Bible Study SO YOU THINK YOU ARE SAVED.

[GodsGrace]

REALLY!!! how can one be a sinner if they have never sinned. You make no sense with this at all. Adam being the first was created by God and was God breathed. Do you think God would create a sinner, no. Even Satan was wonderfully made until sin was found in him. Made wonderfully, then came sin found in them. Do you think God gave all 613 laws before Adam

FHG and Jethro,
I don't mean to change this thread, but after two replies I can't help myself.

This is a theological question which has come up before while I've been here and for which there is no answer, but I'll ask it for your consideration.

Actually, Smaller is right on this.

Before Adam and Eve ate, there was no sin nature in them since they had not eaten yet.
SO, if they didn't have the sin nature yet, WHAT made them eat the forbidden fruit?
No answer necessary - just think about it.

Wondering

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:27 Would you consider that maybe what Paul was talking about when discussing eating the bread and drinking the cup in an unworthy manner was in reference to the ways and actual form, or the etiquette, in the way the first Christians were receiving the Lord body and blood?

Yes, but not in regard to the form itself, but in how that form affected the welfare of others in the church. What matters is how we treat people, not how we conduct our religious ceremonies.

"17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17 NASB)

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't cut my "evil/defiling" thoughts any excuses. They are evil, they are defiling. They are SIN in mind, they are CONDEMNED and they are NOT excused, bypassed and overlooked in my hide, in the Name of Jesus.

When I get them I immediately remind the tempter that the LoF is ever closer on the near horizon. Yes, this I speak to the tempter in MIND. It's an effective reminder.

What you do here, Smaller, works well for those "thought" sins we were talking about earlier.
Thanks for giving the solution.
DON'T talk to the tempter - you'll always lose.
Except if it's to tell him to get out of your way.

W

 

[Jethro Bodine]

SO, if they didn't have the sin nature yet, WHAT made them eat the forbidden fruit?

The desires of the flesh made them eat.

The desires of the flesh are NOT the sin nature. If that were true then Jesus had/has a sin nature. The sin nature, and the new nature, speaks of the underlying wiring, the programming, if you will, that steers and controls how the desires of the flesh are fulfilled.

For example, both humans and dogs have a physical appetite for food. In a dog that means BY NATURE he can, and will, eat his own feces. Because a human is not a dog BY NATURE his appetite for food (which the dog has, too) will not (normally) be fulfilled that way.

So even though we humans and dogs share the identical biological, fleshly desire for food, and other things, that hardly means we are by nature dogs, and dogs are by nature humans. No, it's the fundamental programming of the creature that defines the 'nature' of a creature. In Christ, we become new creations in that we get a new set of programming instructions, a new nature, that steers the exact same fleshly desires we had before (pride, hunger, etc.) in a new direction. For the purpose of this thread that means if one can not be characterized as having a new nature that probably means they don't have that new nature. And for those who really do have the new nature, the reason we don't do that perfectly is not because we still have the old nature, but because we still have the desires of unredeemed flesh nagging us, deceiving us into entertaining the old ways we fulfilled that flesh.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, but not in regard to the form itself, but in how that form affected the welfare of others in the church. What matters is how we treat people, not how we conduct our religious ceremonies.

"17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17 NASB)

Good point.

 

[GodsGrace]

The desires of the flesh made them eat.

The desires of the flesh are NOT the sin nature. If that were true then Jesus had/has a sin nature. The sin nature, and the new nature, speaks of the underlying wiring, the programming, if you will, that steers and controls how the desires of the flesh are fulfilled.

For example, both humans and dogs have a physical appetite for food. In a dog that means BY NATURE he can, and will, eat his own feces. Because a human is not a dog BY NATURE his appetite for food (which the dog has, too) will not (normally) be fulfilled that way.

So even though we humans and dogs share the identical biological, fleshly desire for food, and other things, that hardly means we are by nature dogs, and dogs are by nature humans. No, it's the fundamental programming of the creature that defines the 'nature' of a creature. In Christ, we become new creations in that we get a new set of programming instructions, a new nature, that steers the exact same fleshly desires we had before (pride, hunger, etc.) in a new direction. For the purpose of this thread that means not acting characteristically in accordance with having a new nature means you probably don't have that new nature. The reason we don't do that perfectly is not because we still have the old nature, but because we still have the desires of unredeemed flesh.

