Who is the creator

[TibiasDad]

Not even the NIV translates/interprets sarx in Romans 8:12-13 as sinful nature. Doing so is nothing more than eisegesis.

Based on his Pauline studies, Stanley Porter interprets sarx (flesh) in Paul's writings not merely as physical matter, but as a "habituated, relational resistance" to God. He views it as a way of life oriented toward the self and sin, which Christians must fight against, particularly in the context of progressive sanctification.


Stanley E. Porter (PhD, University of Sheffield) is a world-renowned New Testament scholar, linguist, and author specializing in Koine Greek grammar, discourse analysis, and papyrology. Currently serving as President, Dean, and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College

 

[TibiasDad]

It’s commendable you studied hard, just sad you refuse to believe Jesus over the men in darkness you believe. Its 100% undeniable fact, in every translation on Earth the teachings of Jesus prove the Jehovah witnesses are correct. Study him properly over those men of darkness. The wise do.

It is because I’ve studied hard, comparing and contrasting many different points of view, traditional and non-traditional, that I believe as I do!

You are so far from the truth that I am willing to bet my eternal destiny that I am correct in my conclusions about both my views and yours. Which would be more offensive: that I stand before Jesus and he says ‘why did you think I was more than what I am?’ or that you stand before Jesus and he says ‘why did you think I was less than what I am?’

Doug

 

[charismaticlady]

The bible doesn't say Goliath was Nephlim--only one in darkness would make that up out of false reasoning.

Goliath and his relatives from Gath—were descendants of the Anakim or Rephaim, groups often associated with, or considered descendants of, the pre-flood Nephilim

 

[charismaticlady]

The bible doesn't say Goliath was Nephlim--only one in darkness would make that up out of false reasoning.

Read 2 Samuel 5 that the Phillistines were Rephaim. Goliath was a Phillistine. Thus he came from the Nephilim. Friend, you are wrong that I am in darkness. One in darkness never seeks the truth but are closed minded and are always on the attack. One in the light is constantly learning from the Spirit and is mature in the fruit of the Spirit towards one another.

 

[Jim]

Wow! Wow! Wow!

And how many degrees in Greek do you have to accuse Mounce of eisegesis? Be careful of the impending proverbial fall in your future.

Doug

It isn't a matter of degrees in Greek. Anyone who insists on the concept of sarx [flesh] as "sin nature" or "sinful nature" is missing the point of Paul's teaching in chapters 6-8. While many, if not most, sins arise because of the earthly nature [the body of flesh] of the human being, the problem is not the flesh. It is the mind. When Paul says in Romans 8:8, " Those who are in the flesh cannot please God", it really is not the flesh, as such. that he is talking about. You have to back up a few verses to see what that is. In the three previous verses we read, "5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot".

To be "in the flesh" in Romans 8:8 is not a rebuke against a person's body of flesh; rather it is a rebuke against the person's thinking. It is the person's mental attitude that is being addressed. To sin is strictly a mental decision. It is a choice; it is a decision to disobey God's law. That, of course, is strictly the product of the human being.

The flesh of the lost sinner is no different from the flesh of the righteous saint. To be born again is not about the flesh. It is about the spirit.

 

[charismaticlady]

I am curious to know what you think that means. When was Paul "alive once without the law"?

I think Paul was describing his coming to the age of accountability. That point in the child's life when he first begins to know and understand God's law and in disobedience to that law commits his first sin.

Jim, I agree with what you said below regarding Paul's meaning of the flesh being the mind. I'm saying that first so you will not start out reading this on the defensive. I first am merely answering your question about Paul's meaning of "alive once without the law." With our western minds we can get confused with the eastern use of pronouns being used in personal present tense when the context refers to all inclusive and even the past before Paul was born. Paul is using "I" as meaning "mankind" in different historical ages. The first eight chapters of Romans is a disortation on God's law throughout history, and how now we are not under the law, but the Spirit. But before Moses received the law, sins were committed but were not imputed to us because there was no law, meaning mankind was alive once without the law, but 1,500 years ago when the law came, we were condemned and under judgment. That is why the Ten Commandments was called the "ministry of death," 2 Cor. 3:6-11 or 12 (I can't remember the exact number) as the difference between the Old Covenant ("ministry of death") and the New Covenant (ministry of the Spirit"), and "alive once without the law" was the age from Adam to Moses.

