Bible Study Every Man's Battle: The Way to Win.

[Tenchi]

Sin IS the root cause, sinful behaviors are the symptoms.

No, spiritually unregenerate Self, what Paul called the "old man" (KJV), is the source of all of our sin.

Romans 6:6-7
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

How is the "body of sin done away with"? By the crucifixion of the "old Self." This clearly implies that the source of our sin is the "old Self," the self-willed and selfish person we are apart from God. Form this source arise all the sins we commit.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, spiritually unregenerate Self, what Paul called the "old man" (KJV), is the source of all of our sin.

That "old man" was the fleshly self, born in sin with a sinful nature, Spiritual birth gives a new spiritual nature. I think we're describing the same thing in different terms, what we may not agree on is the concept of original sin, and that means sin is inherent, it's in human nature, embedded in the genome, and it's NOT certain undesired behaviors. If you don't believe in that, just drop it and have a good day, God bless. I don't wanna any more silly frivilous arguments on that.

 

[Tenchi]

That "old man" was the fleshly self, born in sin with a sinful nature, Spiritual birth gives a new spiritual nature. I think we're describing the same thing in different terms, what we may not agree on is the concept of original sin, and that means sin is inherent, it's in human nature, embedded in the genome, and it's NOT certain undesired behaviors. If you don't believe in that, just drop it and have a good day, God bless. I don't wanna any more silly frivilous arguments on that.

I don't know what you mean by "born in sin," but, obviously, no one is born guilty of having committed sin. Nor does God make the son guilty of the sin of his father (or vice versa - Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6). Every person is, because of Adam's sin, separated from God spiritually and this leads to sin, but no one has committed sin in the womb and is, then, born a sinner deserving of God's wrath and punishment.

Yes, the "second birth" reconnects a person spiritually to God, restoring what was lost in Eden.

Sin isn't inherent, like eye color, or the shape of one's nose, or having two legs and two arms, but it is inevitable for a person who is unregulated by God in their desires, thinking and conduct. No one is made by God to live out from under His direct control. When we do, unable to properly regulate ourselves, we grow inordinately selfish, contravening our conscience (the law of God written on our heart) in various ways. This is what makes us guilty of sin.

So, yes, I agree are born with an unregulated nature that moves inevitably toward selfishness and sin - what you call the "sin nature" - but no infant is born guilty of having committed sin.

If you don't want "silly, frivolous arguments" on this matter, the simplest, best way to avoid them is not to make comments in threads that will lead to such arguments.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't know what you mean by "born in sin," but, obviously, no one is born guilty of having committed sin. Nor does God make the son guilty of the sin of his father (or vice versa - Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6). Every person is, because of Adam's sin, separated from God spiritually and this leads to sin, but no one has committed sin in the womb and is, then, born a sinner deserving of God's wrath and punishment.

Yes, the "second birth" reconnects a person spiritually to God, restoring what was lost in Eden.

Sin isn't inherent, like eye color, or the shape of one's nose, or having two legs and two arms, but it is inevitable for a person who is unregulated by God in their desires, thinking and conduct. No one is made by God to live out from under His direct control. When we do, unable to properly regulate ourselves, we grow inordinately selfish, contravening our conscience (the law of God written on our heart) in various ways. This is what makes us guilty of sin.

So, yes, I agree are born with an unregulated nature that moves inevitably toward selfishness and sin - what you call the "sin nature" - but no infant is born guilty of having committed sin.

If you don't want "silly, frivolous arguments" on this matter, the simplest, best way to avoid them is not to make comments in threads that will lead to such arguments.

Your unbelief in Rom. 5:12 is your own. You’re no different than the majority of preachers who never mention anything remotely associated with sin, and you’re under the influence of Nietzsche that human nature is good not evil, and everyone is born as a “blank canvas”. If there’s no original sin, then there’s no need for Jesus who died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). Whatever “theological spin” you come up with to defend your view, keep it to yourself.

 

[Tenchi]

Your unbelief in Rom. 5:12 is your own. You’re no different than the majority of preachers who never mention anything remotely associated with sin, and you’re under the influence of Nietzsche that human nature is good not evil, and everyone is born as a “blank canvas”.

Romans 5:12 (NASB)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

There's nothing in this verse that I don't believe. Through Adam, the human race has been separated spiritually from God such that each of us naturally acts in a God-unregulated way, a selfish way, that leads us inevitably into sin. Adam's sin also introduced death into the world - a death which we all deserve since we all of us, separated from God and His control, eventually sin, too. This is all basic Christian doctrine that Romans 5:12 describes with which I am entirely in agreement. What the verse doesn't say, though, is that there is something called "original sin" making every person guilty of sin right out of the womb.