The desires of the flesh made them eat -- What desires? They hadn't eaten yet. Where did the desires of the flesh come from? They knew only the good. The knowledge of evil was not in them yet since they had not eaten yet. So WHAT made them eat?

You don't really have to answer Jethro. There is no answer. Actually Smaller has a good idea on this, but it's difficult for me to decide if it's scriptural.

Regarding the sin nature. We could go around this forever. We're not going to change each other's minds. I don't think the way you think of it is going to save you OR cause you to lose your salvation - so how much I'm willing to debate it is questionable.

I will say this. The word "flesh" and "sin nature" (or at least the concept) is sometimes interchangeably used in the N.T. This has me a little confused because it does seem like two different ideas. I'm going to have to study up on this someday. Is the flesh the same as the sin nature???

Of course, YOU believe it's different and thus you could say that the sin nature is dead. Because you'll give the responsibility of sin committed to the flesh.

BUT, if "flesh" and "sin nature" is indeed the same, then you have a problem because where would the sin committed come from if the sin nature is dead?

See. It's important to answer my question.
Wanna give it a shot?

Wondering

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

FHG and Jethro,
I don't mean to change this thread, but after two replies I can't help myself.

This is a theological question which has come up before while I've been here and for which there is no answer, but I'll ask it for your consideration.

Actually, Smaller is right on this.

Before Adam and Eve ate, there was no sin nature in them since they had not eaten yet.
SO, if they didn't have the sin nature yet, WHAT made them eat the forbidden fruit?
No answer necessary - just think about it.

Wondering

The sin nature wasn't the eating of the fruit.
It was the idea that they could be just like God.
The seed was planted, they followed through with the eating of the fruit.

 

[GodsGrace]

because we have so much more to loose

Yes. Chopper explained it to me.
Not quite in the same manner as you did!
Ummm. He mentioned the Lake of Fire...


Wondering

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Yes. Chopper explained it to me.
Not quite in the same manner as you did!
Ummm. He mentioned the Lake of Fire...


Wondering

Don't worry.
You'll never see it.

 

[GodsGrace]

The sin nature wasn't the eating of the fruit.
It was the idea that they could be just like God.
The seed was planted, they followed through with the eating of the fruit.

Rollo
Where did that idea come from if they knew only the good?
Sounds like an evil idea to me. They hadn't eaten yet - but they wanted to be just like God.

W

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The desires of the flesh made them eat -- What desires?

What do you mean what desires???? Were Adam and Eve created without normal human desires?

Where did the desires of the flesh come from? They knew only the good.

Perhaps here's your mistake. You think desire = evil. Hardly true. Peter speaks of 'corrupt' desire. For example, it's okay to want to eat bread. A corruption of that perfectly normal, God-given desire is to want to eat your neighbor's bread. Adam and Eve possessed perfectly normal human desires before they ate of the tree.

Actually Smaller has a good idea on this, but it's difficult for me to decide if it's scriptural.

Actually his is not a good answer at all. Law being for the sinner does not mean what he is saying it means. Even born again, Spirit-filled Christians operate in law! They have it written on their hearts (even if you want to argue it's some kind of 'different' law). So, obviously, the law being for sinner's only does not mean that since you have, or need it, that you are a sinner.

I will say this. The word "flesh" and "sin nature" (or at least the concept) is sometimes interchangeably used in the N.T. This has me a little confused because it does seem like two different ideas. I'm going to have to study up on this someday. Is the flesh the same as the sin nature???

Maybe you didn't read it when you posted but I explained it. The nature of a person can not simply be the flesh itself. If that were true, then we are dogs, and pigs, and goats, etc. by nature, just as they are. It's the underlying programming that steers those similar fleshly desires that defines the 'nature' of a creature. So, 'no', the flesh itself and it's desires is NOT the same as the nature that drives them.

YOU believe it's different and thus you could say that the sin nature is dead.

It HAS to be dead. Besides the fact that Paul said it is, to say it isn't is to say you do not have the Spirit of God in you. He said by virtue of having the Spirit in you, you have a new mind about sin and righteousness. Just think about how you thought before you were saved, and how you now think after being saved. This should be evidence enough that the old nature--the old programming of the creature--is GONE. That doesn't mean we don't sin. It means we sin because we still have fleshly desires (hunger, etc.), not because we still have the old mind and how it corrupted normal human desires.

