Romans 6-8/ What did Paul mean by the word "sin?"

[Triumph1300]

Paul talked about SIN.
Surely he was not referring to Social Insurance Number. (Canadian) Lol

 

[Ronald Nolette]

;) Yes, I'm sure he wrote what he meant! His "wording is bad" because he is describing biblical realities using bad theological language.

So you think you are a better theologian than Paul? Who wrote under the
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

In other words, he is, I believe, in error. He actually believed that we have free will, but he believed that Christ was necessary both for us to choose for Salvation and to choose to do good.

So Paul wrote a lie? And you know this how?

So there is much that I would agree with Luther on. But he was so forceful in his denunciation of "good works" that he virtually rendered them all worthless, unless they are part of the regenerate life. And that's why I think his words are bad.

Do you believe Luther was commisioned by god to tell teh truth where Paul wasn't?

You're saying two different things here, and one doesn't follow from the other. You're saying that only at the precise moment of Salvation does one obtain freewill. And you're saying that the unsaved will not choose God. (If the unsaved don't have freewill, how can they choose against God?)

Yes free will is RESTORED at salvation. Unbelievers by nature are against god. that Paul who you said is in error made that clear.

Romans He said we were enemies of God
Romans 8 unsaved man cannot choose th ethings of God
Romans- Is not subject to the law of God or can be
1 Cor. the things of God are foolishness to the unsaved.

Why should I believe you more than Paul?

That's a bit harsh. Many Christians have failed to fully obey God. But they have obeyed God in the most important matter of acknowledging Salvation in Christ's ways alone.

The fact they do not always live in that way does not mitigate against them--it only tarnishes their record, and renders their example weak and less productive.

The thief on the cross who accepted Christ was hardly very productive in his life. But a single choice served to speak to many, many generations, who need to know that the simple act of repentance is sufficient for Salvation.

You misread me. I said their works are burned up, not the person. Disobedience is disobedience. If I tell my son to clean his room and instead he washes the neighbors car, he did a nice thing, he is still my son I love, but he disobeyed.

It is only when a lost person chooses *against* the virtues of God that he becomes a slave to sin. He cannot display virtue that he does not have, and choosing against getting these virtues from God he cannot display them.

So they are not objects of wrath as that liar Paul wrote?

What abvout teh person who never gets a chance to hear the gospel? Is there a plan b for them that is not applicable to people who have heard the gospel?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Paul talked about SIN.
Surely he was not referring to Social Insurance Number. (Canadian) Lol

Nah he was just abbreviating what we believers can be at times: Stupid, Idiotic, Numbskulls! But deeply loved by our Father!

 

[robert derrick]

@robert derrick, before we begin to study the power of sin over man according to Paul, we must first define what Paul meant in Rom. 6-8 by the word "sin."

But first let's define the sin nature according to the Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest.

"The sin or evil nature is actually the Adamic nature which imprisoned man at the fall. It has poisoned the entirety of the human race and for all time. It is the nature which encourages sin and which against, man is powerless.
At Calvary Jesus broke the hold of this deadly yoke. However, He did allow it to remain, but powerless. Its remaining is a disciplinary measure. If the believer correctly follows Christ, there is no problem; however, if we yield to temptation and sin, and then try to overcome in the flesh, the sin nature comes alive with serious consequences.
So, in this chapter (Rom. 6) we will study this all-important subject of sin in the life of the Christian, why it is there, and the victory afforded by Christ."

Let's look now at Rom. 6:1, where Paul begins with this subject, to see what he meant by the word "sin."

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"

In the original Greek text, Kenneth Wuest points out that "sin" in this verse has the Greek definite article attached which reads "the sin."

What we have is,

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in "the sin," that grace may abound?"

The Greek definite article "the" is making "sin" a noun, instead of a verb. Paul is not defining sin here as the acts of sin, but "the sin" as a noun.

It is the original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden "the sin." Which was the fall of man completely changing his innocent nature to the fallen state of a sin nature. It is the sin nature that Paul is referring when using the word "sin." And he does so throughout Rom. 6-8.

Rom. 5:21

"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

As righteousness can reign as king, so can the nature of sin reign as a king, the nature of sin still in the believer.

I thought there would be an example in Scripture, where 'the sin' argument doesn't hold as being the example for being born with 'the sin' nature:

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

Contrary to goldy love, marriage, and babies, first comes lust then comes sin, then comes dead sinner.

Sin cannot come into man, before lust into the heart.

Lust brings forth sin, and that sin is The Sin: Ha Harmatia.

There is no 'the sin' in man, until first there is lusting in the heart of man.

