Romans 6-8/ What did Paul mean by the word "sin?"

[Charlie24]

@robert derrick, before we begin to study the power of sin over man according to Paul, we must first define what Paul meant in Rom. 6-8 by the word "sin."

But first let's define the sin nature according to the Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest.

"The sin or evil nature is actually the Adamic nature which imprisoned man at the fall. It has poisoned the entirety of the human race and for all time. It is the nature which encourages sin and which against, man is powerless.
At Calvary Jesus broke the hold of this deadly yoke. However, He did allow it to remain, but powerless. Its remaining is a disciplinary measure. If the believer correctly follows Christ, there is no problem; however, if we yield to temptation and sin, and then try to overcome in the flesh, the sin nature comes alive with serious consequences.
So, in this chapter (Rom. 6) we will study this all-important subject of sin in the life of the Christian, why it is there, and the victory afforded by Christ."

Let's look now at Rom. 6:1, where Paul begins with this subject, to see what he meant by the word "sin."

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"

In the original Greek text, Kenneth Wuest points out that "sin" in this verse has the Greek definite article attached which reads "the sin."

What we have is,

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in "the sin," that grace may abound?"

The Greek definite article "the" is making "sin" a noun, instead of a verb. Paul is not defining sin here as the acts of sin, but "the sin" as a noun.

It is the original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden "the sin." Which was the fall of man completely changing his innocent nature to the fallen state of a sin nature. It is the sin nature that Paul is referring when using the word "sin." And he does so throughout Rom. 6-8.

Rom. 5:21

"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

As righteousness can reign as king, so can the nature of sin reign as a king, the nature of sin still in the believer.

 

[Randy Kluth]

@robert derrick, before we begin to study the power of sin over man according to Paul, we must first define what Paul meant in Rom. 6-8 by the word "sin."

But first let's define the sin nature according to the Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest.

"The sin or evil nature is actually the Adamic nature which imprisoned man at the fall. It has poisoned the entirety of the human race and for all time. It is the nature which encourages sin and which against, man is powerless.
At Calvary Jesus broke the hold of this deadly yoke. However, He did allow it to remain, but powerless. Its remaining is a disciplinary measure. If the believer correctly follows Christ, there is no problem; however, if we yield to temptation and sin, and then try to overcome in the flesh, the sin nature comes alive with serious consequences.

I think there is some confusion here, due to the effort at maintaining what it is thought Paul meant as opposed to what he really meant. Paul never said that before Christ men were imprisoned by sin to such a degree that they could not overcome sin. God plainly told Cain in the beginning that he must master sin. In other words, mankind can master sin if they so choose to do so.

Dealing with sin legally is an entirely different matter. The bondage of sin is something that happens when we reject Christ. But legal condemnation could only be lifted by Christ's sacrifice and by his word of forgiveness.

The bondage of sin happens when we try to live what we think are good lives without the help of God. To be free to do true good things we have to rely on God for His goodness. We have to follow His Spirit and our conscience, which is where His word speaks to us.

God doesn't leave us in a state of sin to discipline us, but rather, leaves us time to correct our lives. He will give us immortality when we're done in our time of redemption.

 

[Charlie24]

I think there is some confusion here, due to the effort at maintaining what it is thought Paul meant as opposed to what he really meant. Paul never said that before Christ men were imprisoned by sin to such a degree that they could not overcome sin. God plainly told Cain in the beginning that he must master sin. In other words, mankind can master sin if they so choose to do so.

Dealing with sin legally is an entirely different matter. The bondage of sin is something that happens when we reject Christ. But legal condemnation could only be lifted by Christ's sacrifice and by his word of forgiveness.

The bondage of sin happens when we try to live what we think are good lives without the help of God. To be free to do true good things we have to rely on God for His goodness. We have to follow His Spirit and our conscience, which is where His word speaks to us.

God doesn't leave us in a state of sin to discipline us, but rather, leaves us time to correct our lives. He will give us immortality when we're done in our time of redemption.

There's no confusion, man cannot overcome sin but through Christ.

That is the sum of the OP.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There's no confusion, man cannot overcome sin but through Christ.

That is the sum of the OP.

You didn't address my specific points--just deny there is any confusion. So be happy you're not confused. But I'm not sure what you're not confused about?

 

[BeyondET]

@robert derrick, before we begin to study the power of sin over man according to Paul, we must first define what Paul meant in Rom. 6-8 by the word "sin."

But first let's define the sin nature according to the Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest.

