Sin in the Bible: A definition
Comments
-
Yes, this is exactly, my point. CM
-
So then, if Jesus was without sin, any other baby also is without sin at the time of birth and for some time thereafter, namely, until they actually commit a sin.
-
I know there are different theological views out there. I wouldn't die on that mountain, but I am inclined to agree with you.
-
The wages of sin is death. And babies die.....
-
@Dave_L said:
The wages of sin is death. And babies die.....which "death" is "the wages of sin" ??
Quite obviously, "death" as the end of a person's life on earth is NOT the wages of sin, because Adam did NOT die in that sense until several hundred years after he committed sin ... but God had proclaimed that he would die ON THE VERY DAY when he would sin, he would "die the death ("surely die").
Did God not mean what He declared that Adam as consequence of his sin would "die the death" on that very day?? Or was God referring to a different "death" - namely, that "eternal death" / loss of the promised eternal life after life on earth - which indeed Adam lost on that very day??
Every man's or woman's life on earth will come to an end .... yes, in some cases even in baby age. But that death is not the wages of sin. The penalty (or "wages") of sin is the loss of promised eternal life in the presence of God, "death in eternity".
Every baby is born innocent and without sin ... and should a baby physically die before having committed a sin, it will partake of eternal life. At some time however during the development and growth of the baby and child, a sin will be committed and thus the promise of eternal life lost and from that moment on, the person is in need of a savior and eternal life can only be regained by God's grace and salvation/eternal life being granted as God's free gift to all who believe in God's only begotten Son.
-
All saved Christians die the same way babies die. So it doesn't mean that.
-
What is different about Jesus than all other babies that would make him sinless?
-
Spiritual death means alienation from God in this life
Eph 2:1-3; Col 1:21 See also Mt 8:22; Ro 6:23; Col 2:13Spiritual death is a result of Adam’s sin
Ro 5:15-16 See also Ro 5:12Symptoms of spiritual death
Spiritual ignorance Mt 4:16; Isa 9:2; Lk 1:79; Eph 5:8A mind controlled by the sinful nature Ro 8:5-8 See also Pr 8:36; 14:12; 16:25; 21:16; Eph 4:18
Unbelief Jn 3:36; 1Jn 5:12
Living in sinful pleasures Lk 15:13; 1Ti 5:6
Acting in ways that lead to death Heb 6:1; 9:14
Spiritual death leads ultimately to the “second death”
Rev 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8Manser, M. H. (2009). Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies. London: Martin Manser.
-
@reformed said:
What is different about Jesus than all other babies that would make him sinless?Simply put, as a baby there was nothing different about Jesus from all other babies ... babies are born without sin.
According to Mt 1:18ff and Lk 1:35ff, there was a difference in his conception in Mary, in that he was conceived in Mary by a miracle worked by God via His holy spirit power while Mary had not had sexual relations with her espoused husband, but there was no difference in that it took the regular "time of life" for the pregnancy as with any human baby, nor was there a difference in the behavior and the needs of baby Jesus and other human babies.
The difference comes at the time where the child reaches state of knowing good from evil, right from wrong, and becomes responsible for choosing to obey God's Word and commandments or disobeying God's Word and commandment. Jesus chose to obey God at all times and thus did not commit sin, therefore remained without sin, whereas all other mankind did fall for temptation and did commit sin and became "dead" in regards to eternal life on account of their trespasses and sin.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
What is different about Jesus than all other babies that would make him sinless?Simply put, as a baby there was nothing different about Jesus from all other babies ... babies are born without sin.
The difference comes at the time where the child reaches state of knowing good from evil, right from wrong, and becomes responsible for choosing to obey God's Word and commandments or disobeying God's Word and commandment. Jesus chose to obey God at all times and thus did not commit sin, therefore remained without sin, whereas all other mankind did fall for temptation and did commit sin and became "dead" in regards to eternal life on account of their trespasses and sin.
I don't think there is any evidence that babies are born without sin.
