What is sin?

I hope no one minds me starting a new thread...It seems that the "Must we sin?" thread turned into this.I think that for us to say that we can or can't be without sin we have to define sin. I think that is why some say you can/can't sin is because they both have a different idea of sin.

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.Jam 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

I think this is one of the items which resurfaces from time to time. The division of opinion is often on the question of Sin or sins. Individual transgressions of 'law' may be defined as sins but what is this Sin that Paul refers to in Rom 5:12 which entered the world at the time of Adam's first sin?My own personal definition (imperfect and partial, I know) is that "Faith is right response to revelation and sin is wrong response to revelation." “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17, KJVS)“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17, KJVS)

Hmmm.. I've never made a distinction of 'sins' and 'sin.' Can you give some more thought on this? This is a new idea to me. Thanks.

preachparsley's Hmmm.. I've never made a distinction of 'sins' and 'sin.' Can you give some more thought on this? This is a new idea to me. This is a fairly common distinction that evangelicals have made for a hundred years or so... but in essence it is a way of explaining what Paul is referring to in Romans 5. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”(Rom. 5:12, KJVS) You see we are back to this topic again. ;-) but I am glad to have another opportunity of working through it. From Rom 5:12 and for most of the rest of the next couple of chapters Paul refers to sin in a very different way to anything found elsewhere in the Bible; he personifies it. Before this point in Romans he generally has in mind 'sin' as the transgression of law. He uses the language of 'measurement', reckoned etc but when he arrives at Rom 5:12 Sin has become an entity and behaves with 'personality' characteristics. egSin enters the world...Rom 5:12 (through the open door of Adam's transgression.It reigns... Rom 5:21It has 'bondslaves's - us! Rom 6:6 but this has now changed Rom 6:17, 6:20,22It must not be allowed to 'reign' in the Christian Rom 6:12We must not surrender our 'weapons' to it Rom 6:13It must no longer be 'lord' (have dominion) Rom 6:14It must no longer be obeyed Rom 6:16Christians have been released from it and have become slaves to righteousness Rom 6:18It pays wages! Rom 6:23I won't go on into the next chapters but the point is that rather than sin being a 'mark' on a card against us, it appears here as a tyrant on a throne, and its co-regent is death.Have you ever read anything of Arthur Custance? I have often had his work recommended to me but have never really read it. Today, googling, I came across what looks like a pretty thorough examination of the topic The difference between "Sin" and "sins".It's quite a long read but if the concept is new to you it will make good 'homework reading' for you.

This is the greatest definition in the Bible for sin. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17, KJVS)These companion verses show what, "to him it is sin" means. John 16:7-9 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on Me;This is sin that leads to death, "Of sin, because they believe not on Me;" In Christ the Sin of the world has been overcome and we become like Him in this world. 1Jo 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as He is, so are we in this world. 1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith. The sins of the Flesh are not the Sin of the World. Sins of the Flesh were taken care of at the Cross and repentance in our salvation and confession in our sins takes care of them. The Sin of the world is overcome by believing in Christ Jesus unto salvation, all else comes after new birth, because we then have the Faith of Jesus Christ in us that has overcome the world and we then can be forgiven of our sins, for, "God is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."Sin and sins, forgiveness of Sin unto salvation by believing In Christ Jesus. Sins overcome by the faith of the Son of God that is in us unto good works and fruit that overcomes the world. Jhn 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."In Me", this is our life, our overcoming, and our Glory. Colossians 1:27-28 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:For it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.In Christ: Phillip

It was somewhat of a long read, but there were many tables that made it look longer than what it really was. I'm not really sure why he threw the Calvinist doctrine of "Limited Atonement" in there at the end but that is beside the matter. So according to this view, would it be safe to say that we are born in 'sin' but we then choose to commit 'sins' and that is our personal rebellion against God? I have heard some about "propensity" but this was interesting and at first thought seems to be a Biblical truth. As he noted there are occasions that 'sin' is referring to 'an offense' instead of 'disease,' so that surely makes me want to study this more. Do you know of some others that hold this view that would have writings I could look at?Here is a quote for those who may not want to read the whole thing: Just to make sure that my meaning is understood, since we are really setting the stage for all that follows, I should like to reiterate what is said above in slightly different terms. Not only is physical death now the appointed experience of all men in Adam (I Cor. 15:22), but all men are active sinners. Romans 3:23 has it, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." But in writing to the Roman Christians, Paul makes it very clear that though all men inherit Adam's disease, Adam's sin, they do not imitate his particular sins. They have inherited his final mortal state but their transgressions are not a "similitude" of his (Rom. 5:14). Nor is Adam's particular form of transgression imputed to his descendants, though his acquired disease is inherited by them to become a root which bears fruit in their lives. As a result they stand equally under the sentence of spiritual death by their own disobedience to the law of God, as they do under the sentence of physical death. The penalty of spiritual death is shared because each man has sinned personally not merely because Adam sinned. Each individual comes under sentence of spiritual death for his own sins.

