Sin Nature: Fact or Fiction?

On February 19, 2013 I posted this status: 

"It is arrogant of us to think we don't need to repent/confess our sin to God every day."

I thought I was long done with online debates. But this status led another brother to respond, and before you knew it the debate was on. Now this debate was short compared to some of my other online debates. Also, it was a civil dialogue and I believe truth was revealed. That's why I am choosing to post this, because so many believers hear so many things that sound right but are biblically and historically inaccurate. It's hard and dangerous for believers. With access to all kinds of information, knowledge appears easier to grasp but so is confusion and distortion. So many believers are without sound biblical knowledge. Even with all this access to information, many believers still lack in sound doctrine/theology and properly interpreting Scripture. Sin has placed a veneer over our eyes from sound biblical teaching. The end times are truly upon us. Holy Spirit we need your help. Please guide us into Your truth and not our own. Give us discernment for falsehood, a desire for Your truth, and the grace and wisdom to know the difference!

This brother, whose name I purposely left out, believes that we can live without sinning here on earth. He rejected the biblical doctrine of our sinful nature. I hope my responses to him will help educate some others about this very thing as well.

__________
His response to my status -- "I disagree. The devil couldn't do worse than sin everyday. Jesus said "Go and sin no more." We may sin again, but it shouldn't be everyday -otherwise we haven't really repented."

Me -- "I can understand why u or another would think that. But let's look at one area, do u honor/revere/esteem God perfectly in your thoughts everyday? Since no one can answer this one question with yes, therefore we fall short of the glory of God and it is arrogant of us to not express that shortcoming to God. Let's not forget that sin is not secluded to that which is manifested in the physical, but also our thoughts and emotions.

My status was not to incur any negative reactions, but rather humble introspection of our utter dependency and submission unto Jesus and confrontation of our pride."

Him -- "Chris, as of yet I'm not, but that gives me no excuse according to Matthew 22:37. I don't think Jesus was joking when He said that in that passage. And how do you know no one can answer the question with "yes"? You have to be omniscient to know that.

No negativity here, just being real with what the Word says bro."

Me -- "I never said nor does my status imply that we have an excuse to sin bcuz we're sinners. Sanctification ensures us that over time we will continue to look more like Christ and better manage our sinful nature. Thus, we have no excuse to not confess our sins. Apostle John, writing to believers, said that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us and we call God a liar, and in confessing our sin Jesus is faithful & just to purify us (1Jn. 1:8-10).

And no I'm not all-knowing, but the Word says no one could answer yes (Eccl. 7:20, Prov. 20:9)."

Him -- "faithful and just to purify us...from all unrighteousness (gotta add that part in there when referencing that passage, its important)." And what about the next verses in 1Jn. 2:1-6? And all of 1Jn. Chapter 3?

Eccl 7:20 is comparable to Rom. 3:23, both of which reference sin in the past tense (which I agree, hence all need Jesus because all sinned). Why else would Solomon end it like in he did in 12:13-14? Regarding Prov. 20:9, only the blood of Jesus can clean our heart and purify us, not ourselves -so that passage makes sense.

Chris, what God has shown me recently is that its not a sin to obey Him. In fact, He requires it! Salvation is conditional upon ones repentance, faith, and walking in obedience until the very end. The "sinful nature" (which I discovered to be invented, coming from gnosticism) only gives people an excuse why they can't fully obey Him with a pure heart as He demands. I won't be offended if you don't believe me, but I would encourage you to check this out when you have the time (and others as well):
http://openairoutreach.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/did-augustine-corrupt-the-church-with-gnostic-doctrine/

Be blessed bro!"

Me -- "Yeah, I didn't add the last part of that verse bcuz its included in the "purify", we're being made clean from something...I.e. unrighteousness.

As for the other verses, they were to simply show that we sin, none of us are perfect. All of our perfection & righteousness is in Christ, not us. God sees us as perfect & righteous bcuz of Christ, not bcuz we're actually perfect & righteous.

And Augustine didn't corrupt the church with gnostic doctrine. Gnosticism was around long b4 Augustine. John was battling that belief in 1Jn (so was Paul when he wrote Colossians). That's why John wrote that we do sin, bcuz the gnostic teachers were teaching that matter was evil and spirit is good and freedom from bondage/control comes through special, higher knowledge (higher than Scripture). So they justified and dismissed their sin (and their continual sinning) bcuz matter is evil. But John spoke against that in the remaining chapters, he taught that while none of us are without sin, born-again believers do not continue on living in sin.

