Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Original Sin/the Sin Nature


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Original Sin is complete falsehood. 

 

 Sin had to "originate" from somewhere. Please answer this question: From where did sin "originate"?  Did sin just "fall from the sky"?  If there is no such thing as "original sin", then there can be no sin whatsoever in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 Sin had to "originate" from somewhere. Please answer this question: From where did sin "originate"?  Did sin just "fall from the sky"?  If there is no such thing as "original sin", then there can be no sin whatsoever in this world.

 

Sin originates from free will. 

 

Satan was created "perfect in his ways" but he chose to sin (Eze 28:15). Why? Because he could. He had free will. The fallen angels were created "very good" but they chose to follow Satan. Why? Because they could, they had free will. 

 

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31) but they had the ability to choose to sin. They had free will. That, and a lack of faith in God is all it takes. 

 

So the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin. 

 

Jesus said offenses "must needs be". Sin cannot be avoided, even by God. Why? Because God is love, and he desires that we love him. But love cannot be forced. You must give a person free will to love you. A person has to choose to love you, but this also gives them the ability to reject you. 

 

We are not rOBots as some seem to teach, we can choose for or against God. This gives us the ability to choose to love God of our own free will, which is what he desires. But this free will also makes it necessary that folks can choose against God and choose to hate him. So sin or offenses, "must needs be"

 

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

This says DEATH passed on all men, because all men have sinned. It does not say a sin nature passed on all men because Adam sinned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Dave, we're wasting our time with him.  His conscience is seared.  He doesn't want to receive the truth.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

Do you know what the word IRONY means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You said sin originates from free will.

 

The Bible says by one man sin entered into the world.

 

So where did sin originate?

From each man's free will? No - from one man - that is where sin entered from.

 

I am not addressing the "original sin" issue as such, but showing that you are wrong in a statement.

And by the way, I used a Scripture verse.

 

And pointing to the other end of the verse is irrelevant to my point, and an attempt to avoid the actual point by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You said sin originates from free will.

 

The Bible says by one man sin entered into the world.

 

So where did sin originate?

From each man's free will? No - from one man - that is where sin entered from.

 

I am not addressing the "original sin" issue as such, but showing that you are wrong in a statement.

And by the way, I used a Scripture verse.

 

And pointing to the other end of the verse is irrelevant to my point, and an attempt to avoid the actual point by you.

 

Satan was the first to sin, so sin originated from him. But it was free will that enabled him to sin. 

 

God wants people who love him, not programmed rOBots. Love requires choice, you cannot force someone to love you, they must do that of their own free will. Unfortunately, when you give a person free will which enables them to love you, this also enables them to reject and hate you if they choose to do so. So it "must needs be" that offences come. 

 

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31), They did not have a sin nature. Yet they were quite able to sin. Why? Because they had free will. 

 

I am answering your questions, and answering them correctly, you just don't want to hear what I am telling you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sin originates from free will. 

 

Satan was created "perfect in his ways" but he chose to sin (Eze 28:15). Why? Because he could. He had free will. The fallen angels were created "very good" but they chose to follow Satan. Why? Because they could, they had free will. 

 

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31) but they had the ability to choose to sin. They had free will. That, and a lack of faith in God is all it takes. 

 

So the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin. 

 

Jesus said offenses "must needs be". Sin cannot be avoided, even by God. Why? Because God is love, and he desires that we love him. But love cannot be forced. You must give a person free will to love you. A person has to choose to love you, but this also gives them the ability to reject you. 

 

We are not rOBots as some seem to teach, we can choose for or against God. This gives us the ability to choose to love God of our own free will, which is what he desires. But this free will also makes it necessary that folks can choose against God and choose to hate him. So sin or offenses, "must needs be"

 

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 

At this point, Winman, can you or someone else explain what a 'sin nature' is, as is proposed. Are we talking about a desire or inclination to do or want things that are sinful, or is it the state of being born guilty for sins being committed by another? Or both?

 

Way back I asked the question why people choose to sin. I asked this because the original poster, although they mentioned 'original sin' in their OP, started asking questions about the peoples' 'inclination'.

 

You responded to my post by saying that my question was irrelevant because desires have got nothing to do with 'sin nature'--having desires to do or want things that God does not want for us is not sinful and therefore is not a 'sin nature'. When I read that I assumed therefore that 'sin nature' is the belief that we are born guilty of sins already committed by others, and it was this belief that was the focus of the discussion.