Christinyou'sThis is the greatest definition in the Bible for sin. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17, KJVS) Weymouth's paraphrase has “If, however, a man knows what it is right to do and yet does not do it, he commits a sin.”(James 4:17, WEYMTH) Weymouth is picking up the fact that we are not talking about 'sin' generically but individually. There is no definite article attached to 'sin' here which means we could equally translate this "he commits a sin"; which is why Weymouth has paraphrased it as he has.Biblically 'sins' are dealt with by forgiveness and the one who committed the 'sin' is justified. SIN as the inward dynamic which entered the human race at the time of Adam's sin has to be dealt with by regeneration.The Custance article hyperlinked alleges that all uses of 'sin' in the singular in the NT are really referring to 'Sin'. I think he may be right; I haven't checked all the references.In Christ the Sin of the world has been overcome and we become like Him in this world. 1Jo 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as He is, so are we in this world. 1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith. The sins of the Flesh are not the Sin of the World. Sins of the Flesh were taken care of at the Cross and repentance in our salvation and confession in our sins takes care of them. The Sin of the world is overcome by believing in Christ Jesus unto salvation, all else comes after new birth, because we then have the Faith of Jesus Christ in us that has overcome the world and we then can be forgiven of our sins, for, "God is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I am struggling with this section. I think you are distinguishing between 'Sin' and 'sins'. I am not sure what you think the 'sin of the world' is. As far as I am aware the scripture does not speak of our 'overcoming the Sin of the world'. On the contrary, it tells us that Christ 'carried away the Sin of the world'. This is not 'overcoming' but substitutionary atonement' as typified in the sin-bearing goat which carried the sins of the people away into the wilderness. I would like to see a simple statement like "the sin of the world is....". Can you crystalize what you are saying into such a sentence?

Preachparsley's So according to this view, would it be safe to say that we are born in 'sin' but we then choose to commit 'sins' and that is our personal rebellion against God? I have heard some about "propensity" but this was interesting and at first thought seems to be a Biblical truth. As he noted there are occasions that 'sin' is referring to 'an offense' instead of 'disease,' so that surely makes me want to study this more. Do you know of some others that hold this view that would have writings I could look at? As I said earlier I had not read Custance on this until today. The person who put me onto him is someone with whom I have had many hours of discussion and I guessed he thought Custance and myself were seeing things in the same light. So I find this particular document very encouraging. I spend quite a bit of my time 'out on a limb' and from time to time it is encouraging to find other folk out there too. :-) I haven't gone through the whole of his piece but I find a great degree of agreement in the way he is expressing things. I don't know of any one who would express it quite like this, except me! :-? I will do some googling and see what I can find.

The Custance article seems to advocate that the spirit of man is alive and just in a process of being corrupted and the death the Lord talked to Adam about was a literal dieing of the human body. I'll need to re-read it again but I'm not at all sure that I totally agree with that position. I read through it rather fast and will for the next 2 weeks be out of town so I'll have more quality quiet time to read this again. It is an interesting topic though and one in which I'll be very much interested in reading through the thread when I return.

I read through it rather fast Me too. I need to re-read it.btw preachparsley, you asked for more to read. Thomas Cook's famous 'New Testament Holiness' has this passage Depravity as such is not always seen in the outer life, but it is manifest to the painful consciousness of the believer. When he would do good evil is present with him. The strong man is bound, but not being cast out, he makes desperate efforts to burst his bonds and reassert his supremacy in the household. The evil within may be kept iii subjection, but the struggle is often so severe and protracted that ever and anon the bitter cry is extorted, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"The penitent convicted of his sins seeks Divine forgiveness. The believer convicted of the depravity of his nature sighs for inward purity. The one inquires, How can the sins which are past be forgiven? the other asks. How can I be cleansed from conscious impurity? We are guilty for what we have done, but we were depraved before we were responsible for our doing. The existence of both original and actual sin has always been accepted by the Christian Church as a Scriptural doctrine.It is because sin exists in this twofold character, as an act and as a state, that salvation assumes a twofold aspect, or is applied in two forms. For guilt there is forgiveness, for depravity there is cleansing. Forgiveness is complete forgiveness, but forgiveness can only extend to actual transgression. A mother puts upon her child a clean pinafore, and says, "Now, this must not be soiled ." But the child disobeys. The mother may forgive the child for her disobedience, but she cannot forgive the pinafore clean; she must wash it. So God may forgive the wrong we do, but He cannot forgive a depraved heart. Depravity is removed by purgation or cleansing. This is in perfect harmony with the Scriptures. Zechariah represents the fountain of Atonement as opened to meet this double need -- pardon for sin (guilt), and the purity for uncleanness (depravity). St. John's teaching is exactly the same. "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (guilt), and to cleanse us all from all unrighteousness (depravity). And with this view the hymn is in exact accord:--Let the water and the blood,From Thy wounded side which flowed,Be of sin the double cure,Save from wrath, and make me pure.This twofold provision for the two forms in which sin exists runs all through the Scriptures. It was typified in the history of God's ancient Israel when they crossed the Red Sea and the Jordan in leaving Egypt and entering Canaan. We enter the holy place by regeneration, but let us not forget that, after the second veil is the tabernacle which is called the "Holy of Holies" (Heb.ix. 3).My remedy would be expressed differently to Cook but we share the diagnosis!

