What is sin nature?

Please read all of what I say here before making judgements.

Here goes... I fear I shall regret admitting much of this.

Let's put it this way. I've fallen so far from tradition, I don't adhere to any hard line doctrines, accept the ones I feel follow what I read in scripture. As a result, I'm a six day creationist, who believes in the value of faith in God, that some non-believers will be in heaven, yet hell exists still and people go there everyday, and I also believe some believers will be condemned for their actions as well. I believe in a God beyond the imagination in power, capable of creating a universe in SIX days, (one if He wanted I'm sure), whom has done miracles throughout history and to this day, but I don't believe in total omnipotence (I know, everyone gasps and calls me a heathen at this point). I believe in a God far above any man or angel in wisdom, who created the whole universe, so knows how all of it is run (that's all the knowledge there is to be had practically for knowledge sake), who governs the universe according to wisdom so far beyond me, all I can do is trust, yet I do not believe in omniscience. (Well I'm sure with that I just lost a lot of respect, but it had to come out eventually.) I believe in a God who is always there for His servants, and that He really is present around the world, but I reject the idea of Omnipresence. I believe in a God who lives most likely in THIS dimension, there is no need for others to be made for Him to occupy. Heaven is likely even some place far away, subsisting in a manner we cannot see, not through a strange spritual gateway. Yet, I believe God is above us mere and tiny men, His laws superiour to ours, to the point that not even the angels, are bound by the same rules of nature as us.
(These aren't the subjects, understand, please, can we not discuss them all at this time?)

I feel justified in these various disagreements when I look at the modern churches. Hundreds of denominations are evidence themselves that something has gone terribly wrong. But most upsetting to me, I can't seem to read two pages of Christian writing, without finding scripture missquoted, by individuals who don't take the time to look things up for themselves.

Am I any better than my brother in Christ? No. I myself use to abuse the Bible constantly, trying to get what I wanted out of it. I became convicted. Anyone can do what I did, and try to change. I still continue to struggle, trying not to violate scripture, dispite any personal feelings about what it "should" say, or what I would like it to say. And yes, I still have those urges, and yes, I still stumble, God help me.

That being said, do I think the convictions of others are not sincere? They most certainly are. As a former hard line Baptist I know it for a fact. But are the Catholics not sincere as well?

I am a minority believer at best. (Course, with all the denominations, there aren't many true majority beliefs left, but even those I have problems with.) I believe things that upset me, that there is a hell for instance, and men earn their way there. I believe things that comfort me, that God is working out things to the best of His wisdom, His love is real, not some wierd idea of love that I can't hope to understand. Sometimes I hope I'm right. Sometimes I wish I were wrong. Sometimes I just don't know. Sometimes I think I'm being arrogant, other times, I think the truth is the truth, not matter how few people accept it. (No, there ARE others who believe as I do.)

PM me on these things if you feel convicted, please. Or start another thread. Sin nature is a big enough issue itself without dragging out a dozen other theologies as well. Though I am eager to discuss these things.

Moving on to the subbject at hand.

___________________________

Just based on that then, is it not good for an athiest to help his fellow man? Is it not good for a Buddhist to help widows and orphans?

One way or another, our actions define our need for our Saviour. We are NOT perfect, whether or not we can be. Fantasy asks what if a man were, but reality says none are. God forgave our sins on the cross. Good and well, even Satan believes that, and dispises it. Now that our sins are forgiven, we should turn from them, or go to hell's flames. (Not the last statement you were expecting was it?)



Andre

I agree and disagree. When Adam bit the apple, a pefect world fell. All kinds of evil were allowed into the world, like the gates of a terrifying hell were thrown open. We were given more choice, I suppose is how I must put it, though even I don't like the term. Liking is not a requirement though.

Adam's sin was his own, not mine. He bore it, not me. But at the same time, I pay the price for it. Our perfect world is destroyed and corrupted. Nature, what was good, is now at best, neutral.

I believe each man is judged for his own evil. And make no mistake, it is HIS evil.

On the enviornment, I just snuck that comment in. I guess it was a hook though, sorry. I mean that man's involvement in nature is required, not evil. We should work to better nature and preserve and control it. Just like a man who has a farm. If he leaves it alone, it becomes of no use to any one, but if he takes possession of it, and protects it from abuse, it becomes profitable.

