Scriptural Balance

[Netchaplain]

Yet God considered Noah righteous in his generation. There mmust have been a sepration in the actions and lifestyle of Noah from the rest of the people in the world for God to spare him from the coming destruction of the flood. (Genesis 6:9)
"This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God." (Genesis 6:9)

Everyone who has faith in God's works is going to be "peculiar" because of how God is using them. Noah and all who are in God are suppose to stand out because of what others see from them--obedience to God.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Where does the Bible teach "sin nature'?

It is impossible for any creature of GOD to produce offspring contrary to its nature. When Adam sinned, he became one spirit with sin. His son Isaac inherited his nature and had a spirit one with sin. It would have been impossible for Isaac to have been one spirit with GOD. That only is available through Christ. Therefore, all descendants of Adam have a sinful nature through inheritance.

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 1 Corinthians 6:17

Ephesians 2:3 refers to "nature."Strongs Concordance
Nature - G5449 - phusis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3
(this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace; φύσει πρός τάς κολασεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, Josephus, Antiquities 13, 10, 6. (Others (see Meyer) would lay more stress here upon the constitution in which this 'habitual course of evil' has its origin, whether that constitution be regarded (with some) as already developed at birth, or (better) as undeveloped; cf. Aristotle, pol. 1, 2, p. 1252{b}, 32f οἷον ἕκαστον ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθεισης, ταύτην φαμέν τήν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου, etc.; see the examples in Bonitz's index under the word. Cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 6a.)).

You are cherry picking one definition from Thayer's to suit your needs. And Strong's doesn't seem to be that accurate based on other lexicons:


Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament)

5882 φύσις (physis), εως (eōs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 5449; TDNT 9.251—1. LN 58.8 nature, the character or make up of something, as a natural result or condition (Ro 1:26; 11:21, 24; 1Co 11:14; Gal 4:8; Eph 2:3; 2Pe 1:4); 2. LN 58.24 kind, class, species (Jas 3:7+)


Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains

58.8 φύσιςa, εως f: the nature of something as the result of its natural development or condition—‘nature.’ τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς ‘beings who by nature are not gods’ Ga 4.8; θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως ‘sharers in the divine nature’ 2 Pe 1.4.

Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains
58.24 φύσιςb, εως f: a class of entities based on physiological and genetic similarity—‘kind, class, species.’ πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ ‘every kind of wild animal, bird, reptile, and fish can be tamed and has been tamed by people’ (literally ‘ … humankind’) Jas 3.7.

Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words


2. phusis (φύσις, 5449) among its various meanings denotes “the nature, the natural constitution or power of a person or thing,” and is translated “kind” in Jas. 3:7 (twice), “kind” (of beasts etc.), and “(man)kind,” lit., “human kind.”


Theological dictionary of the New Testament

φύσις is everything which by its origin or by observation of its constitution seems to be a given. To call it “given” φύσις is already to go beyond the sphere of naive description and implies a judgment on its actual constitution or true nature.

The flesh is not sinful. The flesh is but a base vehicle, sin is when we misuse our flesh in order to yield to unrighteousness.

Flesh refers to more than just the body. It also includes the carnal mind, which is evil.

 

[Rex]

Hi Rex - I believe you're close to what I'm sharing and would like to address your comments here.

You're correct that the body of the believer is still under "the law of sin and death", which is "the soul that sins shall die," but we also still posses the sin nature: "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (Rom 5:19). For the believer, the issue isn't sinning (unwillingly for the believer) or still having the sin nature (1 John 1:8). The issue is we are not guilty of these and are not controlled by them (Rom 6:12, 14).

That put it in a nut shell

It is not until we more fully understand the forgiveness of what God's Grace has brought that we will more and more realize the sin issue is no longer what the Father regards in us--unless we've yet to understand it has been fully dealt with and judged (Rom 8:3) thus, we never have to allow ourselves to feel judged, even though it's still there.

It takes some time for the believer to completely understand His forgiveness, which is fully supplied, even if we have not matured to this point. God doesn't save so that He can love us, He saves because He loves us.

I believe one of the primary causes of insecurity and lack of Scriptural understanding in a believer (even though they're unknowingly eternally secure, unless they're not born again) is due to not fully understanding God's forgiveness and that it is eternal.

I think we both agree and understand one another on the subject. I would like to take it a bit further because the result of Adams sin is still effecting us all today.

