Humility And Calvinism?

[praise_yeshua]

Absolutely correct.

As for the NIV, I noticed how inconsistent it is when it translates σαρκί as "sinful nature" in Rom 7:18 and σὰρξ (has same root as σαρκί) as "flesh" in John 1:14. It dare not ascribe sinful nature to Jesus! That borders on disingenuity on the part of the NIV. I'm wondering if anyone has made a study on how many times the NIV has misled Believers.

The NIV is one of the worst English translations ever made. I've mentioned before here that issues like this take place in many translations. "sin nature" is a doctrinal statement not a translation. Same is true of how Concupiscence is found 9 times in the English translation from the Latin Douay–Rheims Version. It is found 3 times in the KJV. It is a doctrinal statement, not a translation.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I put an accent on the Law Giver, Christ.

I love how you said that........ well said.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I see the same thing in many of your posts, and I agree with you, these things happened long ago, and God had many these events written down for our admonition, in my view anyway.


I understand the philosophy you refer to here. And truly, many disregard God's Word because of the same reason you posted. And truly men have worked to influence the Scriptures. But for me, I'm not convinced that God is not capable of preserving His Truth through the Scriptures. Paul trusted them, Yeshua trusted them, Peter, Zacharias and Simeon, in Luke 1&2, trusted in the Scriptures.

For me, surely God knew about the Bibles we have when HE promoted the Holy Scriptures through Jesus and His Apostles.

So while I understand your point about the Scriptures, I also believe that God is able, and actually did preserve His Truth in them "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".



Again, I appreciate your views, but Paul was accused of teaching against the Laws of God. Here is his response, (I know you know the Scriptures, but it is my practice of posting them anyway, for those who may not, I mean no offense to you)

Acts 24: 13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

His Word in me, Speaks to me every "Now" that exists throughout the day.

If you would like to discuss this in a more detailed manner, I'll be glad to do so.

I don't want you to think that I discount the Scriptures. I see preservation to a greater degree in the Greek OT than I do any other subsequent writing. I don't believe that Paul would have ever made the argument that his writings should be included in the Scriptures. He would have never made such an argument. In fact, he said clearly....It is not in his character to have made such a claim.

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

I know what "Peter" records concerning the writings of Paul but 2 Peter is a complicated discussion. It is probably one of the most disputed writings from the NT. I accept the writing but I'm not sure it it originally contained 2 Peter 3:16. It seems rather self serving in the context of the battle that raged in the first and early second century over the writings of the apostles.

I decided a long time ago to judge the extant writings based upon the weight of their words. In other words....

Is what they say true or not. Is what they say true to the revelation of God or not. That is how I approach the topic. I appreciate your kind words. Thank you. I can be difficult at times. I appreciate your patience.

 

[TibiasDad]

σαρκί translates to flesh which is the term overwhelmingly used by all translations except for NIV & NLT.

Okay, let’s play your game: if flesh must always mean flesh, that is the human skin, body, physical nature, then Paul contrasts the the human physical substance/nature with the Holy Spirit when he says we have a choice between acting “according to the flesh” or the Spirit.

Since when does human flesh have a spiritual power to effect the choices of men with regard to sinning? My skin doesn’t have any power over me in and of itself. If it did, I couldn’t pinch myself, or stay out in the sun for too long; it would stop me from injuring myself.

Flesh in Rom 7-8 is used metaphorically as the natural tendency to desire something other that God, holiness, righteousness. This tendency is not an original aspect of the human condition, but has become such as a result of the fall.

Flesh, in the physical sense of the word, is not sinful per se. The spiritual nature is either sinful or holy, and that affects the behaviors that the physical nature exercises. You can translate it as “flesh” all you want, but it cannot mean mere mortal flesh.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Sure it is.

Very erudite response. (Not)


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Okay, let’s play your game: if flesh must always mean flesh, that is the human skin, body, physical nature, then Paul contrasts the the human physical substance/nature with the Holy Spirit when he says we have a choice between acting “according to the flesh” or the Spirit.

It is not a game. You're the one playing the "The Wesleys said" game.... You spent so much time following an idol in the Wesleys that is almost impossible to actually deal with the facts.

Since when does human flesh have a spiritual power to effect the choices of men with regard to sinning? My skin doesn’t have any power over me in and of itself. If it did, I couldn’t pinch myself, or stay out in the sun for too long; it would stop me from injuring myself.

Geesh..... God breathed into mankind the very breath of life. Do you remember reading about this? The appeal to conscience is clear throughout the entire book of Romans. Stop listening to man.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Very erudite response. (Not)


Doug

You made a statement without evidence. I returned the favor. You should recognize this.

