Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

In the long, long running discussion begun by our atheist Friend, Deep, and titled "Good Without God" -- my Friend, Firenze, has written, "There isn't a perfect person in the world, be it Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc.  Saying that Christians commit immoral acts is hardly a surprise to anyone.  The basic difference is that Christians strive to do better."

And, I respond to her, "So true!  A Christian believer is only a 'forgiven sinner.'   Yes, we continue to fail, we continue to fall into sin, we continue to be weak humans.  But, the difference is that we are convicted of our failures (the indwelling Holy Spirit) and we ask forgiveness and do our best to avoid that sin again.  Will we always be successful in avoiding that sin?  No.  But, we continue to be convicted, we continue to ask forgiveness, and we continue to strive toward eliminating that sin from our repertoire of sins."

Our new Friend, OK, tells me, "It would seem you are convinced that man’s role on earth is to sin constantly, believer or not.  That's certainly not the case with me.  I can’t remember the last time I sinned.  Maybe it’s been years.  I don’t know.  If I were God  I would certainly put a stop to all this uncontrollable sinning.

If I might ask, why do you continue to fail?  What sins are you falling into?  I’m not convinced of failure nor do I consider myself weak.  I don’t strive not to sin, I just don’t see sinning as a priority."

First, OK, maybe we should make clear the meaning of "sin."  What is sin?  Sin is disobedience to God, sin is disobeying God's  command.  Period.  Which is the greatest sin?  None, they are all equal.  Disobedience is disobedience.  The difference being -- is a person living a life of disobedience, or just occasionally, in a moment of weakness, falling into disobedience?

A chosen life of disobedience will lead, eventually, to the one unforgivable sin.  What is the unforgivable sin?  It is blaspheming the Holy Spirit by refusing to follow His leading toward a life in Christ -- and dying while still a non-believer.  Once a person passes that threshold of death -- there is no second chance.

Why do I fail and why do I sin?  Because, although I am a "forgiven sinner" -- I am not perfect.  Isn't that why Jesus Christ had to die in our place -- because no man is perfect and, therefore, no man could satisfy God's perfect justice?  Only a perfect sacrifice could have satisfied God's perfect justice -- so, He sent His perfect Son, the only perfect human -- to die in our place.

Why do I fail?  Because I have inherited the Adamic sin nature and will have that sin nature until I either die or am Raptured, i.e., until the day of my redemption (Ephesians 4:30).

Then, OK tells me, "Bill,  I’m not saying I have never sinned.  I’m saying the frequency of your sinning makes me a little nervous.  It seems to me you are sinning so grace may abound.  I hope you are not in the sinning business.  If so, I think your time could be better spent.   “Go and sin no more”  (Jesus)"

OK, you tell us in your statement above, "That's certainly not the case with me.  I can’t remember the last time I sinned.   Maybe it’s been years."

Really?    How did you obtain this perfection?   And, more importantly -- why did Jesus Christ have to die for you -- if you cannot remember if, or when, you have sinned?

Paul tells us in Romans 5:8, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Paul also tells us in Romans 7:14-17, "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.  For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.  But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.  So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but  sin which dwells in me."

But, Paul goes on to tell us, in Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."  Praise  God!

You tell me, "It seems to me you are sinning so grace may abound."   Here you are referencing Romans 6:1-2 which tells us, "What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?  Certainly not!  How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"

Pastor David Guzik, writes in his commentary on the book of Romans:

http://www.blueletterbible.org...omans&ar=Rom_6_1


Shall we continue in sin:   The verb tense of the phrase "continue in sin" (the present active tense) makes it clear that Paul describes the practice of habitual sin.  In this first part of Romans 6, Paul writes about someone who  remains in a lifestyle of sin, thinking that it is acceptable so that grace may abound.

 

Here, as an example, we can use the sin of homosexuality (or it could just as easily be the sin of adultery, fornication, stealing, lying, murder, or even just stealing paper clips from the office, etc.).  Homosexuality is a sin -- but, a person who is a homosexual can walk away from that lifestyle and become a Christian believer.  Will that person still be a homosexual?  Well, most likely that person will still have the homosexual urges.  Is that a sin?  No, not unless he/she gives in to that urge and commits the sin of  homosexuality.

If the person, in a moment of weakness, does give in and commits the sin -- does this mean that this person has lost his/her salvation because of this sin of homosexuality he/she has committed?  No.  But, it does mean that he/she must recognize that act of sin -- ask forgiveness -- and also ask for the strength to resist that sin in the future.  Will this person always be successful in resisting that sin?   Most likely not; but, he/she must make every effort to do so.  And, if, in a moment of weakness -- does commit the sin again -- he/she must, again, pray for forgiveness and for more strength to resist.

Now, the other side of that coin is the person who is actively living a homosexual lifestyle -- while at the same time declaring himself/herself to be a Christian believer.  In no way, can this person live that sin lifestyle -- and still be a Christian believer.  This is what the apostle Paul is addressing when he asks, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?"