He did go into some scientific stuff talking about how he felt 'sin' was passed on physically. From what I understood of him is that he was saying that when a child is born he/she has 'sin' or going to die, the body will physically decay, and has a propensity to sin. Then when the child gets to the age that he/she can make a moral decision will inevitably commit 'sins' at this time. I may have been reading other theories into it but that is what I remember of it.

The sin of the world is every sin from Adam to the last sin committed at the end of the 1000 years and all wrong against God inbetween. This is what Christ did on the Cross, He took all sin upon Himself and His sacrifice made all sin, past, present, and future to disappear from the Eyes and Heart of God to those that would believe in Jesus Christ as the only begotten of the Father. Jesus is continually putting the propitiation of His Credentials of His Cross and sacrifice for the sin of the world, that it is the daily office of Christ to take away our sin, by presenting to the Father the memorials of his death. Christ takes away from all believers the guilt and punishment of their sins, the filth and pollution of them, the power and dominion that is in them: Sin permeates our Members (Rom. 7:23). Sin makes law ineffective (Rom. 8:3). When Law came, Law made sin effective and visible. Without the Law there is no sin. Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the written law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: There is no excuse for sin, even those without the written Law make the Law viable and true in themselves. "Sin"Our personal sins are separate, but from, the sin that Christ put death to on the Cross. The working out of our own salvation with fear and trembling is our own works of repentance of our individual sins that are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit because of the separation imparted by our sins and works of repentance bring us by revelation to the mind of Christ, thus fellowship with the Father once again. Thus our forgiveness in confession of sin by agreeing with God that in the revealing by the Holy Spirit we must repent and become the son's of God of whom we truly are by the Christ in us whose Mind is now ours.In Christ: Phillip

ChristinyouYour view has some serious implications. The sin of the world is every sin from Adam to the last sin committed at the end of the 1000 years and all wrong against God inbetween.Our personal sins are separate, but from, the sin that Christ put death to on the Cross.I think you are saying that our personal sins are not part of the 'sin of the world'? This is a view that I have never heard previously. You seem to be saying that God's distinguishes between the world's sin and the Christian's sin.Jesus is continually putting the propitiation of His Credentials of His Cross and sacrifice for the sin of the world, that it is the daily office of Christ to take away our sin, by presenting to the Father the memorials of his death.This is only a hair's breadth from the Catholic notion of a sacrifice that needs to be offered continually. Where do you get the idea of a 'daily office of Christ to take away our sin'?Heb. 10:10 (KJVS) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb. 10:14 (KJVS) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb. 10:18 (KJVS) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. You view of a 'daily office' is really little more than a modification of the Catholic view in the 'offering of the mass'. There is no 'daily office'. There was a 'once for all' offering which requires no repetition and no 'daily memorial'. John's first letter makes this very plain:“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”(1John 2:1-2, KJVS)The death of Christ needs no memorial. I really can't think what the phrase "the propitiation of His Credentials of His Cross and sacrifice for the sin of the world" might mean. Propitiation is the price paid. In the presence of God there stands one who 'is' the Propitiation; the price paid. All forgiveness of sin, whether of 'the world' or 'the saint' is based on exactly the same ground.1John 4:10 (KJVS) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1Tim. 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. No memorial, nor daily office, could have any additional efficacy. The statement of Christ being 'the propitiation' is fundamental to Christian teaching“whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;”(Rom. 3:25, ASV) That verb 'set forth' is in the Aorist: he did set forth. The Propitiation is an historical fact. Nothing that we (or God) can do will alter it in any way; it is finished. The language of I John is not intended to convey any 'memorial' or 'daily office' but is a simple way of saying our acceptance with God, then-now-always, is on the basis of a propitiatory sacrifice that was completed 'once for all'.

Or in other words, "It is finished !"P.S. The idea of continual propitiation is also a Seventh Day Adventist heresy.

freecd's "Paris Reidhead" "A sinner is a person who has committed himself to the purpose and practice of pleasing himself without due and proper regard for the interest of God and the rights of others."Now we are going to have to define 'sinner'. :-) Does a 'single' sin make a man a sinner? Or is being a 'sinner' something which we are born with?We first discussed 'Paris Reidhead's views on 'original sin' way back in August 2003! Here is the archive.

