Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,239
Members1,327
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14199
06/12/05 11:55 PM
06/12/05 11:55 PM
|
OP
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
DebbieYou are right; that is not what I believe at all. There is Sin the Power and sinS the actions. In the Word there are many cases of two things called by the same name, yet are different. Failure to identify which is which can lead to great difficulties.
Examples: The coming of Christ, the 1st is very different from the second Snake = Satan, snake on the pole of Moses=Christ The marriage to Christ at conversion and the marriage of Christ to the New Jerusalem (GC.426,427)
So, here I hope to discuss Sin the Disease and sinS the results caused by the Disease.
To put it simply: the flu virus compared to sneezing.
John Again, I say you have taken EGW out of context in this topic here; she is arguing against self-justifying church hypocrites that make the Law of no weight, not the "stony heart", "polluted spring" that Sin creates in a man.
If the action of sinning only are intended, there is no need for Christ's demand for being "born again", "a new heart", "the mind of Christ", "Christ in you", "Christ's seed" " a new creation" etc.
He would have just mentioned a change of actions only. Did Mary Magdalene need only to stop whoring on her own recognition that she broke the Law, or did she need a new heart, a death to self, a Vaccine (Christ in her) against the power of Sin in order to stop sinning?
She needed delivery from slavery to a Power over her, not last night's "trick" only
John When you were saved from those events you used to attend in NC, was it the circumstances ONLY Christ delivered you from or the Power that drew you to those events?
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14200
06/13/05 03:03 PM
06/13/05 03:03 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
For those who seem to think that sin is only “actions”, is there not someone who does the actions; namely sinners? Have we not heard of the noun-sin called “I” or “self”?
I know that I tried in vain to not commit the actions while “I” was living; until the mercy of God brought me to realize that as long as “I” is on the throne, I will continue to commit the action sins. Thus the glory of God in the face of Christ sets me free from “I”, “self” – namely the master (disease) “SIN”, so that now 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.
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14201
06/13/05 04:01 PM
06/13/05 04:01 PM
|
|
Phil said, quote: If the action of sinning only are intended, there is no need for Christ's demand for being "born again", "a new heart", "the mind of Christ", "Christ in you", "Christ's seed" " a new creation" etc.
He would have just mentioned a change of actions only.
Not true. The actions can only be changed by a change of heart, a new birth. But the actions must change, for that's what constitutes sin, and our works are the basis of judgment.
John B. wrote, quote: those who seem to think that sin is only "actions"...
...that would include the Bible writers, Ellen White, the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, and the Father Himself.
Again we read from the pen of EGW:"Sin is the sinner's individual act. Before sin exists in the heart, the consent of the will must be given..." {ST 12-18-93 para. 10} You fellows who are saying that this is "out of context" are in effect making the Testimonies of none effect. Sis. White said repeatedly that sin is the transgression of the law, an act. A result of choice. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other definition of sin will give a false conclusion, since it's based on a false starting premise.
It's not possible that this definition of sin from EGW's pen is being taken out of context. Let's look at the many places where she wrote this:"If we have not the faith that works by love, and purifies the soul from every stain of sin, then we have a spurious faith. Christ is not the minister of sin. And what is sin? The only definition given in God's word is, 'Sin is the transgression of the law;' and the apostle Paul declares, 'Where no law is, there is no transgression.'" {ST 11-24-87 para. 12}
"The only definition for sin that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law." {ST 03-03-90 para. 3}
"'Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.' This is the only definition of sin given in the Holy Scriptures, and we should seek to understand what sin is, lest any of us be found in opposition to the God of heaven." {RH 07-15-90 para. 2}
"The only definition we find in the Bible for sin is that 'sin is the transgression of the law' (1 John 3:4)." {1SM 320.1} (taken from ST 12-05-92)
"Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is 'the transgression of the law;' it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government." {GC 492.2} (1888, 1911) Here we have this definition given in Signs of the Times in 1887; Great Controversy in 1888 and 1911; Signs of the Times in 1890; Review and Herald in 1890; Signs of the Times in 1892 (the quote from 1SM). How can this possibly be taken out of context? The answer: it can't. This is a definition she gave again, and again, and again. It stands on its own, irrespective of context.
This idea of sin being something that's infused into our very natures is a Catholic concept, and is married to the idea of original sin, another Catholic error. We have sinful natures inherited from Adam, true. But sin itself does not reside within that nature. Sin is what that fallen nature prompts us to do.
As long as we're mentioning Adam, let's look at him for a moment. What was his sin? It was eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. An action, based upon his choice. Did he have some mysterious disease living within his nature that made him do this thing? No he didn't. He had an unfallen nature when he committed that sin. His sin was purely and only an action, based on a choice. The same is the case with Lucifer, he who committed the very first sin. He had an unfallen nature also, when he first sinned. So it's not necessary to have some "disease" living within our natures in order to commit sin.
Sin is an action, based on choices made. So says the Holy Spirit through His penmen.
The Bible says,1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Isaiah 6:6,7 6 "Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged." Did you get that? John says when we confess our sins, we're cleansed from ALL unrighteousness. Unrighteousness is the same thing as sin. If sin itself was actually something that's an inherent part of us, then we could never be cleansed of "all unrighteousness" this side of Jesus' coming. For only then will this fallen nature of ours be changed.