No sin comes by birth, unto it is born of lust by temptation, not from the flesh, but for the flesh.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So you think you are a better theologian than Paul? Who wrote under the
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Critics like you just want to argue--not understand. As I said, the Bible is inspired, and Paul's words are sometimes difficult and need explanation. God called teachers to help in the explanation. Teachers are not authors of Scripture, but they can be inspired at times.

Yes free will is RESTORED at salvation. Unbelievers by nature are against god. that Paul who you said is in error made that clear.

If free will is not available to unbelievers now, then how could Cornelius be viewed as a good man, relatively speaking?
Acts 10.1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.

 

[robert derrick]

Allow me to add this. When you say a person is a "child of the devil" while he is sinning *now,* you are stating, quite frankly, that the person is damned. The Devil is damned. A Child of the Devil is damned.

Correct.

A person does *not* get saved and unsaved repeatedly throughout his life.

That is a Scriptural discussion, that would only enter in when someone acknowledges that no man can be a child of the devil sinning against Jesus, and a born son of God at the same time.

He does not get "unsaved" when he sins--not even if he gets drunk and fornicates on an occasion of particular weakness.

Ok. You are one of the few OSAS believers that answered the question honestly, except of course for the 'particular weakness' qualifier.

Scripture teaches no man can possibly be sinning with the devil against God, and also be a born son of God at the same time. You say otherwise.

It doesn't matter whether saved, unsaved, was saved, will be saved: yesterday is past, and tomorrow may not come.

All sin is *forgiveable.* There will certainly be consequences to sin, but it is all forgivable.

True. Just not while sinning against Jesus as a child of the devil.

I consider it highly judgmental to say that one who is presently in sin is damned. That's my point.

God is not non-judgmental.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Righteous judgment is judging according to Scripture, not according to our feelings and imaginations.

But, once again, I congratulate you on actually answering the question.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Critics like you just want to argue--not understand. As I said, the Bible is inspired, and Paul's words are sometimes difficult and need explanation. God called teachers to help in the explanation. Teachers are not authors of Scripture, but they can be inspired at times.

Terrible defense for calling Paul a liar!

If the Word needs explanation- why does Jesus say we need to be like kids? Because we are to trust what he says. If you need an explanation, then get a dictionary and learn what the words mean. To say that what He says is wrong is to say He was not inspired to write Scripture, but the ones who explain what he says (if different from what he wrote) are th e nspired ones. that is a line the Roman church, Mormons, Branch Davidians,Jw's et. al use to defend their reintepretation of Scripture.

I understand perfectly. If you meant what you wrote- you believe Paul did not write the Word of God for you said he was in error.

If free will is not available to unbelievers now, then how could Cornelius be viewed as a good man, relatively speaking?
Acts 10.1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.

Doing deeds that are "good" or "bad" from a human perspective have nothing to do with free will and the ability to accept the things of God.

And you seem to forget that teh book of Acts is also a book of transition. It was the conversion of righteous OT saints to members of the body of christ!

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is a Scriptural discussion, that would only enter in when someone acknowledges that no man can be a child of the devil sinning against Jesus, and a born son of God at the same time.

Actually, I get this from OSAS and not all the time. Neither group seems to believe that people need to repeatedly visit the altar after committing sins.

Ok. You are one of the few OSAS believers that answered the question honestly, except of course for the 'particular weakness' qualifier.

Your problem is that you think that when a Christian fornicates he indicates he is a "child of the devil," and not a true Christian. At least so it seems to me?

Scripture teaches no man can possibly be sinning with the devil against God, and also be a born son of God at the same time. You say otherwise.

I said no such thing. You're saying I said that. But you are basing this on your assumption that a fornicating Christian is a "child of the devil." King David was not a child of the devil!

God is not non-judgmental.

Jesus clearly spoke against "judgmentalism." He judges--He's not "judgmental." Being judgmental is a matter of judging by appearances, or judging prematurely. We should judge by guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not strictly by our own theology, which may be corrupted.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Terrible defense for calling Paul a liar!

I never called Paul a liar. You shouldn't slander a brother. You'll get a better answer out of me when you act more like a brother.

 

[robert derrick]

Actually, I get this from OSAS and not all the time. Neither group seems to believe that people need to repeatedly visit the altar after committing sins.

True, each and every time.

Your problem is that you think that when a Christian fornicates he indicates he is a "child of the devil," and not a true Christian. At least so it seems to me?

I don't use the title Christian in those matters, because it is much overworked and abused to the point of meaninglessness.

