brightfame52
Well-known member
Christians do have a sin nature, the flesh Rom 7, and prior to a New Birth, that's all they have is a sin nature. What can the natural man do about his sin nature ?
Data on John 1:1
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
I know! I know!
A calvinist must stay inert, do nothing, and always wait for the zapping.
Did I pass Calvinist Heresies 101?
101G
Well-known member
ERROR, he is writing to Christians. listen and learn, Romans 1:7 "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."
and beside that both Jews and Gentiles was Just before God who obey him. it is the called out one who he was speaking to BOTH was without the Law now.
101G don't wish, KNOW. and it seem you did not KNOW that before Christ both Jews and GENTILES who obeyed God with out the Law was Justified by him. since you want to wish, 101G wish you read and correctly LEARN the bible.... PLEASE.... (smile)...... ok.
101G.
101G
Well-known member
again that's NONESENSE. as said both GENTILES, even before the Jews received the Law was JUSTIFIED by God who obeyed him. just to KNOW the Law means NOTHING if one never keep it. and that's evidence by the daily sacrifice. so just KNOWING the Law is meaning less if not obeyed. because just keeping one point and not the whole Law one has broken all. he Paul was letting all to know this fact as well as the apostle Paul.
did not God told all, not just Israel what was required? yes, and as Paul told the Jews who KNEW the Law that ... Romans 2:12 "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;" Romans 2:13 "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (and NONE WERE by the Law). Romans 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"
101G.
civic
Well-known member
There is no sin nature that was made up by Augustine and revived by Calvinism
πᾶσα σάρξ (in imitation of the Hebrew כָּל־בָּשָׂר (Winers Grammar, 33)), every lving creature, 1 Peter 1:24; with οὐ preceding (qualifying the verb (Winers Grammar, § 26, 1; Buttmann, 121 (106))), no living creature, Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20; specifically, a man (ἄνθρωπος for בָּשָׂר, Genesis 6:13), generally with a suggestion of weakness, frailty, mortality: Sir. 28:5; ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ἤλπισα, οὐ φοβηθήσομαι τί ποιήσει μοι σάρξ, Psalm 55:5 (); cf. Jeremiah 17:5; ἐμνήσθη, ὅτι σάρξ εἰσιν, Psalm 77:39 (); σάρξ καί αἷμα, Ephesians 6:12; γενεά σαρκός καί αἵματος, ἡ μέν τελευτᾷ, ἑτέρα δέ γεννᾶται, Sir. 14:18; ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, entered into participation in human nature, John 1:14 (the apostle used σάρξ, not ἄνθρωπος, apparently in order to indicate that he who possessed supreme majesty did not shrink from union with extreme weakness); εὑρίσκειν τί κατά σάρκα, to attain to anything after the manner of a (weak) man, i. e. by the use of merely human powers, Romans 4:1 (for substance equivalent to ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 4:2); Hebraistically (see above), πᾶσα σάρξ, all men, Luke 3:6; John 17:2 (Winer's Grammar, § 30, 1 a.); Acts 2:17; Sir. 45:4; with οὐ or μή preceding (qualifying the verb (Winers Grammar, and Buttmann, as referred to above)), no man, no mortal, Romans 3:20; 1 Corinthians 1:29; Galatians 2:16. man as he appears, such as he presents himself to view, man's external appearance and condition: κατά σάρκα κρίνειν, John 8:15 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 583 (542)) (equivalent to κρίνειν κατ' ὄψιν, John 7:24); γινώσκειν or εἰδέναι τινα κατά σάρκα, 2 Corinthians 5:16; οἱ κατά σάρκα κυρίου (see κατά, II. 3 b.), Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22. universally, human nature, the soul included: ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκός ἁμαρτίας, in a visible form, like human nature which is subject to sin, Romans 8:3 (cf. ὁμοίωμα, b.); ἐν σαρκί ἔρχεσθαι, to appear clothed in human nature, 1 John 4:2 and Rec. in 3; 2 John 1:7(the Epistle of Barnabas 5, 10 [ET]); φανερουσθαι, 1 Timothy 3:16 (the Epistle of Barnabas 5, 6 [ET]; 6, 7 [ET]; 12, 10 [ET]); κεκοινωνηκεναι αἵματος καί σαρκός, Hebrews 2:14.
John 1:14- And the Word became flesh (sarx) and dwelled among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth.