In the passage found in Romans 5:12-21, the apostle Paul teaches that Jesus Christ is the basis of our salvation -- and that, by the grace of God.

Romans 5:17-21, "For if by the transgression of the one (Adam), death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.   So then as through one transgression (Adam) there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness (Jesus Christ) there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man's (Adam) disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One (Jesus Christ) the many will be made righteousThe Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

This passage is teaching us that through the Law man was made aware that his sins, i.e., transgressions, were exposed and increasing.  But, the Law could not remove man's sins, only offer temporary atonement -- and man's sacrifices had to continue year after year -- for this was temporal atonement, temporal forgiveness.

What does this passage mean when we read, "The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;"?

Romans 5:12-14, "Therefore, just as through one man (Adam)sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned -- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."

This passage tells us that, when Adam sinned and brought both spiritual and physical death upon all mankind, i.e., his sin brought the condemnation of sin upon all mankind.  Yet, God, being the Supreme Judge, could not impute, or attribute, sins to the accounts of man without man having a knowledge of sin.  Therefore, God gave Israel the Ten Commandments and the Law to clearly define for them their sins.  After this, man had no excuse for his sins -- and was, and is, held responsible for them.

This is the meaning of that phrase that, before the Law, even though death had entered the creation -- sin per se was not accounted  to man.  Yet, once man had the Law -- the sin count exploded.  Why?  Because now God had put it is writing, no more excuses, no "ignorance of the law" defenses allowed in His courtroom from that point in time.

That was the Dispenation of Law -- and provided temporal atonement for sins through repeated sacrifices.  Then, Jesus Christ, when He came to earth as the Incarnate God, brought us into the Dispensation of Grace -- that by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9) -- a person might find complete atonement and eternal life, eternal security, in Christ.

Was the apostle Paul still a sinner after he became a believer and the most prolific writer of New Testament books?   Well, he tells us in Romans 5:8, ". . .while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."   And, he tells us in Romans 7:17, "So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me."

And, in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Paul talks about his "thorn in his flesh."   The Bible does not tell us the source of this "thorn in the  flesh" -- and many Bible scholars and theologians have speculated that it is many things, from bad eye sight to bad health.  Yet, I have trouble relating this "thorn in the flesh" to bad eyes or bad health.

For why would Paul equate this to "a messenger of Satan to torment me"?  This sounds to me more like a sin of the flesh, i.e., lust, sexual desires, etc.   Yes, for a man such as Paul, who at the time we meet him in the Bible does not appear to have a wife --  sexual desires could and would seem to be from Satan, i.e., a "thorn in the flesh."

2 Corinthians 12:7-10, "Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me -- to keep me from exalting myself!  Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.  And He has said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in  weakness.'  Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.     Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for  when I am weak, then I am strong."

So, OK, when you tell me, "I hope you are not in the sinning business" -- from Scripture, it is abundantly clear to me that you should be asking the same question of the apostle Paul -- for he most certainly is what I would call a "forgiven sinner."

And, when you declare, "That's certainly not the case with me.  I can’t remember the last time I sinned.  Maybe it’s been years.   I don’t know" -- well, in my mind, you are putting yourself on the same level as Jesus Christ -- who we know is the only perfect,  sinless Man.

Perhaps, OK, you will want to rethink your "perfect status" and come back to dwelling among we mere mortals.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

1 - Trust-God_Animated

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - Trust-God_Animated
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

You say:

Shall we continue in sin:

The verb tense of the phrase "continue in sin" (the present active tense) makes it clear that Paul describes the practice of habitual sin. In this first part of Romans 6, Paul writes about someone who remains in a lifestyle of sin, thinking that it is acceptable so that grace may abound

.

If you continue in sin as you admit, is that not habitual?

You ask how am I perfect? I didn’t say I was perfect. I have the whole list of sins so I avoid them.

 

You said I need to join the mortals, i say try to go one day without sinning and it will be easy from there. BTW SIN means to miss the mark.

Hi OK,

In my initial post, I wrote, from Pastor David Guzik: "Shall we continue in sin:   The verb tense of the phrase 'continue in sin' (the present active tense) makes it clear that Paul describes the practice of habitual sin.  In this first part of Romans 6, Paul writes about someone who remains in a lifestyle of sin, thinking that it is acceptable so that grace may abound."

And, you ask, "If you continue in sin as you admit, is that not habitual?"

Yes, if a person continued to live in sin, that would be habitual.  However, do you deny that all people have the "Adamic sin nature" and because we do have the sin nature, we are prone to falling into sin?

To say that you do not sin -- is equating yourself with Jesus Christ.  And, to be quite honest -- I do not believe you are Jesus Christ.

You tell me, "BTW SIN means to miss the mark."