 

Yet here we are back at a question about inclination and you've said that Adam and Eve being created "very good" means that "the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin".

 

So what is this 'sin nature' that is not needed? You've already said that having desires for what God does not want for us is not a sin nature, so what could a 'sin nature' conceivably be?

 

Also, you say that sin originates from free will, since Satan had the free will to choose sin and he did: "Why? Because he could. He had free will." But he also 'could' have chosen against sin, yet he didn't. So free will doesn't explain why Satan chose a certain way, only that the choice was available. Last time you said to me 'they just do' when I asked why free agents choose a certain way when offered a free choice. If that's your answer, fine, but that is not the same as saying it is free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At this point, Winman, can you or someone else explain what a 'sin nature' is, as is proposed. Are we talking about a desire or inclination to do or want things that are sinful, or is it the state of being born guilty for sins being committed by another? Or both?

 

Way back I asked the question why people choose to sin. I asked this because the original poster, although they mentioned 'original sin' in their OP, started asking questions about the peoples' 'inclination'.

 

You responded to my post by saying that my question was irrelevant because desires have got nothing to do with 'sin nature'--having desires to do or want things that God does not want for us is not sinful and therefore is not a 'sin nature'. When I read that I assumed therefore that 'sin nature' is the belief that we are born guilty of sins already committed by others, and it was this belief that was the focus of the discussion.

 

Yet here we are back at a question about inclination and you've said that Adam and Eve being created "very good" means that "the Bible itself clearly PROVES that you do not have to have a sin nature to sin".

 

So what is this 'sin nature' that is not needed? You've already said that having desires for what God does not want for us is not a sin nature, so what could a 'sin nature' conceivably be?

 

Also, you say that sin originates from free will, since Satan had the free will to choose sin and he did: "Why? Because he could. He had free will." But he also 'could' have chosen against sin, yet he didn't. So free will doesn't explain why Satan chose a certain way, only that the choice was available. Last time you said to me 'they just do' when I asked why free agents choose a certain way when offered a free choice. If that's your answer, fine, but that is not the same as saying it is free will.

 

If having desires that tempt us is a sin nature, then Jesus had a sin nature. He was tempted in ALL POINTS (think about that one for a minute) as we are, yet without sin. 

 

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

Most folks think Jesus was only tempted by the devil in the wilderness. NO, Jesus was tempted in ALL POINTS AS WE ARE. Whatever has tempted you, and tempted me, and tempted every single man that was ever born tempted Jesus. This is an incredible statement, but that is what the scriptures say. 

 

Does this mean Jesus had a sin nature? NO, the scriptures say Jesus was HOLY. 

 

Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

 

This is where folks go off the tracks, people think temptation is sin. Temptation is not sin. Sin is when you OBey temptation and transgress one of God's laws. 

 

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

We are told exactly how Eve was tempted in the garden. This is the three worldly lusts shown in 1 John 2:16;

 

#1 Lust of the flesh- the forbidden fruit appealed to her hunger and appetite, it looked good for food. 

 

#2 Lust of the eyes- the forbidden fruit was beautiful and fascinating. 

 

#3 Pride of Life- the forbidden fruit could make her wise. This would make her better than others, this would make her "special"

 

Was Eve sinning here? NO. 

 

God did not tell Eve she could not look at the forbidden fruit or think about it, only that she could not eat it. If Eve would have walked away, she would not have been a sinner. 

 

But Eve broke God's one law or commandment, not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is when she sinned, and this is when she became a sinner. 

 

Being tempted does not make you sinful. It is only when we actually transgress one of God's laws that we sin, sin is the transgression of the law. 

 

1 Jhn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

Now, it is not always easy to determine where temptation ends and sin starts. But temptation is not sin. But I believe most people believe that the fact we all get tempted is a sin nature. No, that is the flesh. The flesh simply lusts for whatever pleases it, it cannot choose what it wants. That is not sin. Sin is when we OBey it when it would transgress God's law. 

 

I heard a fellow say this once, if you see a pretty girl walking down the street and take a look, that is temptation. If you circle around the block so you can come back and look at her again, that is sin. I think this was a pretty good analogy. 

