Sin

[savedbygrace05]

What say ye to the reality of sin? It seems that the church/Christians can be as guilty as the world as denying the reality of sin! What is your view?


http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PERSONAL/k/489/What-Sin-Is-Does.htm

 

[Foreigner]

A lot of new members do a hit-and-run on a topic to see what can be stirred up.

Why don't you start with sharing YOUR opinion on the matter.

 

[prism]

If sin isn't real then neither is Jesus dying for our SIN.

 

[savedbygrace05]

A lot of new members do a hit-and-run on a topic to see what can be stirred up.

Why don't you start with sharing YOUR opinion on the matter.

OK, I am a bible teacher, therefore my view is biblical, plain and simple!!

 

[Webers_Home]

.
The very first place the word "sin" appears in the Bible is in the story of Cain
and Abel.

†. Gen 4:7 . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do
not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you,
but you must master it.

The Hebrew word is chatta'ah (khat-taw-aw') which means: an offence

Webster's defines an "offense" as: (1) something that outrages the moral or
physical senses, (2) the act of attacking; viz: an assault, (3) the act of
displeasing or affronting, (4) breach of a moral or social code, and (5) an
infraction of law.

In Cain's case, the "offense" crouching at his door was the decision to ignore
God's wishes and do things his own way; which of course resulted in his kid
brother's death.

You know, Cain's offering wasn't refused because it consisted of the fruit of
the field instead of the fruit of the herd; no, it was rejected because he and
his brother weren't getting along.

†. Mtt 5:23-24 . . Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there
remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift
there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother,
and then come and offer your gift.

In other words; dysfunctional Christian families would do just as well staying
home and spending Sunday morning on social networking and playing video
games rather than going to church since God has no interest in their worship
when there's no love in the home.

Cliff
/

 

[Foreigner]

OK, I am a bible teacher, therefore my view is biblical, plain and simple!!

Plain and simple?

I have had 'bible teachers' tell me:

- God approves of gay marraige
- All Catholics are going to hell
- Only Catholics are going to heaven
- The Rapture will hit before the Tribulation
- The Rapture will hit mid-Tribulation
- The Rapture won't happen until Christ returns at the very end of time
- Abortion should be supported because the baby goes straight to be with Jesus
- People cannot serve in the military and be a Christian at the same time
- Tithing is scriptural
- Tithing has no modern day scriptural basis
- Everything in the Old Testament still applies to us.
- Nothing in the Old Testament applies to us now
- Jesus was simply a prophet used by God
- The Holy Spirit is God
- The Holy Spirit is only a tool of God
- The Holy Spirit is simply an angel used by God
- Praying in tongues is of God
- Praying in tongues is of the devil
etc.
etc.
etc.

Saying you are a 'bible teacher' sheds very little light on what you may actually believe.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You know, Cain's offering wasn't refused because it consisted of the fruit of
the field instead of the fruit of the herd; no, it was rejected because he and
his brother weren't getting along.

Cain's offering was rejected because it was rebellion against the revealed divine will, i.e., that blood was required to cover sin. Abel obeyed through faith with blood of a vicarious sacrifice; Cain disobeyed by offering the fruit of his own labor.

 

[savedbygrace05]

Plain and simple?

I have had 'bible teachers' tell me:

- God approves of gay marraige
- All Catholics are going to hell
- Only Catholics are going to heaven
- The Rapture will hit before the Tribulation
- The Rapture will hit mid-Tribulation
- The Rapture won't happen until Christ returns at the very end of time
- Abortion should be supported because the baby goes straight to be with Jesus
- People cannot serve in the military and be a Christian at the same time
- Tithing is scriptural
- Tithing has no modern day scriptural basis
- Everything in the Old Testament still applies to us.
- Nothing in the Old Testament applies to us now
- Jesus was simply a prophet used by God
- The Holy Spirit is God
- The Holy Spirit is only a tool of God
- The Holy Spirit is simply an angel used by God
- Praying in tongues is of God
- Praying in tongues is of the devil
etc.
etc.
etc.

Saying you are a 'bible teacher' sheds very little light on what you may actually believe.