That is true.  But, how would you describe Adam's sin?  I would say his sin was disobedience.   How would you describe "missing  the mark"?   I would say that every time you "miss the mark" is because you are being disobedient to God.

As Louie Armstrong sang, "You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto."

But, OK, the person who says he/she does not sin -- is calling God, and the Bible, liars.   I am sure you do not intend to do that.

By the way, I have to ask.  You seem to be in a very legalistic church -- do you follow Arminianism; that, if one spits wrong, he has lost his salvation?  I get that feeling with you.

But, OK, you go on believing that you do not sin -- and I will go on thanking God that I am a "forgiven sinner."   And, we can be brothers in Christ.  The only difference being that I do not worry about losing my salvation; therefore I have peace with God through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1, Romans 8:1).

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi to my Forum Friends,

Here, as an example, we can use the sin of homosexuality.

 

a person who is a homosexual can walk away from that lifestyle and become a Christian believer

 

if the person, in a moment of weakness, does give in and commits the sin -- does this mean that this person has lost his/her salvation because of this sin of homosexuality he/she has committed?  No.  But, it does mean that he/she must recognize that act of sin -- ask forgiveness -- and also ask for the strength to resist that sin in the future.  Will this person always be successful in resisting that sin?   Most likely not; but, he/she must make every effort to do so.  And, if, in a moment of weakness -- does commit the sin again -- he/she must, again, pray for forgiveness and for more strength to resist.

Perhaps, OK, you will want to rethink your "perfect status" and come back to dwelling among we mere mortals.
Bill

 

          **************************************************************

Well heck, Bill. That homosexual can just keep on having those “weak moments”, not having the “strength to resist”, "ask forgiveness", get up the next day & do it all over again. He/she may really be sorry the next morning, but weakness & desire wins out over those Christian moral values, but what the hell…...ask forgiveness, & they’re going to Heaven anyway!!

 

BTW, I would like to know what sin you committed today....seriously.

 

quote:   Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
BTW, I would like to know what sin you committed today....seriously.

Hi Chick,

 

My most  recent sin?  Aggravation with you for being so spiritually blind and for apparently liking that state of mind.   But, I will pray for more patience and more understanding -- and for you.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 
quote:   Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
BTW, I would like to know what sin you committed today....seriously.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Chick,

My most  recent sin?  Aggravation with you for being so spiritually blind and for apparently liking that state of mind.   But, I will pray for more patience and more understanding -- and for you.

Bill

          **************************************************************

Ok, what sins have you committed today? Lucky you that I was the cause of the most recent. 

 

Bill, I can respect the fact that you are not afraid to witness or to defend your faith. My problem with you is how you go about it. You show no love/compassion, it is not within you. I say that because I’ve never seen/heard it from you. It’s all about beating people over the head with religion.

 

It's not up to you to judge me as spiritually blind & liking it.

I’ve mentioned to you before about a scripture in 1 Corinthians that says,

“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

 

If your message is constantly being rejected & criticized, are you not clearly instructed by Jesus to "give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine”?

 

I know all about the scripture in Psalms that says “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good”.

I cannot definitely say there is no God but I can certainly say I’m confused. I know I am not corrupt, I do not do abominable deeds, yet God says I am & that I do.

 

According to your belief, since I was once saved, I am still saved.

 

One scripture that says that’s a lie is found in John15: 5-7 (NIV) 

 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 

Notice the word REMAIN.


If you feel the need to pray for me, go for it. Hopefully, it will add another diamond to your crown.

 

 

Hi Chick,

 

You tell me, "According to your belief, since I was once saved, I am still saved."

 

My Friend, I can say that I was once ten foot tall -- but, now am only 6'3" tall.   Does that mean that I truly was once ten foot tall -- or that I deluded myself into believing I was ten foot tall -- or that I just wanted others to think I was ten foot tall?  

 

The same is true of a person who, because he/she once attended a church, once read the Bible, even was baptized -- and then proclaimed, "Now, I are one!" -- has that person deluded himself/herself?   Or was that person truly a Christian believer?

 

If a person truly is a Christian believer, has truly been born again of the Holy Spirit, truly has the Holy Spirit dwelling within -- can that person become unborn again?   There is about as much chance of that -- as there is of a child of ten reentering its mother's womb and being unborn.   Once committed -- there is no going back.  That applies to our first birth from our mother's womb -- and it applies to our being born again into a relationship with Jesus Christ.   There is no going back.

 

True, a lot of folks can wear the Christian hat; a lot of folks can attend church on Sunday wearing their Sunday best; a lot of folks can profess in loud words to be a Christian believer.  But, if that person has not truly met Jesus Christ on a personal basis -- that person is only blowing smoke.

 

Chick, I would love to see you take that step of faith and become a Christian believer.  If you will -- you will never want to go back.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bill, it seem you are insisting that I sin to prove your point

I‘m not going to do that.

If I sin uncontrollably I‘m no longer a free moral agent.

