallen and hence have no reason for a Savior..is that what you are getting at? Or what? That appears to be what you are saying.No, we need a saviour because every one does sin.
However, no one has to.
We are fallen of ourselves, not because of Adam.
An infant is born with a human nature, sinless(with no law, therefore, no sin), innocent, with no conscience(a conscience is learned).

Most people give THIS ANSWER (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1720840&postcount=30), and the response to that is correct.

Did you read all of my posts in this thred?
My main point is Here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1720834&postcount=28).

So what are you getting at? lets get to the point of this so maybe some process can be made...ok? :)

God blessLets start Here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1720834&postcount=28).

Thanx for responding.

fewarechosen
Jul 24th 2008, 02:38 AM
pride is a sin many cannot see in themselves

manichunter
Jul 24th 2008, 05:12 AM
Why would you have gay brothers and sisters (figure you are talking Christian folk). Gay "Christian" just doesn't work.


You are right, I have not had to encounter any within my local body, but I do know some as associates from work or other bodies, some are even Pastors. I do not know what to call them. They say they are saved. I just tell them truth. How I say it has not bothered them. I tell them that there sexual practice is an abomination and not natural and sinful and against life, and pattern.

Human reasoning, emotions, preferences, identity, and pleasures are not qualifying excuses. Then we talk about business. :spin:

theothersock
Jul 24th 2008, 07:19 AM
My point was , ...What ever fruit man bears, sin or righteousness, it is still human nature.

Just as a trees nature is to bear fruit, so is mans.

Ohohohohohohoho!!!

You surprise and delight me, sir! Here I thought you rationalizing support for sin, and all the while were preaching a deeper message. Well said! Well said indeed! Your words have resonated very well with me!

theothersock
Jul 24th 2008, 07:20 AM
[COLOR=black][FONT=Tahoma]2: The dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters was good.

Actually, he did not call this day good.

I know! I didn't believe it at first either!

Look it up.

There is a whole debate's worth of material in this one small intricacy.

NightWatchman
Jul 24th 2008, 08:10 AM
I see. So believe and continue in sin... but then of course you would say "I am not preaching license!!! Sure you are. You just won't call it that... but it is the exact same message.

Tell me... what sin is the one that the Lord can't empower a person to defeat and put down? Surely there must be some right?

I guess you are perfect now--I guess you don't sin anymore.
Except for your pride.
I guess you haven't overcome all your sin yet.

nzyr
Jul 24th 2008, 11:22 AM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?Homosexuality is not natural...

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. -Romans 1:27


Neither is murder or rape natural...


This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. -2 Timothy 1:5

nzyr
Jul 24th 2008, 11:33 AM
I want to know why people call human nature "sin nature" and where they get the idea from.Here's a couple scriptures that may explain it:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; -Romans 3:23

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. -Psalm 51:5

Firefighter
Jul 24th 2008, 12:49 PM
1Jo 2:4 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#4)He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jo 3:24 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=3&v=24&t=KJV#24)And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1Jo 5:2 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Jo&c=5&v=2&t=KJV#2)By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Rev 14:12 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=14&v=12&t=KJV#12)Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev 22:14 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=22&v=14&t=KJV#14)Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

So you keep all of God's commandments all of the time??? Of course not, otherwise you would not need a savior. So (I can only assume) that you yourself don't keep all of God's commandments so you are a liar and are not saved??? Of course not. You do not keep all of God's commandments (even failure in one makes you guilty of all) and yet you are still saved. How is that? How is your sins against an infinitely holy God different from any one else's sins against an infinitely holy God???

Diolectic
Jul 24th 2008, 02:01 PM
2: The dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters was good.
Actually, he did not call this day good.

I know! I didn't believe it at first either!

Look it up.

There is a whole debate's worth of material in this one small intricacy.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

It may not be a "day" that HE saw "good", however, He did see that is was good.

What is your point?
Am I missing anything?

moonglow
Jul 24th 2008, 02:39 PM
No, we need a saviour because every one does sin.
However, no one has to.
We are fallen of ourselves, not because of Adam.
An infant is born with a human nature, sinless(with no law, therefore, no sin), innocent, with no conscience(a conscience is learned).

Most people give THIS ANSWER (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1720840&postcount=30), and the response to that is correct.

Did you read all of my posts in this thred?
My main point is Here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1720834&postcount=28).
Lets start Here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1720834&postcount=28).

Thanx for responding.

Sorry I missed the second reply (the second link you posted). I was trying to find your posts but several other side topics got going on here and I was trying to by pass those and stay on topic so I missed that one. By the way your second link is the same as the third link...

I happen to agree with what threebigrocks said though..a little child naturally does sinnful things....they take toys from other kids...hit and bite them...are very selfish and self centered...this is their nature until they are taught otherwise. Of course they aren't held accountable for what they do at this age because they don't yet know right from wrong. But you see few children naturally share their toys without being taught differently...which does line up with what you said here:


One who doesn't know God can only put hs effections on himself &/or the world, therefore, he will naturally sin.

We are incapable of not sinning on our own...without Jesus.

Anyway I read what you said and it just really appears to me in a long round about way you are saying we have a sin nature...because we don't know how else to be without Christ.

Thanks for the reply.

God bless

Diolectic
Jul 24th 2008, 05:32 PM
Sorry I missed the second reply (the second link you posted). I was trying to find your posts but several other side topics got going on here and I was trying to by pass those and stay on topic so I missed that one. By the way your second link is the same as the third link...I know, my formatting needs to be better for others to understand.


I happen to agree with what threebigrocks said though..a little child naturally does sinnful things....they take toys from other kids...hit and bite them...are very selfish and self centered...this is their nature until they are taught otherwise.Are you saying that our nature is taught?
Lying & steeling are traits of selfishness. Selfishness is sinful, but people are only selfish because they to not love Christ.

