John B., I'd differentiate between [1] 'infusion of sin' (Catholic concept) and [2] sinful nature (Bible concept) by saying that concept [1] presupposes that sin becomes a very part of who/what we are, and is an erroneous idea.

Concept [2] says that when Adam sinned (transgressed the law), his very being changed into something that could no longer render perfect obedience to God's law; such obedience is the condition of living in harmony with our Maker. (Perfect obedience is the opposite of sin.) We have inherited that nature, which has been corrupted by sin, from Adam. But we haven't inherited sin itself; we become sinners when we actually commit sin, i.e. transgress the law of God. (And that happens only after we come to have a knowledge of that law; some call that time the 'age of accountability'.)

The sinful nature we inherit from Adam puts us at a distinct disadvantage; it pulls us dreadfully toward committing sin. Yet Jesus came to earth and took on Him that same sinful nature, to show that we can overcome, that we can obey God's law in this sinful nature -- by the power of His indwelling Spirit.

Phil -- you're pointing down a rabbit path I don't care to travel right now. There's no need to bring my personal history into this. A gracious plenty has been explained here already, in what I've posted, in Pr. Priebe's audio sermon, and Pr. Larry's and Pr. Kevin's articles, if you'll spend some time with them.

Also, John B.,

quote:

---

And could you be misleading someone if you tell him that all that is wrong/sin is what they have done.

---

It's not misleading someone to tell him what God has said. And God has said that sin is the act of transgressing His law. His definition, not mine. We can't go wrong repeating what He's said so clearly.

quote:

---

So all they have to do is stop doing it and they will be all right. There is nothing else wrong?

---

No one's saying that at all. Once we sin (transgress the law) even once, we deserve to die. "The wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) So just ceasing from sinning doesn't make everything all right. There's past sin to be forgiven, certainly. There's a death penalty to be paid. But praise God that Jesus came to take that penalty for us!

John B., a comment regarding "sinful flesh" and "sinful nature." As these terms are generally used in discussions of Christology, they are equivalent. That is, there is no difference between the two. If you look at texts like Rom. 8:3, 4, for example, you will see that some versions translate this "sinful flesh" and others "sinful nature." (end of note to John B.)

When referring to Christ, one needs to be very careful. If we say Christ "had" sinful flesh or "had" sinful nature, this can give an erroneous impression. Christ took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature.

Waggoner, who fought as clearly against the Original Sin idea as anyone, used the expression that "sin is in every fiber of our being." This is from memory. I think that's what he said.

The idea is that we are enslaved by sin, and apart from the power of God we cannot be set free from it. It's clear to me that everybody agrees with this.

Where the disagreement comes across, I think, is whether sin constitutes something other than behavior. For example, can an attitude be sin? Can a thought be sin? Can sin be unconscious?

We can all agree that sin is the transgression of the law, but the law is "exceedingly broad". The Spirit of Prophesy tells us that the law records the sins we would have committed had we had the opportunity. That's broad indeed! Above all, it includes the sin of crucifying Christ. When we understand that sin, and repent of it, it will help us to understand every other sin.

I would say "Yes!", Thomas Good example. Do you have other biblical ones on this same concept?

Is this heresy or truth?:

"Thus all the sin of this world, from its origin in the world to the end of it in the world, was laid upon Him--both sin as it is in itself and sin as it is when committed by us; sin in its tendency and sin in the act: sin as it is hereditary in us, uncommitted by us; and sin as it is committed by us."

It matters not WHO said it: Is it truth as it is in Christ?

You are discussing something much more complicated than it seems at first sight.
Does God condemn us for our sinful, selfish nature as He condemns us for our sinful acts? If He does, Christ had to die for our sinful nature; if He doesn’t, Christ died only for our sinful acts.
But if God condemns us for our sinful nature, then Christ couldn’t have assumed a sinful, selfish nature (BTW, I don’t think He did), otherwise He would have needed a savior Himself.
On the other hand, if God doesn’t condemn us for our sinful nature, why do babies die (since they don’t commit sinful acts)? The Bible says, “Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”.

R: You are discussing something much more complicated than it seems at first sight.
Does God condemn us for our sinful, selfish nature as He condemns us for our sinful acts?

T: No.

R: If He does, Christ had to die for our sinful nature; if He doesn’t, Christ died only for our sinful acts.

T: Christ died to bring us to God. The purpose of His ministry was to reveal God to us, in order to set us and keep us right.

R: But if God condemns us for our sinful nature, then Christ couldn’t have assumed a sinful, selfish nature (BTW, I don’t think He did), otherwise He would have needed a savior Himself.

T: Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. "That which He has not assumed, He has not healed."

R: On the other hand, if God doesn’t condemn us for our sinful nature, why do babies die (since they don’t commit sinful acts)?

T: Babies die for the same reason animals die and other humans die, and plants and single-celled organisms too.

R: The Bible says, “Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”.

T: Yup, that the reason.

John B.: Thanks Tom for your note. I agree that many (including translators) use these terms without discrimination. But I find a difference based on the message of scripture and salvation.

Tom: There's no difference based on the Scriptural words. sarko;ß aJmartivaß -- boy, that looks wierd. Looks better from where I copied it from. Anyway it's "sarkos hamarias" transliterated, which can be translated literally "flesh of sin". This is usually translated "sinful flesh" or "sinful nature".

John B: ‘Sinful flesh’ is easy, simply put, inherited and cultivated tendencies residing in the body. It is our physical condition or circumstance. This part is a non-issue in salvation. This will be dealt with at resurrection or translation. God can zap this physical change without any effort.

‘Sinful nature’ on the other hand, would be the chosen and cultivated tendencies, position, principles, and values residing in the spirit. This is the problem; the disease; the sin master.

Tom: This isn't right, John, as I'm familiar with seeing the terms used. "Sinful nature" is the same thing as "sinful flesh." There's no difference. What you're thinking of is "carnal nature." "Carnal nature" implies a participation of sin. "Sinful nature" is just "sinful flesh" or "sarkos hamartias". If you look at how EGW uses these terms, you will see that she does not distinguish between "sinful nature" and "sinful flesh," and her usage is standard in discussions of this sort.

I snipped the rest of what you wrote. I read it, and agree with the idea, but what you have referred to "sinful nature" is better referred to as "carnal nature," for the reasons I gave above.

I'd be happy to discuss this further if you wish.