No I don’t believe anyone carries the sin of Adam in their body like an extra kidney.

It’s obvious the two animals in the Garden of Eden did not have the concept of sin before being introduced to it through knowledge.

quote:   Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

Thank you, Bill, that's exactly what I expected from you. AND, as you always have, you ignore those scriptures that indicate being lost again.


Hi Chick,

 

No, I did as any good writer will -- I went to the heart of your comment.  And, that is where I wrote my response.  First, one must discuss IF a person is saved; then, one can talk about staying saved.

 

But, if you have specific questions -- ask them.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Hi OK,

You tell me, "Bill, it seem you are insisting that I sin to prove your point   I'm not going to do that.  If I sin uncontrollably I'm no longer a free moral agent.  No I don’t believe anyone carries the sin of Adam in their body like an extra kidney.   It’s obvious the two animals in the Garden of Eden did not have the concept of sin before being introduced to it through knowledge."

No, my Friend, I am not insisting you do anything.   And, I have no idea what you mean by "uncontrollably sinning."   Yes, a person does have the God given "free will" to choose to follow Christ -- or to deny Him and follow the world.  And, yes, a person must strive to emulate Christ to the best of his human abilities. 

 

However, given that we ALL, and the includes YOU, are frail humans who ALL have the Adamic sin curse, the inherited sin nature -- we ALL will sin.  Admittedly some will sin more that others; however it is not the degree of sin, but the fact of sin, which makes us "forgiven sinners."

You refer to Adam and Eve as "two animals in the Garden of Eden."   Technically that may be right.  However, animals were not created in God's image as were man and woman.  So, instead of animals, I would say that God created man and woman, Adam and Eve, in His image and placed them in the Garden of Eden -- to have prominence over His animal kingdom.

And, it is not true that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of sin -- for they knew very well that sin, i.e., disobeying God, would lead to death (Genesis 3:3).  I would say that is knowledge of sin and its consequences.

What I believe you meant to say is that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before being lured into the sin of disobedience by the fallen angel, Lucifer/Satan.  That is true.  And, that is why we, today, ALL have the inherited Adamic sin nature which plays upon our human weakness -- and causes us ALL to sin -- admittedly some more than others.

But, praise God -- ALL who, by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, have believed and received His "free gift" of eternal  life in Christ -- ARE "forgiven sinners"  (Ephesians 2:8-9).

OK, you tell me, "No I don’t believe anyone carries the sin of Adam. . ."

Then, why did Jesus Christ die on the cross?   If man does not have the Adamic sin nature; man could just choose not to sin and that would be it.  There would be no sin in the world.  Yet, Christ came to die on the cross to OFFER forgiveness for our sins -- past, present, and future.  Why would He have done this if it is just as simple as choosing not to sin?  Why the need for John 3:16?

The Bible tells us that we all have a sin nature.  After Adam and Eve sinned, they began to have sons and daughters in their own likeness. "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth"  (Genesis 5:3).   Adam's own likeness included a sin nature.  All of us born since have that same likeness of Adam, that sin nature.

The Bible tells us that man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27); then Adam fell into the sin of disobedience (Genesis 3) -- and from the passage above we see that descendants of Adam inherited his image, in his own likeness, i.e., his sin nature.

This is confirmed in Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man (Adam)sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."

Romans 5:18, "So then as through one transgression (Adam's disobedience)there resulted condemnation to all men, even so  through one act of righteousness (Christ's willingness to die for our sins)there resulted justification of life to all men."

And, we are told, in the Bible, "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be.  We know that when He appears (to Rapture His church), we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is"  (1 John 3:2).

What are these Scripture passages telling us?  They confirm that man was created in the image of God -- a spiritual being.  Then, through the "free will" gift of God, man disobeyed God and brought death, physical and spiritual, to all men (the sin nature).  Yet,  God in his divine love for man has given us a way to be restored once again to being "in the image of God."

How?  He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay our sin debt "in full."  He purchased our "full pardon" through His precious blood on the  cross.  His precious blood opened the door of our sin prison, offering everyone who will -- by the grace of God, through faith in His atoning death and resurrection -- His promise of eternal life in Christ.  He has unlocked the door of our sin prison -- we just have to accept the freedom He has purchased for us.

And, to complete the full circle -- on the day we are Raptured into our immortal, eternal bodies -- we will once again be in the image of God, we will be like Him (1 John 3:2) -- fully restored to our original spiritual relationship with God.

But, OK, when you tell me, "No I don’t believe anyone carries the sin of Adam. . ." -- does this mean that you are Mormon and do not believe in original sin -- as we find in the statement of faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the doctrine of original sin which reads: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (Articles of Faith, LDS Church).