Perhaps you know more about children than me, but they might just share... course at two, I'm not sure how coordinated the entire affair will be. The one with the club will doubtless not know what to do with it, perhaps drop it and go straight for the sugar, but probably be distressed if he hurts the other. Both will probably eventually fight, but the break down of the fight will most likely result, I suppose, in a destroyed cone and two pouting two-year-olds.

This is what human innocence is. Not knowing how to do wrong.

God's innocence is rejecting what is wrong for all of His existence. A good God indeed, and very different from us.

However, I think you point isn't served too well by your example.

Might I point out, maybe you should have said bowl, sharing a cone is rather impractile.



Good point on Galations 5:16-26. I've always been taught it meant the Holy Spirit. But now just objectively looking at it... does it?

Hmm... I guess I spoke too soon though. But still, does it? I must admit... it seems most likely to be refering to the Holy Spirit. It does NOT seem to support my view or any parallel to it. (Again, I'm sure that wasn't an expected conclusion from me.)



John 17: 6-26 seems proper context to me (20-26 more narrowly). I would point out that that is Jesus speaking. Maybe you missed that. He and the Father are one in the same. Me and God, are NOT one in the same. God is NOT me, and I am NOT God. I suppose you either made a mistake or I'm reading you wrong.

The passage seems to be refering to general unity as our oneness with Christ and eachother. I agree, Jesus is more than unified with Christ, but I dare not claim THAT level of unity with the Holy Trinity.




Crabtownboy:

I actually view public school with distain. What right does the government have to educate children and attempt to control their ideas and knoweldge? Control the minds of the children of a nation, and you control its future. This is the inevitable essence of a violation of true religious freedom.




Well I suppose here I should say, I believe that a lost man can do good. In fact, I've seen such things with my own eyes and doubtless so have all of you, unless you don't associate with the lost very much. Course perhaps I have a more traditional, perhaps even, dare I say it, secular, view of what is good.

Taking in a child before he's lost and starves to death is good, even if you don't know Jesus. Leaving him to die in the rain is evil, even if you do know God. (In fact, might I put forward, since you are better inclined to know better, might I even call it WORSE, than if you didn't know God?)

Here's a place where I think a "literal" interpretation of scripture is taken for granted. The Bible itself often speaks of good deeds from those whom did not at the time believe in God as we know Him, not even knowing much about Jehovah as the Jews did. It's evident from the world around us they can do good. But there are indeed a few passages, that say man can do no good. My question, can those passages, dependant on context, be expressive? Expressive is NOT the opposite of literal. It is often better than what I call "hyper" literal.

As an example, if a teacher tells her student, he can do anything if he applies himself, he could take her at her word, flap his arms REALLY hard, and jump off a cliff... bad idea. Or, he could take her at her word, study really hard, and build a better plane. She meant to be practical, and likely he's been taught better than to do silly things. But to ask her, she was being "literal", just not that "literal".

 

Is the God I discribed really:

A: that foriegn to you
B: you didn't really read what I posted so you don't actually know

Look at the last 4 sentences you quoted from me... obviously B since you didn't even read the end of your own quote. :BangHead:

I will note this. And maybe I shouldn't if I don't want it to enter this into the debate, but I just want to defend myself a little. To me, I see MY God as the one based on scripture, and the traditional version, as the fabrication. Course, arguements like this "God must be omnipotent or He can't be God" -not stated here yet, but I hear it and like unto it, all the time- serve to reinforce my view, seeing as that says God can't exist independant of the speaker's definition. In other words, the speaker believes he defines God. To me, I believe God defines Himself.

Do you have a problem reading? I'm sorry but this is frustrating. You're question barely makes sense to your quote, though I must admit:

Agnus got ya good with this one.

I'm hoping your reaction is not the norm Amy. Perhaps I could learn from you, but now probably not, since you don't look like you're willing to pay enough attention. Sorry, I just don't like it when people who don't read what others post then feel inclined to reply anyway. Especially when they, like you did, show to whole world, in quotes like that, they're disregard for what was posted.

Do you mean to be a troll?

Hmmm... ya know what, why should I debate this? This is not the subject, sin nature is. Am I just being rude? I guess I shouldn't try to dictate the subject matter but I expected this garbage and really, I will not debate a view of how I see God based on several separate short statements. Amy, if I were to think better of you... I guess I would if YOU were the one to drop this.


