Sin nature
 

Romans 7 reveals that Paul discovered through somewhat scientific means that sin dwelt within his flesh. He analyzed his situation as to why, when he tried doing the good deeds of the good law, that he always committed sin instead. The Law was, as it were, slaying him instead of causing him to do good. He looked at his efforts and looked at his failure and discovered there was a law just as Newton discovered the law of gravity.

Everywhere you drop an apple, whether in Germany, Japan or Iceland, it will fall. This means there is a law at work here. A principle. A law is a way things react whenever in the same circumstances. It happens everytime! And it works everywhere! The law of gravity.

Similarly, Paul discovered that everytime he willed to do good, he sinned instead. It became a new Law or principle to him. (Romans. 7:21).

This led him to understand that it was not himself that was inherently evil, since he desired to do good (Romans. 7:15-19). He, himself, consented that the law was good. He did not willingly rebel against it. He wanted to obey it. Therefore the reason he was not obeying it could not possibly be that he was rebelling against it. It was not him. The only conclusion Paul could draw was that something was in him. It was separate from him in the sense that it was not inherently him, but it was in him.

And since Paul found that this reaction of evil acts always took place when he exerted his flesh or self effort to do good works, he narrowed the thing down to discover its identity. Whatever it was, it worked when "he", himself in his own will power and self-exertion of the flesh, was motivated to work. That act of resorting to himself through the power of his flesh in order to do good was the culprit behind getting this alien element within him to rise up and make him do evil. Therefore it had to be in his "flesh."

Narrowing it down further he realized that the flesh contained something. It was certainly not a "good" thing as the Law was good. It might cause some to think the Law was bad, since trying to keep the Law seemed to always cause this evil to occur. But the Law was certainly not bad (Romans. 7:7). But that something in his flesh certainly was bad and not good at all.

"For I know that in my me (That is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." (Romans. 7:18).

This is most scientific in a very spiritual manner! He called that something in his flesh by the name of "sin". And since he realized that exerting his flesh to work only stirred "sin" up, he had better find a different way in which to see the good deeds come forth through him. All he could think of was to call on God to deliver him from the flesh which held that sin! And that was exactly the answer!! (Romans. 7:24).

He realized that he, himself, delighted in the Law. But another law existed which he then discovered. And that Law warred against the good law that was in his mind, which he willed to obey. And this newly discovered law was actually bringing him into captivity to the Principle of sin.

When He called on God for help, God delivered him through Jesus Christ's death on the cross. Its as though we died to be free of the old cruel husband, since he wasn't going to die (Romans. 7:2-4). And we died, but yet lived on to enjoy the freedom from the old man that our deaths provided. How can this be? Well, we died by faith, believing that Christ died instead us.

So, Paul said God delivered him in Romans. 7:25.

And another Law that existed, which he then found to be the answer, was the reality of the effort to believe and thus walk after the strength of the Spirit rather than the strength of the flesh. And so long as we rely upon God to deliver us through faith in the fact that we died with Christ, we remain above the law of sin and death above that newly discovered law that explained why he could not do good. We must continually realize that we need to rely upon God's Spirit to keep us above sin, and not rely upon our weak human power of self effort to stop sinning.

As much as the law of aerodynamics teaches us that our presence in a certain shaped vehicle that is operating a certain way will keep us above the law of gravity and thus cheat the law of gravity, we can cheat the law of sin and death. And this higher law, the law that cheat sin and death, is called the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. We must be in Christ as much as one would need to be in an airplane to escape the law of gravity. And we are in Christ by having faith in His death for us! And that is what we must understand when we pray and close our prayers saying, "In the name of Jesus Christ."

The explains a sin nature that God did not create in Adam. Can we honestly say that Adam was created with this about himself?: "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me"

God said IT IS VERY GOOD when he was done creating mankind, after saying it was GOOD earlier in all the rest of creation. Yet those who claim we have no more a difference in our nature than Adam have to conclude that Adam could have said "in my flesh dwelleth no good thing," as much as Paul said it in Romans 7.