I believe in the revealed word of God, Spirit led and fed. I am not responsible for what comes out of the mouths of others bible teachers. The responsibility also lies with the hearer to compare with what a bible teacher says, and what God's word really says. I am reformed in my theology, seeking to be a workman approved by God.

 

[mark s]

Hi savedbygrace05,

OK, so now I'm curious . . . after two invitations to give your opinion on "the reality of sin", you've neatly side-stepped answering, though you have said you are reformed in your theology.

Is there some particular view of yours that you are waiting to reveal? Are you simply seeking others to answer first so you can correct them?

Here . . . if it helps . . . I'll go first:

Sin is real, and equates to all thoughts, words, actions, and behaviors that arise from man's fallen nature. Originating in Adam's disobedience to God's command, sin is the consequence of man's resultant corruption.

As regenerated children of God, we are either walking (thinking, doing) in the Spirit in sinless perfection, having wrested control of our fallen, corrupted body of flesh from its own mind, or we are walking according to the flesh, allowing that corrupt mind of the flesh to rule the doings of the body.

These two minds, the mind of Christ, also called the mind of the spirit, which arises from our new creation, and the mind of the flesh, which arises from the corrupt old nature, are in constant battle for control over our body. If we allow the mind of the flesh control, sin results. If we maintain control by the mind of Christ, righteousness results.

In the end, as children of God, the old corrupt nature will be transformed to a new nature, and we will have a new body in perfect agreement with our new mind, and righteousness will always result, without the interuption of sin anymore, hallelujah!!!!!

For those who don't know God, and have no new nature, when that body of sin is judged, the only life they've ever had is gone. Eternal life is to know God, and know Jesus Christ. Not knowing God, they have no eternal life, and will only know eternal death.

OK, before commenting on my answer, perhaps you would share with us your answer?

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Cain's offering was rejected because it was rebellion against the revealed divine will, i.e.
that blood was required to cover sin. Abel obeyed through faith with blood of a vicarious
sacrifice; Cain disobeyed by offering the fruit of his own labor.

The above is a pat answer and I've probably seen or heard it at least a
hundred times. It's based upon the passage below:

†. Heb 11:4 . . It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering
to God than Cain did. God accepted Abel's offering to show that he was a
righteous man.

However; the Hebrew word for "offering" in Gen 4:3-74 is from minchah
(min-khaw') and means: to apportion; viz: to share, bestow, and/or donate.
Euphemistically: minchaw indicates a tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering
(usually bloodless and voluntary).

For example:

†. Mtt 2:11 . . On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother
Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their
treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.

The reason Abel's offering was "more acceptable" is because Abel himself
was acceptable. The focus in both Genesis and Hebrews is not really upon
the men's offerings because it's okay for a minchah to be bloodless. The
focus is actually upon faith and righteousness; that is: the focus is upon the
nature of the brothers' conduct rather than upon the nature of their gifts.
Abel was a righteous man; hence God accepted his gift; and would have
accepted it even if Abel's gift had been nothing more than a double-shot
Starbuck's latte. Stay with me as I develop this principle because it is very
crucial to worship.

In making a determination regarding the gifts, God evaluated the men
themselves first. The Lord respected Abel, therefore He respected Abel's gift
too. But although God very likely had been satisfied with Cain in the past,
this time there was something amiss.

Well, the reason is right out in plain sight like an elephant in the middle of
the room. It was friction between him and his brother. The Bible's Christ
taught that it is incorrect to worship God while the worshipper is at fault with
their brother.

†. Mtt 5:23-24 . .Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there
remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift
there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother,
and then come and offer your gift.

So then, what are Gen 4:4-5aand Mtt 5:23-24 teaching? They're teaching
that one's worship is unacceptable when their conduct is unbecoming. In
other words: as they say in some circles; Cain was "out of fellowship" with
God and that's why his normally acceptable offering was that time rejected.
Even if Cain had offered fifty lambs from Abel's flock, it wouldn't have been
enough to change God's feelings about Cain's conduct one whit.