A selfish man will not be selfish to his wife if indeed he truly loves her, in fact, he would be selfless toward her from true love. He would deny all for her.
So it is with all mankind and the love for Christ.


Of course they aren't held accountable for what they do at this age because they don't yet know right from wrong. But you see few children naturally share their toys without being taught differently...which does line up with what you said here:The fact that they do those things with out knowledge of the contrary does not make there nature sinful, but it is the fruit from their situation that is sinful, not their nature.

Their situation is that they are Immature. They are not able to establish a priority/value system which their conscience builds upon, nor are they able to take control over their affections.

However, being immature is not sinful even though it may produce bad fruit(sin).
The fact that they can not help being immature exempts them from guilt of the bad fruit which it produces, for inability exempts from accountability and of guilt.

You are still thinking that the reason the fruit is bad is because the nature is bad.
Human nature is only to mature and to bear fruit; good or bad.

If our nature was to bear only bad fruit, then there would be no guilt, for that is the purpose; nature serves purpose.

However, the kind of fruit is dependant on the affections & the priority/value system one has.
It is fact that one is able to choose these, which is what makes him responsible/accountable.


We are incapable of not sinning on our own...without Jesus.Edited...

True, however, that is what I said before," One who doesn't know God can only put hs effections on himself &/or the world, therefore, he will naturally sin."
We are capable of not sinning on our own...without Jesus, however, no one eevr chooses to not sin consistantly because they do not love Jesus.

With out Christ every one will revert back to theire own ways, which is selfishness and pride.

keck553
Jul 24th 2008, 05:50 PM
We're all born as slaves to sin. Sin is sin, whether it's harboring anger towards your brother, being greedy, or being gay. It seems to me each of us has a 'bent' towards a particularly imprisoning sin. Pornography, greed, sexual immorality, etc. These things become idols that we allow to overshadow Messiah. That's why God hates Idoltry - it not only separates us from Him, it destroys our souls. God wants us health and happy.

God created races. In that aspect race is sacred. To have racial prejudice is to profane the Name of God.
God created marriage between a man and a woman. In that aspect, marriage between a man and a woman is sacred.

As Christians, we embrace what God has created as sacred. What God intends for us, and our relationships is written in the Bible. What God tells us is destructive for us is also written in the Bible. Now, what I think confuses most is the way people pick an choose which of God's instructions they abide in and which ones they sweep under the rug in the name of annulment and grace. Chrisitians will always be seen as hypocrites and not taken seriously as long as they pick and choose what portions of God's commands please thier lifestyle and culture.

In this self-centered, I-please-God-by-pleasing-myself culture. I don't blame a Homosexual for being confused about what God wants from us.

Diolectic
Jul 24th 2008, 06:31 PM
Who are you replying to?


We're all born as slaves to sin. Sin is sin.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

We are not "born" slaves to sin, because infants and newborns do not choose whom they yield themselves to.


It seems to me each of us has a 'bent' towards a particularly imprisoning sin. Pornography, greed, sexual immorality, etc.The "bent" does not prove "sin nature"
It only proves that there is no willingness to do "good" in the flesh.

It only proves that the mindset of the flesh is hostile towards God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed is it able to be.

Furthermore, this thread is not about any specific sin as Homosexuality

keck553
Jul 24th 2008, 06:43 PM
Well then, why bother being 'born again" then?

You started the thread with homosexuality the first question, so I addressed that issue, so please don't chastize me for addressing your question.

I do see your point though regarding that scripture. Please give me a little time to study it in context, and I'll address it. Thank you.

Diolectic
Jul 24th 2008, 07:11 PM
Well then, why bother being 'born again" then?Because all have sinned by choice(excluding those under the age of accountability).

One must be born again to comprehend the Kingdom of God.

One needs Christ for these reasons:
(1) Curse of the law to be taken away (2Corinth 5:21, Gal 3:13).
(a) For the setting free of the captive slave of the law(Luke 4:18, Galatians 5:1).
(2) Blood to be shed for the cleansing/purging from the guilt and the clearing of the conscience of the guilt of sin (Ephesians 1:7 & Colossians 1:14)
(a) purchasing/redeeming from the judgment of sin which is our forgiveness(Ephesians 1:7 & 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23).

God accepted Christs sacrifice. In verification of God's acceptance, He raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection is the basis of our Faith
(1 Corinthians 15:14)
Christ's selfless, loving sacrifice on our account is alsoto break the heart of the sinner and cause him to acknowledge his sin and the judgment of his sin.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.
The Brass Serpent was lifted up for those who murmered to acknowledge their sin.
When one looked upon the Brass Serpent, he was admitting to his crime.

In other words, when you addmit that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is God's propitiation/atonement for your sin/sins, you are actually confessing to your guilt. When you do that, God is faithful and just to forgive your sins, and to cleanse you from all unrighteousness. 1Johnn 1:9

keck553
Jul 24th 2008, 07:13 PM
Is there any repentence in your theology?

moonglow
Jul 24th 2008, 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonglow
Sorry I missed the second reply (the second link you posted). I was trying to find your posts but several other side topics got going on here and I was trying to by pass those and stay on topic so I missed that one. By the way your second link is the same as the third link...


I know, my formatting needs to be better for others to understand.

That's ok...you ought see mind sometimes...:lol:


Quote:
I happen to agree with what threebigrocks said though..a little child naturally does sinnful things....they take toys from other kids...hit and bite them...are very selfish and self centered...this is their nature until they are taught otherwise.


Are you saying that our nature is taught?