Philo,In the difference between 'sin' and 'sins', would you say that 'sin' is a dispostion, and that 'sins' are offenses?

Freecd,How do you interpretRom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.?

hi, sin is everything we see in ourselves when we are in the prescence of the thrice holy God. jimp

freecd's Does a 'single' sin make a man a sinner? Yes!!!Is being a 'sinner' something which we are born with? NO!! This is unbiblical.I have to admit that I knew you believed this but felt it was important to make it clear in the public discussion. You are in good company of course, George Fox, Charles Finney, Winkie Pratney, Paris Reidhead, Roger Forster... all believed as you do.In the 'blue corner' we have Tertullian, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Whitfield, Oswald Chambers, A W Tozer, MacArthur and another group of godly men.I am not one to put a great store in tradition but the 'orthodox' view has been so settled for so many years that Wesley's comment 'that those who believe in it are no better than pagans' is understandable.OK, we can continue to discuss but the gulf is very wide.

Sin is disobediance to God that is born out of knowledge.

Perhaps because I am unfamiliar with the exact termonology of some of the well established belifes and srciptual interpitations this come as a shock to me. (continual propitiation?) I supose that I have known for somtime that people thought this way. I just never knew the precise term that discribed it. When I began to read up on this concept,I felt like I was geting sick(I'm not just saying this, I realy did) so, is this how people are able to claim a holy life dispite how they actualy live? WOW!

freecd's Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.???Look closely at this verse. If Adam's sin made all of mankind sinners then Christ's obedience made all righteous. The words are exactly the same. What is true of Adam must also be true of Christ; there is no other possibility. If you believe that Adam's sin made others sinful, then you have to believe that Christ made others righteous. It might if there were no difference between 'were' and 'shall'. In the first instance 'were made' the word is "kathistEmi in the Aorist tense. The Aorist is often referred to as a punctiliar tense; a completed action rather than one linked to a process. The sense is carried in Youngs Literal Translation as "through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners:" This links the 'being made sinners' with the one act of disobedience.In the second instance 'shall be made' (not 'made' as you quoted it) is "kathistEmi", this is the future tense. So now that we have straightened out the tenses how about your charge that this is 'universalism'? The 'old man' has an identity, a history and a future. The 'new man' too has an identity, a history and a future. The entire human race, is by first birth, "in Adam" and we know that “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”(1Cor. 15:22, KJVS) "in Adam" is to be subject to the Death which entered into Adam as a result of his disobedience. Regeneration takes a man out of Adam and puts him 'in Christ'. 'in Christ' and ONLY 'in Christ' shall all be made alive. To say that all those 'in Christ' will be made righteous is 'pure universalism' is 'pure nonsense'. Youngs Literal Translation is informative too:“for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.”(Rom. 5:19, YNG)I don't see how you can come to the conclusions you do if you put the verse back into its context:“for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one — Jesus Christ. So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of ‘Righteous’ [it is] to all men to justification of life; for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.”(Rom. 5:17-19, YNG)Paul says quite plainly here that 'through the trespass of 'the one' (ie Adam) 'death reigned'. This reign of 'sin and death' began with Adam's first trespass, "sin entered, and death through sin". Adam is said earlier in Rom 5:14 to be a 'type' of him that was to come. In what sense? Christ is the head of the race of the 'new man', Adam was the head of the race of the 'old man'. Have you counted the times in this passage that Paul refers to 'the one'? The human race is what it is, constitutionally, as a result of 'the one' and his 'one offence'. The 'new man' is what it is, constitutionally, in Christ.Many years ago I was trying to understand the Greek word regeneration and was trying to find an illustration to share with some young people. The Greek word is 'palingenesis' and I was looking through an English dictionary for the prefix 'palin'. Not being a biologist I was amazed to find that the word 'palingenesis' is in my ordinary English dictionary. It is the word used by biologists to explain a disputed feature of 'evolutionary development'. (I won't go into that I just wanted the word) I came across this fascinating definitionpalingenesis |?palin?jen?sis| |?pøl?n?d??n?s?s| |?pal?n?d??n?s?s|noun1 Biology the exact reproduction of ancestral characteristics in ontogenesis.2 rebirth or regeneration.That is exactly what regeneration is in spiritual terms; an exact reproduction of ancestral characteristics. By first birth, my 'ancestral characteristics' was a nature at variance with the will of God. 'Adam' had been 'exactly reproduced' in me. BUT by the miracle of regeneration I have received a 'new heredity' and Christ reproduced 'in me' has worked an exact reproduction of ancestral characteristics. In me, by his grace, the 'shall be made' has already begun. Adam is a 'type' of Christ. I was 'in Adam' not I am 'in Christ'. It is true that we will all physically die as a result of Adam's sin, but our own free will is what determines our eternal destiny. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise?