Because you'll give the responsibility of sin committed to the flesh.

You bet I do. Because that's what Paul said! In Christ, we don't sin from an old nature we don't have anymore. We sin from a flesh body we still have. That's what Paul means when he says, "17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not." (Romans 7:17-18 NASB). Note the distinction between him and his flesh. 'I' is his new nature--the part of him that wants to do good now. He says sin does not come from there. He says it comes from his flesh.

 

[GodsGrace]

Too tired.
I don't think desire=evil
I'm not a weird person.
We're not together on the sin nature/flesh thing.
See Genesis 3:4-6 regarding A & E.
The serpent promised they'd be like God. Why would they want to be like God?
Is that pride, vanity, envy?
What prompted Eve toward the inclination to heed the serpent?

Or do you think she just said, Wow, this fruit looks good, let me eat it.
It does say that it was pleasing to the eye. But sin always looks good, doesn't it?

Tomorrow...

W

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeah. The distinction between the flesh and the sin nature.
Tomorrow...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

See Genesis 3:4-6 regarding A & E.
The serpent promised they'd be like God. Why would they want to be like God?
Is that pride, vanity, envy?
What prompted Eve toward the inclination to heed the serpent?

Or do you think she just said, Wow, this fruit looks good, let me eat it.
It does say that it was pleasing to the eye. But sin always looks good, doesn't it?

Explain to me what is sinful about humans wanting to eat, and wanting to be wise?

"the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6 NASB)

What was sinful was satisfying those normal human desires in a way that God said not to. Satan is the one who deceitfully twisted their natural and normal human desire to eat and be wise into sin. They were naked. Methaphorically speaking, they were not clothed in Christ that they could be protected from the deceits of the enemy.

 

[ezrider]

See Genesis 3:4-6 regarding A & E.
The serpent promised they'd be like God. Why would they want to be like God?
Is that pride, vanity, envy?
What prompted Eve toward the inclination to heed the serpent?

Perhaps she thought that with the fruit of knowledge she could be more desirable or helpful to her husband?

If Christ accepts you for who you are, why then try and obey the law? What becomes your motivation to seek after the knowledge of sin and death?

 

[GodsGrace]

Explain to me what is sinful about humans wanting to eat, and wanting to be wise?

"the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6 NASB)

What was sinful was satisfying those normal human desires in a way that God said not to. Satan is the one who deceitfully twisted their natural and normal human desire to eat and be wise into sin. They were naked. Methaphorically speaking, they were not clothed in Christ that they could be protected from the deceits of the enemy.

This is going to turn into circular reasoning.
So you say there's nothing wrong with wanting to eat and be wise.
But God didn't want humans to be soooo wise that they'd come to know evil. Do not eat of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Till now they only knew good. God didn't want them to be wise, He wanted them to be happy with Him and know only the good.
Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam that if he eats of the tree, he will surely die.

Now satan comes along in Genesis 3:4-5 and tells Eve that they will surely NOT die and they will be like God, knowing good and evil.

So Eve sees that the fruit is pleasing to the eye, desirable for eating and for GAINING WISDOM. The wisdom God did not want them to have - the wisdom of knowing evil.

So satan twisted God's words and convinced Eve to eat. WHAT was it in her that made her be convinced if the sin nature was not in her yet? She did what we all do before salvation: She tended toward the evil.
But we are born with the sin nature and that's what made us tend toward the evil. She didn't have the sin nature YET, so what made HER tend toward the evil?

Some will argue, and rightly so, that disobedience was the sin. No difference - the same argument above would hold true.

Thus the circular argument: The sin nature makes us sin - they didn't have the sin nature so why did they sin - they sinned because they were disobedient (or wanted to be like §God) - but how could this be if the sin nature was not IN them yet - and so on.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Perhaps she thought that with the fruit of knowledge she could be more desirable or helpful to her husband?

If Christ accepts you for who you are, why then try and obey the law? What becomes your motivation to seek after the knowledge of sin and death?

EZ
Watch the road! Your bike is swerving...

Your first pp is legitimate. She could have thought as you say. From scripture it seems like she wanted to be wise, as God was. Okay. She had her reasons for wanting to be wise. It still doesn't make it right - she did something God told her not to do. She tried to do something on her own. You know the story of Ishmael. Genesis 16. It never turns out good. And, in fact, it didn't.