 

[Studyman]

Paul labels the Letter of the Law as "oldness". We are now free from the oldness of the Letter of the Law and serve in the newness of the Spirit.

(Rom 7:6) But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Yes, the "oldness of the letter" declares "The Soul that sins shall die", and since all men have sinned, they are all held in this death. But Jesus provides atonement for the remission of sins, so we are now free from the death the "letter of the Law" brought to us. Now we are free to "Serve God" in the Newness of the Spirit, (Alive unto God) and not the oldness of the letter, "dead in trespasses and sins".

So how does this "New Man" serve God in the newness of the Spirit?

Rom. 6: 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed "unto sin", but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness "unto sin": but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

How can a man separate God, from His Instruction in righteousness?

Even primary ordinances can be abrogated such as circumcision.

That's not to say that we can do away with the Law. The Law is fulfilled in Christ when we believe in Christ and continue to do so.

Looks like I was not clear enough in my question. Sorry about that. Let me be more clear. I'm trying to get a handle on where we (you and I) deviate and why. It looks like you put an accent on the Law. Is that correct? I put an accent on the Law Giver, Christ.

How would a man Glorify God or His Son, the Christ? By honoring Him with their lips? Or becoming a "Doer" of His Sayings, and not a hearer only.

I understood your question perfectly, and I posted the Answer to it from the Holy Scriptures. You and I, like Eve, deviate from God when we reject God's Word in favor of the words of "other voice" in the garden, in my view.

 

[Studyman]

If you would like to discuss this in a more detailed manner, I'll be glad to do so.

I don't want you to think that I discount the Scriptures. I see preservation to a greater degree in the Greek OT than I do any other subsequent writing. I don't believe that Paul would have ever made the argument that his writings should be included in the Scriptures. He would have never made such an argument.

I could not agree with you more, and good for you, but this is not a view held by many "who come in Christ's Name".

In fact, he said clearly....It is not in his character to have made such a claim.

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

Amen.

I know what "Peter" records concerning the writings of Paul but 2 Peter is a complicated discussion. It is probably one of the most disputed writings from the NT. I accept the writing but I'm not sure it it originally contained 2 Peter 3:16. It seems rather self serving in the context of the battle that raged in the first and early second century over the writings of the apostles.

But I would almost bet that you would not have been of those who "raged" given it seems you have a fair knowledge of the Law and Prophets that both Paul and Peter knew and believed.

I decided a long time ago to judge the extant writings based upon the weight of their words. In other words....

LOL, "Yes, consider "ALL" the "other words" before making a judgment. Beautiful

Is what they say true or not. Is what they say true to the revelation of God or not. That is how I approach the topic. I appreciate your kind words. Thank you. I can be difficult at times. I appreciate your patience.

Absolutely, as I fail to do from time to time, "Seek God's Truth, not justification."

 

[TibiasDad]

The NIV is one of the worst English translations ever made. I've mentioned before here that issues like this take place in many translations. "sin nature" is a doctrinal statement not a translation.

That it is not a translation doesn’t mean it isn’t a correct understanding of the intent of the literal word. The NIV is a functional translation that seeks to express accurately the intent of the original author in modern English; it is not a literal translation but is not a paraphrase.

I don’t find it perfect, and I don’t take it at face value as being the best translation in any particular context. I always refer to the original languages in making a judgement about the accuracy of a particular word or phrase.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

You said:

Such things take time and experience. There is no "puff" you're there.....

For which you showed no evidence in terms of how it relates to PG. It is your burden to support your proposition.

You made a statement without evidence. I returned the favor. You should recognize this.

I don’t have to; it is your proposition that it has something to do with PG.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

It is not a game. You're the one playing the "The Wesleys said" game.... You spent so much time following an idol in the Wesleys that is almost impossible to actually deal with the facts.

Where have I quoted Wesley? I have never quoted Wesley in terms of theological interpretation. I share my own thinking, which, in general, is consistent with Wesleyan interpretation as a whole. I try put my own thoughts into my posts, not just regurgitate what others have said.

Geesh..... God breathed into mankind the very breath of life. Do you remember reading about this? The appeal to conscience is clear throughout the entire book of Romans. Stop listening to man.

This has nothing to do with anything I said!


Doug

 

[synergy]

Okay, let’s play your game:

I don't play games with the word of God.

if flesh must always mean flesh, that is the human skin, body, physical nature, then Paul contrasts the the human physical substance/nature with the Holy Spirit when he says we have a choice between acting “according to the flesh” or the Spirit.