Steve Hill said that sin is anything that Jesus wouldn't do. I can dig that. Is it just me, or is there anyone else in here who has a hard time trusting ppl who seem to go on, and on, and on, using so many WORDS.....?Keeping it REALand like a child.abbie

"For without the law sin was dead"Sin is disobediance to God born out of knowledge.Quote: abbiegrrlIs it just me, or is there anyone else in here who has a hard time trusting ppl who seem to go on, and on, and on, using so many WORDS.....?Well it's not that I don't trust them, it's that I don't understand them half the time. Sometimes it's necessary to use a lot of words, but I agree that whenever possible keep it simple.

Ron B. wrote:"No memorial, nor daily office, could have any additional efficacy." It is not His daily office but my appropriation of His Cross daily, and my death daily. His work is finished and needs no further accomplishments for salvation. Every morning I wake my finite mind must remind myself that I have the mind of Christ and I must needs be daily in His life that is in me.If I made anybody think that The Work of Christ on the Cross was not complete, please forgive me.In Christ: Phillip

Is it just me, or is there anyone else in here who has a hard time trusting ppl who seem to go on, and on, and on, using so many WORDS.....?The opposite would be that instead of slowing down and reading through things there is a penchant to jump to conclusions and off the cuff sentiments.

freecdI'm not sure that the market place (forum) is the best place to dissect Winkie Pratney's views but here are a few comments.Every word in this passage (with the possible exception of v.17) where "death" is mentioned is manifestly temporal, or physical, and not spiritual death. How does this square with the introducing of the topic of death in “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”(Rom. 5:12, KJVS) Prior to this point there has been no mention of death other than in Rom. 1:32; 5:10 which are clearly not part of this topic. Paul introduces the topic by refering to 'the death' which entered through 'the sin' which entered through 'one man'. The use of the definite article in this way is used previously in “‘Verily, verily, I say to you — He who is hearing my word, and is believing Him who sent me, hath life age-during, and to judgment he doth not come, but hath passed out of the death to the life.” (John 5:24, YNG) (this is a helpful feature of Youngs Literal Translation and if you have the appropriate software you can search 'Youngs' for 'the death' and see how it plays.) The reason I have quoted John's use is because there can be little doubt that this reference is not to physical death.Paul's use of 'the death' is significant: Rom. 5:10 (YNG) for if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. Rom. 5:12 (YNG) because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; Rom. 5:14 (YNG) but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a type of him who is coming. Rom. 5:17 (YNG) for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one — Jesus Christ. Rom. 5:21 (YNG) that even as the sin did reign in the death, so also the grace may reign, through righteousness, to life age-during, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6:4 (YNG) we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk. Rom. 7:5 (YNG) for when we were in the flesh, the passions of the sins, that [are] through the law, were working in our members, to bear fruit to the death; Rom. 8:2 (YNG) for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death; Paul is using the phrase 'the death' is the way we might say 'death with a capital D'. We discover from these references that one of the most frequent statements here is that 'the death' (Death with a capital D) reigns. It's familiar companion is 'the sin' Rom. 5:12 (YNG) because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; Rom. 5:20 (YNG) And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound, Rom. 5:21 (YNG) that even as the sin did reign in the death, so also the grace may reign, through righteousness, to life age-during, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6:1 (YNG) ¶ What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound? Rom. 6:2 (YNG) let it not be! we who died to the sin — how shall we still live in it? Rom. 6:6 (YNG) this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin; Rom. 6:7 (YNG) for he who hath died hath been set free from the sin. Rom. 6:10 (YNG) for in that he died, to the sin he died once, and in that he liveth, he liveth to God; Rom. 6:11 (YNG) so also ye, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to the sin, and living to God in Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6:12 (YNG) Let not then the sin reign in your mortal body, to obey it in its desires; Rom. 6:13 (YNG) neither present ye your members instruments of unrighteousness to the sin, but present yourselves to God as living out of the dead, and your members instruments of righteousness to God; Rom. 6:17 (YNG) and thanks to God, that ye were servants of the sin, and — were obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which ye were delivered up; Rom. 6:18 (YNG) and having been freed from the sin, ye became servants to the righteousness. Rom. 6:20 (YNG) for when ye were servants of the sin, ye were free from the righteousness, Rom. 6:22 (YNG) And now, having been freed from the sin, and having become servants to God, ye have your fruit — to sanctification, and the end life age-during; Rom. 6:23 (YNG) for the wages of the sin [is] death, and the gift of God [is] life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 7:7 (YNG) ¶ What, then, shall we say? the law [is] sin? let it not be! but the sin I did not know except through law, for also