Hebrews 2- Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like them, k fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Above we see the Son through the Incarnation became sarx( flesh). Hebrews 2 says He shared that same flesh we have and was like us in every way.
So if Jesus came in the flesh ( John 1:1, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7) then His humanity disproves the sin nature misnomer many teach and believe or one must admit Jesus was born with a fallen corrupt sinful nature and thus born a sinner like all men are born sinners according to the doctrine of Original Sin and TD. ( Total Depravity )
You see man in not born a sinner just like Jesus was not born a sinner. Jesus never sinned yet was born innocent like all men. We become sinners when we sin and become guilty of sin. This is why babies are innocent , not guilty until they sin.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Continued:
Augustine and Pelagius- the History of original sin.
Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began in Rome when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.
Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.
So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.
Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome at the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell – views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!
St John Chrysostom
Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/#_edn1 Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.
Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:
‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]
St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:
“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]
St John Cassian
The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian. St John opposed Augustine on four major points:
1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.
2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.
3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).
4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.
The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:
“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.
The Ancestral Sin and Baptism
Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.
The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.
Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms – of the forgiveness of Original Sin – especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will – or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it – though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.
hope this helps !!!
Augustine and Pelagius- the History of original sin.
Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began in Rome when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.
Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.
So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.
Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome at the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell – views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!
St John Chrysostom
Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/#_edn1 Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.
Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:
‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]
St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:
“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]
St John Cassian
The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian. St John opposed Augustine on four major points:
1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.
2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.
3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).
4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.
The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:
“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.
The Ancestral Sin and Baptism
Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.
The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.
Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms – of the forgiveness of Original Sin – especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will – or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it – though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.
Conclusion
Bearing in mind the significant differences between the Orthodox and the Augustinian views of ‘Original Sin’, it surprises me that some Orthodox Christians are so quick to employ the term, claiming that the Orthodox Church holds to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, and qualifying this simply by saying that it does not embrace the doctrine of ‘Original Guilt’. I do not think that this is adequate for expounding the Orthodox position on Original Sin. Although Augustine was recognised as a saint by the Orthodox Church,[vii] it has never accepted his teaching on Original Sin. If what I have written above is correct, then the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is wholly un-Orthodox, and it led, I believe, to a whole series of heresies in the Latin Church, such as Predestination, Purgatory, Limbo and the Immaculate Conception. We Orthodox would do well to distance ourselves from the well-known Augustinian position on Original Sin by employing a less familiar term: Ancestral Sin. It is not merely a case of semantics. For an erroneous understanding of this doctrine has serious repercussions for our understanding of sin and the Fall, for grace and free will, for baptism, the human condition and man’s deification. In short, how we understand the Ancestral Sin has direct implications for our whole soteriology – our understanding of the salvation of man and the world.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Nope
1 John 3:4 " Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."
Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
Matthew 18:3, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
If children are born sinners as TD and original sin teaches then Jesus teaches that to be His disciples we must be corrupt like the little children which is an oxymoron.
The teaching above by Jesus, Ezekiel and John confirms I’m correct and original sin is not. One becomes a sinner when they sin and become guilty of that sin not before. Babies are born innocent, not guilty. There is no DNA gene making one a sinner that is folklore.
hope this helps !!!
Peterlag
Well-known member
I just wrote about Romans 7 that you do not believe. So again, for the 4th time. Christians don't have a sin nature. The NIV has it written well...
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
You get an "A'I know! I know!
A calvinist must stay inert, do nothing, and always wait for the zapping.
Did I pass Calvinist Heresies 101?
101G
Well-known member
Yes
Hebrews 2:17 (KJV 1900) — 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
brightfame52
Well-known member
Im confused, what can a person do about their sin nature?
brightfame52
Well-known member
Christians do have a sin nature, the flesh Rom 7, and prior to a New Birth, that's all they have is a sin nature. What can the natural man do about his sin nature ?
brightfame52
Well-known member
Christians do have a sin nature, the flesh Rom 7, and prior to a New Birth, that's all they have is a sin nature. What can the natural man do about his sin nature ?
civic
Well-known member
There is none
civic
Well-known member
Peterlag
Well-known member
I do not agree with you. Here's 5 different Bibles on 1 John 3:6...
New King James Version
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
New Heart English Bible
Whoever remains in him does not sin. Whoever sins hasn't seen him, neither knows him.
World English Bible
Whoever remains in him doesn't sin. Whoever sins hasn't seen him, neither knows him.