-
@reformed said:
I don't think there is any evidence that babies are born without sin.Now, what would qualify in your mind to be evidence that a baby is born without sin? what supporting evidence do you have for your above statement ?
How do babies sin? which of their actions is a sin? (perhaps screaming at night and waking up the father while the mother continues to sleep?
) -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
I don't think there is any evidence that babies are born without sin.Now, what would qualify in your mind to be evidence that a baby is born without sin? what supporting evidence do you have for your above statement ?
How do babies sin? which of their actions is a sin? (perhaps screaming at night and waking up the father while the mother continues to sleep? )I think we are all born with sin inherently. I believe it is passed down through men. I believe that is why Christ was the only one sinless because he was not born with a sinful nature in his humanity.
-
@reformed said:
I don't think there is any evidence that babies are born without sin.In that case, Jesus would be born with sin too since he came into the world as a baby being born from a sinful human woman, who had also been born with sin according to the inherited sin theory.
-
@reformed said:
I think we are all born with sin inherently. I believe it is passed down through men. I believe that is why Christ was the only one sinless because he was not born with a sinful nature in his humanity.
Did Jesus possess Adam's pre-fall or post-fall nature? This question has been around and exhausted theologians for decades. I would urge to please see the discussion on page one of this thread. Reconsider the questions proposed to CD:
@C_M_ said:
Let's clarify some terms thrown around:
- What is inherit sinful traits?
- What is it to have a sinful nature?
- What is it to have sinful tendencies?
- Can "guilt" be inherited?
- How is "Guilt" defined?
- Is "guilt" physical or mental?
- Can one have a physical deformity and not have any guilt?
- Is guilt the outcome of a deliberate action(s) taken played out in one's mind?
- Is there a difference between "guilt" and consequences?
- For one to have an "inherited tendency" is the same as "to have sinned"?
- The may be a repeat: Is there such a thing as “inherited guilt”? If so, how? If not, why not?
- What is a sinner? Is it past actions or "state of being."
- Is sin biological?
- Is sin volitional?
- What is a sin?
These and other questions need to be asked and answered for a correct and balanced understanding of this topic and for healthy Christian Living...
Let's keep studying. CM
-
Did Jesus possess Adam's pre-fall or post-fall nature?
- Biblically, exactly what changed?
- Logically, how could the alleged pre-fall nature fall? Was there a momentary lapse?
- What Scripture supports this idea?
-
In 1 John 5:1-5, John draws together his arguments against Gnostic heretics, who have tried to destroy the church. He does so with the incisiveness and comprehension of an academic.
In 1 John 5: 6-12, he draws out the im plications of his conclusions. The Docetist heretics led many astray with their belief that Jesus couldn’t possibly have had a real physical body. They were adamant that only the spirit is good and that the body (or flesh) is intrinsically bad. How could a good God, who is spirit, possibly commune with an evil body?
In 1 John 4:2, John debunks these Gnostic assumptions by emphasizing that it’s central to Christian belief that Jesus has come “in the flesh.”
In 1 John 5:6, John openly condemns those who follow Cerinthus, another heretic.
- Cerinthus taught that Jesus was an ordinary but righteous young man who, at his baptism, was blessed with having the God-part enter him. As the dove descended, Jesus became God. But before his death, the God-part returned to heaven because God could never die.
John reiterates that Jesus came by water and the blood, and that the Sonship of Jesus was always in the flesh—at His death as well as at His baptism. In view of this particular heresy, it becomes clear why Thomas’ inspection of Jesus’ bodily wounds is such an important climax to John’s Gospel—Jesus is still flesh and blood even after His resurrection.
False imported beliefs had far-reaching implications for Christian living. The Platonic view of the body led to three heresies:
- Some would follow ascetic practices to purify their evil bodies. These practices were opposed to the feasting, celebratory style of God’s system in the Old Testament.
- Others would say that things done by or to the body couldn’t affect their spirituality. This gave an excuse to plunge into promiscuity and debauchery—thus John’s emphasis on commandment keeping (see 1 John 2:6; 5:3).