If you look in Romans 5 you see that death reigned from Adam to Moses, there was no law from Adam to Moses the only law that had been spoken was the law of, do not eat from that tree. Yet death reigned. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Yet death reigned because of Adams sin, we inherited the sentence of death for Adams sin. If you jump down to Pauls conclusion on the matter you can see this is what he is pointing out, Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, That judgement was death.

There was no escaping it, death, now when the law was given it did two things, it provided a standard by which death could be overcome and two it allowed for personal sin to increase, apart from Adams sin. Now there was a law spoken by God to all men, the 10 commandments, before this point the only law given was to not eat of that tree. To understand the result of Adams sin we must understand that all died from Adam to Moses before the law was even given. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. What this statement is saying is all of mankind received the sentence of death before the law was ever spoken and God does not impute sin when there is no law.

Put it this way it was impossible to sin from Adan to Moses because the tree of knowledge was out of reach, and the law was not yet given yet all men were condemned to death. Now If Jesus had come before the law he to wouldn't have been able to overcome this condemnation we all received from Adam, but the law was given so that he, Jesus could fulfill it, thus over coming death. Matthew 5:17 He came to fulfill it. And this is why we will never be free from the sentience of death until we put on immortality unless your like Jesus and have managed to never sin. The coming of the law is a dramatic change for mankind, unfortunately it has had and will only result in a personal transgression, all men have sinned, before the law all men died not because of their own personal sin but because of Adams sin.

The bottom line
Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation,

But now that the law has come you have your own responsibility to it, your own sin. And once you have sinned your body just as those from Adan to Moses is condemned. But before you ever sin you are still under Adams condemnation.

12 Therefore,
just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Rex,

Genesis 26:5 ???


'...Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.'

 

[Rex]

Hi Rex,

Genesis 26:5 ???


'...Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.'

God was dealing with Abraham one on one, are you trying to equate this with the coming of the law? God made a covenant with Abraham it was "circumcision"
I believe when God spoke the commandments it effected every man. It defined sin for every man whether he was a Hebrew or a Canaanite
And don't start mixing the law of Moses with the 10 commandments please.

 

[Netchaplain]

Unregenerate man is guilty of the same sin in Adam's transgression because the primary broken law for mankind was and still is Adam's transgression. He established the "law of sin and death" which is passed to all. The law of sin and death is that "the soul that sins shall die," which is what God told Adam would occur after his transgression: "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen 2:17).

This is the primary curse (law) for all mankind and is what Christ broke.

 

[Axehead]

My comments in blue.



Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The lust of the flesh is not a "sin nature."

"Sin Nature" is an NIV mistranslation of the word SARX which means FLESH.

The flesh is not sinful. The flesh is but a base vehicle, sin is when we misuse our flesh in order to yield to unrighteousness.

THis doctrine of the "sin nature" which you believe in is a stronghold in your mind which is forcing you to reject the truth.

Jesus was tempted in all points as we are.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Temptation is common to all men.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

It was Augustine of Hippo who brought this notion that "concupisence" (natural desire, in particular sexual desire) was a corruption of human nature, ie. a sin nature. This notion was never taught in the early church and it is not taught in the Bible. It is proved, like all false doctrine, by isolating select texts from their proper context and by ignoring the whole counsel of God.

Excellent, Scott.

Especially...

The lust of the flesh is not a "sin nature."

"Sin Nature" is an NIV mistranslation of the word SARX which means FLESH.

The flesh is not sinful. The flesh is but a base vehicle, sin is when we misuse our flesh in order to yield to unrighteousness.

This doctrine of the "sin nature" which you believe in is a stronghold in your mind which is forcing you to reject the truth.

Read the section on "the flesh" about a third of the way own. Christ at Work in You

 

[dragonfly]

Flesh refers to more than just the body. It also includes the carnal mind, which is evil.

But if you have a new heart and spirit, the mind with which it is thinking is Christ's. Nothing evil and defiling comes forth from it although our old patterns of thinking might confuse us. Temptation comes from outside, primarily, and any wrong 'lusts of the flesh' are not sins if they are not acted upon.

The battle in the mind while choosing to resist, is par for the course, until the flesh has been retrained not to respond in certain situations the way it used to. And if a believer is constantly losing a battle in the mind, then there are only two possibilities: their 'heart' is not in the battle because they really want to do the sin, or, they don't understand the nature of their enemy.