Since when does human flesh have a spiritual power to effect the choices of men with regard to sinning? My skin doesn’t have any power over me in and of itself. If it did, I couldn’t pinch myself, or stay out in the sun for too long; it would stop me from injuring myself.

Flesh in Rom 7-8 is used metaphorically as the natural tendency to desire something other that God, holiness, righteousness. This tendency is not an original aspect of the human condition, but has become such as a result of the fall.

Flesh, in the physical sense of the word, is not sinful per se. The spiritual nature is either sinful or holy, and that affects the behaviors that the physical nature exercises. You can translate it as “flesh” all you want, but it cannot mean mere mortal flesh.

Man is not sinful by nature; otherwise, Christ would have been sinful when he took on flesh in his Incarnation. There is no argument against that.

Therefore, sin is something distinct from our nature. It is a foreign force that can dwell in us, in our members as Paul calls it. Although the soul got born again as a Christian, the flesh remained susceptible to sin in this world. It often fights against our will to do good. That is what Paul means when that he says he sees "another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin being in my members".

(Rom 7:23) but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin being in my members.

When we are without the Spirit, "in the flesh" as Paul calls it, the passions can flare up in our members.

(Rom 7:5) For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin worked in our members through the law to bring forth fruit to death.

Paul exhorts us to yield your members as slaves to righteousness unto holiness, through the Spirit of course.

(Rom 6:19) I speak in the manner of men because of the weakness of your flesh; for as you have yielded your members as slaves to uncleanness, and to lawless act unto lawless act, even so now yield your members as slaves to righteousness unto holiness.

 

[TibiasDad]

Man is not sinful by nature; otherwise, Christ would have been sinful when he took on flesh in his Incarnation. There is no argument against that.

Jesus was not born of Adam, only of Mary! Sin is not a physical aspect, but a spiritual one. We all have sinned; only Jesus has lived an earthly human life without sinning. You would think that one offspring of Adam would have managed to not sin. The question is why does humanity hold a perfect record of sinning? It certainly appears that something is amiss, for if your presumptive theory is true, and we are all born sinless, then why do we not have a perfect record since Adam outside of Christ (who was not born of Adam)?


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I don't play games with the word of God.

It’s a metaphor, you know, like “flesh” in Rom 7-8!


Doug

 

[synergy]

Jesus was not born of Adam, only of Mary! Sin is not a physical aspect, but a spiritual one. We all have sinned; only Jesus has lived an earthly human life without sinning. You would think that one offspring of Adam would have managed to not sin. The question is why does humanity hold a perfect record of sinning? It certainly appears that something is amiss, for if your presumptive theory is true, and we are all born sinless, then why do we not have a perfect record since Adam outside of Christ (who was not born of Adam)?


Doug

What are prematurely dieing babies sinful of? Being born?

 

[synergy]

It’s a metaphor, you know, like “flesh” in Rom 7-8!


Doug

Carry on with your metaphoric games.

 

[TibiasDad]

What are prematurely dieing babies sinful of? Being born?

There is a difference between being sinful and being a sinner. One who is generated from Adam, Luke his father is estranged from God and will be born with the tendency to move away from God. That is a sinful direction of movement.

But the child is not culpable for the circumstances of his birth, and thus is not held guilty for his father’s actions. We die physically as a circumstance of Adam’s sin; we die spiritually only by our own actions against God.

A yet unborn child is subject to physical death but not spiritual death.


Doug

 

[synergy]

There is a difference between being sinful and being a sinner. One who is generated from Adam, Luke his father is estranged from God and will be born with the tendency to move away from God. That is a sinful direction of movement.

But the child is not culpable for the circumstances of his birth, and thus is not held guilty for his father’s actions. We die physically as a circumstance of Adam’s sin; we die spiritually only by our own actions against God.

A yet unborn child is subject to physical death but not spiritual death.


Doug

Granted, our bodies do decay and die but that is a consequence of Adam's sin and not because God is in the business of making us "sinful".

If all humans are born "sinful" then what does that make Jesus who was also born a human? Does that make him "sinful" also?

 

[civic]

Granted, our bodies do decay and die but that is a consequence of Adam's sin and not because God is in the business of making us "sinful".

If all humans are born "sinful" then what does that make Jesus who was also born a human? Does that make him "sinful" also?

There is a belief that sin is only passed down from the male not the female hence only through the male offspring of Adam . So Jesus not having a male human father who conceived Him was “ bypassed “ with the fallen human sinful nature.