- Yet another group would claim that their spiritual self was now so distant from their fleshly desires they could no longer possibly sin (1 John 1:8).
All of these lifestyles and beliefs derived from a faulty understanding of the hu man nature of Christ and arose from a denial that Jesus was born as God. By import ing foreign philosophical notions into Christianity, the whole Christian dynamic is canceled. -- Truth found truth shared. CM
-
@reformed said:
How do babies sin? which of their actions is a sin? (perhaps screaming at night and waking up the father while the mother continues to sleep?
)I think we are all born with sin inherently.
Any evidence (from Scripture or otherwise) for this idea? Where is sin defined as something "inherent" ?
I believe it is passed down through men.
Any evidence (from Scripture or otherwise) that "sin" is a matter of genetics?
I believe that is why Christ was the only one sinless because he was not born with a sinful nature in his humanity.
From your statement it sounds as if you do not believe that Jesus indeed "has come in the flesh" and was a real human being ?
I would think the mistake in your ideas is in your assumptions about sin being something genetically passed on from generation to generation.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
How do babies sin? which of their actions is a sin? (perhaps screaming at night and waking up the father while the mother continues to sleep?
)I think we are all born with sin inherently.
Any evidence (from Scripture or otherwise) for this idea? Where is sin defined as something "inherent" ?
Romans 3:23
I believe it is passed down through men.
Any evidence (from Scripture or otherwise) that "sin" is a matter of genetics?
Who said anything about genetics?
I believe that is why Christ was the only one sinless because he was not born with a sinful nature in his humanity.
From your statement it sounds as if you do not believe that Jesus indeed "has come in the flesh" and was a real human being ?
Not sure how you get that from what I wrote. And you MUST admit. He was not born as every other human. There was a MAJOR difference.
I would think the mistake in your ideas is in your assumptions about sin being something genetically passed on from generation to generation.
I never said it was genetically passed down.
-
@reformed said:
I think we are all born with sin inherently.
Any evidence (from Scripture or otherwise) for this idea? Where is sin defined as something "inherent" ?
Romans 3:23
??? where does this verse say anything about someone being born with sin inherently?
Where does it say anything about sin being passed down through men (as you indicate next below)?I believe it is passed down through men.
Any evidence (from Scripture or otherwise) that "sin" is a matter of genetics?
Who said anything about genetics?
Perhaps you can then define your use of "passed down" in the context of the above with your claim "we are all born with sin inherently"? What does "inherently" and "passed down" mean to you in such context?
I believe that is why Christ was the only one sinless because he was not born with a sinful nature in his humanity.
From your statement it sounds as if you do not believe that Jesus indeed "has come in the flesh" and was a real human being ?
Not sure how you get that from what I wrote.
I read what you wrote ... and terminology you used clearly indicated such. Perhaps you can clarify how you use certain terms different from their common usage?
And you MUST admit. He was not born as every other human. There was a MAJOR difference.
See my post in which I already detailed the points regarding Jesus' conception in contrast to Jesus' birth. The plain fact that Mary conceived a child is proof that the child is a human being (because women do not conceive any being other than human)
I would think the mistake in your ideas is in your assumptions about sin being something genetically passed on from generation to generation.
I never said it was genetically passed down.
Then, please, tell us how you understand "passed down .... inherently" in this context.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
I think we are all born with sin inherently.
Any evidence (from Scripture or otherwise) for this idea? Where is sin defined as something "inherent" ?
Romans 3:23
??? where does this verse say anything about someone being born with sin inherently?
Where does it say anything about sin being passed down through men (as you indicate next below)?I believe it is passed down through men.
Any evidence (from Scripture or otherwise) that "sin" is a matter of genetics?
Who said anything about genetics?
Perhaps you can then define your use of "passed down" in the context of the above with your claim "we are all born with sin inherently"? What does "inherently" and "passed down" mean to you in such context?
I believe that is why Christ was the only one sinless because he was not born with a sinful nature in his humanity.
From your statement it sounds as if you do not believe that Jesus indeed "has come in the flesh" and was a real human being ?