"The sin or evil nature is actually the Adamic nature which imprisoned man at the fall. It has poisoned the entirety of the human race and for all time. It is the nature which encourages sin and which against, man is powerless.
At Calvary Jesus broke the hold of this deadly yoke. However, He did allow it to remain, but powerless. Its remaining is a disciplinary measure. If the believer correctly follows Christ, there is no problem; however, if we yield to temptation and sin, and then try to overcome in the flesh, the sin nature comes alive with serious consequences.
So, in this chapter (Rom. 6) we will study this all-important subject of sin in the life of the Christian, why it is there, and the victory afforded by Christ."

Let's look now at Rom. 6:1, where Paul begins with this subject, to see what he meant by the word "sin."

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"

In the original Greek text, Kenneth Wuest points out that "sin" in this verse has the Greek definite article attached which reads "the sin."

What we have is,

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in "the sin," that grace may abound?"

The Greek definite article "the" is making "sin" a noun, instead of a verb. Paul is not defining sin here as the acts of sin, but "the sin" as a noun.

It is the original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden "the sin." Which was the fall of man completely changing his innocent nature to the fallen state of a sin nature. It is the sin nature that Paul is referring when using the word "sin." And he does so throughout Rom. 6-8.

Rom. 5:21

"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

As righteousness can reign as king, so can the nature of sin reign as a king, the nature of sin still in the believer.

I've learned something about the statement only a few Bible translations use the word nature most use flesh interesting but i don't see a issue with either up til now.

I liked you mentioned the innocent state, .

I don't think the phrase sin nature/physical consciousness is saying anyone is prone to sin or anything like that. I believe it's knowledge nature from the tree of such.

the sinful flesh is the ability of humans to recognize both good and evil there after from birth on.

the fruit was eaten human body's consumed the ingredients and it hasn't left human geno

 

[Charlie24]

You didn't address my specific points--just deny there is any confusion. So be happy you're not confused. But I'm not sure what you're not confused about?

No, I didn't address your post properly, I was hoping to start covering Rom. 6-7 with Robert to breakdown what Paul is saying about the bondage of sin, in other words what we call the sin nature.

What I want to point out is that Paul is not speaking of any particular acts of sin in these 2 chapters, but rather the yielding of oneself to the nature of sin. We all have evil impulses, but how do we deal with it? How did Paul deal with it?

If man doesn't know what he is dealing with (the sin nature) he will not be able to isolate it as Paul shows us. Paul describes an inner change that takes place at salvation, this is the key to isolating the sin nature.

If we are honest with ourselves we know there is something within us that compels us to sin. If we can't admit that we can do nothing about it. Just scratch out Rom. 6-8 because Paul through the Holy Spirit can't help you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, I didn't address your post properly, I was hoping to start covering Rom. 6-7 with Robert to breakdown what Paul is saying about the bondage of sin, in other words what we call the sin nature.

What I want to point out is that Paul is not speaking of any particular acts of sin in these 2 chapters, but rather the yielding of oneself to the nature of sin. We all have evil impulses, but how do we deal with it? How did Paul deal with it?

If man doesn't know what he is dealing with (the sin nature) he will not be able to isolate it as Paul shows us. Paul describes an inner change that takes place at salvation, this is the key to isolating the sin nature.

If we are honest with ourselves we know there is something within us that compels us to sin. If we can't admit that we can do nothing about it. Just scratch out Rom. 6-8 because Paul through the Holy Spirit can't help you.

I 100% agree with you. Sorry if I gave you the impression I didn't. My particular interest often is in refining details. In this case, Paul's use of language is often misconstrued. The main point you're making is right on. The person whose argument you're using falls short a bit in his description of the "bondage of sin."

I'll try again--not that it is even part of your main point. I wish you to make the point using language you can defend against detractors.

The bondage of sin refers to when we do not utilize God' word in our conscience to obey and produce divine virtue. Christians can do this. Non-Christians can do this. The difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians surrender *all* of their will to God, whereas the non-Christian only obeys God's voice in their conscience when it pleases him or her.

When a person tries to do good works outside of responding to God's word in their conscience, establishing their own independent righteousness, they find themselves in bondage to sin. They can't produce divine virtue, and they find themselves compulsively doing ungodly, wicked things.

Years ago, in my adolescence, I backslid from my Christian walk. After several years of practicing a mixture of religious obedience and sin I was compelled by guilt to give *all* of my life back to God. But I held back certain areas of my life, including my friendship with non-Christians. I found myself compulsively returning to drugs, alcohol, and other ungodly practices.