Regarding your remark that I'm like the "majority of preachers who never mention anything remotely associated with sin," well, that's just silly. Read my posts in the Bible Study forum. Consider my posts on CF.net in general. Or check out my SubStack page (https://jonathanhay.substack.com/). All of these address the matter of sin frequently and directly.

As well, I've never subscribed to the humanistic idea that people are born morally good, nor am I under a Nietzschean influence. Again, anyone who reads my post on CF.net would see this very clearly.

If there’s no original sin, then there’s no need for Jesus who died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). Whatever “theological spin” you come up with to defend your view, keep it to yourself.

??? Your first statement in the quotation above is a giant non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all that, without the mistaken doctrine of original sin, Christ's atoning sacrifice was unnecessary. See above. Spiritually separated from God and His direct control because of Adam's sin, everybody acts selfishly such that they become guilty of sin (if they live long enough to do so). Since this is so, Christ's work at Calvary is entirely necessary.

It's a bit...peculiar for you to put forward your own "theological spin" while commanding others to keep their doctrinal views to themselves. Why should you be free to do the very thing you're forbidding others to do? Perhaps reading Romans 2 would be helpful to you, especially verses 18-24.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

There's nothing in this verse that I don't believe. Through Adam, the human race has been separated spiritually from God such that each of us naturally acts in a God-unregulated way, a selfish way, that leads us inevitably into sin.

That “unregulated way” doesn’t lead to sin, it IS sin. Envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth and wrath are all embedded in human nature, and those lead to all kinds of sinful behaviors. That’s why a sinner must be born again with a new spiritual nature, not just be regulated by law and starting to merely act in a “God regulated” way, you should’ve known this better than I do.

As well, I've never subscribed to the humanistic idea that people are born morally good, nor am I under a Nietzschean influence. Again, anyone who reads my post on CF.net would see this very clearly.

If people are not morally good at birth, then they’re morally evil at birth, hence the original sin. Evil is not of its own entity, it’s the ABSENCE of good, just as dark is the absence of light, cold the absence of heat, vacuum the absence of air. In Hebrew Satan simply means enemy or adversary, the sole purpose, his raison d’etre is to oppose everything that the Almighty God is, to steal, kill and destroy God’s creation. If you deny original sin, then you automatically subscribe to Nietschean teaching that we’re born morally good, because there’s nothing else to fill up the moral vacuum but evil.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

??? Your first statement in the quotation above is a giant non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all that, without the mistaken doctrine of original sin, Christ's atoning sacrifice was unnecessary. See above. Spiritually separated from God and His direct control because of Adam's sin, everybody acts selfishly such that they become guilty of sin (if they live long enough to do so). Since this is so, Christ's work at Calvary is entirely necessary.

You’ve got the wrong causation. Everybody is BORN guilty of Adam’s sin, which then leads to “act selfishly”, not the other way around. Without the sound teaching of original sin, of course Christ's atoning sacrifice was unnecessary, Christ himself said it - “the healthy don’t need a physician, but the sick.” Why would you seek salvation when you don’t know what you must be saved from? Just “selfish acts”? Then you’ve got a whole industry of self-help therapy and personal improvement, why would you need Christ? Oh wait, that’s what Christ has already been degraded to for decades - “moralistic therapeutic deism”, the de facto civil religion in North America! See, I didn’t make this up, no “theological spin” here, that’s the sad reality in most churches.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It's a bit...peculiar for you to put forward your own "theological spin" while commanding others to keep their doctrinal views to themselves. Why should you be free to do the very thing you're forbidding others to do? Perhaps reading Romans 2 would be helpful to you, especially verses 18-24.

Original sin is a well established biblical teaching concluded by renouned church fathers, it's never my own "theological spin". And I didn't call you out for no reason. You've just denied both original sin and Nietzsche's humanism, but what's the third option? "Unregulated self - that leads to sin" - instead of "in sin I was conceived in my mother's womb" and "cursed is the day I was born"? Is that what you come up with? And why does this sound so familiar? Where have I heard it before, hmmm? "If your right hand causes you to sin ..." "If your right eye causes you to sin ..."? And how does Lord Jesus reponded to those?

 

[Tenchi]

That “unregulated way” doesn’t lead to sin, it IS sin.

The Bible nowhere indicates this.

Envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth and wrath are all embedded in human nature, and those lead to all kinds of sinful behaviors.