As for our salvation being conditional, there is only one condition God's grace! Yes it is us who respond in faith, but our faith is nothing if not for His grace first. And repentance isn't a condition of our salvation, it's the evidence. Our obedience is an evidence of the Holy Spirit. So yes we repent and we obey to the very end. Yes we have victory in areas of our lives. Yes we are growing & maturing each day, becoming more like Christ. But we still fall short every day bcuz we're not perfect, none of us can live up to God's standards perfectly. Plus, even though we're a new creation, we're still warring with our carnal/sinful nature (Gal. 5:16-17, Rom. 7:15-25). Our perfection is our glorification."

Him -- "I'd rather not prolong the discussion. I just want to highly suggest that you both at least watch the video that's on the site. Even the Early Church didn't believe in the sinful nature as you will see."

Me -- "I respect ur decision to not prolong this discussion. And I will end it here, after I respond to ur false statement.

To say the early church didnt believe in the “sinful nature” is a misnomer, since JESUS and the Apostles themselves (the 1st century church) are where we get the “flesh/carnal/sinful nature” from. Here are a few:

Paul says
1. ...our flesh serves the law of sin & sin is in our members (Rom. 7:21-25)
2...our flesh wars against the Spirit (Gal. 5:17)
3…temptations are common and not to be underestimated (1Cor. 10:13-14)

James says
1…temptations come from our fleshly desires/carnal nature (Jam. 1:13-15)
2…our tongue--which is among our members--is a world of iniquity and it CANNOT be tamed (Jam. 3:2-8)
3…it is a sin to NOT do all the good u know all the time (Jam. 4:17)
4…fleshly desires war in our members (Jam. 4:1)

John says
1…we are not without sin (1Jn. 1:8-10)

Peter says
1…fleshly lusts war against our soul (1Pet. 2:11)

JESUS Himself says
1…what comes out our mouth (our tongue) comes from our heart (our members) (Matt. 15:18)
2…it is “impossible” to “not” be tempted to sin (Lk. 17:1, Matt. 18:7)


Brother, I hope u can see that this teaching about the flesh/carnal/sinful nature finds it’s roots in the NT. They were writing these things in their letters to fellow believers (the 1st century church). It is a biblical reality. If u still don’t see it, then may the Spirit have His way.

Take care..."

8/13/13

Colossians 1:15 in Context

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(Col. 1:15, NASB)

Many read Colossians 1:15 and get hung up on the term "firstborn". What does that mean? How is "He" the firstborn?

Jehovah Witnesses believe and teach that Jesus is the “first creation” before all creation through which all other things were created.(1) Mormons believe and teach that Jesus was created in the image of God like we are and is the “firstborn child” of God (the Divine Father) and Mary (a mortal human).(2) And know that there are others who butcher this as well. This is what led me to post this today. May we come to properly understand the enormity and beauty of the truth in this verse. 

As biblical believers, we should understand the use of the term "firstborn" in its original language and in its proper context. The Greek term for "firstborn" used here in Colossians 1:15 is prototokos. I'll start with what it does not mean.

"does not mean"
First, in context, it does not mean "first-birth". We know that the "first-birth"—the first  human to be born from the womb of a woman—would be Cain (Gen. 4:1). There is no biblical evidence of Jesus being "born" at any time before Cain.

Second, we know it does not mean "first-created". Theologically we know this isn't the case because Scripture is clear that Jesus, God the Son, is eternal, He has no beginning, and He is the "is, was, and is to come" (Jn. 1:1-2; 17:5, Rev. 1:8, 17; 22:13). Furthermore, since Scripture teaches that Jesus is in essence/nature God, then He could not have been created, for God is self-existing (Ex. 3:14, Isa. 40:28; 43:10-13). Philippians 2:6 explains that Jesus has always existed in the nature of God and equal with God. Even in the beginning phrase of Colossians 1:15 it says He is the image of the invisible God. The word "image" here in Greek is eikṓn, and in context it is conveying the exact reflection of the source, as in a mirror reflecting the exact image of the real person standing in front of it.(3). Thus, because the source here is the invisible God, Jesus is then the invisible God reflecting His own image visibly (cf. 2Cor. 4:4). And 1Timothy 1:17 additionally explains that God is eternal and immortal. Concluding that Jesus cannot be the "firstborn" (prototokos) as in the "first-created".

