Do we Inherit sin?

[enoob57]

I said " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin"

 

And Romans 7:7-14 was quoted.  Why?  It does not address what I said.

 

According to Romans 7 Paul said he would not have known sin except by the law but even without Paul's understanding of that which he did being sin, the sin he did was still sin.  Sin is sin even without the law.  It simply does not have the power it gets from the law.

 

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

The law is not necessary unless you want to show the unrighteous that they are unrighteous for even the scriptures teach us that the law was given due to the multitude of transgressions to show them their error.

 

Gal 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

 

Sin is sin even without the law, therefore  it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin.

For a statement to be true all factors within that statement must also be true... with man this statement " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin" would not be true "I would not have known sin except through the law"

[gdemoss]

 

I said " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin"

 

And Romans 7:7-14 was quoted.  Why?  It does not address what I said.

 

According to Romans 7 Paul said he would not have known sin except by the law but even without Paul's understanding of that which he did being sin, the sin he did was still sin.  Sin is sin even without the law.  It simply does not have the power it gets from the law.

 

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

The law is not necessary unless you want to show the unrighteous that they are unrighteous for even the scriptures teach us that the law was given due to the multitude of transgressions to show them their error.

 

Gal 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

 

Sin is sin even without the law, therefore  it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin.

For a statement to be true all factors within that statement must also be true... with man this statement " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin" would not be true "I would not have known sin except through the law"

 

Or you simply do not understand the statement and therefore believe it to be untrue.

[enoob57]

 

 

I said " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin"

 

And Romans 7:7-14 was quoted.  Why?  It does not address what I said.

 

According to Romans 7 Paul said he would not have known sin except by the law but even without Paul's understanding of that which he did being sin, the sin he did was still sin.  Sin is sin even without the law.  It simply does not have the power it gets from the law.

 

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

The law is not necessary unless you want to show the unrighteous that they are unrighteous for even the scriptures teach us that the law was given due to the multitude of transgressions to show them their error.

 

Gal 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

 

Sin is sin even without the law, therefore  it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin.

For a statement to be true all factors within that statement must also be true... with man this statement " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin" would not be true "I would not have known sin except through the law"

 

Or you simply do not understand the statement and therefore believe it to be untrue.

 

Your argument is left with Paul's writing not with me...a literal grammatical hermeneutic!  Love, Steven

[enoob57]

To attribute sin to God is blaspheme and is the same as calling God a liar!

John 8:44
 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.

He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because

there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources,

for he is a liar and the father of it.
NKJV
Note satan "he speaks from his own resources"  not God's!!!! Those resources are

of satan the father of it...  Love, Steven

[gdemoss]

The Bible also says (and we must include all the whole council of God to derive correct doctrine) God creates the spirit in a man (sin and condemnation is God's creation?)

 

Children are a heritage from the Lord (a heritage is a blessing. A portion or share imparted. Are we blessed with condemned little devils?)

 

Blessed (not cursed) is the man whose quiver is full

 

Their angels continuously behold the face of the Father (They are in His presence)

 

And if we want to enter the Kingdom of God we must become as one of them...(so we must become condemned?)

 

Do you see how this tempers the doctrine of being born condemned? Only if pone takes a handful of scriptures and applies them that way apart from all the others can one come to that conclusion. That conclusion is usually the result of persuasion or teaching that ignores or re-interprets the other scriptures and IMHO that is not a good hermeneutic.

 

Brother Paul

Good work Paul, now only if you can see that what you have presented here comes from a personal interpretation of the texts you provided outside of the context wherein which they were written, then we could agree that each of us is subject to a subjective opinion of an objective reality.  I can follow the logic you used to get to where your at.  I just cannot agree with your interpretation of the scriptures.   That of course can change as my positions have changed much since I became a Christian.  When you said "Only if pone takes a handful of scriptures and applies them that way apart from all the others can one come to that conclusion." you were condemning yourself by your own accusation of others.  Careful of Romans 2.  You did the same but seem to be blind to what you have done.

 

My experience, which humbled me, tells me that I have to leave the door open to the possibility that I do not have an honest appraisal of the scriptures for truth due to possibly lacking information but each of us has to wrestle with the seeming contradictions in them and make a conclusion as to what we believe.  Thank God for Jesus Christ and his blessed sacrifice that eliminates the need for me to know for sure about these doctrines but rather place my faith in his finished work upon Calvary.  

 

Have a wonderful day brother!

[gdemoss]

 

 

 

I said " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin"

 

And Romans 7:7-14 was quoted.  Why?  It does not address what I said.