No. Children are naturally selfish. They aren't taught to hit other kids...scream for a toy or candy or bite another toddler just because they felt like it. How would you explain this kind of behavior? Where does it come from? Why does a little child do it? I call it nature. But remember what I said in my first post...nature doesn't mean normal or what God intended. They act this way because sin corrupted everything...this is also why babies are born with birth defects, cancer, brain damage, heart problems and so on...our very DNA has been corrupted by sin. I do believe Adam and Eve were perfect in every sense of the word...no diseases, no defects...I mean God created them! Why create Adam crippled up, or Eve with vision problems?


Lying & steeling are traits of selfishness. Selfishness is sinful, but people are only selfish because they to not love Christ.

I think it takes more then just loving Christ though for a person to change. I have seen people not born again that struggle horribly with fighting against sin...unable to stop sinning because they don't have the Holy Spirit in them...yet they love Jesus! In fact I was one of those people once. It was until I was truly born again that the desire to sin left me...just vanished. It was not of my doing at all though. It seems to me you are saying its by our own efforts we can overcome sin. And that simply is not what the bible says.


A selfish man will not be selfish to his wife if indeed he truly loves her, in fact, he would be selfless toward her from true love. He would deny all for her.
So it is with all mankind and the love for Christ.

I have seen men that love their wives dearly that don't know Christ and they are unable to totally overcome their own sinful desires and even without meaning too, hurt her.


Quote:
Of course they aren't held accountable for what they do at this age because they don't yet know right from wrong. But you see few children naturally share their toys without being taught differently...which does line up with what you said here:


The fact that they do those things with out knowledge of the contrary does not make there nature sinful, but it is the fruit from their situation that is sinful, not their nature.

Their situation is that they are Immature. They are not able to establish a priority/value system which their conscience builds upon, nor are they able to take control over their affections.

Unless a child is taught otherwise though, they don't change as they mature. Even schools have to work on teaching children to be kind to each other...to not bully, to share and so forth. Image no one every instructing them at all...do you really think they would just immature and change their ways on their own? If you think that, then I guess you would need to consider all the teenagers and younger child in juvie right now ..not to mention the adults. I know plenty of adults and still hit and won't share!


However, being immature is not sinful even though it may produce bad fruit(sin).
The fact that they can not help being immature exempts them from guilt of the bad fruit which it produces, for inability exempts from accountability and of guilt.

You are still thinking that the reason the fruit is bad is because the nature is bad.
Human nature is only to mature and to bear fruit; good or bad.

Not without God...I don't see one verse in the bible that says we can do it on our own..if you know of that verse please post it.


If our nature was to bear only bad fruit, then there would be no guilt, for that is the purpose; nature serves purpose.

I don't understand this comment..sorry.


However, the kind of fruit is dependant on the affections & the priority/value system one has.
It is fact that one is able to choose these, which is what makes him responsible/accountable.

No..if works could save us the bible would say that...in fact it says the opposite. No one can earn their way to Heaven by good works. No one is capable of choosing to not sin without Jesus.


Quote:
We are incapable of not sinning on our own...without Jesus.

What about those before the New Covenant?
What gave them ability to overcome sin?

The bible clearly says they were saved by their faith in God. And through Him they were able to not sin.


Fact is, all mankind are capable of not sinning on our own, but choose to sin anyway.
If they were incapable/unable, they would be exempt of any guilt.

No the bible clearly says we are all under the wrath of God..

John 3:35-36

35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

our only choice is choosing Him! Then He saves us from staying trapped in sin. And even that choosing only comes after He has drawn us to Him as the bible also says no one seeks God.

Romans 3

All Have Sinned

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written:


“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;

“ The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “ Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “ Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “ There is no fear of God before their eyes.”


If mankind couldn't avoid sin(incapable/unable of not sinning on our own...without Jesus), then God's standard for those without Jesus would be unjustly to high.


That was the whole point of the law in the OT to show us first our sins...and second that no one could meet God's standards. Its BY His GRACE we are saved. No one is capable of meeting God's standards. Case in point the story of the rich man:

Matthew 19

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

With God All Things Are Possible

23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”



All mankind must be able to, and be capable of not sinning on there own for God to charge them with disobedience, rebellion, transgression...ect...
For if mankind was incapable/unable of not sinning on our own then it would not be disobedience, rebellion, transgression...ect... It would be inability.

Then why is there not ONE example in all of human history of one person never sinning? I would think if we really could simply choose to not sin without God someone would have done it and no one has. Before Jesus people were saved through their faith in God.

Romans 4
Abraham Justified by Faith
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

Read all of Romans 4 to see how the believers in the OT were saved. They were saved by simply believing in God..through their faith.

God bless

Diolectic
Jul 24th 2008, 07:33 PM
Is there any repentence in your theology?
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God overlooked; but now commands all men everywhere to repent:

The fact of this command implies that all men everywhere are able/capable of repenting.

theothersock
Jul 24th 2008, 08:03 PM
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

It may not be a "day" that HE saw "good", however, He did see that is was good.

What is your point?
Am I missing anything?

GENESIS 1 : 7 - 13 (KJV)


And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.

The creation of the dry land and the seas occurred on the third day, which was indeed called good.

The separation of the waters from the waters by the firmament occurred on the second day, which is not called good.

keck553
Jul 24th 2008, 10:58 PM
Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God overlooked; but now commands all men everywhere to repent:

The fact of this command implies that all men everywhere are able/capable of repenting.

What it implies is that all men everywhere NEED to repent.

Ron Brown
Jul 24th 2008, 11:57 PM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?

None of these things is natural human behavior. All of these things you listed are caused by mankind's unnatural sin condition.

Mankind practiced none of these things until he sinned against God in the garden.

There were no animals killing and eating animals until mankind sinned. Mankind was not killing and eating animals until after he sinned. Mankind was not killing mankind or having unnatural relations with mankind.

The Universe we live in is cursed by sin, and it is paradise lost. But paradise will be restored when Christ returns, and no unnatural practices will be occurring any longer when Christ is sitting on the throne of David forever more.