In overcoming sin it is sometimes necessary to understand the sin and the basis of its appeal (the reason it is loved), before that intimate knowledge of it can be turned into the foundation of a strategy to overcome that sin. More could be said, but pretending that a sin happens by accident, like Aaron's 'and out came this golden calf', is self-deception or hypocrisy or both. Between oneself and God, the facade must come down, and the sin must be fully understood from both one's own side, and God's angle of abhorrence. Only as we are willing to have His attitudes, will we utterly defeat certain sins which we had accommodated previously, with anything from no pangs of conscience to deeply depressing guilt.

I realise there are triggers for all of us, which may vary from person to person, but as long as each individual refuses to respond by acting out, no 'sin' is being committed. Whether special prayer is needed to break certain patterns of thought or feelings, is for each individual to decide. There is grace from the Lord and mercy, and He intends the captives to be released in this lifetime, in their experience. Eternity has begun, for believers.

If some people posting in this thread don't understand the difference between bondage and sin, there is a need to read our Lord's quote of Isaiah 61 as it appears in Luke 4, where Jesus has added 'opening the eyes of the blind'. Doctrine which is whacked out against a misunderstanding of scripture, is never going to lead to deliverance, healing, or salvation. We all need to be ready to see something in the word, which we had not seen before. The glitches in our thinking can be ironed out, if we are willing to let the Lord teach us.

For instance, for many years because of one sermon I heard about how a Christian has to lay down their 'soul life', I worked hard to comply with how I had understood that message; but in fact, spiritually, I was damaging myself, and it was not until I heard something on the radio from a man who'd been converted in prison through hearing the 23rd Psalm being sung, that I realised where I was going wrong. God had spoken to him through 'My soul He doth restore again'. What??? I was busy putting my soul to death! Time for a rethink!!! I had to bring my theology in line with God's word, not some famous book-writer's interpretation of it! And since then, God has been able to restore me as I've co-operated with His ministrations. After all, the purpose of redemption is restoration; not merely a concept, but a spiritual and physical reality God desires to bring about in our experience.

My inner man has been healed substantially, I have a sound mind, and He certainly has not left me defenceless against sin, or powerless to overcome it.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Read the section on "the flesh" about a third of the way own. Christ at Work in You

What people are failing to realize is that the flesh (the natural man) has been defiled by sin and can never enter GOD's presence. That is why it must die, or be transformed when Christ returns. The fact that a transformation occurs at the lord's return speaks against the idea that our bodies have already been transformed (ie, sinless). The blood cleanses our conscience; it does not remove sin. Sin will not be removed until death, or the lord returns and gives us a new body.

Those who think having a sin nature is the same thing as sinning are deceived. There is a big distinction.

John doesn't say in 1 John 1:8 "if we say we haven't sinned' as he does in verse 10, but 'if we say we have no sin'. He does make a distinction between committing sin and having a sin nature. In the former, we lie; in the latter we deceive ourselves. When I sin, I don't possess sin (as verse 8 implies), but have done something wrong that needs to be repented of (as verse 10 implies). When I acknowledge the sin in my nature (something I possess), I must put it to death so that I don't sin. This is the distinction John is making.

btw, I read what you linked to above. To state (as the author does) 'The "flesh" is not to be identified with, equated with, or used as a synonym of " ... old man, old self, old nature, sin-nature, self-nature, Adam-nature, human nature," etc.' is simply ludicrous.

I realise there are triggers for all of us, which may vary from person to person, but as long as each individual refuses to respond by acting out, no 'sin' is being committed....

But this contradicts the lord's teachings that even the thought of committing a sin is the same as doing it. This suggests that there is something intrinsic and internal to man that is not right.

 

[ScottAU]

Excellent, Scott.

Especially...


Read the section on "the flesh" about a third of the way own. Christ at Work in You

That was quite an interesting read Axehead and I do agree with much of it.

This comment was particularly interesting...

As a final statement about the "flesh," it is important to note that the "desires of the flesh" do not tempt us to act out in sinful behavior. The patterns of selfish and sinful action and reaction are well entrenched in our soul, but they have no inherent power to energize and actuate sinful behavior. The Evil One is the only energizing source of the evil character that actuates sinful expression. Many English translations of James 1:14 appear to indicate "we are tempted when we are enticed by our own desire." A more careful translation will read, "Each one is tempted (by the tempter), being enticed and lured under his own desire." Satan, the tempter, goes fishing under our idiosyncratic patterns of fleshly desires, which he knows so well, seeking to attract and ensnare us to make a choice that will employ his evil character via those old patterns of selfish action and reaction. There is nothing in scripture that indicates that the Christian is self-tempted by the desires of the "flesh," by an old-nature, or by some evil "self."