the covetousness I had not known if the law had not said: Rom. 7:8 (YNG) ‘Thou shalt not covet;’ and the sin having received an opportunity, through the command, did work in me all covetousness — for apart from law sin is dead. Rom. 7:9 (YNG) And I was alive apart from law once, and the command having come, the sin revived, and I died; Rom. 7:11 (YNG) for the sin, having received an opportunity, through the command, did deceive me, and through it did slay [me]; Rom. 7:13 (YNG) That which is good then, to me hath it become death? let it not be! but the sin, that it might appear sin, through the good, working death to me, that the sin might become exceeding sinful through the command, Rom. 7:14 (YNG) ¶ for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by the sin; Rom. 7:17 (YNG) and now it is no longer I that work it, but the sin dwelling in me, Rom. 7:20 (YNG) And if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it, but the sin that is dwelling in me. Rom. 7:23 (YNG) and I behold another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin that [is] in my members. Rom. 8:2 (YNG) for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death; Rom. 8:3 (YNG) for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh, One of the most fascinating of these references is “for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh,”(Rom. 8:3, YNG)...where Paul speaks both of 'sin' and 'the sin' in the same sentence where Christ 'condemned the sin'. In the progress of Roman law the judgement 'krinO' was followed by the condemnation (katakrinO). Vine's Expository Dictionary has the following entrykatakrima cp. katakrino, above, is "the sentence pronounced, the condemnation" with a suggestion of the punishment following; it is found in Rom_5:16,18; Rom_8:1.You will see then that, in Rom 8:3, we now have concept of 'the sin' being executed rather than 'forgiven'. sins can be forgiven, Sin had to be executed on a cross, hence “this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;” (Rom. 6:6, YNG)Winkie Pratney says Every word in this passage (with the possible exception of v.17) where "death" is mentioned is manifestly temporal, or physical, and not spiritual death. and yet Rom 5:12, almost the title for this section, is plainly referring to the events of Gen 3 which did not include 'physical death'. “And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it — dying thou dost die.’” (Gen. 2:16-17, YNG) 'dying thou dost die' is a Hebrew idiom of intensification and 'in the day of thine eating' plainly links Adam's disobedience to a 'death' which he did not experience physically 'in the day of thine eating'. Nevertheless he did experience a 'death' on that day and this is 'the death' that Paul has in focus in Rom 5:12.Moreover Paul is not content with saying that Adam died on that day but that “because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;” (Rom. 5:12, YNG)...'the sin entered into the world'. The preposition for 'into' in 'eis' which in its use with the word which itself means to 'enter into' cannot be misunderstood. Paul is revealing to us here that Adam's single act of disobedience had worldwide implications. Adam's disobedience brought Sin into the physical 'creation' (Rom 8:18ff)If we read the Genesis account we discover that the 'blame' is all place on Adam and although Eve sinned first it is Adam's sin which brings the curse “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;” (Gen. 3:17-18, KJVS) and it is surely instructive that although Satan's words include both Adam and Eve... “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:4-5, KJVS)...while God's words persistently hold Adam responsible Gen. 3:11 (KJVS) And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Gen. 3:17 (KJVS) And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Gen. 3:18 (KJVS) Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; Gen. 3:19 (KJVS) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. The evidence is plain; the curse came into our world because of Adam and not Eve. This is because Adam was the federal head of our race, and in himself 'was' the race. What happened to Eve did not impact Adam but what happened to Adam certainly impacted Eve.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.I don't think it can be any clearer, death came by sin. One man, Adam, and no man could have done any better. Adams' sin killed us all. Even without the Law all died from Adam to Moses when the Law revealed the reason for the Need of a Savior, who even as by one man all died by One Man Jesus Christ all Man might Live.So God has only dealt with two men in His Plan, Adam and Jesus Christ. All in between is as dirty rags to God as His proving all man under sin and death, save by Jesus Christ unto Life.Romans 5:12-18 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.In Christ: Phillip

The moment you bring morality into the discussion, there is an implication that man would 'know', without God's help, what is right and wrong. Is not this a Deist view?Every man has a conscience that God has given them, right?I'm still interested in 'sin' vs 'sins.' If I'm gathering all this info in correctly, then 'sin' is something like propentity to commit 'sins.' Yet we are not born 'guilty.' Is this correct?

Preachparsley's I'm still interested in 'sin' vs 'sins.' Does anyone beleive we are born guilty? If I'm gathering all this info in correctly, then 'sin' is something like propentity to commit 'sins.' Is this correct?For myself I mark a strong line between 'original sin' and 'original guilt'. This may start some more hares coursing (do you know that phrase over there?) but I believe strongly that the scriptures teach 'original sin' but just as strongly that they do not teach 'original guilt'.