Diolectic
Jul 25th 2008, 01:32 AM
Originally Posted by Diolectic
Act 17:30And the times of this ignorance God overlooked; but now commands all men everywhere to repent:

The fact of this command implies that all men everywhere are able/capable of repenting.

What it implies is that all men everywhere NEED to repent.True, but a command implie ability.
Reality mainains that no ones commands anyone to do something which they are unable to do.

Diolectic
Jul 25th 2008, 02:47 AM
this is also why babies are born with birth defects, cancer, brain damage, heart problems and so on...our very DNA has been corrupted by sin.This does not mean we have a sin nature.
It only means that we suffer from the consequences of other's sins.


I do believe Adam and Eve were perfect in every sense of the word...no diseases, no defects...I mean God created them! Why create Adam crippled up, or Eve with vision problems?True, However, Adam & Eve would have eventually died if they were not permitted to eat from the Tree of Life, even if they had not sinned.

The flesh was never meant to be eternal, For it was "made with hands"
Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
We know that Jesus was talking about His body and His glrified body

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
The glorified body which we will receive is to be eternal!
Everything made with hands us temporal.
The flesh is weak.



Lying & steeling are traits of selfishness. Selfishness is sinful, but people are only selfish because they to not love ChristI think it takes more then just loving Christ though for a person to change. I have seen people not born again that struggle horribly with fighting against sin...unable to stop sinning because they don't have the Holy Spirit in them...yet they love Jesus!Born again w/out the Holy Spirit?
W/out the Holy Spirit, yet loving Christ?
This is nonsense.
How can anyone have eternal life without God's seal, Comforter, Helper, Power, Holy Spirit...ect...?


In fact I was one of those people once. It was until I was truly born again that the desire to sin left me...just vanished.There you have it, until you were truly born again, having eternal life


It was not of my doing at all though. It seems to me you are saying its by our own efforts we can overcome sin.The only “effort” we must exert is to abide in Christ.
Hebrews 4:11 Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Let us exert ourselves (make an effort) to enter into that rest.
Our rest is in Christ!


And that simply is not what the bible says.How do you deny what I just posted?



A selfish man will not be selfish to his wife if indeed he truly loves her, in fact, he would be selfless toward her from true love. He would deny all for her. So it is with all mankind and the love for Christ I have seen men that love their wives dearly that don't know Christ and they are unable to totally overcome their own sinful desires and even without meaning too, hurt her.It is only because he WILL not continue to love their wives consistently.
I'm sure you know 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

Sin must always be a choice.



Even schools have to work on teaching children to be kind to each other...to not bully, to share and so forth. Image no one every instructing them at all...do you really think they would just immature and change their ways on their own? If you think that, then I guess you would need to consider all the teenagers and younger child in juvie right now ..not to mention the adults. I know plenty of adults and still hit and won't share! Nothing about "sin nature", only self will and ignorance(dumb on purpose), all the while, knowing what is right but still CHOOSING to sin.

Nothing about sin nature.



However, being immature is not sinful even though it may produce bad fruit(sin). The fact that they can not help being immature exempts them from guilt of the bad fruit which it produces, for inability exempts from accountability and of guilt. You are still thinking that the reason the fruit is bad is because the nature is bad. Human nature is only to mature and to bear fruit; good or bad.Not without God...I don't see one verse in the bible that says we can do it on our own. If you know of that verse please post it.Are you saying that you never chose not to sin before you were saved?
Have you ever decided to tell the truth before you were saved?

We all know that the unsaved to choose not to sin, you can't deny this

The only thing is that no one ever chooses to not sin consistently.



If our nature was to bear only bad fruit, then there would be no guilt, for that is the purpose; nature serves purpose.I don't understand this comment. Sorry.

We may have a different definition of nature, however, with my definition, I am correct in my view.



However, the kind of fruit is dependant on the affections & the priority/value system one has. It is fact that one is able to choose these, which is what makes him responsible/accountable.No. Iif works could save us the bible would say that...in fact it says the opposite. No one can earn their way to Heaven by good works.I'm not talking about works(of the law) which is contrary to faith & salvation, but duty/responsibility.

It is our duty/responsibility to repent & put our faith in/on Christ & what He said & did.
It is our duty/responsibility to be in a relationship with Jesus, for that is what eternal life is.

Still, you can not prove sin nature.


No one is capable of choosing to not sin without Jesus.Sure they can, but no one will choose not to sin consistently.
Before I was saved, I chose not to steel most of the time, same for lying, and cussing.

Fact is, that all mankind is able to do what he knows what is right, which is not to sin according to knowledge.

Are you saying that one is accountable for what he can not do?

That is like putting a burden responsibility of mowing the lawn to an infant.


The bible clearly says they were saved by their faith in God. And through Him they were able to not sin.I'm not disputing how they were saved, but the inability to not sin.

Before you were saved, I am sure that you decided not to do a particular sin.
You chose not to steal, you chose not to lie...ect...
Fact is, all mankind is able to not sin with out God, but everyone will choose to sin eventually.

However, everyone will always revert back to their own selfish prideful ways





Fact is, all mankind are capable of not sinning on our own, but choose to sin anyway. If they were incapable/unable, they would be exempt of any guilt.No the bible clearly says we are all under the wrath of God.Because all eventualy choose to sin.



Our only choice is choosing Him! Then He saves us from staying trapped in sin. And even that choosing only comes after He has drawn us to Him as the bible also says no one seeks God.One may seek truth and find Christ in the process!

I agree that all have sinned and will sin.
But no one has to.
Since sin is always a choice, it is able to be denied, otherwise, your claiming sin to be not a choice.



If mankind couldn't avoid sin(incapable/unable of not sinning on our own...without Jesus), then God's standard for those without Jesus would be unjustly to high.That was the whole point of the law in the OT to show us first our sins...and second that no one could meet God's standards.The law was not to show us that no one could meet God's standards.
It was to show us that we will not(by choice) meat God's standards.