Or, are you in some other church which teaches Pelagianism -- "the belief that people are not born with original sin and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid.  For this reason, Adam's sin was there to set a bad example for those that came after him; other than that it had no consequences.  Jesus was there to set a good example (much like Adam's bad  example) but also to pay the price for our sins.  Pelagius believed that because people choose to sin, they are like criminals who  need to be pardoned, not victims of an inherited sinful nature."  (From "Pelagianism" -- http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism )

OK, I am not sure where you have derived your theological position -- but, it does not agree with the teachings of the Bible.

From the Old Testament:

Ecclesiastes 7:20, "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"

Isaiah 64:6, "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us  wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."

From the New Testament:

Romans 3:23,  "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."

1 John 1:8,  "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us."

1 John 1:10, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

Let me offer you the insight of a ministry I have found very useful, the web site GotQuestions.Org.  Below are excerpts from their  Q&A article, "What Is The Sin Nature":


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What Is The Sin Nature?
Got Questions Ministries, GotQuestions.org
http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-nature.html


Misconceptions about the Sin Nature:  Although the biblical teaching of a sin nature is clear, there are a number of misconceptions that both Christians and non-Christians have about it.  First, some people think that a sin nature means that a person cannot tell right from wrong -- or behave in a "good" manner towards someone else.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Jesus acknowledged that someone could perform good acts -- and yet still have an evil sin nature (Matthew 7:9–11).

Lastly, some Christians have been taught that they lose their sin nature once they receive Christ as their Lord and Savior.  But Scripture says that the sin nature remains after a person becomes a believer in Christ and that a struggle with that sin nature will continue until they are glorified in eternity.  Paul bemoaned his struggle when he said, “For what I am doing, I do not understand; for  I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. . . . But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I  am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me (Romans 7:15, 20).

The struggle between the sinful and regenerated spiritual nature in a Christian will be quite evident to a person who has been born again, but such a battle will not occur in a person who has not become a believer in Christ.  They remain spiritually dead and are not sensitive to sin as a Christian is.

The story is told of a man who once came to a preacher and said, “You talk about how heavy sin is, but preacher, I don’t feel a thing.”

The preacher thought for a minute and then asked, “If we put 400 pounds of weight on a corpse, do you think he would feel it?”

The Consequences of the Sin Nature:  The reality of the sin nature brings with it many disappointing consequences.  The first effect is that each and every person in born spiritually dead.  That is, they are devoid of any spiritual life or desire for the things of God.

The lack of spiritual life in a person results in behavior that is both hostile toward God and mindfully ignorant of His truth.  In Romans, speaking about the hostility and inability of spiritually dead people to respond to God, Paul says, “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Romans 8:6-7).

The final and natural consequence of the sin nature is eternal death -- an eternal separation from God.  God’s wrath remains on those who are not born again (John 3:36) -- and so their destiny is only one of judgment, which is spelled out in the book of Revelation: "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  This is the second death, the lake of fire.  And if anyone’s  name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”  (Revelation 20:14-15).

The Cure for the Sin Nature:   Fortunately, there is a cure for the sin nature and a way to escape the judgment of God.  The cure is the new birth, which is described by the Apostle John in Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus: “Jesus answered and said to him,  ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ " (John 3:3).

The great news is that the sin nature can be defeated by the One who did not inherit a sin nature from His earthly parents (Jesus was born of a virgin).  Through His finished work on the cross, Jesus, being sinless, satisfied God’s wrath for sinners and rose again to offer life to those devoid of spiritual life.

Conclusion:   The fact that each person ever born possesses a sin nature is verified by human experience and the Word of God.  The good news is that Christ provides a way of conquering the inherited sin nature and a victory that can be experienced both in this life and the next.  No matter how bad off the person is, Jesus can defeat the sin that enslaves him.  As John Calvin put it, “For certainly,  Christ is much more powerful to save -- than Adam was to ruin.”


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


OK, my Friend, whether you will acknowledge it or not -- you and I both still have the inherited Adamic sin nature and will have until we die or are Raptured by Christ.  Denying this Biblical teaching is similar to the atheists denying the existence of God.  They can deny God all they want -- but, they still WILL stand before Him one day in judgment.

And, if it makes you feel more secure to deny that you sin; so be it.  ALL Christian believers will still stand before Jesus Christ in judgment, the Believer's Judgment, to answer for our sins (thoughts, words, and deeds) committed in this mortal body (2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, 1 Peter 5:4).

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Chick,

No, I did as any good writer will -- 

First, one must discuss IF a person is saved; then, one can talk about staying saved.

Bill

          ****************************************************************

Good writer? Well, I guess if no one else does it, you can always brag on yourself.

 

IF a person is saved? Well, I say you ain't, you say you are.

 

 

BILL you did say you sinned every day didn’t you. If you can’t quit it that is uncontrollable.

Adam is responsible for his own sin.

Being a free moral agent I just use my free will and don’t sin very often.

 

ohhh ok Bill {slapps head like RP} You can't stop using this forum as a foundation for your ministry letter. Usurery is the sin or fraudulent use of our posts. If there is any gotten gain you must contribute it jointly in the forum name to the tornado victims here in AL.