Ron Bailey's:Have you ever read anything of Arthur Custance? I have often had his work recommended to me but have never really read it. Today, googling, I came across what looks like a pretty thorough examination of the topic The difference between "Sin" and "sins".This is an interesting article and wonder if we could discuss it on a different thread. For those who have not read it yet, it is a good introduction to the issues. There is something unique about it in that it seems to stress the possibility that the 'flesh' is diseased by some sort of physiological or biological 'something' that causes a lapse in our moral judgment. He uses the illustration of how alcohol and other drugs have a profound negative effect on our moral decisions. From there he seems to think that there is something in our bodies that is having an effect like unto alcohol or drugs- causing a propensity towards sinning. I think it is a very good argument and wonder if any would wish to discuss it on a different thread?

This is an interesting article and wonder if we could discuss it on a different thread. For those who have not read it yet, it is a good introduction to the issues. There is something unique about it in that it seems to stress the possibility that the 'flesh' is diseased by some sort of physiological or biological 'something' that causes a lapse in our moral judgment. He uses the illustration of how alcohol and other drugs have a profound negative effect on our moral decisions. From there he seems to think that there is something in our bodies that is having an effect like unto alcohol or drugs- causing a propensity towards sinning. I think it is a very good argument and wonder if any would wish to discuss it on a different thread? Sounds fine to me. This wasn't my intention when I started this thread but as soon as the topic came up it had (still does) my attention. I've not heard of 'sin' as opposed to 'sins,' so I would deffinatly like to explore it further. This may start some more hares coursing (do you know that phrase over there?)It's not that common. I have heard it before.

Hi Dorcas,Thus, you are saying (effectively) 'God created Adam with the tendancy to forsake Him already in place - in his being'.....?I think what the doctrine states is that man has no inclination or 'tendancy' to forsake God at all, either before or after the fall. Man is free to choose whether he/she will serve God or not in the here and now- saved or lost. Finney took this line as well as some others. I do not agree with Finney in that matter. There was a point in which Sin entered the human race and began corrupting the image of God in man. I do believe in prevenient grace (so-called). This means that God graces a sinner with the ability to respond rightly to Him when He draws them by His Spirit. When God says 'come' you can and you must; but I believe that this is an active move on God's part and not some static continual declaration that is just set in concrete. There are times when God will draw and it is then that we can and must respond rightly.No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

hi, what does the bible mean when it says "they are condemned already..." jimp

hi, must we sin? what is sin? free will? is it normal for christians to sin?original sin adam or me? all of these posts are centering on the problems(mt. sinai)but very little is said about the salution... Jesus Christ and Him crucified.(mt Zion)The zadok priesthood were not allowed to wear any wool;only linen ephods, so they would not sweat. sweat is the outward sign of the efforts of man and the result of the sin of adam; a curse.man has very little to do with his holiness or his salvation,sanctification etc. lest he boast.God is the potter and i am the clay. He chose me, i did not choose Him. he sought me and bought me with His redeeming blood. jimp

Hi freecd,Will anyone be in hell for something that they did not choose or could not help? No. Noone will be in hell for any other sins than their own. However, what we have been driving at in our discussions across several threads on this topic now is that 'Sin' entered the human race. The passage in James 1 that you cited is true, it shows us the pattern of why one commits sins. This does not take into account the passages that deal with John 8 and Romans 6-9. Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; 32 and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered unto him, We are Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. 35 And the bondservant abideth not in the house for ever: the son abideth for ever. 36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed: yet ye seek to kill me, because my word hath not free course in you. 38 I speak the things which I have seen with my Father: and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (John 8 ASV)Notice that Satan is not just the father of lies as we generally understand this passage, but the father of 'liars.' This has to do with a person's nature. As surely as Satan has a Sin Nature- all who were born in Adam also have that nature. The nature of Satan is to commit sin and rebel against God. He is still responsible for his actions, but it is his 'meat' to rebel against God. It is what fulfills him.

"What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel saying, 'The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children's teeth are set on edge'? As I live," declares the Lord God, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel any more. Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.This, of course, is the prelude to Ezekiel's teaching on the New Covenant in the later chapters and if you use some other versions you will see the sense of this in the text“What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.” (Ezek 18:2-3 KJVS)“What mean ye, ye who use this proverb of the land of Israel, saying, [The] fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? [As] I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, ye shall not have any more to use this proverb in Israel.”(Ezek 18:2-"3 DRBY) The whole point of this passage is that something was going to change. not.. any more" implies a change and by no means indicates However, this passage is not referring to 'original sin' but the hereditary consequences of sin which were the special 'curse' which rested on the people of Israel. I don't know about others on this side of the arguement but I do not regard 'original sin' as something I inherited from my father but something which I received direct 'in Adam'. This part of the topic is usually referred to as 'the transmission'. This passage is a serious problem for those who believe in 'generational curses' but not for those who believe in congenital sin.

THIS IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN. Your sin results from your own free choice. It is truly your own creation. No, this is not the 'true' doctrine of original sin. It is an attempt to hijack a phrase which has a solid theological history and understanding. If you believe what you are saying give it another label, don't steal someone else's. That way can only lead into confusion.