And so I purposely say, no born son of God can possibly be a fornicating child of the devil.

Not at the same time.

I said no such thing. You're saying I said that. But you are basing this on your assumption that a fornicating Christian is a "child of the devil." King David was not a child of the devil!

I know you don't. I do. David was a child of the devil while committing adultery with Bathsheba and having her husband killed, just as much as any one else doing the same.

The only difference between him and Saul, was David repented, Saul did not.

You're problem is you teach a Saviour with respect of persons, and is an unjust judge that excuses His own people, while condemning others doing the same things.

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Any soul on earth drunkenly fornicating, is a drunken fornicator on earth while doing so, and is just as spiritually dead, and in need of forgiveness and salving deliverance by Jesus Christ, as anyone one else doing the same.

Jesus clearly spoke against "judgmentalism." He judges--He's not "judgmental." Being judgmental is a matter of judging by appearances, or judging prematurely. We should judge by guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not strictly by our own theology, which may be corrupted.

True, as I said, we judge righteous judgment according to the Scriptures, and not according to our own minds, opinions, nor imaginations.

Appearance can indeed be deceiving. Someone going into a restaurant, club, or bar is not sinning.

Reality, however, is drunkenly stumbling out with a new girl or guy on the arm headed home for the night.

Neither am I speaking of spying on people, but only of someone's secret sins becoming plainly public.

Neither do I go up and confront them. But if that is their manner, and then they want to come for some backslapping Christian fellowship. Forget it. I don't partake of other peoples' sins, just to play nice.

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

That goes for teachers of false doctrine openly contrary to the doctrine of Christ:

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

We really do need to keep our feet on the ground, while trying to think spiritually and not be 'judgmental'.

 

[Randy Kluth]

True, each and every time.

You believe you need to visit the altar every time you are rude to someone? Or, you believe you need to visit the altar every time you commit a Big Sin?

I don't use the title Christian in those matters, because it is much overworked and abused to the point of meaninglessness.

And so I purposely say, no born son of God can possibly be a fornicating child of the devil.

Not at the same time.

You're stating a truism. No Christian can be a non-Christian. The statement doesn't say anything. No Child of God is a Child of the Devil. No argument, but no meaning. It's obviously true for all.

I know you don't. I do. David was a child of the devil while committing adultery with Bathsheba and having her husband killed, just as much as any one else doing the same.

So you believe King David went to Hell? After all, we just agreed that Children of the Devil go to Hell.

Or, are you saying that people can be a Child of God, become a Child of the Devil, and then become a Child of God again? I find this to be a troubling use of the definitions, "Child of God," and "Child of the Devil."

The only difference between him and Saul, was David repented, Saul did not.

So, apparently you do believe a person can transfer back and forth indefinitely between "Child of God" and "Child of the Devil!" That, for me, loses the entire definition of the terms. "Children of the Devil," for me, indicates they've already made their decision for Hell (in ignorance, of course).

Then you'll have the problem in deciding what sins qualify to change one from going from "Child of God," and "Child of Satan?"

You're problem is you teach a Saviour with respect of persons, and is an unjust judge that excuses His own people, while condemning others doing the same things.

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Any soul on earth drunkenly fornicating, is a drunken fornicator on earth while doing so, and is just as spiritually dead, and in need of forgiveness and salving deliverance by Jesus Christ, as anyone one else doing the same.

No, I don't have a problem with bias. When the Bible condemns the fornicator, the assumption is being made that the person has chosen fornication as a way of life, instead of a personal moral failure. All sins are forgivable. What is not forgivable is when one chooses against Christ permanently as a way of life, as opposed to occasions of moral failure.

We really do need to keep our feet on the ground, while trying to think spiritually and not be 'judgmental'.

Amen.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I never called Paul a liar. You shouldn't slander a brother. You'll get a better answer out of me when you act more like a brother.

Well you said Paul was in error! That means what he wrote was false. anything not true is false and hence a lie! You should be careful when you say an inspired writer of SCripture is in error. You are calling them a liar. whether knowingly or unknowingly you are accusing them of lying.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well you said Paul was in error! That means what he wrote was false. anything not true is false and hence a lie! You should be careful when you say an inspired writer of SCripture is in error. You are calling them a liar. whether knowingly or unknowingly you are accusing them of lying.

No, I have never in my life said Paul was in error. Did he have sin in him like everyone else? For sure! He would have admitted as such. However, his contributions to Scripture are sound, and to be accepted as such. He was called to be an apostle, and I believe, called to write in a record what fundamental Christians beliefs are. They should be accepted as such.