It isn't a matter of degrees in Greek. Anyone who insists on the concept of sarx [flesh] as "sin nature" or "sinful nature" is missing the point of Paul's teaching in chapters 6-8. While many, if not most, sins arise because of the earthly nature [the body of flesh] of the human being, the problem is not the flesh. It is the mind. When Paul says in Romans 8:8, " Those who are in the flesh cannot please God", it really is not the flesh, as such. that he is talking about. You have to back up a few verses to see what that is. In the three previous verses we read, "5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot".

To be "in the flesh" in Romans 8:8 is not a rebuke against a person's body of flesh; rather it is a rebuke against the person's thinking. It is the person's mental attitude that is being addressed. To sin is strictly a mental decision. It is a choice; it is a decision to disobey God's law. That, of course, is strictly the product of the human being.

The flesh of the lost sinner is no different from the flesh of the righteous saint. To be born again is not about the flesh. It is about the spirit.

Peter said in his epistle that Paul's words were sometimes hard to understand, and could be twisted. This disortation is a good example. I see you know that "the flesh" is one of those examples, because he uses "the flesh," "body of flesh," and "likeness of sinful flesh" to mean our inner man, or our outer man by the context. Furthermore, they can only be understood by the context of the whole eight chapters, and other Apostle's writings.

1 Thes. 5:23 tells us that we are a triune being - spirit, soul and body. Romans 7:5-6 uses the flesh as meaning the inner man of both spirit and soul, or mind and heart/conscience. "When we were in the flesh" shows there was a time before being born again Christian and that afterwards we are no longer in "the flesh." It is the whole inner man that is born again of the Spirit. In Romans 6:5-7 the old man was when that inner man was sinful. At that time most call the old man "the sin nature" when our minds and hearts were set on the the things of the flesh. Their appetites or desires were carnal, sinful. It is that old man that must be born again and crucified. We are resurrected to no longer being in the flesh, but in the Spirit, Romans 8:9. I'm not sure why you are against that term of sin nature. Once cleansed, sanctified and justified, 1 Cor. 6:11, we then have the clean human nature again that Adam was created with, but instead of having free will to obey or sin, the born again of the Spirit person now has the power of the Spirit to be a slave of righteousness, that power Adam didn't have.

The "likeness of sinful flesh" is our outer body, meaning it can die and see corruption - from dust to dust.

I don't know if you will agree with me that the type of sin that Jesus takes away from our mind and heart (nature) are sins unto death called willful lawlessness against the Ten Commandments. What our new nature (inner being) still has is the human nature that while still immature can still commit sins not unto death. But Peter says that even these can mature to where we "never stumble." That is the meaning of Jesus saying "we shall be made to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect - or "be holy and I am holy."

While on that subject, in Revelation 22:11 there is a difference between being righteous and being holy. The first is when we are born again and a slave to righteousness. All sins unto death (willful lawlessness) are taken out of our minds and hearts. That is instantaneous. Our clean nature can now partake of the divine nature of God. To be holy is the long process after we are born again of the Spirit to mature all the fruit of the Spirit. That process is not called sanctification as the post apostles Church called it. We are already sanctified when born again. What that process is actually called is glorification - being conformed to the image of Christ. Romans 8:29-30. From glory to glory.

 

[Jim]

Jim, I agree with what you said below regarding Paul's meaning of the flesh being the mind. I'm saying that first so you will not start out reading this on the defensive. I first am merely answering your question about Paul's meaning of "alive once without the law." With our western minds we can get confused with the eastern use of pronouns being used in personal present tense when the context refers to all inclusive and even the past before Paul was born. Paul is using "I" as meaning "mankind" in different historical ages. The first eight chapters of Romans is a disortation on God's law throughout history, and how now we are not under the law, but the Spirit. But before Moses received the law, sins were committed but were not imputed to us because there was no law, meaning mankind was alive once without the law, but 1,500 years ago when the law came, we were condemned and under judgment. That is why the Ten Commandments was called the "ministry of death," 2 Cor. 3:6-11 or 12 (I can't remember the exact number) as the difference between the Old Covenant ("ministry of death") and the New Covenant (ministry of the Spirit"), and "alive once without the law" was the age from Adam to Moses.