The angel told Isaiah that his sin was purged. All gone. That wouldn't be possible if we were actually sinners by nature.
If sin was something that resided within us by nature, separate and apart from our actions, all of the above inspired quotations would be untrue.
The bottom line is just as Sis. White said, as posted earlier:"The only definition for sin that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law." {ST 03-03-90 para. 3} Any other definition is in direct contradiction of the Almighty Himself. Please be careful how you tread!
Listen to Pr. Priebe's sermon linked above. Read Pr. Larry's article, "Sin: Is It Choice or Nature?" at
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-wint5.php
Read Kevin Paulson's article, "Sinners by Choice," at
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-sinners.php3
They set out the truth of these matters in very clear terms. [ June 13, 2005, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: John ]
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14202
06/13/05 05:13 PM
06/13/05 05:13 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
John you quoted: those who seem to think that sin is only "actions"...
I said: For those who seem to think that sin is only “actions”, is there not someone who does the actions; namely sinners? Have we not heard of the noun-sin called “I” or “self”?
Quoting less than a phrase is hardly keeping things in context.
I think if you care to look you will find plenty of EW speaking along with my statement above. While I have never researched original sin doctrine; my understanding is that it has to do with guilt and not with sin, as far as I am aware. This we dispute; everyone has enough of his own, he does not need anybody else’s.
You said: We have sinful natures inherited from Adam, true.
Ok, what is “sinful nature”? What makes it sinful?
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14203
06/13/05 05:25 PM
06/13/05 05:25 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote: "Sin is the sinner's individual act. Before sin exists in the heart, the consent of the will must be given..."
I do not know who of men (barring Christ) did not give that consent.
Once it is given, how do you get saved from "sin in the heart"? Can you just tell it to leave? You see once the consent is given, sin becomes the master of the will.
Not discounting the importance of the will in receiving Christ. Can you by your will just command sin to leave the heart. Is that all it takes to become a saint? Is it not that you need to give your will to Christ in order for sin to be cast out of the heart?
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14204
06/13/05 05:33 PM
06/13/05 05:33 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote: John: Did you get that? John says when we confess our sins, we're cleansed from ALL unrighteousness. Unrighteousness is the same thing as sin. If sin itself was actually something that's an inherent part of us, then we could never be cleansed of "all unrighteousness" this side of Jesus' coming. For only then will this fallen nature of ours be changed.
First of all there is difference between “sinful nature” and “sinful flesh”.
Sinful flesh will remain till Christ comes again, but ‘sinful nature’ is replaced with ‘divine nature’ now, upon receiving Christ.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14205
06/13/05 07:23 PM
06/13/05 07:23 PM
|
|
John B., the reason I only used part of what you said about sin being only actions, is that the first portion was all that was needed to show what you were saying -- that sin is something more, and can be apart from, actions. But Inspiration defines sin as exactly that -- an action. Nothing more, and nothing less. As for the exercise of the will and the expulsion of sin; only Jesus can get rid of sin, of course. We can give him our will, but only He has the power to do anything beyond that. Once we consent to sin, we lose power to resist. Each commission makes us more and more liable to sin again. But still it's true that the commission itself is the sin. Sin isn't something that's part of our natures. Our fallen natures inherited from Adam make us liable to commit sin, but sin itself remains the transgression of the law, nothing more, nothing less. That's how God has defined it. quote: Sinful flesh will remain till Christ comes again, but ‘sinful nature’ is replaced with ‘divine nature’ now, upon receiving Christ.
That can be true, depending on what's meant by "sinful nature." We humans have higher, spiritual natures, and lower, physical natures. Another good article addressing that is Kevin Paulson's "The Lower and Higher Natures," at
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-lhnature.php3
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14206
06/13/05 08:49 PM
06/13/05 08:49 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
So what do you mean by 'sinful nature'?
And could you be misleading someone if you tell him that all that is wrong/sin is what they have done. So all they have to do is stop doing it and they will be all right. There is nothing else wrong?
When I hear that, I hear that there is nothing wrong with me, I just did somethings wrong, so if I just learn to do it right or not do it, I'll be ok. Well I repent for what I did and say I'm sorry and all that; is that it? The condition of my heart does not need changing?
Is it not obvious that if one has committed sin, he has also become servant of sin, as it was neccessary first, by the power of the will, to let sin into the heart, before the action could happen.
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14207
06/13/05 09:08 PM
06/13/05 09:08 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote: John B., the reason I only used part of what you said about sin being only actions, is that the first portion was all that was needed to show what you were saying
I disagree, and I say you misrepresented entirely what is being said, both by me and EW.
Though I think I understand your concern on the issue of ‘sin being infused into our very natures’, nevertheless how do you differentiate that and our ‘sinful nature’?
|
|
|
Re: Christ our Vaccine
#14208
06/13/05 10:11 PM
06/13/05 10:11 PM
|
OP
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
John Howard Would you mind answering these question, if it's not too personal?:
When you were saved from those events you used to attend in NC, was it the circumstances ONLY Christ delivered you from or the Power that drew you to those events?
If they were merely other's sins and your sins then it had no source other than people. There was no evil beings behind any of it? No power other than law-breaking? No need for actual spiritual deliverence, just a will to be good?
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|