Please explain your second pp. I don't get it. You question why we obey the law, then you say it's seeking after sin and death. Did I misunderstand?

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

What do you mean what desires???? Were Adam and Eve created without normal human desires?

They were created with the normal human desires. Does doing what God told you not to do become part of those human desires?? The problem is not the human desire, the problem is that they disobeyed God. They weren't superhuman, as some would argue, in fact, that would make it even worse. The disobedience, I mean.

Perhaps here's your mistake. You think desire = evil. Hardly true. Peter speaks of 'corrupt' desire. For example, it's okay to want to eat bread. A corruption of that perfectly normal, God-given desire is to want to eat your neighbor's bread. Adam and Eve possessed perfectly normal human desires before they ate of the tree.

I agree.
But you say "they possessed perfectly normal human desires BEFORE they ate".
Which brings back my question: Then WHY did they eat if their desires were "normal" but they disobeyed God. The disobedience is the sin, NOT the eating of a fruit.

Actually his is not a good answer at all. Law being for the sinner does not mean what he is saying it means. Even born again, Spirit-filled Christians operate in law! They have it written on their hearts (even if you want to argue it's some kind of 'different' law). So, obviously, the law being for sinner's only does not mean that since you have, or need it, that you are a sinner.

I was saying that Smaller had an answer for this dillema. IF God told them not to eat and satan IMMEDIATELY entered into their thoughts, heart, flesh, whatever - it would explain WHY they ate. But, as I said, this has problems too. It would, I think, make satan equal with God. It's not in the writings and so I can't go with this thought as of right now. (although it WOULD be an answer).

Maybe you didn't read it when you posted but I explained it. The nature of a person can not simply be the flesh itself. If that were true, then we are dogs, and pigs, and goats, etc. by nature, just as they are. It's the underlying programming that steers those similar fleshly desires that defines the 'nature' of a creature. So, 'no', the flesh itself and it's desires is NOT the same as the nature that drives them.

Jethro, I really get what you mean by this. You had explained it. I'm just saying it's important to know if "flesh" and "sin nature" is the same thing. I've never had to argue this before because I've never heard before that the sin nature is dead, as you believe. So it makes me have to look into things I've never had to before. I repeat, even to clear it in my mind: If they're two separate things then you could be right because there would be an explanation for sin AFTER salvation. If it's all one thing, then I still have a problem with your understanding of the sin nature. Thing is, many times in the N.T. Paul uses the terms interchangeably. Have you ever done a study on this? If you have, could you post some scripture? A shortcut would be to just google it, but I really don't like that method. I guess it's the same as reading different ideas... we'll see.

It HAS to be dead. Besides the fact that Paul said it is, to say it isn't is to say you do not have the Spirit of God in you. He said by virtue of having the Spirit in you, you have a new mind about sin and righteousness. Just think about how you thought before you were saved, and how you now think after being saved. This should be evidence enough that the old nature--the old programming of the creature--is GONE. That doesn't mean we don't sin. It means we sin because we still have fleshly desires (hunger, etc.), not because we still have the old mind and how it corrupted normal human desires.

See. You're talking about "fleshy desires". Right now I understand that the sin nature is put under submission by the Holy Spirit indwelling in you. You're saying the H.S. can't be in you together with the sin nature. I'd say that the H. S. can't dwell with satan's nature, but that would be possession. The sin nature is what makes us TEND, or lean, toward evil. It's not THE evil. See?

You bet I do. Because that's what Paul said! In Christ, we don't sin from an old nature we don't have anymore. We sin from a flesh body we still have. That's what Paul means when he says, "17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not." (Romans 7:17-18 NASB). Note the distinction between him and his flesh. 'I' is his new nature--the part of him that wants to do good now. He says sin does not come from there. He says it comes from his flesh.

The "flesh" again. I guess I'm going to have to take some time tomorrow (not today) and really do some studying on this. From what I know right now, we still have the sin nature. But let's see.

Wondering

 

[Jethro Bodine]

She didn't have the sin nature YET, so what made HER tend toward the evil?

She was unclothed.

Thus the circular argument: The sin nature makes us sin - they didn't have the sin nature so why did they sin - they sinned because they were disobedient (or wanted to be like §God) - but how could this be if the sin nature was not IN them yet - and so on.

