Originally posted by epiphinehas
I know you are being facetious, but what you said is actually quite accurate. The presence of the Holy Spirit is sweet. Also, Jesus did refer to Him as the 'Helper'. You are (literally) right on both accounts.

If God is a Spirit, and God is love, then the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Love. If a person allows Him to, the Holy Spirit i ...[text shortened]... ity, revealing the true heinousness of one's sin, if it leads to repentance, is sweet indeed.

The point is that people would do better to toss the concept of sin into the nearest garbage can -- for many reasons. Beside the fact that the concept's most common currency very likely doesn't exist to begin with, application of the concept is also counteractive. To constantly identify failings within (usually) some childish rule-based morality of constraint is ineffective. A much more effective means of personal transformation would be simply focusing on the cultivation of virtues that enable us as rational and social creatures to pursue meaningful projects. In practice at least, one approach is often eliminatory toward what is taken as lowborn and the other largely encircling of what is taken as noble, and I think there's a drastic difference in perspective. There are certainly aspects of your religion and of biblical teachings that strive primarily for the latter; I would focus on those and jettison the talk of sin.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The point is that people would do better to toss the concept of sin into the nearest garbage can -- for many reasons. Beside the fact that the concept's most common currency very likely doesn't exist to begin with, application of the concept is also counteractive. To constantly identify failings within (usually) some childish rule-based morality of cons ...[text shortened]... gs that strive primarily for the latter; I would focus on those and jettison the talk of sin.

Your primary contention seems to be with Law. God's law, in particular. If there is Law, then there is also the transgression of Law, 'sin'. We can jettison talk of sin, but only by jettisoning God's law as well. However, if we are to take the bible to be true, then we must also take God's law seriously. Therefore, 'sin', the transgression of God's law, must be taken seriously as well.

Consider:

(1) Through the law comes knowledge of sin

"For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God’s laws, and it never will. That’s why those who are still under the control of their sinful nature can never please God" (Rom. 8:7-8).

"Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:19-20).

(2) Knowledge of the God's goodness and the true wickedness of sin brings people to repentance (repentance - metanoeo - to change one's mind for the better; heartily to amend one's ways with abhorrence of one's past sins).

"Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin? But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed" (Rom. 2:4-5).

"Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

(3) Repentance brings forgiveness and justification apart from the law

"God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus. Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law" (Rom. 3:26-28).

(4) Forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ brings the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, i.e. freedom from the power of sin an death.

"You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all) " (Rom. 8:9).

"Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, you have no obligation to do what your sinful nature urges you to do. For if you live by its dictates, you will die. But if through the power of the Spirit you put to death the deeds of your sinful nature, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God" (Rom. 8:12-14).

-------------------------------------

Conclusion: without preaching the law, sin and repentance, people will never be justified nor receive the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is not received, then it is impossible to live righteously. Therefore, at least biblically speaking, it is fruitless to strive to be good without recognition of sin.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your primary contention seems to be with Law. God's law, in particular. If there is Law, then there is also the transgression of Law, 'sin'. We can jettison talk of sin, but only by jettisoning God's law as well. However, if we are to take the bible to be true, then we must also take God's law seriously. Therefore, 'sin', the transgression of God's king, it is fruitless to strive to be good without recognition of sin.

>> Romans 8:7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law—indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. 12 So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

__________________________________

Now, we could discuss such things as who is led by the spirit of God, or who has the spirit of [the] Christ, or the various physical and metaphysical meanings of sarx—and I guess we have. 🙂

But my point here is that “sinful nature” (your translation) and “the mind set on the flesh” (More literally, and I think powerfully: "mind of flesh"—Greek phroema tes sarkos) are not strictly synonymous. Sin is the broader term. Paul is making a point about the relationship of the latter (hamartia) to the former (phroema tes sarkos).