Before you accuse me of calling Paul a liar, and before you accuse me of attributing error to him, you need to provide proof in the form of quotes from me. There's 100% chance you're misreading what I said, or at least meant to say. Thanks.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No, I have never in my life said Paul was in error. Did he have sin in him like everyone else? For sure! He would have admitted as such. However, his contributions to Scripture are sound, and to be accepted as such. He was called to be an apostle, and I believe, called to write in a record what fundamental Christians beliefs are. They should be accepted as such.

Before you accuse me of calling Paul a liar, and before you accuse me of attributing error to him, you need to provide proof in the form of quotes from me. There's 100% chance you're misreading what I said, or at least meant to say. Thanks.

Well you may have never said it but you most certainly write it! From your post #118

In other words, he is, I believe, in error.

So let us stop defending a lie.

Show where man has free will explicitly from Scripture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well you may have never said it but you most certainly write it! From your post #118

If you will look back at post #112 you will realize that I was speaking of Luther's "Bondage of the Will." I disagree with his near-fatalistic view of man's free-will. I do agree with him that when we choose to live by the sinful flesh we *cannot* do good. We need Christ's grace, whether we are conscious of it or not, to do good.

But I fully believe that *all men,* Christian or not, have free will and can choose to do good, as well as choose to be saved, given that the Gospel has been preached to them. We are all, however, in bondage to the Sin Nature. As Christians we have power to overcome sin in our lives, as we resist our tendency towards sin, and choose to obey God instead.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I fully believe that *all men,* Christian or not, have free will and can choose to do good, as well as choose to be saved, given that the Gospel has been preached to them. We are all, however, in bondage to the Sin Nature. As Christians we have power to overcome sin in our lives, as we resist our tendency towards sin, and choose to obey God instead.

I believe this sums up the question very well.....

There are two kinds of sin...one that we inherit in our flesh (sin nature) from Adam (Romans 5:12) and which Christ came to remove and to restore us to our rightful place in God's arrangement....and the one we commit in full knowledge of its wrongfulness. This is a sin which is not forgiven unless there is genuine repentance. Sin nature induces sinful actions over which we have a measure of control, but like King David who is described as a "man after God's own heart" we can let sin get the mastery over us at times and the flesh will have its way.
David as we know, repented of those dire sins and he was forgiven even before Christ came to sacrifice his life for the human race. The blood offerings under Israel's Law were to foreshadow the ultimate and permanent sacrifice of Christ's blood.

To deny that we have a sin nature is to fail to recognize why Christ came....to 'undo the works of the devil'.....one of the most deadly of those works, was the sin that separated man from God.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

I believe this sums up the question very well.....

There are two kinds of sin...one that we inherit in our flesh (sin nature) from Adam (Romans 5:12) and which Christ came to remove and to restore us to our rightful place in God's arrangement....and the one we commit in full knowledge of its wrongfulness. This is a sin which is not forgiven unless there is genuine repentance. Sin nature induces sinful actions over which we have a measure of control, but like King David who is described as a "man after God's own heart" we can let sin get the mastery over us at times and the flesh will have its way.
David as we know, repented of those dire sins and he was forgiven even before Christ came to sacrifice his life for the human race. The blood offerings under Israel's Law were to foreshadow the ultimate and permanent sacrifice of Christ's blood.

To deny that we have a sin nature is to fail to recognize why Christ came....to 'undo the works of the devil'.....one of the most deadly of those works, was the sin that separated man from God.

Very well said, Jane.
Thank you.

 

[quietthinker]

Romans 6-8/ What did Paul mean by the word "sin?"
A distrust of God's verdict.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

…kinds of sin…one we commit in full knowledge of its wrongfulness. This is a sin which is not forgiven unless there is genuine repentance.

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” (Hebrews 6:4-6)

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29)

 

[Aunty Jane]

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Yes, proving that OSAS is not true. Those who partake of "the heavenly free gift" only get one shot.....but if they fall away, they will never regain what they lost. Like spitting in the face of God...there can be no forgiveness for that level of betrayal.

“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29)

To bring reproach on God's name and to present him in a bad light will never be acceptable to God. The phrase is "sin willfully"...that is not a lapse in judgment or a mistake, but a willful and deliberate rebellion against God and his son's sacrifice, and all that his Kingdom stands for.
The prime scriptural example of one who sinned willfully after being chosen as one of the very foundation stones of the Kingdom and who participated in the miracles that God performed through them in the name of his son....was Judas Iscariot. Jesus called him "the son of destruction" meaning that he would never see life again. His life was forever destroyed in the "lake of fire". (gehenna)