Is sin a choice or not?
Do people willfully, intentionally, volitionally choose to sin?

If so, people may also choose not to.


Its BY His GRACE we are saved. No one is capable of meeting God's standards.I'm not denying that we are saved by grace through faith.

However, reality shows that standards are to be able to be met. God always lines up with reality, because He is the essence of reality. God's Standards must be able to be met, otherwise He is unjust in judgment.
Example: Law says do not walk on grass.

However, there is only grass to walk on, nothing else.
Would the law be just in it's demand?

You can not deny then that God's standard must be able to be met.

We fall short not because of inability, that would not be sin. We fall short because of disobediance/rebelion.


Case in point the story of the rich man:All mankind must be capable of not sinning on there own for God to charge them with disobedience, rebellion, transgression...ect...
What do you think disobedience is?

For if mankind was incapable/unable of not sinning on our own then it would not be disobedience, rebellion, transgression...ect... It would be inability.
When has inability ever been a charge of guilt?


Then why is there not ONE example in all of human history of one person never sinning?There is. His name is Jesus.
He did not remain sinless only because He was God.


I would think if we really could simply choose to not sin without God someone would have done it and no one has. Before Jesus people were saved through their faith in God.I've already proven mankind has ability to not sin, however to continue to remain sinless is another thing.

Just because one can refrain from sin does not mean that they do not need saved.
1: They need forgiven of the times they did choose to sin; Blood to be shed for the cleansing/purging from the guilt and the clearing of the conscience of the guilt of sin (Ephesians 1:7 & Colossians 1:14)
2: They need purchasing/redeeming from the judgment of sin which is forgiveness(Ephesians 1:7 & 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23).
3: They need the curse of the law to be taken away
(2Corinth 5:21, Gal 3:13).
4: They need setting free of the captivity (being a slave) of the law(Luke 4:18,Galatians 5:1)

I'm not claiming that any one can be saved without Christ.
I am claiming the reason why people eventually choose to sin is because they don't love Christ, as I said before, they do not have eternal life.

moonglow
Jul 25th 2008, 05:53 PM
Quote:
Then why is there not ONE example in all of human history of one person never sinning?

There is. His name is Jesus.
He did not remain sinless only because He was God.

I didn't list Jesus because that was obvious..

I am extreme disturbed by the things you are saying on this thread and don't agree with your thoughts at all. I am so disturbed by them in fact I think I am just going to bow out of this discussion. As far as I am concerned they don't line up with the bible. I have never seen one single Christian in my whole entire life say the things you are saying...and I don't believe you are correct. If you want to believe that you go right ahead..I am bowing out of this because I feel no matter how many verses I put on here you aren't going to acknowledge them and no matter what I say you aren't going to change your mind.

God bless

keck553
Jul 25th 2008, 06:19 PM
Dio,

Yeshua called Himself the Son of Man for a reason. His paternal father is God, not sinful men.

There is a blood barrier between the fetus and the host female. Yeshua didn't inheret our fallen nature.

I know what I state is not in the bible specifically in these terms. But there is a lot more in the miricle of 'being born of a virgin" than just the surface one. There are deep reasons why the Son of Man (in Hebrew that would be "ADAM") was born of a virgin.

Luke states Z'kharyah and his wife Elisheva were blameless in Torah. Yet they were not without sin. That in itself should be proof positive no man can be sinless by his born nature, otherwise Z'kharyah, even though blameless in the law, wouldn't need to perform sacrifice for atonement.

God can count our trust as righteouosness, but we have only One who can make us righteous. Yeshua HaMashiach and the promise to ALL of His indwelling Ruach HaKodesh, Holy Spirt, through repentance and trust in Him.

God bless you brother for studying the Word. That's what God wants. None of us have all the answers, or even the right answers, but if we keep our eye on Jesus, and off our personal ego's He will reveal to us what we need to know to do His will and give us shalom, which no human can provide.

In that I pray God give you shalom.

John146
Jul 25th 2008, 06:44 PM
Is homosexuality against human nature, or is it natural to for us?

Is murder against human nature, or is it natural to for us to murder one another?

Is rape against human nature, or is it natural to for us to rape?

If all these are natural, then what is the crime?No, those things aren't natural. Romans 1:26-27 makes it clear that homosexuality isn't natural. The crime or sin is making the choice to do those things. And I think that is the main point you're trying to make in this thread, correct?

Diolectic
Jul 25th 2008, 07:43 PM
I didn't list Jesus because that was obvious..

I am extreme disturbed by the things you are saying on this thread and don't agree with your thoughts at all. I am so disturbed by them in fact I think I am just going to bow out of this discussion. As far as I am concerned they don't line up with the bible. I have never seen one single Christian in my whole entire life say the things you are saying...and I don't believe you are correct. If you want to believe that you go right ahead..I am bowing out of this because I feel I am disturbed by your definition of what sin is.

You say that sin is not a choice by telling me that no one is able to avoide it.
"Mankind must sin."
"There is nobody that is able to or has the capability to not sin."

However, the fact is that the Bible proves that guilt from sin is always from intention, willfull, & volitional disobediance against known cammands, laws, and concience.

1 Sin is a choice.
2 Sin is the fruit of a kind of chosen way of being.
3 Sin can not be inherited.(it is not a genetic trait or a substance to be carried in the blood)
4 No one can be guilty of another's sin.(The sin of another(Adam) can not corrupt anyone else but the one who sinned.)
5 Guilt is only charged at ones first accountable sin.
6 All mankind only dies spiritualy(severed relationship with God) for his first accountable sin.
7 Mankind dies physically because we are not eating from the Tree of Life(that is why Adam died physically) Flesh was never intended to be eternal. Plant and animals die with out sin, therefore physical death is not from our own sin, it is from Adam's expeltion from the garden, away from the Tree of Life.