American King James Version
Whoever stays in him sins not: whoever sins has not seen him, neither known him.
American Standard Version
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him.
Johann
Well-known member
Where I would disagree with you-If no one has a sin nature we are all holy joe's not capable of committing acts of sin.
Greek Terminology Related to Sin Nature
The New Testament does not explicitly use a single Greek term that corresponds directly to the phrase "sin nature," but the concept is conveyed through several key terms and phrases:
σάρξ (sarx) – "Flesh":
This is the most commonly used Greek term to describe the human tendency toward sin. Paul frequently uses sarx metaphorically to represent the unredeemed, sinful aspect of human nature.
For example:
Romans 7:18: "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh (sarx)."
Galatians 5:16-17: "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh (sarx)."
While sarx can mean physical flesh, in Paul's writings it often refers to the moral and spiritual weakness of humanity apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit.
ἁμαρτία (hamartia) – "Sin":
While hamartia typically refers to specific acts of sin or the principle of sin, it also appears in contexts where it reflects the pervasive power or dominion of sin.
Romans 7:17, 20: "It is no longer I who do it, but sin (hamartia) that dwells in me."
Paul personifies hamartia as a force that operates within human beings, suggesting an internalized condition or "nature" dominated by sin.
φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς (phronema tēs sarkos) – "Mindset of the flesh":
This phrase refers to the mental and spiritual disposition of someone controlled by the sinful nature.
Romans 8:6-7: "For to set the mind on the flesh (phronema tēs sarkos) is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God."
παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος (palaios anthropos) – "Old Man/Self":
This term describes the unregenerate self, dominated by sin before a person is redeemed through Christ.
Romans 6:6: "We know that our old self (palaios anthropos) was crucified with him in order that the body of sin (sōma tēs hamartias) might be brought to nothing."
Ephesians 4:22: "Put off your old self (palaios anthropos), which belongs to your former manner of life."
σω̂μα τῆς ἁμαρτίας (sōma tēs hamartias) – "Body of sin":
This phrase emphasizes the physical and moral dimension of sin's influence over humanity.
Romans 6:6 suggests that this "body of sin" is rendered powerless through Christ’s redemptive work.
Do Christians Still Have a Sin Nature?
Yes, but with transformation through Christ:
Christians are taught that while they inherit a sin nature from Adam, salvation through Christ enables them to overcome its power. Paul describes a tension between the "flesh" (sarx) and the "Spirit" (pneuma) within believers (Galatians 5:16-17). Though the "old self" (palaios anthropos) is crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), the "flesh" still influences believers, leading to an ongoing struggle against sin (Romans 7:14-25).
Victory in sanctification:
Believers are empowered by the Holy Spirit to resist sin and progressively conform to the image of Christ (Romans 8:9-13; Philippians 2:12-13).
In summary, while the New Testament does not use a single term explicitly equivalent to "sin nature," it develops the concept through terms like sarx (flesh), hamartia (sin), and related expressions. These terms collectively portray the human propensity toward sin and the transformative work of Christ in overcoming it.
One of the greatest mistakes a Christian can make under God’s grace is to think that their sin nature is gone.
This could not be further from the truth. Sin dwells in you and is present with you every day of your saved life giving you the potential to sin.
This body of sin will not be removed until we receive the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23).
Christ paid for your sins. He destroyed the power of sin, but sin is still present in you.
Those who try to rid themselves of it will only be faced with frustration, despair, and condemnation.
Those who ignore it will fall into the traps of sinful flesh.
Apply God’s grace to your old man of sin. Though he is present in you, look him in the eye and reckon him dead by the death of Christ, and then reckon your life in Christ to operate by his resurrection.
God’s grace was needed the moment you believed the gospel, and it will be needed every day of your life in Christ. Trust God’s grace, and not your ability to walk without sin.
Reckon yourself to be dead to sin, and alive in Christ by God’s grace and you will avoid the pitalls of sin’s condemnation.
For His glory,
Justin Curtis Johnson
J.
Last edited:
We know, but the nature we obtained through constant sin can only be cleansed by God
The Issue here is are we are born with a sin nature
The argument which was made notes
Hebrews 2:17 (KJV 1900) — 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Christ was made like us in all ways so if we are born with a sin nature so also is Christ
The argument denies Christ had a sin nature, so then we were not born with one either