"does... mean"
So now knowing what it does not mean, what does this prototokos in context mean? If we look at this term in context with the four verse passage (vv. 15-18) and in context with the whole scope of Scripture we'll see that this term is conveying "firstborn" as first in placement or position.(4). Edwin Lutzer says, "It's not a matter of time but status that determines who the firstborn is."(5). Additionally, Israel is called God's firstborn (Exod. 4:22) and David is referred to as the firstborn (Ps. 89:27). Both are in context with "first in placement or position". This four verse passage is about Jesus being over all, creating all, holding it all together, and all things being for Him. Paul culminates his point in the last part of verse 18, Jesus Christ is the "firstborn" that He may in all things have the preeminence, the first place. Thus, we can very well read Colossians 1:15 as... 

"He is the image of the invisible God, the preeminent (prototokos) of all creation".

As biblical believers, when confronted with this verse by Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or some other dissenter, we should take them on the journey of proper interpretation. We should ask them questions and show them what this verse is not saying first, then go on to show them what it is saying in context. If they still refuse it, leave them to the Holy Spirit and keep them in prayer. Hopefully a seed was planted and they begin to question their faulty beliefs. It is not us who will open their eyes, but the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit that will.

___
References:
1. www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs-witnesses/beliefs
2. www.mormon.org/beliefs/godhead || www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/col/1.15?lang=eng || www.lds.org/manual/jesus-christ-and-the-everlasting-gospel-teacher-manual/lesson-7-jesus-christ-gods-only-begotten-son-in-the-flesh?lang=eng
3. http://concordances.org/greek/1504.htm
4. http://concordances.org/greek/4416.htm
5. Lutzer, Edwin. (1998). The Doctrines that Divide. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. p. 32.

6/19/2013

Blog Debate: Is the Word of God literal, spiritual, or both?

I’ve had numerous blog debates. This is one I had in April 2008. I believe it can serve to edify the Body. I’ll be posting other blog debates later on. They are long, but they are worth the read.

Michelle: The stories [in the Bible] are not literal, but symbolic. They have complete Spiritual meaning. We know this is true when we apply the spiritual meaning to our lives - Not the literal. The literal would be silly... I myself can not ‘hear’ the literal any longer...

Me: “The stories are not literal, but symbolic”, by what means? Are you familiar with the historical educational and generational system of the Jews? Because if you were, you would be aware of how and what they took literal and symbolic by way of they’re writing. From Genesis to Esther are considered by Jews as historical (with respect to the Torah). They take the accounts recorded within these books as literal, not symbolic. The Poetic, Wisdom, and Prophetic books contain historical and symbolic language. These you can argue about what to take literal or not, but the first 17 books are considered by the people who God used to present the Bible to us as historical not symbolic. They know better than us of what’s written in it is literal and symbolic. Ask any Jewish rabbi about the Garden of Eden, the Genesis account of Creation and so on, I guarantee you they say it is literal not symbolic.

And what’s so “not so” about a snake talking? In the story of Balaam the donkey spoke. I guess you’ll question that story’s reality as well huh? What about the burning bush, not literal? Mount Sinai, not literal? The Passover, not literal? Jesus in the wilderness with Satan, not literal? The Resurrection, not literal? Pentecost, not literal? His second coming, not literal?

“As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established IN THE FAITH, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. BEWARE lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:6-8)
___________
IF I based my reverence for God/Jesus Christ on any speck of His professed believers, then I wouldn’t believe in Him either (like those who don’t for this exact reason), because His people do a horrible job of representing Him. We’re all over the board when it comes to explaining Him and His Word. No wonder they think we’re simple or gullible, we can’t even come together on one Book.

------------------
Michelle: I agree there is a very real Jewish history, and Moses account of history. However, the problem is that Christians take the whole bible literal - Heaven, Hell, the fire, Satan, streets of gold, etc. The truths of the Kingdom are hidden in the literal things all around us (trees, relationships, look at all Jesus parables - not litereral, symbolic!). Trees are literal, yet Jesus uses them for our understanding of a deeper truth - This is my point!!!

In what God has shown me TODAY, the Spiritual meaning applies individual for my understanding of how awesome He is... Yes, I believe much of the bible has a literal history, but how does that change me from the inside (the letter?), No, it is the Spirit that gives life!!!

Gods creation is so amazing that whats around us has Spiritual meaning (the changing life, seasons, times, etc.) - The question is do we have Spiritual eyes and ears or carnal?