For example:

†. Isa 1:11-17 . . Your never-ending sacrifices— what are they to me?
testifies Yhvh. I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the
fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs
and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?

. . . Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations— I cannot bear your evil
assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul
hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood;
wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop
doing wrong, learn to do right!

Sound familiar?

†. Gen 4:7 . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cliff
/

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The above is a pat answer and I've probably seen or heard it at least a hundred times. It's based upon the passage below:

Your observations are interesting, but you make too many assumptions. The facts of the matter are:

• there is no forgiveness of sin, nor righteousness, apart from faith in shed blood
• blood was shed for Abel's offering
• no blood was shed for Cain's offering
• Abel's offering demonstrated faith in the shed blood of a vicarious sacrifice
• Cain's offering demonstrated faith in the work of his own hands
• Hebrews 11:4 indicates that Abel's offering was righteous (see first point)
• minchah can mean either a bloodless offering, or one in which blood has been shed
• a very large percentage of minchah's usage in the OT is to describe a meal offering in which no blood was shed

Unless minchah is being used generally in Genesis 4:4, it really makes no sense to describe Abel's blood offering with that term. Therefore, since your reasoning is based on a specific usage of minchah to exclude blood offerings, I think your interpretation is a bit weak.

 

[Strat]

A lot of new members do a hit-and-run on a topic to see what can be stirred up.

Why don't you start with sharing YOUR opinion on the matter.

At least you are consistant in your tactics and have probably made more than one new member think twice about becoming an old member

 

[savedbygrace05]

Hi savedbygrace05,

OK, so now I'm curious . . . after two invitations to give your opinion on "the reality of sin", you've neatly side-stepped answering, though you have said you are reformed in your theology.

Is there some particular view of yours that you are waiting to reveal? Are you simply seeking others to answer first so you can correct them?

Here . . . if it helps . . . I'll go first:

Sin is real, and equates to all thoughts, words, actions, and behaviors that arise from man's fallen nature. Originating in Adam's disobedience to God's command, sin is the consequence of man's resultant corruption.

As regenerated children of God, we are either walking (thinking, doing) in the Spirit in sinless perfection, having wrested control of our fallen, corrupted body of flesh from its own mind, or we are walking according to the flesh, allowing that corrupt mind of the flesh to rule the doings of the body.

These two minds, the mind of Christ, also called the mind of the spirit, which arises from our new creation, and the mind of the flesh, which arises from the corrupt old nature, are in constant battle for control over our body. If we allow the mind of the flesh control, sin results. If we maintain control by the mind of Christ, righteousness results.

In the end, as children of God, the old corrupt nature will be transformed to a new nature, and we will have a new body in perfect agreement with our new mind, and righteousness will always result, without the interuption of sin anymore, hallelujah!!!!!

For those who don't know God, and have no new nature, when that body of sin is judged, the only life they've ever had is gone. Eternal life is to know God, and know Jesus Christ. Not knowing God, they have no eternal life, and will only know eternal death.

OK, before commenting on my answer, perhaps you would share with us your answer?

Love in Christ,
Mark

Hi Mark,

What you have shared is not your opinion, but rather your understanding of God's Word, which I agree with largely, although I do not agree that any Christian can walk in this life in 'sinless perfection'. Sin has corrupted us to the very core of our beings, and lurks deep within even the godliest Christian. Having said that, although we are not perfect, neither are we imperfect as Christians, because as new creations in Christ we are being transformed (providing that we co-operate or walk in step with God's Spirit).

"Are you simply seeking others to answer first so you can correct them?"

No, I set out my agenda at the very beginning, "What say ye to the reality of sin? It seems that the church/Christians can be as guilty as the world as denying the reality of sin! What is your view?"

Hope that helps to clear up any misunderstanding!!

 

[mark s]

Yes, I understand!



To clarify one point, I do not think we will be able to walk continuously in sinless perfection. The flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, and these are at war, so we can't do what we want to do. But while we are walking in the spirit, we are working righteousness.

May those times in the flesh grow fewer and further between!