Paul said "when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. " (Rom 2:14-16).

Paul says there that man was never without law; there was always law even with Adam and Eve. So your interpretation of what Paul meant in Romas 7:9 can't be correct. The only time when anyone is without the law is when they are too young to know and comprehend what it is or they are among those too mentally deficient to know and comprehend what it is.

 

[charismaticlady]

Paul said "when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. " (Rom 2:14-16).

Paul says there that man was never without law; there was always law even with Adam and Eve. So your interpretation of what Paul meant in Romas 7:9 can't be correct. The only time when anyone is without the law is when they are too young to know and comprehend what it is or they are among those too mentally deficient to know and comprehend what it is.

I thought as you do for years, but the truth is simple. It is when a person is born again of the Spirit that the law is written on their hearts. Righteousness is not only for the Jews as it was in the Old Testament, but now for the Gentiles as well. Romans 1:13 "Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles." If what you believe is true, then all Gentiles do not need to believe in Jesus who takes away our sin; they are already by nature doing righteousness. That is not true.

Gentiles never had the law, but when they believe, they are born again of the Spirit. That is how the law is written on their hearts, and was never engraved on stone for them. The key is something you don't seem to believe. The born again by nature do what the law requires. That is not true of any unbeliever, Jew or Gentile. Their sin nature, the old man, has not been cleansed. But the Gentiles in this passage in Romans 2 are Christians.

 

[TibiasDad]

rather it is a rebuke against the person's thinking. It is the person's mental attitude that is being addressed.

And the question is why do we think about ourselves first? Why is our thinking what needs transformed? (Rom 12:1-2) Because it is naturally selfish in nature! Its tendency is to think about self first rather than God.

Since the fall, not one naturally born person has ever not sinned. What is the cause of that effect? The Occam’s razor approach, supported by scripture, says man is born apart from a connection to God, and thus is naturally inclined toward things other than God. This is not to say that we are incapable of doing godly things but that we are incapable of not doing ungodly things outside of being born again.

Doug

 

[Jim]

I thought as you do for years, but the truth is simple. It is when a person is born again of the Spirit that the law is written on their hearts. Righteousness is not only for the Jews as it was in the Old Testament, but now for the Gentiles as well. Romans 1:13 "Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles." If what you believe is true, then all Gentiles do not need to believe in Jesus who takes away our sin; they are already by nature doing righteousness. That is not true.

Gentiles never had the law, but when they believe, they are born again of the Spirit. That is how the law is written on their hearts, and was never engraved on stone for them. The key is something you don't seem to believe. The born again by nature do what the law requires. That is not true of any unbeliever, Jew or Gentile. Their sin nature, the old man, has not been cleansed. But the Gentiles in this passage in Romans 2 are Christians.

Sorry, but that is not what it says.

 

[Jim]

And the question is why do we think about ourselves first? Why is our thinking what needs transformed? (Rom 12:1-2) Because it is naturally selfish in nature! Its tendency is to think about self first rather than God.

Still, that is the mind not the body.

Since the fall, not one naturally born person has ever not sinned. What is the cause of that effect? The Occam’s razor approach, supported by scripture, says man is born apart from a connection to God, and thus is naturally inclined toward things other than God. This is not to say that we are incapable of doing godly things but that we are incapable of not doing ungodly things outside of being born again.

Doug

What fall? I really did hope that you were not one of those Original Sin types.

And the true is that we are capable of not doing ungodly things. We just want to do ungodly things. It is a choice. 1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world. Those are choices.

 

[charismaticlady]

Sorry, but that is not what it says.

What did I miss? Why so short a response? Or do you just not want to admit that what I said is exactly what it says?

Is your misinterpretation of Romans 2 the reason why you cannot see that because of Adam's sin unto death, that all are born with a sin nature? You seem to think that until a Gentile sins their nature is righteous, and they are a law unto themselves. Jesus didn't need to die for us if that were the case. We could all save ourselves by works.

 

[Jim]

What did I miss? Why so short a response? Or do you just not want to admit that what I said is exactly what it says?