Guilt can not be & is not charged of an inability/incapability.
You say the opposite, "man is unable, incapable of not sinning"
Therefore, you make man to be guilty for somthing that can not be avoided. This is unjustifyable.

Tell me how this is true if sin is a choice?

Commone sence and justice tproves that if sin is not a choice, but something we must do and is unavoidable, then nobody is guilty, or chgarged with disobediance/rebelion.

You also have a diferent definition of Nature than what is common.
Nature in the most basic sence serves purpose. The nature in the most basic sence of a thing is what it is suposed to do.

You call the nature of man what his fruit should be called.
You are in essence calling the nature of an apple tree, an apple nature instead of a plant nature.

You have God giving His loved creation a nature which He hates(God is in charge of what nature a thing has)
This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself made the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" so that all mankind would be condemned in Adam before any one was born(Psalm 51:5).

This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself made the very nature of man to be sin by the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" which HE Himself instituted. This nature causes all mankind to sin and go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.(Psalm 58:3).
(note: I do not agree to the way these Scriptures are used here)



no matter how many verses I put on here you aren't going to acknowledge them and no matter what I say you aren't going to change your mind.The verses that you qoute only proves that all mankind has chosen to sin and are in need of eternal life. I do not denye this.
None of which you quoted proves "sin nature".

Diolectic
Jul 25th 2008, 07:47 PM
No, those things aren't natural. Romans 1:26-27 makes it clear that homosexuality isn't natural. The crime or sin is making the choice to do those things. And I think that is the main point you're trying to make in this thread, correct?Yes,, you are correct.

There is no such thing a "sin nature"

Everyone who denyes this says that "sin nature" is the reason that people sin.

They take the guilt way from man and put the guilt on ones nature.(all the while claiming that man is still guilty)

Thay are basicaly saying that on one can help but to sin, because of there nature makes them to sin.
They say that sin can not be chosen.

Diolectic
Jul 25th 2008, 07:54 PM
Dio,

Yeshua called Himself the Son of Man for a reason. His paternal father is God, not sinful men.

There is a blood barrier between the fetus and the host female. Yeshua didn't inheret our fallen nature.
The virgin birth is to prove that Jesus was/is not created.
Why would God let a nature that he hates to be inherited?
Since God does not want anyone to sin, why would HE make man to not be able to aviod sin?



Luke states Z'kharyah and his wife Elisheva were blameless in Torah. Yet they were not without sin. That in itself should be proof positive no man can be sinless by his born nature, otherwise Z'kharyah, even though blameless in the law, wouldn't need to perform sacrifice for atonement.No, it only prooves that all men choose to sin.
You read into it just to prove this so called "sin nature".

Tell me pleez!
Since all sin is a choice, why is it that no man can be sinless by his born nature?


God can count our trust as righteouosness, but we have only One who can make us righteous.I do not deny this.

John146
Jul 25th 2008, 08:03 PM
Yes,, you are correct.

There is no such thing a "sin nature"

Everyone who denyes this says that "sin nature" is the reason that people sin.

They take the guilt way from man and put the guilt on ones nature.(all the while claiming that man is still guilty)

Thay are basicaly saying that on one can help but to sin, because of there nature makes them to sin.
They say that sin can not be chosen.I'd have to disagree with them then. If we only sinned because it's natural to sin, then why would we be guilty of sin? How could we help it? We would be guilty of doing something that we can't control. That wouldn't make sense. But if sinning is a choice, then it makes sense for God to find us guilty of choosing to commit sin against Him instead of choosing to obey Him.

We certainly all have a natural tendency to choose to sin, but we also all have the ability to choose to sin or not. And because we are all weak-willed human beings, we all choose to sin. But we can't blame a sin nature for sinning. We can only blame ourselves.

Scripture says the wicked choose their own ways:

Isaiah 66
3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

keck553
Jul 25th 2008, 09:56 PM
The virgin birth is to prove that Jesus was/is not created.
Why would God let a nature that he hates to be inherited?
Since God does not want anyone to sin, why would HE make man to not be able to aviod sin?

No, it only prooves that all men choose to sin.
You read into it just to prove this so called "sin nature".


Tell me pleez!
Since all sin is a choice, why is it that no man can be sinless by his born nature?

I do not deny this.

Now you're thinking like a Greek (no insult intended). God did not inspire the Bible from the perspective of Plato.

Our ideas of sin indeed raise uncomfortable questions. If all things were created by God, and God is good, then how could have He created sin, or allow man to be born with a sin nature? If God is perfect, how could He have created a flawed creature (satan)?

The answer, of course does not lie in pagan spiritualism, but from the mouth of God. Sin is not a 'thing' in itself. It is the absence of good, in human terms - the separation of God from man.
God's Word does not lie:

Psa 51:5(51:7) True, I was born guilty, was a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me.

I don't think it can be said much plainer then that. We are born with this iniquity, as the Psalmist verifys, and sooner or later that sin nature gets activated in the form of ungodliness, unrighteousness, and evil. We sin because we are sinners from the start.

Imputed sin is an actual biblical reference referring to disposition of all humanity due to Adam's sin in the garden.

Imputed is only used once in the Apostolic Scriptures, in Romans 5:13. The Greek word is ellogeo which means to reckon or to put to one's account. Imputed sin are the sins which each of us commit for which we must receive forgiveness. In that sense Adam and Eve's disobedience was imputed to them.