Hi OK

You tell me, "BILL you did say you sinned every day didn’t you.  If you can’t quit it that is uncontrollable.  Adam is responsible for his own sin.  Being a free moral agent I just use my free will and don’t sin very often."

My Friend, throughout this dialogue I have given you Biblical reasons, and support from other sources, which prove my position as a "forgiven sinner."   ALL you have given, throughout, is YOUR OPINION.   You have not offered one iota of proof to substantiate your position.

Now, would you like to revisit the discussion and add some meat to your empty frame of evidence?

And, you tell me, "ohhh ok Bill {slapps (SIC) head like RP}  You can't stop using this forum as a foundation for your ministry letter.   Usurery (SIC) is the sin or fraudulent use of our posts.  If there is any gotten gain you must contribute it jointly in the forum name to  the tornado victims here in AL."

Sorry, my Friend, but that boat won't float.  Yes, there are times when I will write a post on the Religion Forum and then share it with my Friends Ministry.  And, there are other times when I will write an eNewsletter for my Friends Ministry and share it on the Religion Forum.

Yes, I have written and shared my writings on the Religion Forum, my Friends Ministry, for some years on The Conservative Voice, and on any other venue which I feel will be useful to my Christian faith.  But, the only remuneration I have received in all those years was 30 postage stamps in 1994 to help with mailing my snail-mail Christian newsletter "The Good News" which went to 400 homes in the U.S. and to 60 homes in 12 other nations.   This, except for those 30 postage stamps, was 100% funded by me (writing, publishing, and mailing via snail-mail) -- what you might call a Really Non-Profit Christian Ministry!

Other than those stamps, I will be happy to donate all of the income from my writings over the years to any charity you would like.  The sum total will be a big fat $00.00.

But, I am confident that I have earned treasures in the Bank of Heaven -- and one day I will be there to enjoy all of it.

And, OK, I keep praying that God will bring me additional venues where I might share my Christian writings.   Would you like to help by pointing me toward a few?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill will always point out the fact that if you don't see things as he does that you probably aren't saved in the first place, my Brothers married Baptist and they all know it all too.

 

Bill has favorite verses in the Bible like Ephesians 2: 8&9 and that is all any of them wants to read, I used to work with a Baptist Preacher and one day me and him were talking and I quoted 1st Peter 3 Verses 20 & 21 and He was preaching in a pretty big Church and he said that he had never read them Verses before, he got killed south of Belgreen trying to outrun the Law, went into a curve too fast and hit aTree.







Hi Albert,

You tell us, "Bill will always point out the fact that if you don't see things as he does that you probably aren't saved in the first place.  My Brothers married Baptist and they all know it all too."

Albert, my Friend, you appear to be seeing what you want to see -- and not what is written.  If you will go back and read my post, you will find that I acknowledge OK as my Christian brother, as I do you -- but, disagree with him when he declares that Christian believers do not have the inherited Adamic sin nature.   The Bible is very clear that we do carry the inherited sin nature of Adam.   

Just curious, where do you stand on this issue?  Do you believe that you and I have the curse of Adam's inherited sin nature?  If not,  why?  If you agree, when will we lose this sin nature?

Albert, where you and I agree with the Bible -- I will always agree with you.   When you differ from what the Bible teaches -- I will always disagree with you.

Then, you declare, "Bill has favorite verses in the Bible, like Ephesians 2:8-9, and that is all any of them (Baptists?) wants to read.  I  used to work with a Baptist Preacher and one day me and him were talking and I quoted 1st Peter 3 Verses 20 & 21.  And He was preaching in a pretty big Church.  He said that he had never read them Verses before.  He got killed south of Belgreen trying to outrun the Law, went into a curve too fast and hit a Tree."

Do you disagree with what is taught in Ephesians 2:8-9?  Albert, please take a look at Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" -- and tell us which part of this passage you do not agree with, which part of this passage is wrong.

You say you met a pastor who had never read 1 Peter 3:20-21.  Any man who pastors a "pretty big Church" as you say, should have attended seminary -- and, I cannot imagine a person going through seminary without reading that passage.  I am not saying you are wrong -- just that it would really surprise me for a pastor of a big church.

And, Albert you tell us, "He got killed south of Belgreen trying to outrun the Law, went into a curve too fast and hit a Tree."

I am not sure what that has to do with 1 Peter 3:20-21 or with baptism -- nor why you have included it in this discussion.  Was he killed because he did not understand 1 Peter 3:20-21 -- or because he drove too fast?

But, before we get into a discussion of 1 Peter 3:20-22, let me say that anyone, or any church, who has built a theology upon a few verses of Scripture -- has as Sieve Theology.  It won't hold water.  A solid Christian theology MUST be built upon a foundation of the entire Bible -- excluding no verse.  A solid Christian church will teach through the Bible, expository teaching, not skipping a single verse.