The Greek word hamartia, translated as “sin,” refers to any and all human error or failing, fault or flaw, and not strictly moral wrongdoing—nor rebellion or hostility against God. In the passage cited, it is not human sin that is hostile to God, but having a “mind set on the sarx”—I think sarx also ought to be left untranslated. The point here is the mind nous that is focused strictly on, or absorbed in, sarx—hamartia is the consequence.

(One might note that sarx and soma, “body,” can have different and contrasting referents as well.)

I will note that nowhere in the Hebrew or Greek texts does the actual phrase “sinful nature” occur; actually the words “sin” and “nature” nowhere occur in the same verse. (Same for "original sin".)

Originally posted by vistesd
>> Romans 8:7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law—indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if C ...[text shortened]... ords “sin” and “nature” [b]nowhere occur in the same verse. (Same for "original sin".)[/b]

The Greek word hamartia, translated as “sin,” refers to any and all human error or failing, fault or flaw, and not strictly moral wrongdoing—nor rebellion or hostility against God. In the passage cited, it is not human sin that is hostile to God, but having a “mind set on the sarx”—I think sarx also ought to be left untranslated. The point here is the mind nous that is focused strictly on, or absorbed in, sarx—hamartia is the consequence.

Yes, but a mind focused on sarx is the unregenerate state of man. Before being set free from the law of sin and death at regeneration, the mind could not be anything other than focused on sarx. Therefore, that unregenerate state could correctly be called the inherited "sinful nature". Only when a man is set free from the law of sin and death at regeneration, when he first receives the Holy Spirit, can he actively choose to focus on the Spirit rather than on sarx. Otherwise, there is not an option.

That being said, there is a distinction between the various individual trangressions of God's law (sins, lower case) and the "sin principle" at work in the flesh (Sin, capitalized). The former is the 'symptom' of the latter. Christ's blood covers the former, and the cross of Christ deals with the latter (through the process of sanctification initiated by the impartation of the Holy Spirit at regeneration).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The Greek word hamartia, translated as “sin,” refers to any and all human error or failing, fault or flaw, and not strictly moral wrongdoing—nor rebellion or hostility against God. In the passage cited, it is not human sin that is hostile to God, but having a “mind set on the sarx”—I think sarx also ought to be left untranslated. The cess of sanctification initiated by the impartation of the Holy Spirit at regeneration).

[/b]Well, you’re spinning a lot of interpretation here—not something that I necessarily find fault with, per se. As you know. But not something that I’m going to accept as crystal clear from the texts either.

“Unregenerate state of man”?

The “sin principle”?

Christ’s “blood” dealing with one kind of “sin”, and the cross dealing with another?

I don’t even know what those things mean. But none of them do away with what I said about the meaning of the word hamartia.

I’m not sure that all the NT writers use the words sarx and soma in the same deliberate way that Paul seems to; and that’s worth some research, however.

Originally posted by josephw
Let's face it. We all know we are guilty of an offence of some kind, no matter how great or small. The Bible calls it sin. Why not come clean and admit you are a sinner?

I am a sinner....from the moment our Lord created me 😞

Originally posted by Jay Joos
I am a sinner....from the moment our Lord created me 😞

Nonsense. You can't be a sinner by definition until you commit a sin. If the age of reason is seven (for the sake of argument) then you can't be a sinner prior to that. You had the potential to be a sinner, just as you had the potential to grow a mustache. But you couldn't do either until a certain amount of time passed and developmental stages occurred.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
Nonsense. You can't be a sinner by definition until you commit a sin. If the age of reason is seven (for the sake of argument) then you can't be a sinner prior to that. You had the potential to be a sinner, just as you had the potential to grow a mustache. But you couldn't do either until a certain amount of time passed and developmental stages occurred.

Personally i don’t believe claiming ignorance in the name of the law saves you. I do believe in original sin. In that we are all born sinful. Just because you don’t know a lie is wrong does not mean you did not do wrong by lying.