Re: Sin nature
 

And what about Jesus? Did Jesus have no different nature than we have, as though we do not have a sin nature? Could Jesus say the same thing Paul did about himself?

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

If do not believe Jesus could say these things about himself, then why could Paul? Obviously Jesus did not have the propensity to sin that we have. But if man has no sin nature, then Jesus would say the same thing about Himself that Paul said.

Any way we slice it, Jesus had to be able to say the same thing Paul said if there is no sin nature issue involved in us.

Re: Sin nature
 

Excellent.

:thumbsup

Re: Sin nature
 

It is amazing how something so simple can become so complex to understand for some.Adam surely didn't want to commit sin in the begin he just didn't have that spiritual power to resist it. Once he done it his flesh became addicted to it because it is easier to yield then it is to resist.
When God by his power changed our inner spiritual man, he gave us the power to resist sin and also recognize it, or that is the way it is suppose to be.
Paul said sin no longer has power over us to yield our members to it. We don't have to be slaves to it because we are not in the bondage of it by the spiritual incapability that we once had. Our spiritual man is made over and has no desire to sin. It is our flesh and mostly our mind when tempted that causes our decision center to decide on it to full fill the lust and desires of our flesh and emotions.

Re: Sin nature
 

So are you saying Adam could say the same thing Paul said in Romans 7 about how sin dwelt in his flesh and he had not ability to stop it? Same with Jesus?

I believe we are restored back to Adam's state before the fall except for the sin nature that still resides in us that did not reside in Adam til after he sinned. But we can overcome sin nature by walking after the Spirit. And not until the resurrection when we get new bodies will this sin nature be removed.

Re: Sin nature
 

I don't think Paul was saying he didn't have the ability to stop sinning, or else he would not have in other chapters and verses told others not to sin.
As far as Jesus is concerned I don't think he was born with the spiritual nature to sin, neither do I believe he ever wanted to sin at any time , nor did he ever have a desire to sin in the first place. If his nature were sinful or the same as humanities spiritual nature, he would have yielded to temptation just like mankind does every day.
I believe we can live above sin and will never believe that we have to sin.
The ones that are lost and separated from the life of god cannot stop from sinning, they do it without thought of their actions.
I mean come on, Adam had one commandment to keep. And chose the woman over God, and your telling me he was perfect before he fell. He may have been perfect in the sense he never broke any of God's commandments.But in the truth of who Adam really was is in the the witness that his desire was for himself and not for god.
That woman and being with her meant more than the spiritual fellowship he had with God. That's enough proof for me that just because he was created by the hand of god didn't make him perfect. In fact I really think that is the way god knew it would turn out, and also the way which he was expecting it to turn out.
Adam in no way is comparable to jesus in birth or spirit.

Re: Sin nature
 

Paul was explaining something quite important that many miss, I believe. He was describing a sin nature in him that operates when we exert self effort. There is a way to see it inoperative and lie dormant. That way is walking after the Spirit and doing what Rom 6:13 told us to do. Rely upon the Spirit's power instead of fleshly power.

So, on his own without Spiritual empowerment, Paul could not stop sinning. But the fact remains there was a law and moral force at work in him that otherwise tore Him down. Christ did not have that force of sin in Him, neither did Adam.

This is what Adam was created like as well./ Christ is the Last man Adam.

I agree. But I also claim what Jesus was like as a man was just like Adam.

Like Praxeas said, the power of CHOICE is all Adam used and chose wrongly. That did not mean he was not perfect. The only way Adam was imperfect is that he had not yet gone to the Fruit of Life to ingest the LIFE OF GOD, which is what the LIFE of the tree of life spoke about. Other than that Adam did not have a bend to sin like we do.

I disagree. God makes nothing imperfect.

You are saying God makes imperfect things. I could not more strongly disagree. It was not very good, according to your view, if Adam was as you describe.

Gen 2: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I do not call making a man with sinful tendency "very good." God makes all things well.