No, these are all effects, expressions of, God-unregulated human self-interest. No person is guilty of any of these things "right out of the chute," so to speak, which seems entirely obvious to me. A newborn infant has not been envious, greedy, lustful, prideful, slothful or wrathful in the womb.

That’s why a sinner must be born again with a new spiritual nature, not just be regulated by law and starting to merely act in a “God regulated” way, you should’ve known this better than I do.

It seems I do know it better than you do. You just need to read my posts more carefully to see this.

But, since you seem more eager to "grind your axe" than consider what others are saying, let me repeat myself: Not being born a sinner but becoming a sinner does not dissolve the need for a person to be saved from their sin, spiritually-regenerated and empowered to live a godly life by the indwelling Holy Spirit (as opposed to God's law).

If people are not morally good at birth, then they’re morally evil at birth, hence the original sin.

No, this is a false dichotomy. There are more than the two options you present here. A third option is that a person is born innocent of sin but with a God-unregulated, self-interested nature that leads them inevitably into sin (i.e. the sin nature).

Evil is not of its own entity, it’s the ABSENCE of good, just as dark is the absence of light, cold the absence of heat, vacuum the absence of air.

Uh huh.

In Hebrew Satan simply means enemy or adversary, the sole purpose, his raison d’etre is to oppose everything that the Almighty God is, to steal, kill and destroy God’s creation. If you deny original sin, then you automatically subscribe to Nietschean teaching that we’re born morally good, because there’s nothing else to fill up the moral vacuum but evil.

??? This is another false dichotomy. There isn't just deny original sin and live according to Nietzschean/humanistic philosophy or accept original sin and avoid such a condition as one's only options. See above. I can deny your idea of original sin and still affirm (quite biblically) that people are incorrigibly inclined to sin and need a Savior. Doing so doesn't at all put me in the "moral vacuum" you assert.

You’ve got the wrong causation.

No, I don't. You've got a faulty (and unbiblical) idea about the condition in which people are born.

Everybody is BORN guilty of Adam’s sin,

Deuteronomy 24:16
16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin.”

Why would you seek salvation when you don’t know what you must be saved from? Just “selfish acts”?

All sin is at its core just inordinate - which is to say, God-unregulated - self-interest. Every sin a person commits is just a manifestation of this selfishness, which is why God deals with the old Self (Romans 6:6-11), not merely various sins, in freeing His children from sin. And so, "selfish acts" ARE sin, or, better, all sin is God-disobedient selfishness.

Then you’ve got a whole industry of self-help therapy and personal improvement, why would you need Christ?

??? Read Romans 7:15-22. Or Galatians 5:17. Or Romans 8:5-14. Then read Philippians 2:13, 4:13, Ephesians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 3:18. It is, at bottom, from an inordinate interest in serving ourselves that we need to be rescued by God. Without His divine power, we can't help but be selfish such that we disobey His will and pursue our own way. No Self-help therapy can deal with the old Self, the source of all our sin, except the cross of Christ. Read Romans 6:1-6, or Galatians 2:20, or Colossians 2:11-15; 3:3, etc. In freeing us from sin, God didn't deal with each individual sin - greed, lust, wrath, murder, jealousy, etc. - but with our old Self which seeks its own before all else, bringing us into sin as it does.

Oh wait, that’s what Christ has already been degraded to for decades - “moralistic therapeutic deism”,

Ironically, this is, as far as I can tell, the very thing to which you subscribe. If a Christian doesn't know anything about the doctrine of identification, of their union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, of the "crucified life" and what this means to walking with God, then moralism is the typical default position.

Original sin is a well established biblical teaching concluded by renouned church fathers

It doesn't matter much to me what other men have thought about God's Truth. Their renown doesn't establish their views, of course, either (see: the fallacy of an appeal to authority). What matters is what God's word actually says. And when I consider His word, original sin is not present in it.

You've just denied both original sin and Nietzsche's humanism, but what's the third option?

See above.

"Unregulated self - that leads to sin" - instead of "in sin I was conceived in my mother's womb" and "cursed is the day I was born"? Is that what you come up with?

Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

The "in sin" part of this verse is referring to the condition of the Psalmist's MOTHER, not the Psalmist himself, as a newborn baby. The psalmist was "brought forth in iniquity" which is a description, not of the psalmist, but of the nature of his being "brought forth." I take this to mean he was brought forth into a sin-cursed world by sin-guilty people. In any case, this verse offers no ground that I can see for the doctrine of original sin as you've described it: The inheriting the sin-guilt of Adam.