While I now believe in the sinful nature again

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I wrote it above and will write it again. The Greek text in Rom. 8:12 very clearly uses the word "sarks" which is the flesh. Paul never uses "sarkos" when he means old man or sin nature. They are two very different things.

The KJV, ESV, and NASB all use "flesh" in this verse.

Paul uses the term flesh interchangeably to refer to both the body and the old man depending upon the context.

 

[OstrichSmiling]

Ephesians 6:11
"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil."

 

[OstrichSmiling]

Galatians 5

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. "

Crucified=σταυρόω (stauroō)
Strong: G4717

GK: G5090

to fix stakes; later, to crucify, affix to the cross, Mt. 20:19; 23:34; met. to crucify, to mortify, to deaden, to make a sacrifice of, Gal. 5:24; pass. to be cut off from a thing, as by a violent death, to become dead to, Gal. 6:14

 

[Noblemen]

"nature is in the seed" - Mary's virgin birth child came from "her seed" Gen 3:15 therefore, Jesus had the sin nature and was made like us "in every way" Heb 2:17.

What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like our sinful nature, to do away with sin.
Romans 8:3 GNT
https://bible.com/bible/68/rom.8.3.GNT

Women have an egg!! Not a seed. There is no such thing as human nature, they have a nature but nature comes from a source, not originally human being derived. Adam recieved something in his disobedience, he did not create something. It is called the Adamic nature for a reason now, it came from Adams disobedience and nature he recieved. Nature is in the seed, Gen 3:15. The translation you are using? It should read sinful flesh like the original, flesh only referrs to the body in Jesus case. Flesh for believers is "mind given to body." In either case flesh is not nature.
The nature we have now is not human it comes from our Father God, just because we don't walk on water doesn't mean we don't have His nature. His nature is in Christ, again "Christ is in you now the hope of glory" Paul would say.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Women have an egg!! Not a seed. There is no such thing as human nature, they have a nature but nature comes from a source, not originally human being derived. Adam recieved something in his disobedience, he did not create something. It is called the Adamic nature for a reason now, it came from Adams disobedience and nature he recieved. Nature is in the seed, Gen 3:15. The translation you are using? It should read sinful flesh like the original, flesh only referrs to the body in Jesus case. Flesh for believers is "mind given to body." In either case flesh is not nature.
The nature we have now is not human it comes from our Father God, just because we don't walk on water doesn't mean we don't have His nature. His nature is in Christ, again "Christ is in you now the hope of glory" Paul would say.

You can reject Biblical revelation but I won't. It says the Christ will be from "her seed" Gen 3:15, not his father's seed.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Galatians 5

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. "

Crucified=σταυρόω (stauroō)
Strong: G4717

GK: G5090

to fix stakes; later, to crucify, affix to the cross, Mt. 20:19; 23:34; met. to crucify, to mortify, to deaden, to make a sacrifice of, Gal. 5:24; pass. to be cut off from a thing, as by a violent death, to become dead to, Gal. 6:14

That last phrase is volitive. We can choose not to keep in step with the Spirit even though we have the life of the Spirit. Our old man sin nature is still in us ready to take over again.

 

[OstrichSmiling]

1 John 3

8.The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the very start. This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil. 9Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10By this the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother.


1 John 5
4.For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome, 4because everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith. 5Who then overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.


1 John 5
17.All unrighteousness is sin, yet there is sin that does not lead to death. 18We know that anyone born of God does not keep on sinning; the One who was born of God protects him, and the evil one cannot touch him. 19We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.

 

[OstrichSmiling]

You can reject Biblical revelation but I won't. It says the Christ will be from "her seed" Gen 3:15, not his father's seed.

Please! You reject Biblical revelation with regularity.


And the scripture in the original Hebrew was "zera", which translates in the case of human reproduction, "offspring".
◄ 2233. zera ►

 

[OstrichSmiling]

And now DtB is on to renounce the Virgin birth?

The above post is to correct falsehood . Because there are people who do enter Christian forums seeking to learn what Christianity is all about. And how Christians interact.

From this point forward D. believe what you will. Come the judgment only you will answer for your blasphemy.

 

[Chester]

Paul uses the term flesh interchangeably to refer to both the body and the old man depending upon the context.

Obviously you are entitled to your own opinion and that is fine if you want to interpret Paul that way.

I have found in my study that when Paul uses "sarkos" he means sarkos - flesh. When he wants to talk about the spirit reality of our old nature he uses "old man or old nature or old self". Whenever Paul tells the believer to "put off" the old man it is always in the aorist tense which is completed action. A clear example of this is in Eph. 4:22-24. I would enjoy looking at texts with you that talk about this, but I can't right now because of time constraints.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Obviously you are entitled to your own opinion and that is fine if you want to interpret Paul that way.

I have found in my study that when Paul uses "sarkos" he means sarkos - flesh. When he wants to talk about the spirit reality of our old nature he uses "old man or old nature or old self". Whenever Paul tells the believer to "put off" the old man it is always in the aorist tense which is completed action. A clear example of this is in Eph. 4:22-24. I would enjoy looking at texts with you that talk about this, but I can't right now because of time constraints.

It would probably behoove you to research the aorist tense, which is more probably indefinite rather than past/completed action.

When you get time - How do you reconcile your view with Paul's when he says that those who are in the flesh cannot please GOD (e.g., Romans 8:8-9)?

 

[Latour]

Someone who is born of the Spirit has a new divine nature. But there is a law that overcomes this nature...namely the law of sin and death. This doesn't mean we have 2 natures. It means that a new divine nature is not strong enough to overcome the law of sin in our members.