Not sure how you get that from what I wrote.
I read what you wrote ... and terminology you used clearly indicated such. Perhaps you can clarify how you use certain terms different from their common usage?
And you MUST admit. He was not born as every other human. There was a MAJOR difference.
See my post in which I already detailed the points regarding Jesus' conception in contrast to Jesus' birth. The plain fact that Mary conceived a child is proof that the child is a human being (because women do not conceive any being other than human)
I would think the mistake in your ideas is in your assumptions about sin being something genetically passed on from generation to generation.
I never said it was genetically passed down.
Then, please, tell us how you understand "passed down .... inherently" in this context.
-
your answer ?
Perhaps you can then define your use of "passed down" in the context of the above with your claim "we are all born with sin inherently"? What does "inherently" and "passed down" mean to you in such context?
your answer?
Since the article to which linked at the end of your post actually says what you said you didn't say, it would be appropriate if you would answer questions asked of you in your own words and detail to the question asked, instead of linking to an article which actually supports what I thought you meant and which you then rejected ...I read what you wrote ... and terminology you used clearly indicated such. Perhaps you can clarify how you use certain terms different from their common usage?
your answer ? perhaps you can detail what in the linked article you think provides an answer?
I never said it was genetically passed down.
Then, please, tell us how you understand "passed down .... inherently" in this context.
Sorry, but the linked article does not really answer the questions asked of you .... unless you can perhaps point out the passage in the article which you think answers the question?
By the way, the author of the article mentions the following:
The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). So, if we inherit our sinful nature from our parents, then Jesus, who had Mary as a parent, must have had a sin nature. Right? Not necessarily. I believe that the sin nature is passed down through the father.Do you not recognize that his ideas are mainly assumptions without any evidence or proof? Also, he seems to think that "by nature" in Eph 2:3 actually means something like "by birth", which would contradict the overall teaching of Scripture regarding what "sin" and "to sin" means. He actually notices the fallacy of his assumption about "sin nature passed on" and tries to get out of his trouble by making the next assumption, namely that his "passing on" / "inherited from" only applies to the father (the male parent), again with no proof or evidence given.
-
The Bible constitutes a union of the divine and the human, existing in the nature of Christ as indicated in John 1:14.
I don't have all the answers, but below are a collection of statements from Bible scholars and religious writers over the last hundred years on the "Nature of Christ". Which of the following statements you agree or disagree (indicate at the end of each sentence) and give a brief answer of why:
- Christ came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” and that God “made him to be sin who knew no sin.”
- “Jesus did not commit sin either in word, deed, or thought".
- Jesus not only committed no sin but was without the inherited tendencies to sin common to fallen humanity.”
- “He [Christ] took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin”.
- “our Saviour took humanity with all its liabilities”.
- “In taking upon Himself man’s human nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin”.
- His was the “perfect humanity.”
- Even though He “took our nature in its deteriorated condition,” accepting “the results of the working of the great law of heredity”.
- He did not possess “the passions of our human, fallen natures”.
- He took on “the fallen nature, but not the sinfulness of man.”
- Although “He could have sinned; He could have fallen not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.”
- “He was born without a taint of sin.”
- Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned.
- He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.
- Whatever type of sinful nature Christ had (if He had such), it had no propensity, no natural inclination, tendency, or bent toward evil.
- “I cannot understand how a sinful nature could have no evil propensities unless the sinful nature resulted from the effects of sin in other areas than propensities to evil,” such as “a diminished mental, physical, and moral capacity compared to that of Adam prior to his fall.”
- The Scriptures clearly teach that man is born with a fallen, sinful nature.... [M]an is corrupted both by nature and afterward by practice. Whether or not we call this depraved condition at birth original sin, the point is that from birth, a baby possesses a disposition and bent toward evil ... We all arrive in life with inherited sinful tendencies that make it impossible for us not to sin. This is not to say we inherited guilt, but evil tendencies and inclination. Even if we faced no temptations, we would create them and yield to them in time.