My answer was clear and complete. You are wrong about so many things. And you are wrong about this.

Is your misinterpretation of Romans 2 the reason why you cannot see that because of Adam's sin unto death, that all are born with a sin nature? You seem to think that until a Gentile sins their nature is righteous, and they are a law unto themselves. Jesus didn't need to die for us if that were the case. We could all save ourselves by works.

First I have misinterpreted Romans 2. That is on your head. How we are born has nothing whatsoever to do with Adam's sin. Until anyone sins they are righteous. God gives us, form in us, a spirit that is righteous. The unrighteousness comes when one sins.

It is clear to me that you do not have a very high opinion of God.

 

[charismaticlady]

Until anyone sins they are righteous. God gives us, form in us, a spirit that is righteous. The unrighteousness comes when one sins.

Do you just make statements with no proof and we are just suppose to take your word for it? The Gentile of Romans 2 is born again. He didn't need the written law. And the ONLY way the law is written on our hearts is when we are born again of the Spirit. Only then are we not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. But until then "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

 

[TibiasDad]

What fall? I really did hope that you were not one of those Original Sin types.

Are we born in a right relationship with God? I didn’t realize that I was a “type”-what “type” are you?

And the true is that we are capable of not doing ungodly things. We just want to do ungodly things.

Which means we will necessarily do them at some point. And again, what incites those desires to disobey God? That nobody born of Adam has ever not sinned, that would lead one to think there is a systemic problem with all humans.

Still, that is the mind not the body.

I never said it was a body issue, a physical condition; It is a spiritual, immaterial dilemma which controls the impulses of our desires.


Doug

 

[Keiw1]

It is because I’ve studied hard, comparing and contrasting many different points of view, traditional and non-traditional, that I believe as I do!

You are so far from the truth that I am willing to bet my eternal destiny that I am correct in my conclusions about both my views and yours. Which would be more offensive: that I stand before Jesus and he says ‘why did you think I was more than what I am?’ or that you stand before Jesus and he says ‘why did you think I was less than what I am?’

Doug

There is only one point of view=Gods, and Jesus stands for it 100%.
Catholicism is the great apostasy( 2Thess 2:3) they screwed up translating to fit false council teachings. they added the cross-Christmas, Easter, statues, icons, graven images-All are satans will.

 

[Keiw1]

Goliath and his relatives from Gath—were descendants of the Anakim or Rephaim, groups often associated with, or considered descendants of, the pre-flood Nephilim

That is impossible. ALL on Earth died in the flood except Noah and his 3 sons and daughter in laws. The rest were wicked in Gods view.

 

[TibiasDad]

There is only one point of view=Gods

Correct! And he expresses it in his Word, with which I agree and seek to propagate!

And the only thing that I agree with them in general is the Trinity.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what the shape of killing device was, but that Jesus shed his blood and died on it! But historically the Roman cross had a cross beam on the upright stake that would look either like a T or a lower case t.

Doug

 

[Jim]

Are we born in a right relationship with God? I didn’t realize that I was a “type”-what “type” are you?

Yes, absolutely, we are born in a right relationship with God. God forms our spirits within us at or, I believe, before birth. That spirit is alive, not dead. It dies when we first sin. To think that God would give us a dead spirit is simply ludicrous and an affront to God.

Which means we will necessarily do them at some point. And again, what incites those desires to disobey God? That nobody born of Adam has ever not sinned, that would lead one to think there is a systemic problem with all humans.

Yes at some point, each and every person will disobey (Rom 3:23) And yes, It is most often some desire of the physical body. John says in 1 John 2:16 that it is a love of the things of the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--

I never said it was a body issue, a physical condition; It is a spiritual, immaterial dilemma which controls the impulses of our desires.

That is what is implied in the phrase "sinful nature". And that is what is implied in the false doctrine of Original Sin or the even worse Total Depravity.

 

[Jim]

Do you just make statements with no proof and we are just suppose to take your word for it? The Gentile of Romans 2 is born again. He didn't need the written law. And the ONLY way the law is written on our hearts is when we are born again of the Spirit. Only then are we not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. But until then "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Do you just make statements with no proof and we are just suppose to take your word for it?