So there is a confusion between what we want to do (our nature) and the forces that be that force us downward which is a law...like gravity.

So how do we overcome the law of sin?

By another higher law....the law of the Spirit which is by the faith of Jesus.

So then the law of the Spirit acts like the law of flight that overcomes the law of sin the way flight overcomes the law of gravity. Does this abolish the law of sin in us? NO. It overcomes it the way a plane can fly beyong the pull of gravity. A plane doesn't abolish gravity...it rises above it.

How do we get this new law?

By abiding IN Christ. Just as I can't fly of myself...because of the law of gravity. ....I need to enter INTO the airplane and overcome through the power of flight that the plane is made to utilize. So likewise we overcome sin by entering INTO Christ...where there is life and peace. IN Christ we can do all things. In Him is the law of the Spirit of life. This is the eternal life....that life that is found in Him.

 

[LW97]

Are you suggesting that says we don't have the sinful nature? If so, you are wrong. Christians still have the sinful nature:

Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, you have no obligation to do what your sinful nature urges you to do.
Romans 8:12 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.8.12.NLT

amen

 

[Noblemen]

And the scripture in the original Hebrew was "zera", which translates in the case of human reproduction, "offspring".
◄ 2233. zera ►

Nice post, Christ having a sin nature just blows me out of the water. I can see where people would confuse this scripture and many others but sometimes if you just sit back and let it roll around a little it will come to you. There are times when common since and discernment go together.

 

[Noblemen]

Obviously you are entitled to your own opinion and that is fine if you want to interpret Paul that way.

I have found in my study that when Paul uses "sarkos" he means sarkos - flesh. When he wants to talk about the spirit reality of our old nature he uses "old man or old nature or old self". Whenever Paul tells the believer to "put off" the old man it is always in the aorist tense which is completed action. A clear example of this is in Eph. 4:22-24. I would enjoy looking at texts with you that talk about this, but I can't right now because of time constraints.

I just wanted to say, good understanding on flesh and nature, right on the money. Nature is absulute, flesh is soulish living, as far as sin goes. There are plenty of things Paul says that not a lot of people realize he is talking directly to them, the born again anyway. Without Paul's revelation understanding we would not know anything about the in Christ message or our complete in Christ.

 

[Chester]

It would probably behoove you to research the aorist tense, which is more probably indefinite rather than past/completed action.

When you get time - How do you reconcile your view with Paul's when he says that those who are in the flesh cannot please GOD (e.g., Romans 8:8-9)?

The aorist tense is completed action or action as a whole (not "indefinite" action). In the indicative mode it is past time action.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The aorist tense is completed action or action as a whole (not "indefinite" action). In the indicative mode it is past time action.

That certainly has been the conclusion of some in the past, but it is untenable. The general consensus now is that it is indefinite. As an example, abolished below is in the aorist, but death has not been abolished yet. The indefinite would be Christ abolishes death, which is true.

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 2 Timothy 1:10​

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That certainly has been the conclusion of some in the past, but it is untenable. The general consensus now is that it is indefinite. As an example, abolished below is in the aorist, but death has not been abolished yet. The indefinite would be Christ abolishes death, which is true.

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 2 Timothy 1:10​

Aorist means indefinite - no horizon.

Origin
Late 16th century: from Greek aoristos ‘indefinite’, from a- ‘not’ + horizein ‘define, limit’.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/aorist

Because the aorist was not maintained in either Latin or the Germanic languages, there have long been difficulties in translating the Greek New Testament into Western languages. The aorist has often been interpreted as making a strong statement about the aspect or even the time of an event, when, in fact, due to its being the unmarked (default) form of the Greek verb, such implications are often left to context. Thus, within New Testament hermeneutics, it is considered an exegetical fallacy to attach undue significance to uses of the aorist.[13] Although one may draw specific implications from an author's use of the imperfective or perfect, no such conclusions can, in general, be drawn from the use of the aorist, which may refer to an action "without specifying whether the action is unique, repeated, ingressive, instantaneous, past, or accomplished."[13] In particular, the aorist does not imply a "once for all" action, as it has commonly been misinterpreted, although it frequently refers to a simple, non-repeated action.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist

 

[preacher4truth]

Obviously you are entitled to your own opinion and that is fine if you want to interpret Paul that way.

I have found in my study that when Paul uses "sarkos" he means sarkos - flesh. When he wants to talk about the spirit reality of our old nature he uses "old man or old nature or old self". Whenever Paul tells the believer to "put off" the old man it is always in the aorist tense which is completed action. A clear example of this is in Eph. 4:22-24. I would enjoy looking at texts with you that talk about this, but I can't right now because of time constraints.

It is of noted interest you use such an extreme view of the aorist tense (which is often abused and used as a theology) when you also peddle the false doctrine of losing salvation (which contradicts your aorist tense argument and theology).

Your hermeneutics are self-contradictory and therefore inconsistent. I've shown you this in the past, how you take verses out of context, but you said showing you this "makes your blood boil." Instead of that callow response, why not, for once, accept that you do make these inconsistencies and arrive at errant beliefs?

 

[OstrichSmiling]

Nice post, Christ having a sin nature just blows me out of the water. I can see where people would confuse this scripture and many others but sometimes if you just sit back and let it roll around a little it will come to you. There are times when common since and discernment go together.

Discernment isn't hard to come by when encountering a blasphemous teaching that insists God is flawed.