Original Sin was a term used to identify the first sin of humanity which was again Adam and Eve's transgression. Now comes the crux. Is all humanity guilty because Adam is the first human and this sin is passed on from generation to generation and thus it doesn't matter whether you commit any sins you are still guilty and will be judged because of Adam's sin and he is the 'federal head' of the human race? Or are we judged by just the sins we commit? Adam's sin allowed death into creation. Now flesh subject to death began to be corrupted. Satan who introduced sin took advantage of this corruption and the fact that humans were now separated from God to attach his Law of sin and death to the flesh.

The "original" sin - Adam's disobedience is not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but the sin of listening to another voice other than that of God's. As always with God, it is a heart issue!

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/search.cgi?t=NIV&s=0&sr=1&q=Genesis+3%3A7))

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/search.cgi?t=NIV&s=0&sr=1&q=Genesis+3%3A8))

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (Genesis 3:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/search.cgi?t=NIV&s=0&sr=1&q=Genesis+3%3A9))
God asked Adam, Who told you that you were naked? emphasis on who told
they obeyed another voice rather than God's

Jesus is not only the second Adam, but he is the Word of God manifest in the flesh which thereby quickens those that are dead in sin

How does he quicken the dead in sin? By declaring God's name, Yeshua (God's Salvation) and those who believe in the declaration of the Son, believes in the Word spoken to them

To undo the so called "original sin" of Adam which has passed on of us

moonglow
Jul 25th 2008, 11:59 PM
Now you're thinking like a Greek (no insult intended). God did not inspire the Bible from the perspective of Plato.

Our ideas of sin indeed raise uncomfortable questions. If all things were created by God, and God is good, then how could have He created sin, or allow man to be born with a sin nature? If God is perfect, how could He have created a flawed creature (satan)?

The answer, of course does not lie in pagan spiritualism, but from the mouth of God. Sin is not a 'thing' in itself. It is the absence of good, in human terms - the separation of God from man.
God's Word does not lie:

Psa 51:5(51:7) True, I was born guilty, was a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me.

I don't think it can be said much plainer then that. We are born with this iniquity, as the Psalmist verifys, and sooner or later that sin nature gets activated in the form of ungodliness, unrighteousness, and evil. We sin because we are sinners from the start.

Imputed sin is an actual biblical reference referring to disposition of all humanity due to Adam's sin in the garden.

Imputed is only used once in the Apostolic Scriptures, in Romans 5:13. The Greek word is ellogeo which means to reckon or to put to one's account. Imputed sin are the sins which each of us commit for which we must receive forgiveness. In that sense Adam and Eve's disobedience was imputed to them.

Original Sin was a term used to identify the first sin of humanity which was again Adam and Eve's transgression. Now comes the crux. Is all humanity guilty because Adam is the first human and this sin is passed on from generation to generation and thus it doesn't matter whether you commit any sins you are still guilty and will be judged because of Adam's sin and he is the 'federal head' of the human race? Or are we judged by just the sins we commit? Adam's sin allowed death into creation. Now flesh subject to death began to be corrupted. Satan who introduced sin took advantage of this corruption and the fact that humans were now separated from God to attach his Law of sin and death to the flesh.

The "original" sin - Adam's disobedience is not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but the sin of listening to another voice other than that of God's. As always with God, it is a heart issue!

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/search.cgi?t=NIV&s=0&sr=1&q=Genesis+3%3A7))

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/search.cgi?t=NIV&s=0&sr=1&q=Genesis+3%3A8))

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (Genesis 3:9 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/search.cgi?t=NIV&s=0&sr=1&q=Genesis+3%3A9))
God asked Adam, Who told you that you were naked? emphasis on who told
they obeyed another voice rather than God's

Jesus is not only the second Adam, but he is the Word of God manifest in the flesh which thereby quickens those that are dead in sin

How does he quicken the dead in sin? By declaring God's name, Yeshua (God's Salvation) and those who believe in the declaration of the Son, believes in the Word spoken to them

To undo the so called "original sin" of Adam which has passed on of us

keck..I have been following your post on here and you have been able to express what I was not able to do. First I am dealing with just too many distractions around here and second my neck and back are hurting very badly today making it nearly impossible for me to really focus on this. Even if I felt well...had no distractions I don't think I could have done it as well as you are. Please stay on this thread! Keep up the great work! I agree with everything you are saying and am learning alot from you as I have never encountered someone believing we can choose all times under all situation to not sin. Feel free to address Diolectic post to me also if you have the time and want too...I am just too much physical pain today to do so. Thanks.

God bless

Diolectic
Jul 26th 2008, 02:57 AM
Now you're thinking like a Greek (no insult intended). God did not inspire the Bible from the perspective of Plato.


Our ideas of sin indeed raise uncomfortable questions. If all things were created by God, and God is good, then how could have He created sin,Thats not my question.
God did not create sin.


or allow man to be born with a sin nature?That is the question.
Do you have an answer?


If God is perfect, how could He have created a flawed creature (Satan)?Satan was not created flawed.
sin was found in him(Eze 28:15).


The answer, of course does not lie in pagan spiritualism, but from the mouth of God. Sin is not a 'thing' in itself. It is the absence of good, in human terms - the separation of God from man.

God's Word does not lieNo, that is not what sin is.

Prov 21:4A haughty look, a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
Prov 24:9The thought of foolishness is sin:
Rom 14:23bwhatever is not of faith is sin.(choosing or refusing to have faith, nut inability)
Jaames 4:17Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.
1John 3:4sin is the transgression of the law.
1John 5:17All unrighteousness is sin:


Psa 51:5(51:7) True, I was born guilty, was a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me.

I don't think it can be said much plainer then that. We are born with this iniquity, as the Psalmist verifys, and sooner or later that sin nature gets activated in the form of ungodliness, unrighteousness, and evil. We sin because we are sinners from the start. If David was truly, actually, and deeply repenting, why would David excuse and justify his sin by saying "I couldn’t help my self, I was born this way, it’s my nature to sin"?