I wondered why I was unable to completely give up my bad habits? Then one night at a party God spoke to my conscience and convicted me that I had not really surrendered my *entire life* to Him. From that point on I felt spiritually energized, and never again had a problem compulsively practicing bad habits. My "bondage to sin" ended when I surrendered everything to the voice of God in my conscience.

People under the Law had Christ already with them in the form of God's word speaking in their conscience. The Law did not satisfy the *legal need* for final redemption. But faith is present wherever God's word is listened to and obeyed.

And so, the saints in the OT were able to practice divine virtue under the Law. And it served to enable them to enjoy God's favor until final redemption could come at the Cross.

Not everybody will agree with me, but I hope it makes sense to you? I'm just talking about the specific language. On the basic issue, we are in 100% agreement!

 

[Charlie24]

I 100% agree with you. Sorry if I gave you the impression I didn't. My particular interest often is in refining details. In this case, Paul's use of language is often misconstrued. The main point you're making is right on. The person whose argument you're using falls short a bit in his description of the "bondage of sin."

I'll try again--not that it is even part of your main point. I wish you to make the point using language you can defend against detractors.

The bondage of sin refers to when we do not utilize God' word in our conscience to obey and produce divine virtue. Christians can do this. Non-Christians can do this. The difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians surrender *all* of their will to God, whereas the non-Christian only obeys God's voice in their conscience when it pleases him or her.

When a person tries to do good works outside of responding to God's word in their conscience, establishing their own independent righteousness, they find themselves in bondage to sin. They can't produce divine virtue, and they find themselves compulsively doing ungodly, wicked things.

Years ago, in my adolescence, I backslid from my Christian walk. After several years of practicing a mixture of religious obedience and sin I was compelled by guilt to give *all* of my life back to God. But I held back certain areas of my life, including my friendship with non-Christians. I found myself compulsively returning to drugs, alcohol, and other ungodly practices.

I wondered why I was unable to completely give up my bad habits? Then one night at a party God spoke to my conscience and convicted me that I had not really surrendered my *entire life* to Him. From that point on I felt spiritually energized, and never again had a problem compulsively practicing bad habits. My "bondage to sin" ended when I surrendered everything to the voice of God in my conscience.

People under the Law had Christ already with them in the form of God's word speaking in their conscience. The Law did not satisfy the *legal need* for final redemption. But faith is present wherever God's word is listened to and obeyed.

And so, the saints in the OT were able to practice divine virtue under the Law. And it served to enable them to enjoy God's favor until final redemption could come at the Cross.

Not everybody will agree with me, but I hope it makes sense to you? I'm just talking about the specific language. On the basic issue, we are in 100% agreement!

Yes, that's a well stated summary! The point I want to get across with this OP is that we all have a problem with sin, but before we can do anything about it, we must understand what we are dealing with.

Paul goes to much explaining on this issue, we need to understand what he is explaining if we are to gain control of sin.

I hope in this thread we can clear up some assumptions of the sin nature and pinpoint what Paul is actually telling us.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, that's a well stated summary! The point I want to get across with this OP is that we all have a problem with sin, but before we can do anything about it, we must understand what we are dealing with.

Paul goes to much explaining on this issue, we need to understand what he is explaining if we are to gain control of sin.

I hope in this thread we can clear up some assumptions of the sin nature and pinpoint what Paul is actually telling us.

Great, carry on!

 

[Charlie24]

Great, carry on!

This OP came from a discussion with Robert, I'm waiting for him to engage when he is ready.

I hope we can follow Paul in especially Rom. 6-7 to clarify what is being said.

Rom. 6-8 is very difficult to understand, well I will say impossible to understand if we can't establish the fact of an evil/sin nature working in man.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This OP came from a discussion with Robert, I'm waiting for him to engage when he is ready.

I hope we can follow Paul in especially Rom. 6-7 to clarify what is being said.

Rom. 6-8 is very difficult to understand, well I will say impossible to understand if we can't establish the fact of an evil/sin nature working in man.

Yes, I'm anxious to see what develops. Many years ago I memorized most of the book of Romans, and became fixed on wanting to understand Paul's theology. Yes, the language was often difficult, as even Peter says in one of his letters.

But Paul is well worth the time and effort to understand, because not only does he convey essential NT truth to the Church, but the underlying arguments help us to understand God's plan from OT to NT.