Your view is actually making God the culprit since He judged man for something you believe HE CREATED MAN TO DO. What kind of righteousness is that? You are saying GOD WILLED for man to sin, since He created man with that propensity. You really want to say that? You are saying it was God's will that Adam disobey Him. It becomes a sham and royal deception on the part of God to tell Adam not to sin and yet have made Adam with the bend to do that very sin. Sorry. No go, bro.

The only way Adam could be perfect in that estimation is to not have the ability to choose, because that is the only thing you are relying on to say he was imperfect. Like Praxeas said, that makes God imperfect.

Re: Sin nature
 

Well Mike as always your view is always the right view and you'll make sure that point is brought across, especially with those who disagree with other teachings of yours. And you can see that in the verbiage. If it could it would jump out and hit me.
I still maintain that Adam was not perfect, and there is no comparison with Adam and jesus. If Adam was like Jesus then he would not have yielded to temptation, or should I say, to something he knew was obvious wrong.
Adam was made exactly the way God intended him to be.
Doesn't God have foreknowledge of all things? If so did he not know what Adam and Eve were going to do? Then if he did, why didn't he make them more perfect, or give them power to overcome this thing, or even forward them that is was about to happen.
This entire debate is nothing more or less than personal theology.
Yes god created mankind in his likeness and in his image. Likeness and image both could reflect each other. It could mean in appearance and and have some of the same attributes as god has. For instance, a creative will.
If you want to maintain your perspective in this issue that's fine with me, but I don't view theology with confidence.

Re: Sin nature
 

Adam and Jesus both had a human nature. They both had free will as preordained in the foreknowledge of God. Yet Jesus is different... Jesus had the absolute fullness of the divine nature. Adam didn't. Thus Adam could choose to sin. For Jesus, it would be against His very nature to do so. And glory to God... we can now be partakers in that very same divine nature that makes us "new creatures", whereby we are fashioned into the very image of Christ.

Re: Sin nature
 

I removed a paragraph I wrote in response to this since this should not be personal in any manner. Let's please drop the personal involvement. I take all the blame. Sorry if I offended you. But please answer some questions.

How can God not be treating mankind unfairly if you claim God made man sinful and then told man to not sin? That's like creating a mouse to eat cheese and telling it that it is not supposed to eat cheese or it will go to hell. It makes no sense.

Yes, you believe God made Adam sinful. Right.

Foreknowledge has nothing to do with how God created man. God knows what will happen, but that does not mean God wanted it that way. If you take that view all the way, then you must say God wills people be lost and you enter into Once Saved Always Saved.

I disagree. It goes beyond that to actually implicating God with ill intentions.

Sorry, that view makes leads to OSAS.

Re: Sin nature
 

I may not agree with Bro. Blume on everything
but I'm not smart enough to argue with him.
He does his homework and only speaks after well-thought out study.

Re: Sin nature
 

Ditto

Genisis 3:6
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Did Adam know that the fruit Eve gave him was from the forbidden tree ? Or did she not tell him ?

Re: Sin nature
 

Please do not think that I do not think I might be wrong. :)

Re: Sin nature
 

Oh, I do not think you are infallible.
You have admitted that you have changed your mind on stuff.
I really appreciate that honesty.
Some grab ahold of an opinion and refuse to ever consider any alternative from then on.

Re: Sin nature
 

I had a pastor, Frank E. Curts, who was considered a "Bible Teacher" back in the day when pastors used charts, etc to teach. That was back before power point. He had a book out on the Tabernacle that was distributed by the UPC Publishing House at one time but is not longer available as far as I know. His teaching on Daniel, Revelation, and Prophecy was a combination of Larkin and that Seventh Day Adventist book (don't remember the name of it). Two things that impressed me about his teaching on prophecy were: 1) there is nothing new in the Book of Revelation. It is all found somewhere else also. and 2) he said he would never put any teaching on Revelation in writing because he changed his mind at times.