True repentance requires that a person stops justifying and excusing their actions as you imply he does by blaiming it on his so called "sin nature".

True repentance is when a person blames themselves for their sin, instead of blaming Adam or their mother.

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5
A Perspective on Psalm 51:5 (http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/originalsin/Psalms_Fifty_One_Five-WilliamMurray.pdf) Please read this link.

1. This scripture is talking about David and his mother. It is not referencing all of humanity.

2. Taken literally, it is saying that his mother was in some sort of sin when she conceived David.

3. A strong case can be made that Ps. 51:5 is talking about the defilement of David’s mother, because of a previous marriage to another man.

(1.) David had two half-sisters named Zeruiah and Abigail (1 Chron. 2:13-16).

(2.) The father of David’s half sisters was not Jesse but Nahash (2 Sam. 17:25).

(3.) Nahash was an Ammonite king (1 Sam. 11:1; 1 Sam. 12:12).

(4.) David’s father was Jesse, not Nahash. But the Father of David’s half sisters were daughts of Nahash. This could explain why Nahash showed kindness towards David (2 Sam. 10:2).

(5.) David’s mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse. The first wife of Jesse would have been considered superior to his second wife which had been either the concubine or wife of a heathen king.

(6.) This would explain why David’s half brothers viewed themselves as superior to David, and why David was considered prideful for thinking he was as good as them (1 Sam. 17:28-30).

(7.) This may explain why David was not called before Samuel the prophet amongst the other sons (1 Sam. 16:11).

(8.) David’s mother apparently had a good relationship with the Lord (Ps. 86:16; 116:16). But she would have been, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered defiled by her previous relationship with an Ammonite (Num. 25:1,2; Deut. 7:3,4; 1 Kings 11:2-4, Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:23,25; 2 Cor. 6:14-17).


Adam's sin allowed death into creation. Now flesh subject to death began to be corrupted.I have already explained this.
Adam & Eve would have eventually died if they were not permitted to eat from the Tree of Life, even if they had not sinned.

The flesh was never meant to be eternal, For it was "made with hands"
Mark 14:58We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
We know that Jesus was talking about His body and His glorified body

2 Corinthians 5:1For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
The glorified body which we will receive is to be eternal!
Everything made with hands us temporal.
The flesh is weak.


the fact that humans were now separated from God to attach his Law of sin and death to the flesh.Adam's relationship with God was quickly restire when God made coats for them(Gen 3:21)
Seth was not separated from God, especialy Enoch, nor was Noah.

Furthermore, there is no "Law of sin and death".
The verse you read this from is
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and free from the law of death.
The term "sin and death" is cumulative, not copulative.

Where does it say that all mankind was separated from God after Adam ate of the Tree?


How does he quicken the dead in sin?First of all, one needs to know what "dead in sin" means.
It is another term for spiritual death. All that mean is a severed relationship with God.
Jesus gives one spiritual life by re-establishing that relationship back with God through His Atonement.

He gives them eternal life. However, eternal life is knowing(loving) Him(John 17:3)

What is eternal life?
It is the (spiritual)life that HE gives more abundantly.(John 10:10)
Again, spiritual life is having a relationship with God through Christ.


Please stay on this thread! Keep up the great work!Yes, I agree.

Thanx for responding.

WELL
Jul 26th 2008, 04:38 AM
Though I choose to not debate with any one on the main topic of this thread, I feel this point needs attention.

Originally Posted by Diolectic http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1723657#post1723657)
Yes,, you are correct.

"There is no such thing a "sin nature"

Everyone who denyes this says that "sin nature" is the reason that people sin.

They take the guilt way from man and put the guilt on ones nature.(all the while claiming that man is still guilty)

Thay are basicaly saying that on one can help but to sin, because of there nature makes them to sin.
They say that sin can not be chosen."

Maybe you have read it wrong. The nature is the person, no one is blaming their nature and saying their nature is separate from themselves.

Diolectic
Jul 26th 2008, 03:20 PM
Though I choose to not debate with any one on the main topic of this thread, I feel this point needs attention.

Originally Posted by Diolectic
Yes,, you are correct.

"There is no such thing a "sin nature"

Everyone who denyes this says that "sin nature" is the reason that people sin.

They take the guilt way from man and put the guilt on ones nature.(all the while claiming that man is still guilty)

Thay are basicaly saying that on one can help but to sin, because of there nature makes them to sin.
They say that sin can not be chosen."Maybe you have read it wrong. The nature is the person, no one is blaming their nature and saying their nature is separate from themselves.All your saying is the same thing, but diferenet semantic.

You still have one making an excusse. They would be saying, then, "I can help but to sin, because it is who I am, a sinner."

I always hear them say that one sinnes because they are sinners.
Their excuse is that they only sin bacause they are siners, it is who they are.

Fact is that it's the other way around, one is a sinner because they sin.

BrckBrln
Jul 26th 2008, 03:45 PM
All your saying is the same thing, but diferenet semantic.

You still have one making an excusse. They would be saying, then, "I can help but to sin, because it is who I am, a sinner."

I always hear them say that one sinnes because they are sinners.
Their excuse is that they only sin bacause they are siners, it is who they are.

Fact is that it's the other way around, one is a sinner because they sin.

So, in theory, since we aren't born with a sin nature, and since everybody has the choice to sin or not to sin, couldn't there be people who have lived or will live who will never sin at all?

Diolectic
Jul 26th 2008, 04:42 PM
So, in theory, since we aren't born with a sin nature, and since everybody has the choice to sin or not to sin, couldn't there be people who have lived or will live who will never sin at all?Only if they loved Jesus from before they were with in the age of accountability.

No one will choose to remain obediant to God unless they love Him.
Every one will choose to corrupt themselves without eternal life.

Diolectic
Jul 28th 2008, 02:23 AM
I'm still interested in discussing this, hope otheres are to.