 

Being tempted is not a sin nature, or Jesus would have had a sin nature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At this point, Winman, can you or someone else explain what a 'sin nature' is, as is proposed. Are we talking about a desire or inclination to do or want things that are sinful, or is it the state of being born guilty for sins being committed by another? Or both?

 

 

Alimantado,

 

Winman is a Pelagian; therefore, he will interpret verses to fit his theology. I posted a verse earlier that proves that because of Adam's sin, mankind was made sinners...

 

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disOBedience many were made sinners, so by the OBedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

He jumped through his hoops of interpreting it as "legal" wording to say that it only set a precedent. That "might" make some type of sense if the word "sinner" only appeared in the context Romans 5...which he attributed this "legal" meaning of "sinner" to. However, the same word for "sinners" is used 45 other times throughout scripture...the same word...not used in legal context.   :scratchchin:

 

I don't have to tell anyone here this, but this is what "sinner" means...this also defines our sin nature...

  1. From Webster's 1828 Dictionary...SIN'NER, n.
    One that has voluntarily violated the divine law; a moral agent who has voluntarily disOBeyed any divine precept, or neglected any known duty.
  2. Greek...ἁμαρτωλός  devoted to sin, a sinner  
    a.  not free from sin 
    b.  pre-eminently sinful, especially wicked  
    1.  all wicked men 
    2.  specifically of men stained with certain definite vices or crimes 1b 
    c.  tax collectors, heathen

I see no "legal" terminology in any of that...simply the fact that a sinner is a sinner. If Adam set the precedent, then how was Paul able to say...

 

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

 

Same word (sinners) used as in Romans 5:19...but he was CHIEF. This should settle whether Christ died for people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. We certainly agree that Christ died for Paul, and Paul was saved...yet he was the chief among sinners? Wow! Unlike Hitler, Paul not only had Jews sentenced to death...he had Christian Jews sentenced to death!

 

We inherited a sin-nature from Adam, and that's the plain teaching of scripture without having to twist it to fit Pelagianism. Just let God say what he said.

 

Winman isn't only a Pelagian, but he teaches that Jesus Christ had to be saved. :offended: That's why I quit responding to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Didn't take the ol' Pelagian boogie man long to make his appearance. 

 

f76a9ea9-9f93-4f9b-bb09-668fe1f7db44_zps

 

Intelligent people are insulted when folks try to use fear smear tactics when they can't present a real argument. The Catholic church did this for centuries, telling folks they would go to hell if they tried to interpret the scripture themselves. 

 

As the mother, so the daughter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The word "sinner' is always used in a legal context. It is like the word "felon". It is a legal term describing someone who has transgressed one of God's laws, for sin is the transgression of the law. 

 

The scriptures did not throw the word "sinner" around like we do today. To the Jews, not everyone was "a sinner".

 

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

 

Now, the Pharisee called this woman, who was a prostitute, "a sinner". We don't think much of that, because the Pharisees were a self-righteous bunch who commonly said evil things of others. 

 

But note vs. 37 that the scriptures themselves say this woman was "a sinner". This is not saying she was just an average person who does many wrong things in their life, no, this woman was guilty of committing what was considered serious sin. She was "a sinner", and the whole town knew it. 

 

When Adam sinned, he became "a sinner". Likewise, those who transgress God's laws after him are judged or MADE a sinner. That is what Romans 5 is teaching, It makes sense because that is EXACTLY what Paul is telling us. Adam was the legal precedent for sinners. Jesus is the legal precedent or "second Adam" for those who believe. 

 

The scriptures are full of references to men who "made Israel to sin". Does this mean that their personal sin compelled the nation to sin? Nonsense. It simply means this king set a bad example that others followed. This is also how Adam made others sinners. 

 

1 Kin 15:26 And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin.

 

2 Kin 21:9 But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the children of Israel.

10 And the LORD spake by his servants the prophets, saying,
11 Because Manasseh king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols:
 
Manasseh made Judah to sin. That doesn't mean when he sinned that every man in Judah suddently couldn't help himself but was compelled to sin. No, it simply means he set a bad example that others followed. 
 
And this is how Adam made men sinners, by his example. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wondering why the Mods allow Winman to continue to teach heresy on OB,

 

What heresy is that? John Smyth, the man credited with starting the FIRST Baptist church, did not believe in Original Sin. FACT. 

 

It might be you who is the Baptist heretic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...