Re: Sin nature
 

We have differences here on just about everything. I think we see the diversity in the Body of Christ displayed here on AFF.

On April 13, 20ll Bro. David Bernard posted the following on facebook:
"We need unity on the essentials of the faith, but we must allow for a diversity of views on end-time prophecy."

Re: Sin nature
 

Exactly what my point was.

Re: Sin nature
 

MY point is not be be rude or indifferent with anyone. I know some of our opinions on theology subject matter is different and we will disagree. I don't think that Brother Blume is some false prophet I think he is a man of God and knows the Lord as his personal savior. And I give him personal credit for his commitment in studies of the word. However, my rebuttal to the Adam and Jesus comparisons is reflecting the content not only on this post but the other which is dealing with the same issues. It wasn't intended toward Mike and his posts.
There was a suggestion reflecting in several of the articles in the posts, that Jesus had a nature which was sinful. That to me is that walking on the border of blasphemy.
I personally am not offended by what someone thinks about the nature of Adam.
I think his nature then when he was created was no different than ours today when we are born.
For someone to make a choice that they are going against the will of god by premeditation of the act, and then do it. That is a witness that the person who will do this did not have a sinful nature after the fact. They may have become more sinful as time allowed. I believe that the problem in the nature of Adam was already there before the incident presented itself. And that problem was this, he was simply weak in spirit to resist sin's temptation.
Now, that is the only point that I'm trying to make here. When Jesus was created in the flesh by a divine method and did not have the possibility to sin. For the word says it is impossible for God to sin. To me that means, Jesus had no nature to sin, no desire to sin, and there was no conditions presented that would have ever made him sin.
When we are born again by the power of God, we now have that nature in the spiritual ream of our being that will not sin, has no desire to sin, and cannot be made to sin. Sin now appears and manifested itself in our flesh through the temptations and desires of our mind and body.
That is my only point and none other.

Re: Sin nature
 

But having free will in Adam does not mean Adam had a fallen nature in his creation. And just because Adam did not have fullness of divine nature in him does not mean Adam had a sinful nature.

Re: Sin nature
 

It cannot be true that Adam had the same nature we have since we have a bend towards sin, though, because that means God created man with inability to do good, like Paul said he had the will but not the power to do good. This makes God cruel because it means God created man to sin and then God demanded man not sin. It makes no sense and makes God cruel. I do not think you intend to see God as being like that, but I am trying to show that this is the only conclusion your idea pushes you, and therefore it cannot be a correct idea.

I disagree. He simply disagreed with God.

Adam had full ability to resist sin. he simply chose not to.

I disagree with your reasoning here as well. GOD cannot sin, but Jesus was more than God. he was also a human with human nature. And JESUS COULD HAVE SINNED.

Watch this: God cannot be tempted, the bible says. But JESUS WAS TEMPTED in Matt 4:1. How can God not be tempted and yet Jesus was God and was tempted. It was because the GOD nature of Him was not tempted, it was only his humanity that was tempted. If Jesus was tempted then something in Him wanted to sin. Does that mean Jesus had a sinful nature? Of course not. No different than Adam. Wanting to sin is not having a sinful nature. Not being able to resist sin is having a sinful nature. And Adam could resist it as well as Jesus could. In fact, I believe Jesus in his humanity proved Adam could have resisted sin since Jesus was made like Adam, and Adam was a figure of Jesus who was to come (Romans 5).

Jesus could have sinned and had desire to sin, because He was tempted. That is not a sinful nature, though. It's like an alcoholic versus someone who is not an alcoholic. A non-alcoholic can be tempted to drink alcohol.

And I merely disagree with that and have an opinion that differs. Why? Because my opinion is that your view makes God cruel and makes God a maker of Adam's sinful nature and tells Adam to not sin when He made Adam to sin.

Anyway, I doubt I will change your mind, so we can leave it at that between our views. No offense intended.

Re: Sin nature
 

I haven't read all these posts. They make my head spin.

I can't give Scripture but I believe Jesus could sin but didn't.