I think the author is adding "by the tempter" to the text. I looked up various versions of this verse and I don't see a single one of them supporting his contention of "by the tempter."

KJV
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
YLT
Jas 1:14 and each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed,
ASV
Jas 1:14but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.
NLT
Jas 1:14 Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away.
NIV
Jas 1:14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
Amp
Jam 1:14 But every person is tempted when he is drawn away, enticed and baited by his own evil desire (lust, passions).

Now it is clearly evident that in the garden we had Eve tempted by the tempter (Gen 3:1-5) BEFORE she was drawn into sin by the lusts of the flesh (Gen 3:6). It's just that Jam 1:14 is not stating what James Fowler is attempting to convinice us it says.

I looked at some of the other work of James Fowler, in particular this...

The Extent and Efficacy of the life and work of Jesus Christ
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/pdfs/ExtentEfficacyEbook.pdf

He is clearly approaching the Bible from a Reformed perspective in that he is teaching Penal Substition as the means of "Reconciliation" and thus identifies Rom 6:4-6 in a "forensic" fashion. Thus, in his mind, one is reconciled to God by "accepting" the notion that one is "already forgiven" through the "efficacious work of Jesus Christ." Thus I see a dangerous error in his thinking here, because the death of Christ is what gives us the Ministry of Reconciliation but actual reconciliation only takes place via repentance and faith. Under Fowler's theology the reconciliation has already taken place due to the "price being paid" in the context of the Penal Substitution legal transaction, this is why he makes the statement that hell is full of "forgiven sinners" who never identified with "being already forgiven."

I found this latter view of Fowler's of particular interest because he is defintely not your "typical" Reformed theologian. He clearly rejects the notion of Unconditional Election and the notion of a Limited Atonement. So while a typical Reformer will cling to the Limited Atonement (for if the penalty was paid under Penal Substitution it cannot be demanded again, hence those lost cannot have had their price paid), Fowler rejects it on the basis of how he teaches "Universal Forgiveness" but stops short of teaching "Universal Salvation" in that the "Universal Forgiveness" must be "identified with" in order to make it effectual to the saving of the soul.

I might erring in attributing him to being Reformed at all yet I still lean towards that conclusion due to his purely forensic approach to Reconciliation. I ought to write him for a dialogue after I familiarise myself with more of his writings.

He does make some very astute observations I must admit.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Axehead]

Hi Scott,

Glad you took the time to read Jim's article and thank you!! I have read a lot of Jim's stuff and he is definitely not Reformed though you may think so from one article. Also, his model of atonement is the Spiritual/Ontological one as opposed to the Legal/Penal model. Here is a diagram of 3 models.

Models of the Atonement

Here is an excerpt from His article that goes along with the diagram. Atonement This article contains more models of the Atonement put forth by men through the ages.

It is always great to find another saint that enjoys a good "adventure" in reading. :)

"Both the legal/penal and personal/relational models are weak in the presentation of the restorative work of Jesus Christ, failing to emphasize the living dynamic of the risen Lord Jesus and His on-going work in the Christian today. They both tend to divorce the Christian life from the spiritual life and ontological presence of Jesus Christ, which explains the necessary importance of the spiritual/ontological model.

May we always remember that the Divine work of God in Jesus Christ is such a unique spiritual reality that the images and concepts and models that we employ to explain such will always fall short of full understanding. Christians are obliged to seek to understand the work of Christ as best they can, but they must learn to live with their finite limitations of understanding, and praise God for His "unfathomable ways" (Rom. 11:33)."

I wish I could participate more but am so busy these days. I try to read here and there and keep in the loop but that is lacking, too.

Axehead

 

[dragonfly]

Hi ChristRoseFromTheDead,

But this contradicts the lord's teachings that even the thought of committing a sin is the same as doing it.

He was talking to those of unregenerate hearts, remember. They had never heard that merely thinking about committing adultery was sin. They had no concept of a clear conscience.

What I am talking about is a person with a pure heart, (new heart), a new spirit (Holy Spirit), who is tempted to think about committing a sin.