Why do you think Adam and Eve had to have a sin nature to sin? Do you have to have the nature of a dog to bark like a dog? Of course not. The difference between you barking like a dog, and a dog barking is, you don't do that by the very nature of who and what you are. A dog does. That's why I have to say you barking LIKE a dog. You are not by nature a dog. You can only be like a dog.

So because it is the nature of a dog to bark he has no choice but to do that. Likewise with us in regard to sin. Because of a change of nature we don't have to sin. We still can, but we don't have to by nature anymore. Our old nature was that we DID have to sin, like a dog has to bark. God turned us over to that so that sin would be our very nature. Are you still in that nature, or do you agree with Paul that we are no longer slaves to sin in that we HAVE to sin, like a dog has to bark?

Adam and Eve, after they sinned, DID have to sin as a matter of who and what they were, because God turned them over to that. In Christ, that nature is removed and replaced with a new nature--the nature of Christ's righteousness--a nature that doesn't have to bark....I mean....sin. The sinful nature was not that Adam and Eve were capable of sin. The sinful nature was sin becoming the very characteristic and definition of who they were and what they did--like how barking defines a dog. I'm thinking you're not getting this because you still can't distinguish between what a creature can do, and what that creature does because it is in the nature of that creature to do so.

 

[Chopper]

I have found 50 or so commandments of Christ in the NT. there are several list of these around and some books written on the subject.
Here is A LIST for consideration.

49 General Commands of Christ
1. Repent Matthew 4:17
2. Follow Me Matthew 4:19
3. Rejoice Matthew 5:12
4. Let Your Light Shine Matthew 5:16
5. Honor God’s Law Matthew 5:17–18
6. Be Reconciled Matthew 5:24–25
7. Do Not Lust Matthew 5:29–30
8. Keep Your Word Matthew 5:37
9. Go the Second Mile Matthew 5:38–42
10. Love Your Enemies Matthew 5:44
11. Be Perfect Matthew 5:48
12. Practice Secret Disciplines Matthew 6:1–18
13. Lay Up Treasures Matthew 6:19–21
14. Seek God’s Kingdom Matthew 6:33
15. Judge Not Matthew 7:1
16. Do Not Cast Pearls Matthew 7:6
17. Ask, Seek, Knock. Matthew 7:7–8
18. Do unto Others Matthew 7:12
19. Choose the Narrow Way Matthew 7:13–14
20. Beware of False Prophets Matthew 7:15
21. Pray for Laborers Matthew 9:38
22. Be Wise as Serpents Matthew 10:16
23. Fear Not Matthew 10:28
24. Hear God’s Voice Matthew 11:15
25. Take My Yoke Matthew 11:29
26. Honor Your Parents Matthew 15:4
27. Beware of Leaven Matthew 16:6
28. Deny Yourself Luke 9:23
29. Despise Not Little Ones Matthew 18:10
30. Go to Offenders Matthew 18:15
31. Beware of Covetousness Luke 12:15
32. Forgive Offenders Matthew 18:21–22
33. Honor Marriage Matthew 19:6
34. Be a Servant Matthew 20:26–28
35. Be a House of Prayer Matthew 21:13
36. Ask in Faith Matthew 21:21–22
37. Bring in the Poor Luke 14:12–14
38. Render to Caesar Matthew 22:19–21
39. Love the Lord Matthew 22:37–38
40. Love Your Neighbor Matthew 22:39
41. Await My Return Matthew 24:42–44
42. Take, Eat, and Drink Matthew 26:26–27
43. Be Not Troubled John 14:1
44. Keep My Commandments John 14:15
45. Watch and Pray Matthew 26:41
46. Feed My Sheep John 21:15–16
47. Baptize My Disciples Matthew 28:19
48. Receive God’s Power Luke 24:49
49. Make Disciples Matthew 28:20

How many do you know? How many do you keep? Where do we stand NOW??

Yes I have written on this too. This is just a lot of work compiling commentary and comments on what each of there mean.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Z0DRhItk-OJydChjLpsCiVgXRk0nFDxnJrrgRTfRr0/

Wow Steven, thank you so very much. I was thinking of a list and you provided it. That's a lot of work as you say. I hope everyone reads it. Jesus says, if you love me keep my commands.