_________________________



Moving on from the interuption.


Sigh... I'll keep watching but I don't have much to offer what has been said at this point, though it looks like some good stuff, my compliments. Maybe I'm just getting tired. Just worked a 12 hour shift.

 

By scripture alone? You're right, I discribe it mostly by theory. Therefore, lets be clear, an actual "sin nature" is only ever described in Romans 7 and 8.

Romans 7 is talking about dieing to the law. Most of the chapter focuses on the subbject of Paul's difficulty with sin and his own nature of it.

By Romans 7, it is false that Christians do not have a sin nature, Paul himself admitted to having one. It's obvious. It's in context, go ahead, read the whole chapter. The part I'm focusing on is 7-25.

Romans 8: 1-17 continues this section (perhaps I should have said it was context as well, true it's separated by chapter, but not by any purpose of Paul it seems),

It talks about living by the Spirit. I'm pretty sure the Spirit refers to a committment to God, a right Spirit that is put in you after you made that committment.

The chapter even says that the purpose of the law was to save men, but men, weakened by their sin nature, only fell further away from grace. To me, it seems to be saying an expectation was not met. That perhaps we men COULD have obeyed the law, should have, but were so weakened, it were as though we could not.

One who is controlled by sin is indeed set against God, course I would ask exactly what it then means to be controlled by sin?

It says that one who is controlled by sin cannot please God. Does it then not please God for a Buddist to show love, patience and many of the other fruits of the Spirit, even though, the true Spirit is not in them? It talks as though one cannot do good who is controlled by sin nature. But we no for a fact, that simply because you do not believe in God as we, doesn't turn you into a devil... could that mean... possibly... that it's not simply talking about those whom disbelieve? Hmmm...

Course it also says that sin nature must be completely put to death or else you will be condemned... But in chapter 7, Paul has a sin nature, STILL. Explain this paradox, if anyone can. Or is it really a paradox? Or perhaps, just maybe, much of the language is expressive. I would think it pretty easy to guess what that would mean, but it would likely kill the normal definition of sin nature.




On to more theory, though not just mine.


Who has read the Last Battle in the series, the Chronicles of Narnia?


Spoiler:

The story is a parable of the end times. The Calormenes take over Narnia and set up a false Aslan. They continue their myth and eventually try to pass off Aslan and their god Tash as the same.

The false Aslan is stolen and a big riot starts with folks wanting to see him. Finally it is said, with warning, that anyone can go into the tent of Aslan, if they dare, and see him. One Calormene goes in after a while, and young man, seeming of honor and integrity, but angry at the idea that Aslan and Tash are one. He never comes back out.

Later on, the world of Narnia ends and the door to the tent ends up turning into the door to Aslan's world.

In Aslan's world we find that young Calormene. The young man meets Aslan and is scared at first, thinking they were enimies. But Aslan explains all the good the man had done was now counted as for him.

The young man then asked, if Aslan and Tash were truely one. The very idea sickened Aslan since Tash was evil. He went on to say no good deed could be truely done in Tash's name, so the service to Tash from the man was truely to Aslan. Conversely, he also explains, service to Aslan, of a vile sort, counted as service to Tash, and those who did so were condemned by Aslan, as though he never knew them.

I point this out because CS Lewis is a well respected author in Christian circles. Yet even he had problems with much of the more rigid Christian doctrines on salvation.

 

Context is my primary factor. This passage is much about belief. Perhaps that was the wrong way to put things. Perhaps if I were to say, that just as a man of faith can sin, so a man of incorrect faith, can do good. But more over, just as a man of faith can be condemned
12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; (verse 12-13a)

Might I ask, can a man of incorrect faith, be saved?

Also, seriously, I don't think it does mean that all not controlled by faith are controlled by sin. Just as it does not say, all whom have faith, are controlled by it.

Do you see what I mean?

Also, my habit of trying to give full context is a matter of discipline. I see so little treatment of scripture as though it were an actual book, rather than a compilation of good separate sayings. That would be why I don't ever address one verse only, since there is no way to know what a verse means out of context. (12-13 was quoted as PART of chapters 7-8:1-17)