Sin is rebelling against God's word in our conscience. That was true of Adam who didn't have the Law. And it was true of Israel when they had the Law. It is now true of the Church though we don't have the Law, and have Christ. We are Christians because we've established an attitude that says yes always to God's voice in our conscience. That is the basis of being "born again," an attitude of obedience to Christ, embracing the lordship of Christ. We are given a new nature because we are positioned to live by faith in the word of Christ.

During the Law, the voice of God's word to Israel required obedience to the Law. It was not a universal standard, but rather, a temporary standard only for Israel. At the same time, the moral and spiritual truths contained in the Law are eternal, and were in force before the Law and are still in force after the Law. None of this can be stated very simply.

God can tell you generally to live in the love of Christ. But He can also specifically tell you to defend the faith against someone who is challenging you on that subject. It isn't, then, just enough to live in the love of Christ, but living in that love requires that we obey God's word to defend the faith.

That's what was behind the Law. God required, for a time, that Israel obey the covenant of the Law, because it was a temporary standard against the paganism of the time. But when the better covenant arrived, the old covenant of Law was dispensed with. Defending God against the prevalent paganism was accomplished even better by testifying to the truth of Christ's word, so that the Law was no longer necessary.

But carry on. I'd like to see where your subject goes?

 

[Charlie24]

Yes, I'm anxious to see what develops. Many years ago I memorized most of the book of Romans, and became fixed on wanting to understand Paul's theology. Yes, the language was often difficult, as even Peter says in one of his letters.

But Paul is well worth the time and effort to understand, because not only does he convey essential NT truth to the Church, but the underlying arguments help us to understand God's plan from OT to NT.

Sin is rebelling against God's word in our conscience. That was true of Adam who didn't have the Law. And it was true of Israel when they had the Law. It is now true of the Church though we don't have the Law, and have Christ. We are Christians because we've established an attitude that says yes always to God's voice in our conscience. That is the basis of being "born again," an attitude of obedience to Christ, embracing the lordship of Christ. We are given a new nature because we are positioned to live by faith in the word of Christ.

During the Law, the voice of God's word to Israel required obedience to the Law. It was not a universal standard, but rather, a temporary standard only for Israel. At the same time, the moral and spiritual truths contained in the Law are eternal, and were in force before the Law and are still in force after the Law. None of this can be stated very simply.

God can tell you generally to live in the love of Christ. But He can also specifically tell you to defend the faith against someone who is challenging you on that subject. It isn't, then, just enough to live in the love of Christ, but living in that love requires that we obey God's word to defend the faith.

That's what was behind the Law. God required, for a time, that Israel obey the covenant of the Law, because it was a temporary standard against the paganism of the time. But when the better covenant arrived, the old covenant of Law was dispensed with. Defending God against the prevalent paganism was accomplished even better by testifying to the truth of Christ's word, so that the Law was no longer necessary.

But carry on. I'd like to see where your subject goes?

Paul was a very educated person, especially in the Law. When he became a believer and was given the revelation of Christ, which is actually the meaning of the New Covenant, that knowledge of the Law was magnified in truth.

He is always going to the Law with all of his teachings, and with the knowledge that no other person possessed.

This is why the Holy Spirit gave to Paul almost 1/3 of New Testament Scripture to give to us.

If one can follow Paul and understand what he is saying, the Scripture opens up and gives the power to the believer to live Godly in this present world.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Paul was a very educated person, especially in the Law. When he became a believer and was given the revelation of Christ, which is actually the meaning of the New Covenant, that knowledge of the Law was magnified in truth.

He is always going to the Law with all of his teachings, and with the knowledge that no other person possessed.

This is why the Holy Spirit gave to Paul almost 1/3 of New Testament Scripture to give to us.

If one can follow Paul and understand what he is saying, the Scripture opens up and gives the power to the believer to live Godly in this present world.

I agree. I'm not sure what you mean by "the knowledge of the Law was magnified in truth," but generally, I agree. Paul's focus on the Law came from his early life in the Law as a Pharisee and as a highly motivated, intellectual person. But he later viewed the continued attempt to be justified under the Law, even after Christ won justification, as an exercise in futility, as "manure" (not to put it too crudely).

The Law was given to show Israel how to obey God's word. But as a side effect it also showed Israel why they needed not just righteousness, but also mercy. Throughout the time of their obedience they still displayed the inevitable sins that are in all of our lives, from the smallest insult to a brother to major crimes. We all sin! And the Law showed that.

It showed that in 2 ways. One, as people lived by the Law, they sinned and when it came to their attention they had to make use of the Law's remedies in order to be accepted by God and to remain in His good standing.