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[Webers_Home]

.

there is no forgiveness of sin, nor righteousness, apart from faith in shed blood

There are no indications in the narrative that the men's offerings were for
sin.

blood was shed for Abel's offering

There are no indications in the narrative that Abel's firstling was slain. You
know; gifts need not lose their lives: for example Christian moms and dads
dedicate their children to the Lord all the time as a matter of course. An
outstanding example of minchah children in the Bible is Samuel. His mom
Hannah dedicated her little firstling to the Lord before the lad was even
born. (1Sam 1:11). But the point is; her gift wasn't slain.

no blood was shed for Cain's offering

Produce is an acceptable minchah oblation. Ancient Jews believed (as I do)
that Cain's and Abel's offerings were first-fruit offerings rather than sin
offerings.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain
brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation
of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the
flock. (Targum Jonathan)

The men's oblations were consistent with their professions: Abel was an
animal husbandman, hence his offering was a beast, while Cain's
profession was farming; hence his offering was produce.

The specific Hebrew word for sin offering is 'olah (o-law') which is nowhere
in the narrative. One of the more common translations of minchah is
"present" as in a gift; for example:

†. Gen 32:18 . .Then thou shalt say, They be thy servant Jacob's; it is a
present sent unto my lord Esau: and, behold, also he is behind us.

†. Gen 43:25-26 . . And they made ready the present against Joseph came
at noon: for they heard that they should eat bread there. And when Joseph
came home, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the
house, and bowed themselves to him to the earth.

Below is a verse juxtaposing the minchah and the 'olah.

†. Ps 20:3 . . Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice

Hebrews 11:4 indicates that Abel's offering was righteous

Heb 11:4 actually certifies Abel's righteousness rather than the
righteousness of his offering.

"By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was
commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings."

In other words: God spoke well of Abel's offering because Abel was a
righteous man, whereas God didn't speak well of Cain's because he was (at
the time of his offering) an unrighteous man.

†. Gen 4:7 . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

An excellent example of that statement is Isa 1:11-17. Yhvh's people were
hard at work practicing the one true God-given religion. They kept all the
feast days and they brought all the correct sacrifices and offerings on a
timely basis, and they prayed up a storm. However, their personal conduct
was unbecoming so God totally detested every last item of their worship;
including church attendance. In other words: though they were religious to
their fingertips, they were 110% out of fellowship with God.

†. Prv 15:8 . .Yhvh detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the
upright pleases him.

†. Prv 21:27 . .The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much
more when he brings it with wicked intent!

†. 1John 1:6 . . If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the
darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

Unless minchah is being used generally in Genesis 4:4, it really makes no sense to
describe Abel's blood offering with that term

It makes no sense to me to assume Abel killed his firstling when there's
nothing in the narrative indicating that he did. And even had he actually
slain the firstling, there is nothing in the narrative indicating he did so to
atone for sin any more than there is anything in the narrative indicating that
Cain offered fruit of the field to atone for sin.

Here's a passage that some Christians construe to indicate Abel killed his
firstling.

†. Heb 12:23-24 . .You have come to . . . and to the sprinkled blood that
speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

However, the focus in that statement is upon Abel's blood rather than the
blood of his firstling. Here's a paraphrase that helps clarify the real meaning.

"You have come to Jesus . . . and to the sprinkled blood, which graciously
forgives instead of crying out for vengeance as the blood of Abel did. (NLT)

That refers to Gen 4:10

"And He said: What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries
out to me from the ground."

I think your interpretation is a bit weak.

My interpretation may seem a bit weak to you; but not to me.

Cliff
/

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

My interpretation may seem a bit weak to you; but not to me.

I realize that, and seriously, I'm not knocking it. I think it is quite fascinating and worthy of study. However, I do believe the preeminent intent of that anecdote is to teach that faith in the shed blood of a vicarious sacrifice is the door and means to salvation. Having a forgiving heart is not. For all men except Christ, forgiveness through the shed blood works forgiveness in the heart, not the other way around. However, they are so inextricably intertwined to the point that once one places faith in the shed blood, he/she cannot remain forgiven without a forgiving heart.

Quite fascinating and some kind of seriously compelling connection there. Thanks for sharing it.