Ron wrote:"I do not regard 'original sin' as something I inherited from my father but something which I received direct 'in Adam'. " This is the truth of the Word, Amen.Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come. All die because of Adam's sin. Proving it by our own death and our own sin.1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. In Christ: Phillip

Ron wrote:No, this is not the 'true' doctrine of original sin. It is an attempt to hijack a phrase which has a solid theological history and understanding.This is the frustrating thing about Finney's Moral Government teachings; he pours meanings into orthodox terms that are completely at odds with ordinary Christian understanding. I don't mean to infer too much here as I have great respect for Finney and much of Finney's works; but the tactic is the same as the cults use so as to appear to use the same lingo as orthodox Christians. For those who do not know, Finney was ordained Presbyterian and they make ready use of traditional understanding of original sin tracing their understanding at least to Augustine. Finney was much closer to Pelagias' teachings. Pelagias denied the doctrines of original sin and predestination, defending innate human goodness and free will. He believed it was 'possible' for a person to keep the Law perfectly. His beliefs were condemned as heretical by the Synod of Carthage in about 418. When one tampers with original sin they by default are tampering with everything else from the atonement to regeneration. Why would a person need to be born again if they can keep the law if they would just 'do it'? Orthodox Christians understand the need for the born again experience as an out working of the problem of Sin and death. I fight this error continually in my circles. Many folk, and especially preachers and teachers, simply have no real appreciation for the born again experience and the transformation that takes place in the life of the regenerate. Repentance to them is a matter of praying the sinners prayer and resolving to do better. If the person drops a few bad habits its a sign they are saved, but unfortunately, they fall back in sin. I borrowed a phrase from someone and can't recall who it was, but it says, "You have to frontslide before you can backslide." This is not a resolve and determination to live for the glory of God from here on out- this is a total transformation of the person spiritually that makes them a new creature in Christ. God works in them to will and to do His good pleasure by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is very important, because when the word and the Holy Spirit are calling the shots then mans input of volumes of man made legalisms are null and void. Which brings me to another sticking point I have with Finney. He not only had his own definition of original sin, but had his own definition of 'sins'. The depth of his philosophy of sin virtually makes any act a human being commits that is not from pure motivation of the good of the creation and the glory of God to be a sin. Self-satisfaction is a sin or self-gratification is a sin. This is NOT biblical as he presents it. And it leads to all sorts of nonsense including the sin of salting your food or the sin of eating a candy bar. Add all his philosopies together soteriologically and you have a crushing, burdensome doctrine that virtually eliminates any assurance of salvation unless one is conforming to his ultra strict definition of righteousness and holiness.

Post deleted, wrong thread.

Is that what is meant by 'original guilt' The biblical concept of 'guilt' must be separated from the way the word is used in common language. In common language the word has come to mean the feeling of discomfort, either real or counterfeit which a person might experience. In biblical use 'guilt' is a legal verdict which is indifferent to how a person feels about it.In a legal setting, the law-court has no initial interest in the feelings of the perpetrator. Those feelings, in a modern law-court, may have significance in determining the sentence but the law court cannot deal with feelings or forgiveness. In a Roman court of law the specific charge was brought against the accused. If the charge were unproved, the accused was 'justified' ie declared just of the charges which had been brought against him. If the charge were 'proved' the judge gave the verdict of 'guilty'. The 'verdict' was then followed by the sentence and ultimately by the execution of any punishment. Guilt, then in biblical terms is formally-judged 'blame-worthiness'. ie culpability. The NT uses these terms very specifically but our KJV does not make the same distinction. The word for the process and the verdict would be 'krinO' but the sentence/execution would be 'katakrinO'. The KJV translates test Url ]katakrinO[/url] as condemnation; it is usually translated 'condemn/ation'. The confusion arises from the fact that the KJV also translates krinO as condemnation'“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn (krinO) the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned (krinO) : but he that believeth not is condemned (krinO) already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:17-18 KJVS) which is a great pity.The two separate words are nicely distinguished in “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest (krinO)another, thou condemnest (katakrinO) thyself; for thou that judgest (krinO) doest the same things.” (Rom 2:1 KJVS)So, I believe that the consequence of Adam's first sin has touched all our race and but that God does not hold us 'culpable' (blame-worthy) Hence, "original sin" but not "original guilt".Someone ought to object to this and if they don't I will object in a future post. Please remind me if I forget.

Someone ought to object to this and if they don't I will object in a future post. Please remind me if I forget.OK :-)

Firstly, there was something very wrong with my attitude. To philologos and PreachParsly particularly, I am sorry for (in my view) spoiling a good dialogue between brethren. I couldn't stop myself; but ever since then (here) I've been aware I needed to change.

Well, there was no offense taken. Your appolgies are accepted.

I laughed when I read through this thread because I still struggle getting a grasp on this issue and I started this thread over 2 years ago! Although I do think that at least I understand more of the issues involved now.