Two, the structure of the Law anticipated that Israel needed covering for sin always. They had to offer sacrifices morning and evening every day. And every year the Day of Atonement provided atonement for all the people, indicating that they all would require it.

So the Law demonstrated the sinful nature of Israel so that they would hope not just in their obedience under the Law but also in the mercy of God, which would be displayed at the Cross. Paul respected and loved the Law when he came to understand this. But the attempt by Jews to pursue the Law when its purpose was finished frustrated him.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Heb.10:1/2
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered YEAR by YEAR continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they have NOT CEASED TO BE OFFERED ? because that the worshippers ONCE PURGED SHOULD HAVE NO MORE CONSCIENCE OF SINS.

Rms.2:12-15 ( cxt )
V.14. For when the Gentiles, [ which I am] which have NOT the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law unto themselves
V.15. Which shew the WORK OF THE LAW written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while ACCUSING or else EXCUSING one another.

Rms.4: 13-16 ( cxt )
For the PROMISE , that he should be heir of the world, WAS NOT TO ABRAHAM,OR HIS SEED, through the law, BUT THROUGH THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH.
For if they which are of the law be heirs FAITH IS MADE VOID,and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where there is no law, there is no transgression.
THERFORE IT IS OF FAITH, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be SURE to all the seed; not to only that which is of the law, but to that also which is of faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

 

[farouk]

Heb.10:1/2
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered YEAR by YEAR continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they have NOT CEASED TO BE OFFERED ? because that the worshippers ONCE PURGED SHOULD HAVE NO MORE CONSCIENCE OF SINS.

Rms.2:12-15 ( cxt )
V.14. For when the Gentiles, [ which I am] which have NOT the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law unto themselves
V.15. Which shew the WORK OF THE LAW written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while ACCUSING or else EXCUSING one another.

Rms.4: 13-16 ( cxt )
For the PROMISE , that he should be heir of the world, WAS NOT TO ABRAHAM,OR HIS SEED, through the law, BUT THROUGH THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH.
For if they which are of the law be heirs FAITH IS MADE VOID,and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where there is no law, there is no transgression.
THERFORE IT IS OF FAITH, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be SURE to all the seed; not to only that which is of the law, but to that also which is of faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

@L3astAm0ngManyB13ss3d Hebrews is such a tremendous Epistle, and I love how chapter 7 shows that the law was changed (verse 12) and what we now have us better than the law (verse 19).

 

[robert derrick]

This is excellent. A new way of putting the truth always enlightens and helps in doing the truth.

I think there is some confusion here, due to the effort at maintaining what it is thought Paul meant as opposed to what he really meant. Paul never said that before Christ men were imprisoned by sin to such a degree that they could not overcome sin. God plainly told Cain in the beginning that he must master sin. In other words, mankind can master sin if they so choose to do so.

Having an imprisoning 'sin nature' much less being born with it, is a lie, and is used most often by many to excuse why they choose the devil over God, when they do so.

Any soul on earth has just as much power to resist the devil and temptation at any time. That is why the world is not full of evil at all times. Sinners can be just as neighborly, when they want to, as any saint.

All Scripture speaks of man being made in Christ's image, and being commanded to do His will by choice of spirit and flesh.

Coming up with a sin nature is nothing more than man trying to make up an answer for what God cannot even understand: why would any living soul made by God wonderfully with His own Spirit and for His good pleasure, ever choose to sin against Him and kill their own soul.

God has no answer for that, but only makes plain the choice and wage of sinning.

Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

God's people are commanded to make themselves a new heart and spirit, which would not be possible if man was made with a sin nature or spirit in his being and bones.

Dealing with sin legally is an entirely different matter. The bondage of sin is something that happens when we reject Christ. But legal condemnation could only be lifted by Christ's sacrifice and by his word of forgiveness.

Excellent again: any person can change their ways and themselves, but no man can forgive his own past sinning.

The only price Jesus paid on the cross was to forgiven past sins of any man confessing with godly sorrow.

The power of the resurrection is to not go on sinning still.

The wage for sinning is still the same today: the soul that sinneth, it shall die, whether atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, philosopher...

God doesn't leave us in a state of sin to discipline us, but rather, leaves us time to correct our lives. He will give us immortality when we're done in our time of redemption.

Excellent again: There is no sin in the flesh at all, and the only sin in the soul is that of a lusting heart and unclean mind without Christ.

Now, the mercy of God in Christ Jesus is time for any man to repent, be forgiven, and stop choosing lust for the world over the spirit of Christ.