So, no, I do not build my Christian belief or my theological beliefs upon only Ephesians 2:8-9.  However, that passage is a good starting point.  Personally, I begin my belief based upon Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" -- the foundation stone of the entire Bible -- and with John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the  Word was God" -- the foundation stone of our Christian faith.   

And, then, I hold these together by adding the mortar of Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:3, John 3:16, John 14:6 -- and, then I start laying the individual stones, i.e, other Bible verses, both Old and New Testament, upon these to build the walls of my faith and my theology.  In this, I can know that I have a solid theology, a solid grounding for my Christian faith.

That, my Friend, is the ONLY way to have a solid Christian theology for the individual and for the church.

Now, let's talk about the Scripture passage you keep accusing me, and your pastor friend, of overlooking or ignoring.

1 Peter 3:20-22, "Who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.  Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you  -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him."

Let's get other views, instead of only hearing from Bill Gray:


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

STUDY GUIDE FOR 1 PETER 3
Pastor David Guzik, Director of Calvary Chapel Bible College, Germany
http://www.blueletterbible.org...eter&ar=1Pe_3_20


3. (20b-22) The salvation of Noah as a picture of baptism.

a. Eight souls, were saved through water:  Peter draws a picture here.  Even as Noah's salvation from judgment of God was  connected with water, so the Christian's salvation (is) connected with the water, the water of baptism.


i. The water of the flood washed away sin and wickedness, and brought a new world with a fresh start before God.  The  water of baptism does the same thing, providing a passage from the old to the new.


b. Not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God:   But Peter is careful to point out that it isn’t the actual water washing of baptism that saves us, but the spiritual reality behind the immersion in water.  What really saves us is the answer of a good conscience toward God, a conscience made good through the completed work of Jesus.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COMMENTARY ON 1 PETER 3-5 (C2000 SERIES)
Pastor Chuck Smith, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa
http://www.blueletterbible.org...eter&ar=1Pe_3_20


So the true baptism is a matter of my heart.   Now I do believe that every one who believes in Jesus Christ should be baptized in water.  I definitely believe in water baptism and I personally believe in water baptism by full immersion.  But I do believe that water baptism by full immersion is only a symbol of the work of the Spirit that has transpired within my heart.  

The old man being dead now buried in water and the new life that I now have, the life of the Spirit through Jesus Christ.  Baptism becomes a beautiful symbol of that.  As I go down in the water, it's being buried.  The old life just being buried; and as I come up out of the water, it's that new life in the Spirit, in Christ.  And it becomes a beautiful symbol.

But if it has not happened in my heart, it cannot happen by the ritual.  The ritual itself cannot save me.  Now you may be baptized by sprinkling, by dunking, by full immersion, and still not be saved.  You know, they could hold you down until you drown and it still won't save you. The rite of baptism doesn't saveIt symbolizes that which has already transpired in my heart.  If it hasn't transpired in my heart, then baptism is meaningless. In fact, it's worse than that; it is --it's almost condemning to me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

So, Albert, you can see from the Scripture passage you suggest, 1 Peter 3:20-22, that water baptism, called for by our Lord, is NOT what saves a person.  Baptism is the outward manifestation of an inner change within the person who has turned his/her life over to Jesus Christ.

But, I am happy that we have had this opportunity to flesh out an understanding of what the Bible teaches regarding salvation and our acts of obedience to our Lord -- baptism and communion -- the two ordinances He left for us to do in remembrance of Him until He returns.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill I have wrote two replies and am on dial up, and when I get done I have lost my connection and I reconnect but then it says that there was an Error and it is locked up and the only way to get it to going is turn it off so then all that writing was for nothing, so let me say that if you haven't ever read the book of Acts, then by all means do so, that tells you how the people back then was saved.

 

 

Bill Read this and put it in your ministry letter.

 

The Problematic Concept of a Sinful Human Nature

by Caleb Colley, M.L.A.

 

It is fashionable in some religious circles to teach that human nature is sinful, i.e., we all have a “sinful nature.” If this is supposed to mean merely that all accountable persons at some point sin, and need forgiveness, then the doctrine of a sinful nature is biblical (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10). However, the very words “sinful nature,” and much of the discussion surrounding it, often denote the doctrine of hereditary depravity. This is the idea that all humans inherit the sin of Adam in some way—we suffer due to this original sin, and therefore we all are inescapably sinful by nature. The biblical evidence militates against this idea, as we have shown previously (see Pinedo, 2009; Colley, 2004; Butt, 2004). The very concept of a sinful human nature is also philosophically problematic. Indeed, the concept of a sinful nature is plagued with difficulties even before the Bible is consulted.