I can see how teaching like "divine flesh" can come about.

Re: Sin nature
 

Amen and amen.

Re: Sin nature
 

:bump

Re: Sin nature
 

Trouvere, I was interested in your thoughts of Romans 7's description of what you claim is not a moral force. You made a zinger of a comment and said there is no moral force at work in us and we responded, but now you are missing in action. Where are you?

:D

Re: Sin nature
 

Paul, like everyone of us in a pre-generated state, lamented over the power of the law of sin and death had over him. My father was a drunk, maker of moonshine, womanizer, brawler, and almost anything else you can think of...in a pre-converted, pre-generated state as was Paul who elaborated on this condition in Rom. 7.

Then, in 1930, my father had a conversion, a New Birth experience by which he was regenerated. He had an additional nature added to his old one. He, like Paul before him, discovered that the two are at war with each other. They both found that "ye are the servants to whom you yield your members to obey." Before either of them, Paul or my father was regenerated, they each found that when they wished to do good, evil was present with them and they did what they would not.

Thank God for the conclusion of Rom. 7 and the entirety of Rom 8. They both found another law...the law of Spirit and life by which each of them were given power to become sons of God by which they became over-comers.

I received the Holy Ghost when I was seven years old (1947). I well recall that I was a very bad little boy. I had no power to not do some of the things that I did including stealing some watermelons, stealing my uncle's turtles, smoked, cussed, stole some dimes and lied about it. After I was regenerated, I had an additional nature by which was given power to overcome the corrupt nature that I really didn't like, after all. That old nature is still there...though not as much enticed by as it in my youth.

I have also found out, as did Paul, that grace covers my sin when I am taken captivity by it and is not charged to me. "Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth not sin." The covering of grace is not a license to sin willfully, since continued willful sin can only result in a reprobate mind from which there is no repentance...seeing that the Son of God is crucified afresh.

So, grace, imputed righteousness is granted to me as it was Paul as a clothing or a robe of righteousness to give him and I time to develop into a strong, mature Christ-like image as complete over-comers. Since, the covering of grace will be removed from over us at judgment, to reveal our true character, this covering is so vitally important to give us time and opportunity to develop Christ-likeness amid the failures of faith and confidence from time to time. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Re: Sin nature
 

Amen. I love preaching about this issue more than most anything else, except the cross, because it is where the rubber meets the road. Those who operate miracles and cast out devils, but are workers of iniquity, have never known the truths of Romans 7. When we take up our crosses and deny ourselves and realize the wonders of Kingdom seating with Christ, we shall overcome iniquity in our own flesh. Sin shall not have dominion over us since we are not under law, but under grace -- under DIVINE EMPOWERMENT. We can overcome these sins in our own flesh.

I don't get this. I can't do anything if I'm in sin. I can't even minister in a small capacity. I don't understand how people can continue to minister while living in sin. That people can actually access power to performance miracles and cast out devils, I can't wrap my brain around it.

Re: Sin nature
 

It happens, though. Jesus said it does. They are not in the Kingdom, but they can operate like this. This is what the Corinthians were doing. They came behind in NO GIFT. They had them all. But they were sinfully dividing, envying and striving with one another.

I know that it happens. That I can't operate while in sin probably speaks more about me than them, I'm just not sure what it is saying.

Re: Sin nature
 

People can have faith for God to use them and not be living right. The gifts are without repentance. God does not revoke a gift He gives, which means they can live in sin and still operate in gifts. Primarily, the key is that the word teaches the gifts are without repentance.

Ah. Gotcha. When I'm not living right I don't have much faith. This is probably a blessing for me.

Re: Sin nature
 

So did sin enter into the world because of Adam's disobediance, or was it sin that caused Adam to be disobediant?


:doggyrun

Re: Sin nature
 

Romans 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: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Seems to say one man's disobedience brought sin into the world.

Re: Sin nature
 

Trouvere, you fled this thread and never came back. Still waiting for your answers to my responses to you.

:bump