Happy thinking while reflective of the biblical truth. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
your answer ?
Perhaps you can then define your use of "passed down" in the context of the above with your claim "we are all born with sin inherently"? What does "inherently" and "passed down" mean to you in such context?
your answer?
Since the article to which linked at the end of your post actually says what you said you didn't say, it would be appropriate if you would answer questions asked of you in your own words and detail to the question asked, instead of linking to an article which actually supports what I thought you meant and which you then rejected ...I read what you wrote ... and terminology you used clearly indicated such. Perhaps you can clarify how you use certain terms different from their common usage?
your answer ? perhaps you can detail what in the linked article you think provides an answer?
I never said it was genetically passed down.
Then, please, tell us how you understand "passed down .... inherently" in this context.
Sorry, but the linked article does not really answer the questions asked of you .... unless you can perhaps point out the passage in the article which you think answers the question?
By the way, the author of the article mentions the following:
The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). So, if we inherit our sinful nature from our parents, then Jesus, who had Mary as a parent, must have had a sin nature. Right? Not necessarily. I believe that the sin nature is passed down through the father.Do you not recognize that his ideas are mainly assumptions without any evidence or proof? Also, he seems to think that "by nature" in Eph 2:3 actually means something like "by birth", which would contradict the overall teaching of Scripture regarding what "sin" and "to sin" means. He actually notices the fallacy of his assumption about "sin nature passed on" and tries to get out of his trouble by making the next assumption, namely that his "passing on" / "inherited from" only applies to the father (the male parent), again with no proof or evidence given.
How does the article say what I said I did not say?
-
@C_M_ said:
The Bible constitutes a union of the divine and the human, existing in the nature of Christ as indicated in John 1:14.The Bible constitutes NO SUCH THING ... certain - Roman church influenced - theologies propagate such a mythological idea
Which of the following statements you agree or disagree (indicate at the end of each sentence) and give a brief answer of why:
- Christ came “in the likeness of sinful flesh”
cp. Rom 8:3
and that God “made him to be sin who knew no sin.”
God made him to be (the sacrifice for) sin ...
- “Jesus did not commit sin either in word, deed, or thought".
yes
- Jesus not only committed no sin but was without the inherited tendencies to sin common to fallen humanity.”
there are no inherited tendencies to sin
- “He [Christ] took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin”.
no
- “our Saviour took humanity with all its liabilities”.
- “In taking upon Himself man’s human nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin”.
- His was the “perfect humanity.”
- Even though He “took our nature in its deteriorated condition,” accepting “the results of the working of the great law of heredity”.
- He did not possess “the passions of our human, fallen natures”.
- He took on “the fallen nature, but not the sinfulness of man.”
all these "took on" ideas seem based on a false idea about Jesus having already lived as something different before his conception and birth
- Although “He could have sinned; He could have fallen not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.”
yes, Jesus was tempted and could have sinned, but did not fall the temptation but resisted all temptation and remained without sin
- “He was born without a taint of sin.”
He was born innocent as is the case with are all other humans as well ...
- Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned.
yes .... except for a possible wrong understanding of the "took upon" idea
- He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.
He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.
yes- Whatever type of sinful nature Christ had (if He had such), it had no propensity, no natural inclination, tendency, or bent toward evil.
there is no such "sinful nature"
- “I cannot understand how a sinful nature could have no evil propensities unless the sinful nature resulted from the effects of sin in other areas than propensities to evil,” such as “a diminished mental, physical, and moral capacity compared to that of Adam prior to his fall.”
???
- The Scriptures clearly teach that man is born with a fallen, sinful nature.... [M]an is corrupted both by nature and afterward by practice.
No ... Scripture teaches nothing about "man is born with a fallen, sinful nature"; yes ... Scripture teaches that man commits sin ... of course only at an age when man can discern between right and wrong and can thus be held responsible for overstepping or transgressing God's commandments
Whether or not we call this depraved condition at birth original sin, the point is that from birth, a baby possesses a disposition and bent toward evil ...