Consider a preliminary remark concerning what it means to speak of a sinful human nature. To speak of human “nature” at all is to refer to qualities that are essential to all humans. Such characteristics cannot be accidental, or things that might become characteristic of a human as he develops, but might also not. Rather, aspects of human nature are inseparable from whatever it is that makes us human (with the possible exceptions of young children and the mentally ill). For example, we might admit that human nature is essentially rational (this is part of what differentiates us from animals), but not essentially football-loving, because there are plenty of humans who seem not (however mysteriously!) to appreciate football. Someone who thinks that we become sinful when we transgress God’s law does not believe in the essentially sinful human nature.

To ascribe a sinful nature to humanity, therefore, is to say that there is something sinful about being a human being. What part of our being might be accused of inherent sinfulness? If we think that a human being consists of a body and a soul, there are three possibilities: (1) The body could introduce guilt; (2) The soul could introduce guilt; (3) The union of body and soul could itself produce guilt.

First, someone could allege that sin comes as a result of our embodiment. Indeed, the idea that the body unavoidably mars the perfection of the soul has been popular at times. For example, the Gnostics taught that matter is intrinsically evil and is the source of all evil (see Renwick, 1982, 2:490). How may moral blame attach to human nature as it arises from our bodies? We are typically unprepared to blame purely material objects such as tables and chairs. Genes and brain matter are different from tables and chairs, but it is nonsensical to look for a difference that would give rise to moral guilt. As yet, there is no good explanation to convince us that evil arises simply from matter. (Yet, we might use our bodies to do wrong. Indeed, all sins are committed while we are “in the body” [2 Corinthians 5:10]).

On the other hand, someone who believes in sinful human nature might be (and probably is) referring to the status of the soul rather than the body. Before assessing the possibility of the essential blameworthiness of the human soul, consider that for someone to think of the soul as essentially sinful, there are some concepts of soul which he must reject. For example, the Aristotelian view of the soul as being the animating force of the body, or that which activates the body’s potential, does not allow for the human to “start out” as blameworthy. Guilt, on this view, cannot arise from outside of the human order, because Aristotle does not posit a supernatural being to ascribe the guilt. Furthermore, humans could not possibly claim to know that a newborn baby was already guilty if they did not think that God had ascribed guilt to the baby from outside the human order.

Likewise, the Stoic idea of a Universe-Soul is problematic for the idea of an essentially sinful soul. If we all share in the same soul, which also gives life to everything else in the Universe, then to ascribe guilt to that soul would be to say that everything is altogether evil. If everything is evil, how would we know what good is? And what is the point of discussing sinful human nature if we think there is no rescue from it?

There are other conceptions of soul that would a priori disallow a sinful nature. If we presuppose, however, that the soul is distinct from the body (i.e., it is its own, separable substance) and comes to the body from elsewhere (from heaven or wherever), then we have at least a format that might allow for the essential guilt of the soul. In this format, we are free to suppose that the soul acquires guilt prior to entering the body, at which time human nature is indeed guilty. There are two problems with this, however: (1) We could not know about such an arrangement unless it were revealed to us. Plato’s theory of reincarnation is beautiful and interesting, but like other theories of reincarnation, is not readily amenable to proof (Socrates’ “proofs” in the Meno [Plato, 1997, pp. 870-897] and the Phaedo [pp. 49-100] are notoriously problematic). A person has just as much reason to deny the existence of souls prior to their embodiment as he does to assert such existence, because the spiritual realm does not appear to us. (2) Most people who want to establish sinful human nature presumably would not be interested in the guilt of a soul prior to embodiment, because sin is supposed to be passed along from one embodied soul to another embodied soul. If we suppose that a new soul acquires guilt while it waits in heaven to be born into the world, we would need an additional story about where this guilt comes from. Such a story does not seem to be forthcoming. Because reincarnation is not evident (and seldom proposed by supporters of the sinful human nature), then there is no obvious way to ascribe the sin of a previous human to a soul not yet embodied.

The only remaining option is that the soul becomes sinful at the time when it is embodied, at the occasion of the union of soul and body. If the soul is innocent prior to embodiment—and as we have seen, there is no obvious reason to think it guilty—then the body is the substance that is responsible for the guilt in the union. We have already shown the difficulty of associating blame with matter. Furthermore, recall that the common view of sinful nature is that we have inherited the sins of an ancestor. His soul was guilty, not because of contact with matter, but because of his own sinful volition. This was the “original” sin. Guilt was introduced on this occasion, but did not exist prior. This ancestor did not inherit guilt, so matter, at least in his case, did not bring sin. Why should we think matter brings sin in our case?
 

CONCLUSION


One response in favor of sinful nature might be that it is a spiritual, theological matter, and thus a philosopher will not find it if he searches for it (e.g., Hodge, 2010). This is an appeal to the limits of philosophy, and would be a well-taken point if God had revealed a logically coherent doctrine of original sin that was not obvious apart from revelation. However, He has not done this. In fact, He has revealed information to the opposite effect. Glory be to God, Who does not blame us for the sins of our ancestors (Ezekiel 18:20).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3749&topic=82

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×