 

According to Romans 7 Paul said he would not have known sin except by the law but even without Paul's understanding of that which he did being sin, the sin he did was still sin.  Sin is sin even without the law.  It simply does not have the power it gets from the law.

 

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

The law is not necessary unless you want to show the unrighteous that they are unrighteous for even the scriptures teach us that the law was given due to the multitude of transgressions to show them their error.

 

Gal 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

 

Sin is sin even without the law, therefore  it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin.

For a statement to be true all factors within that statement must also be true... with man this statement " it is not required for Gods law to be known before sin is sin" would not be true "I would not have known sin except through the law"

 

Or you simply do not understand the statement and therefore believe it to be untrue.

 

Your argument is left with Paul's writing not with me...a literal grammatical hermeneutic!  Love, Steven

 

I have no argument with the scriptures.  I accept your deferring to that argument in defense of your position and continue on in my previous position that the two have nothing to do with one another.  Thanks for the input Steven.

[gdemoss]

Paul, reread what you wrote to me.  We do the same things when dealing with one another but usually we fail to see what we are doing.  God love you Paul, I know your intentions are well.  You believe that you are taking in the whole counsel of God as do I.  Your vantage point and mine are a bit different.  Due to the lasting affects of the Garden of Eden, that which I believe makes us all born sinners who can do nothing but sin, we have a subjective view of an objective reality.  The word of God is true.  Of this there is no argument.  Having been a Calvanist for 10 years and quite possibly defending that position to the extreme before abandoning it to a new position you became readily able to see from a different perspective, I would think that you would understand the need for us as falible humans to have a position that says "today I believe that I am seeing correctly but am open to the idea that my understanding is lacking".  

 

It appears that due to your history you made the leap from simply inheriting sin through the sin nature causing us to be sinners from the very beginning of life whether born with the Holy Spirit or not to the doctrine of total depravity.  As I see it, you and I see things just about the same.  The main difference being how we express it in words compared to how the other receives those same words.  The only difference that I see in our positions is that you seem to take the position that from birth until the first sin is committed, the person is a sinless human being who possesses the natural ability to sin that guarantees that they will eventually sin while I hold to the position that sin is already present in the body and therefore it is appointed for the individual to die, which I believe you use the words born condemned.  I do not hold to the position that people are born condemned to hell and damnation.  Just born to die due to sin in their mortal flesh.  Hell is a whole other separate issue in and of itself as far as I am concerned.

 

Thanks for sharing and helping me to ask the question "how can I better communicate with my brother?".  It has been good.  

[DeShonC]

We inherit a sinful nature, not sin itself. Ever since sin entered into the world, it was man's nature to sin. However babies can't judge a right action from a wrong action, so the nature of man to sin doesn't affect them. So babies can't go to hell because they can't sin

[gdemoss]

 

Paul, reread what you wrote to me.  We do the same things when dealing with one another but usually we fail to see what we are doing.  God love you Paul, I know your intentions are well.  You believe that you are taking in the whole counsel of God as do I.  Your vantage point and mine are a bit different.  Due to the lasting affects of the Garden of Eden, that which I believe makes us all born sinners who can do nothing but sin, we have a subjective view of an objective reality.  The word of God is true.  Of this there is no argument.  Having been a Calvanist for 10 years and quite possibly defending that position to the extreme before abandoning it to a new position you became readily able to see from a different perspective, I would think that you would understand the need for us as falible humans to have a position that says "today I believe that I am seeing correctly but am open to the idea that my understanding is lacking".  
 
It appears that due to your history you made the leap from simply inheriting sin through the sin nature causing us to be sinners from the very beginning of life whether born with the Holy Spirit or not to the doctrine of total depravity.  As I see it, you and I see things just about the same.  The main difference being how we express it in words compared to how the other receives those same words.  The only difference that I see in our positions is that you seem to take the position that from birth until the first sin is committed, the person is a sinless human being who possesses the natural ability to sin that guarantees that they will eventually sin while I hold to the position that sin is already present in the body and therefore it is appointed for the individual to die, which I believe you use the words born condemned.  I do not hold to the position that people are born condemned to hell and damnation.  Just born to die due to sin in their mortal flesh.  Hell is a whole other separate issue in and of itself as far as I am concerned.
 
Thanks for sharing and helping me to ask the question "how can I better communicate with my brother?".  It has been good.