Me: Hey, I get what you are saying and have no problem with what you stated, but... “the problem is that Christians take the whole bible literal - Heaven, Hell, the fire, Satan, streets of gold, etc.”

How can you not take the existence of Satan (i.e. the Devil, Lucifer, etc.) literally? Again, do you deny Jesus’ wilderness experience with Satan? What about when Jesus said He saw Satan fall from heaven (Lk. 10:18)? Right there He takes care of Satan and heaven as literal. How do you explain not taking that literal?

Now whether Hell is really called hell with fire and brimstone or whatever is not worth going back and forth over. But by saying it’s a problem taking Hell (i.e. “the place where the eternal separation from God is served”) literal, you just rejected a number of passages within the Bible that clearly affirms this. How do you explain not taking that literal?

Streets of gold and such, that’s no big deal if some take it literal and others not. But to say it’s a problem taking Heaven (i.e. the promised New Heaven; also the paradise of being in a place with the presence of the Almighty for eternity) literal, again is rejecting a number of passages within the Bible that clearly affirms this. Even Jesus Himself affirms this (Jn. 14:3). How do you explain not taking that literal?

Yes we should be mindful of the literal and the symbolic. Yes we should know what scriptures fall in what category. YET, we should not water down one just to further emphasize the other. That was the problem with the second and third century Church. Paganism crept in and tried to emphasize on the symbolic and ignore (even deny) the scriptures that were literal. What happened as a result of that was “sacramentalism” and a host of other junk that sent the Church into a serious sick symbolic state for 1300 years, right up ‘til the Reformation.

Be careful not to over spiritualize the Bible, just as one needs to be careful not to over literalize the Bible. There are times, places, and things to take literal, and there are times, places, and things to take it symbolic. We have to be very careful teetering on that line and not make what is absolute as relative, and what’s relative as absolute.

Oh and it takes “Spiritual eyes and ears” to be able to receive what is literal, as literal (1Cor. 2:1-5, 13-14).

------------------
Michelle: Just two little things, How can I overspiritualize God, He is Spirit! God has shown me the Spirit gives life, not knowledge! Carnal mind is the enmity...

And I do not ignore scriptures when I study a topic or the bible, I just read them with different glasses now....

It may come to surprize that I do not find it required to read and study the bible to find God - His word is not letters on a paper, but His Word is Chirst in me, and ears to hear His Word for me personally,

God Bless

Me: I didn’t say over spiritualize God, I said don’t over spiritualize the Bible.

Yes the Spirit gives life, but what life is that? Is it not the life that our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds have been opened? Did not Jesus say that eternal life is that they (that would be us) may *know* the Father and Jesus Christ whom He sent (Jn. 17:2-3)? God even said my people perish for the lack of *knowledge* (Hos. 3:6). The knowledge God desires is knowing Him. This is not a bad or carnal thing, it is what God wants from us (Hos. 6:6).

“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man glory in his might,
Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;
**But let him who glories glory in this,
That he understands and knows Me,**
That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.
**For in these I delight**,” says the LORD.” (Jer. 9:23-24)


I agree with your last statement. His word is more than simply words, they are words of Life and words of Truth! Without His word, how would we have known Truth or Life?

-------------------
Michelle: We need to have our own testimony of God and Know Him (not just words on paper), I agree!!! This knowledge comes from our own personal experience and testimonies, not others. (not even those who wrote the bible). To know God is to know love and to deny self absorbant ways. To me God has made this wisdom much easier then the bible scholars have through His Holy Spirit and Word in me. The change is inward, not outward - thats about all in a nutshell, at least the way I have come to know God.

Me: Yeah, we just have to be careful not to water down or give little weight to the Word of God. If the Bible was removed from the planet, a whole lot more of professing believers would fall sway to the ways, ideas, philosophies, and teachings of the world and/or false teachers. It’s bad enough a whole lot are already falling sway now with the Bible available, and that’s because they water it down and/or don’t take it seriously.

The Bible is our guideline/boundary, kind of like the lane dividers on the street that keep us in our respected lanes for our safety. If the lines begin to blur, vanish, or people just stop regarding them, how much more chaos and disorder would our streets be filled with? And how safe would we truly be on the road? That’s how life would be without the Word of God, or even a failed respect for the Bible- ex. what we see today.

Yes there is a personal responsibility to our testimony, but the Bible also plays a part in our development and relationship with God. Again, we wouldn’t truly know who we are believing in if it were not for the Bible. God has presented and preserved the Bible for us for a reason much greater than it just being words on paper.

4/2008