I contend that that thought is not coming from his heart in the first instance, but if he now contemplates the sin to the point of desiring to do it with the full engagement of his heart, then when he carries out that sin, his heart will not longer be pure. His conscience will no longer be clear.

Although the stages of first noticing a temptation to carrying it out, might go past in a couple of seconds, the fact is that a person who is intent on not committing sins he previously committed (in particular) and is abiding in Christ, can recognise temptation and refuse to agree with it in his mind and in his actions. In fact, he might take evasive action if that is possible, to demonstrate his unwillingness to fall into temptation. He has not sinned.

It is ridiculous to say that becoming aware of a thought about committing a sin, is automatically a sin for having had the thought. If one is in the light with God, He knows exactly what one has been thinking. He also knows how Satan works to try to break the resolve of saints to not sin, and some of what Satan organises for believers is pretty disgusting. I hope you are not seriously saying that to be aware of a temptation, is a sin per se?


Hi Axehead,

I try to read here and there and keep in the loop but that is lacking, too.

You are indeed missing some great discussions, which are all being carried out with civility and love. It's quite a pleasure. :)

 

[IanLC]

Holy and righteous living is an outward show or display of an inward work. If Christ be in you then you will possess Him and thus you will act and live as He did in holiness. Christians are indwelled with CHirst thus Christians bear fruit of that profession. If you profess Christ and do not bear the fruit of holiness you are not of Christ.
"They will be called the Holy People, the Redeemed of the LORD; and you will be called Sought After, the City No Longer Deserted." (Isaiah 62:12)
"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9)
"Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God." (2 Corinthians 7:1)
"But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;" (1 Peter 1:15)
"If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. (1 John 1:6)
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Romans 12:1)
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 COrinthians 6:19-20)
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." (Matthew 5:8)
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." (Hebrews 12:14)
Why therefore is holiness so stressed in the Holy Writ if it is not important for the CHristian?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

He was talking to those of unregenerate hearts, remember.
...
It is ridiculous to say that becoming aware of a thought about committing a sin, is automatically a sin for having had the thought. If one is in the light with God, He knows exactly what one has been thinking. He also knows how Satan works to try to break the resolve of saints to not sin, and some of what Satan organises for believers is pretty disgusting. I hope you are not seriously saying that to be aware of a temptation, is a sin per se?

The lord said what he said. I think it's dangerous to try to rationalize it. Unregenerate or regenerated is irrelevant. To inwardly desire acting out a sin is the same as doing it. The heart is defiled either way, though the latter is worse. Temptation itself is not sin, but temptation doesn't have to lead to action to defile the heart. The iniquitous thoughts of a person's mind and heart can and do defile him.

 

[IanLC]

Everyone who has faith in God's works is going to be "peculiar" because of how God is using them. Noah and all who are in God are suppose to stand out because of what others see from them--obedience to God.

Exactly Noah lived in obedience which is righteousness. Living righteous is lving obedient!

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Models of the Atonement

I think that list makes artificial characterizations that don't exist except in someone's mind. I can find truth in all 3 models, but the characteristics of the walk of faith is not limited to any one of those.

 

[Netchaplain]

But if you have a new heart and spirit, the mind with which it is thinking is Christ's. Nothing evil and defiling comes forth from it although our old patterns of thinking might confuse us.

Nothing sinful comes from us in our "new man,"; only from "the old man" which abides within.

 

[Axehead]

Hi Axehead,


You are indeed missing some great discussions, which are all being carried out with civility and love. It's quite a pleasure. :)

Hi dragonfly,

Yes, I quite agree.

I think that list makes artificial characterizations that don't exist except in someone's mind. I can find truth in all 3 models, but the characteristics of the walk of faith is not limited to any one of those.

Well, I wouldn't call them "artificial characterizations", but neither would I present any individual one as ALL the truth.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Nothing sinful comes from us in our "new man,"; only from "the old man" which abides within.

This is what I also believe, DF.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi ChristRoseFromTheDead,

Temptation itself is not sin, but temptation doesn't have to lead to action to defile the heart.

That's the main thing I was saying.

I do not believe 'the old man' abides within those who have been grafted into Christ's death and resurrection, Romans 6:6, although for those who claim a relationship with Christ in biblical language, yet still believe their 'old man' still abides within, very possibly, he does, as they have failed to lay hold of the mechanism provided by God, whereby they may experience his death.