For me I wonder if original sin starts at conception or at birth. I suppose a clue to this would be examining Christ’s perfection. Everything Christ did was perfect (as in to the fathers will) and not just his words, but his hand gestures, how he ate, what he thought, and if, when, how, for how long and how loud he sneezed. Even an infant can sin if he does anything that is not according to God’s will, even the smallest thought or action. Though ignorance is an option and perhaps viable for a baby in the womb, personally I will take the other option and rely on my Lord.

Truly a fun mental exercise but one that can never be resolved with a definitive truth (I am speaking of course as a man, God is capable of such.) And I do believe Jesus is the only way, a child in the womb is not saved, nor an atheist, agnostic, a person who calls themselves a Christian by name only, or a “good” (human definition) person etc. I don’t like to think this but I find the only thing that makes me believe otherwise is emotion and I know I am not sovereign. My attachment and short sightedness makes me a fool when it comes to who goes to heaven or hell; I suppose that is why God takes the job.

Originally posted by HumanHeaven
For me I wonder if original sin starts at conception or at birth. I suppose a clue to this would be examining Christ’s perfection. Everything Christ did was perfect (as in to the fathers will) and not just his words, but his hand gestures, how he ate, what he thought, and if, when, how, for how long and how loud he sneezed. Even an infant can sin if he d ...[text shortened]... haps viable for a baby in the womb, personally I will take the other option and rely on my Lord.

But that is all of course - by definition. If Jesus was God and sin is to go against Gods will then everything Jesus did was going with Jesus' and hence Gods will and hence not a sin even if he did something that for one of us mere mortals would constitute a sin.

Of course it is all rather silly to think that I am going to feel guilty about doing something I had no choice about. Why should I feel guilty about something I did at the age of 1 and why should I be punished or forgiven? If God made me the way I am then why does he put the blame on me? And don't give me any of that free will nonsense because it is quite clear from earlier in the thread the we have no choice but to sin and thus no free will in the matter.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
Nonsense. You can't be a sinner by definition until you commit a sin. If the age of reason is seven (for the sake of argument) then you can't be a sinner prior to that. You had the potential to be a sinner, just as you had the potential to grow a mustache. But you couldn't do either until a certain amount of time passed and developmental stages occurred.

We are all born with sin...we just dont know it unt il we are older!

Originally posted by Jay Joos
We are all born with sin...we just dont know it unt il we are older!

But what is sin? Everyone seems to have a different definition. If it is defined as "acting against Gods will" then how on earth can one be born with it? Are you saying sin is "a taint that remains on an entity after that entity acts against Gods will"? Is that taint only transferable via heredity? If I get a heart transplant do I take on some of the sin from the organ donor? What about blood transfusions? If my father and mother were 'born again' and their sins were truly forgiven then whose 'taint' was I born with?

Were Adams sins ever forgiven? Why not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what is sin? Everyone seems to have a different definition. If it is defined as "acting against Gods will" then how on earth can one be born with it? Are you saying sin is "a taint that remains on an entity after that entity acts against Gods will"? Is that taint only transferable via heredity? If I get a heart transplant do I take on some of the sin ...[text shortened]... forgiven then whose 'taint' was I born with?

Were Adams sins ever forgiven? Why not?

Adam was punished but the "Taint" is still there... i dont think you inherit others sins.... because of Adam we are tainted...even the baby.

Originally posted by josephw
Let's face it. We all know we are guilty of an offence of some kind, no matter how great or small. The Bible calls it sin. Why not come clean and admit you are a sinner?

The Bible does call an offence of some kind, no matter how great or small, a sin. It only calls an offence a sin it if entails disobedience with God's will.

For example, you offend me by believing that I, an otherwise decent unbeliever, am going to hell. Are you thereby sinning? Why not come clean and admit it?

Originally posted by josephw
The Bible calls it sin.

Super. What did they call it before the bible?

Originally posted by David C
Super. What did they call it before the bible?

Actually it is only the English translations that call it sin.