 
I agree...it has been good. And I love to learn the subtle differences we all hold true as the word though the Holy Spirit unfolds in each of us. This last post was not just to you. If one derives from the scripture that we are all born condemnable at birth, this is quite different then being born with a nature that will sin eventually. It speaks to the different ideas one holds regarding inheriting. I once held and as you said defended the position all humans are born totally depraved but then it dawned on me, Jesus was born fully human...and how could John or Jeremiah (and I assume others), who had earthly fathers, be full of the Holy Spirit and yet be "totally" depraved since birth? It just does not seem to follow logically....but what is logic after all but a system of man determining truth that man can comprehend and accept (and it differs as one man like you and I can accept things outsifde the natural order while to another that is illogical)
 
So I thought (just my opinion) since the Bible tells us God creates the spirit in a man that either...
 
a) All creatures of God are created good
Humans are creatures of God
Therefore humans are created good but will sin eventually (different times for each person though always in their youth)
 
Or...
 
b) All humans are born totally depraved
Christ was fully human and was born
Therefore Christ's human side must have been totally depraved and condemnable at birth
 
So I pick a) and find all the scriptures then fall into place with no "one set versus the other"...
 
But after two or three go arounds I am perfectly content you believing what you believe and I believing what I believe and yet not dividing as brothers over it. I know you are a man of God who is born of His Spirit. When He comes all these minor misunderstandings that Christians discuss will be resolved. When He appears we will be like Him, knowing even as we are known. 
 
In His love
 
Brother Paul

 

Again, good stuff brother! I enjoy the interaction. I think we are doing a decent job of exposing the weakness in various positions and in the process are each gaining food for thought as we grow as Christian brothers.

You point out that it is possible to logically conclude:

 

a) All creatures of God are created good

Humans are creatures of God

Therefore humans are created good but will sin eventually (different times for each person though always in their youth)

 

Or...

 

b) All humans are born totally depraved

Christ was fully human and was born

Therefore Christ's human side must have been totally depraved and condemnable at birth

 

Something to consider:  

 

choice a) assumes creation of each individual at conception and denies the creation of the individual on day six in Adam who passed from Adam into Eve and so on until their eventual conscious life began.  In order to accept this position, one must interpret certain scriptures outside of their simple straight forward statements such as,

 

Hbr 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Hbr 7:6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

Hbr 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Hbr 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he [receiveth them], of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Hbr 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

Hbr 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

 

choice b) does not consider the perfect protection from sin that Christ had from partaking in the virgin birth.  He was not in Adam at the time Adam sinned and therefore untainted by Adams sin.  He was merely made fully human but with a fully divine nature controlling his flesh instead of a selfish and self-centered human nature.

 

I like to stay away from the terms 'total depravity' due to the tie to the Calvanistic viewpoint but to me there must be a choice c) that has a bit more complexity to it based upon a wider scope of detail that can be known by taking a larger view of the scriptures and works to take away the perversion that naturally takes place due to my lacking certain knowledge, understanding or wisdom.

 

When I read scripture, I perceive that all humans, except Christ who has always been, were created on day 6 of creation week and all created good as you say they were but that sin entered into the world through Adam (not Eve though she sinned) and all at that point became corrupted by sin.  Christ not being in Adam was exempt but his leaving the form of God and taking on the form of man without the sin of man became the perfect sacrifice for the sins of man.  

 

You have an excellent point about the various men in the bible who were born with the Spirit of God in them.  I can see why this might seem to cause a problem with the idea of sin being present in them from birth.  This is why the virgin birth is absolutely necessary.  Even John the Baptist who was born with the Holy Spirit had sin because he was born 'with' and not 'of' the Holy Spirit.  Therein lies the difference.  He was not born having a divine nature but sinful human nature.  I have the Holy Spirit with me today and that which is incorruptible as a new creature created in Christ Jesus but I also have the old man that must be put to death daily.  John was no different.

 

The main question that I need you to answer for me in order for me to see things from your perspective is "since we were all in Adam when Adam sinned, how could we have been unaffected by sin when Adam sinned?".  Please explain this question in light of the scriptures from Hebrews that credit Levi with tithes paid in Abraham.

 

Peace and Love in Christ, may he illuminate our understanding as we grow together.

[enoob57]

This is not what is being seen...

We are divided out in being- one of flesh unredeemed and one of  S/spirit redeemed!

Now we are sealed in promise by The Possession of God The Holy Spirit with our spirit born of God

2 Cor 1:22
22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
NKJV
and this is clearly divided out by Paul

Rom 7:18-25
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me,

but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but

the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who

do it, but sin that dwells in me.  21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who

wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 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 which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me

from this body of death? 25 I thank God — through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
NKJV

and this is how Paul states this as a practical application to the truth above

1 Cor 5:1-5

5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality

as is not even named among the Gentiles — that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are

puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away

from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged

(as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus

Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus

Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be

saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
NKJV

 

Love, Steven