So you are saying that Adam already possessed a disposition and was bent toward evil ??
We all arrive in life with inherited sinful tendencies that make it impossible for us not to sin.
No ... just because sin has entered into the world with Adam's sin, it has nothing to do with man arriving in life with inherited sinful tendencies making it impossible for us not to sin.
Why was it that Adam "could not" resist the temptation and obey God rather than sin? was it because of sinful tendencies inherent in him? had he inherited such (in other words, had God made him that way) ?This is not to say we inherited guilt, but evil tendencies and inclination. Even if we faced no temptations, we would create them and yield to them in time.
??? seems like non-sensical ideas
Happy thinking while reflective of the biblical truth. CM
I tried to happily think while reflecting on biblical truth which revealed that most of those statements by theologians and writers are not in harmony with Scripture
-
Thanks, Wolfgang for the taking the time to respond to the above statements. I will reflect upon your remarks to one of the statements:
"So you are saying that Adam already possessed a disposition and was bent toward evil" ??
My short answer is NO!
- First, he was warned.
- Adam was made in the "image of God". He was very smart, sharp-minded, healthy body, good environment, and hungry he was not.
- His fall was by choice (Rebellion-- no excuse). If anything, Adam loved the gift (Eve) more than the Giver (God). "When a man loves a woman..."
- It's a mystery under the circumstances.
Until later, I'll think about it more. CM
-
Dave has disappeared on us, (he and Bill went fishing?) but I think he has said something along the line (going way out on a limb here) that Adam had free will before he sinned, then he lost that free will and had a sinful nature--which I think means that he had no free will, but an evil will. The sinful nature is passed down somehow, genetics, environment, evil spirits, magic, or maybe something altogether different, to each descendant. Each descendant has no free will and has a sinful nature.
With deep apologies to Dave who might not recognize what I think he said., but I do think he articulated his perspective better than I have ever understood it before.
I don't know that anyone else here thinks any of this, but it may be of interest.
-
@GaoLu said:
I don't know that anyone else here thinks any of this, but it may be of interest.GaoLu,
It would be unfair to Dave to comment on your recall on what you think Dave said. Until it's confirmed or Dave speaks for himself (regardless of the reason for his break), what do you have to say about the substance of the statements about my collection on the "Nature of Christ"? This would be of greater interest to all, than your sketchy recall of what Dave said. CM -
Must I remind you yet again, that you are not my mother. I referred respectfully to Dave and likely will again.
I offered what I thought had value thanks to Dave. Take it or leave it.
-
@GaoLu said:
Must I remind you yet again, that you are not my mother. I referred respectfully to Dave and likely will again.I offered what I thought had value thanks to Dave. Take it or leave it.
Oh, calm, down, GaoLu!
No one is trying to be your mother. Of all people, not I. You have spoiled a good flow in this thread. What is this thing with you and your mother or mothering? Can we take this mothering thing to a PM or another thread? Because of the recent frequency, one can't help but ask a few questions:
1. Has your mother been replaced?
2. Did someone try to replace her?
3. Are you a child or an adult?
4. Were you deprived or denied access to your mother?Your remarks above is something I hear in schoolyards, among clients in the Foster-care System or out of control teenagers on the street. Trust me, I am not trying to put you down or make fun.
@GaoLu said: "Must I remind you yet again, that you are not my mother".
It's obvious you have some deep-seated fears or concerns of someone trying to replace your mother. I am not being facetious here, but you have to get over this. Rather this is real or one of your distraction tactics, you need to "get a grip."
Please, let's get back to the topic at hand. Let's keep focused, this is not a political topic or thread. Let's talk--another thread or a PM, not here. Thanks. CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
Well, C_M, if that be so, why do you give that impression of a mother needing to give instructions and corrections on how other people should behave on these forums?
Just comment on the topic, on the subject, and refrain from telling people what they ought to be doing, unless of course if it indeed has something directly to do with a particular subject point of a discussion ... such as encouraging someone to compare a certain passage with another, or observe the context of a verse, etc.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