And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. (Rev 2)

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is excellent. A new way of putting the truth always enlightens and helps in doing the truth.

Thank you so much! These things require confirmation. A genuine confirmation multiplies the impact of its truth on others, and multiplies its positive effects. God bless!

 

[robert derrick]

There is a nature of sin, not a sin nature.

No man is born 'Adamic', but a man makes himself like Adam by sinning.

There is no sin spirit, but there are spirits that sin against God, first in heart, then in flesh.

There is the divine nature written of in Scripture. No sin nature.

The word nature added to sin is by man only, not by God in Scripture.

The doctrine of a sin nature is made up by man, and then is searched for in all Scripture, including the original languages, to try and prove it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is a nature of sin, not a sin nature.

No man is born 'Adamic', but a man makes himself like Adam by sinning.

There is no sin spirit, but there are spirits that sin against God, first in heart, then in flesh.

There is the divine nature written of in Scripture. No sin nature.

The word nature added to sin is by man only, not by God in Scripture.

The doctrine of a sin nature is made up by man, and then is searched for in all Scripture, including the original languages, to try and prove it.

I was recently on another "Christian" forum. It went south, and I'm no longer there. The lead man turned out to like receiving female hormone treatments! He argued, along with the group who followed him, that there is no Sin Nature with the very same argument you're making--it isn't written as such in the Scriptures.

I've heard these arguments before, that if the exact terminology isn't used, then it isn't "biblical." But that screams in the face of how languages work. When something is described in a different language to someone else, or even if the same language evolves and has to be explained, then the same words are not used to explain what is meant.

So is "Sin Nature" in the Scriptures, using different words? Is "Sin Nature" just an explanation of what is taught in Scriptures? Yes, the traditional orthodoxy of the Church is that we inherited from Adam a "Sin Nature." Jews call it the "Sin Inclination." It is more than just the act of sinning--it is the tendency towards sinning, the tendency towards rebelling against the authority of God's word.

When God tells you that you must do something, something within our human nature says, "no!" But we are able to choose against our "negativity" to do the right thing. That is also how we can embrace Christ, by choosing not to follow our lower nature.

The Scriptures define this "Sin Nature" simply as "Sin," or as "the flesh." It is a spiritual nature attached to human attractions that head out independently to realize its own interests. The body pursues the objects of its lust, or of its covetousness. Instead of relying on God's word within our conscience, our fallen nature tends towards its own independent interests, making ourselves a kind of god unto ourselves.

With DNA we inherit from our ancestors certain genetic physical traits. But Sin is different. We inherit certain spiritual traits from our ancestors, such as Adam's tendency towards sin. I don't claim to understand it in any depth. I just note that we inherit from our parents the same negative qualities, which is not just physical, but also spiritual. Sin is a *spiritual* inheritance.

 

[robert derrick]

@robert derrick,"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in "the sin," that grace may abound?"

The Greek definite article "the" is making "sin" a noun, instead of a verb. Paul is not defining sin here as the acts of sin, but "the sin" as a noun.

It is the original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden "the sin." Which was the fall of man completely changing his innocent nature to the fallen state of a sin nature. It is the sin nature that Paul is referring when using the word "sin." And he does so throughout Rom. 6-8.

Since this is new to me, and an interesting challenge, then I'm glad to address it.

A sin nature is a sinful state of being, otherwise, it is nothing at all, but only an imaginative idea.

The proposition is Scripture teaching the existence of a state of being, that is independent and apart from any evidence of it: man is born into a state of sin, without sinning.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

And so, sin without works is dead, being alone. It's imaginary only.

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Here Scripture proves sin is 'The Sin' of something, which is witchcraft, and is therefore The Sin of rebellion. There is no Sin of rebellion and witchcraft, without the rebellion and witchcraft.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Here Scripture denies the existence of something without the doing of it, such as faith without works.

By doctrine of Scripture, whether faith, sin, or righteousness, it only exists with works.

Sin is the sin being committed. Faith is the faith being done. Righteousness is doing.

Where there is no committing sin, there is no sin, even as where there is no doing righteousness, there is no righteousness, and where there is no works of faith, there is no faith.

The argument, therefore, of there being 'Sin' without the sinning is false.

Who will render to every man according to his deeds.

With God, there is no state to be judged by, where there is no evidence of that state.

God only judges man for sinning, not for having sin where not sin is committed.

And if a sin nature is not judged by God, then it is nothing at all worth speaking of, but only the deeds of sin.

The only room for a sin nature to exist in, is in the minds of men, because it has no place at all to exist in Scripture.