Comments on: Original Sin and the Sinful nature, pt. 1 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/ Where I say what I just feel like saying Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:35:25 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Sandra http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1754 Sandra Mon, 18 May 2009 05:17:24 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1754 Sorry, that's Dividingword.net If you want more information. Blessings, Sandy Sorry, that’s

Dividingword.net

If you want more information.

Blessings,
Sandy

]]> By: Sandra http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1753 Sandra Mon, 18 May 2009 05:10:51 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1753 I happened to stumble across your article here. I can understand your confusion because there is no such thing as "sinful nature." No where will you find this adjective to describe nature. The NIV uses this term, but "sarx" simply means flesh. It has nothing to do with a separate entity. The doctrine of original sin is false also. You may read the Biblical response to this false doctrine. http://www.dividingword.net/Original%20Sin/biblically_refuted.html And you will also find a study on the word "nature" in the same article. Blessings, Sandy I happened to stumble across your article here. I can understand your confusion because there is no such thing as “sinful nature.” No where will you find this adjective to describe nature. The NIV uses this term, but “sarx” simply means flesh. It has nothing to do with a separate entity.

The doctrine of original sin is false also. You may read the Biblical response to this false doctrine.

http://www.dividingword.net/Original%20Sin/biblically_refuted.html

And you will also find a study on the word “nature” in the same article.

Blessings,
Sandy

]]> By: theenvoy http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1668 theenvoy Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:08:51 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1668 Hi Guys I totally get why you're bugged. I think you should spend some time in the anabaptist tradtion (www.anabaptistnetwork.com) with regard to salvation theology. And if you can get your hands on John Howard Yoder's “Preface to Theology” you will not regret it. Many of your concerns seem to relate to penal substitution and its off shoots. Just some random thoughts. firstly the bible does talk of our nature being good (Rom 2:14) where the Gentiles do right by “nature”. Don't want to go into to much detail but nature in the the Scriptures (Eg Eph 2:3) is often a statement about current realities and not hardware issues. It's as if the Scriptures say the computers do X every time they are booted but isn't arguing whether its a hardware or software problem (software being our learnt behaviours). And yup Augustine (who castrated himself) does play a huge part as does Cartesian dualism which influenced most theology since the Reformation. Anyway you guys inspired me to write an article on our blog (www.theenvoy.wordpress.com). Hope it helps. Your fellow follower of Jesus paul PS sanctification is sometimes past tense (1 Corinthians 6:11) as someone once said “a tense makes sense in a sentence, and a sentence makes sense in a story” Hi Guys
I totally get why you’re bugged. I think you should spend some time in the anabaptist tradtion (www.anabaptistnetwork.com) with regard to salvation theology. And if you can get your hands on John Howard Yoder’s “Preface to Theology” you will not regret it. Many of your concerns seem to relate to penal substitution and its off shoots.
Just some random thoughts. firstly the bible does talk of our nature being good (Rom 2:14) where the Gentiles do right by “nature”. Don’t want to go into to much detail but nature in the the Scriptures (Eg Eph 2:3) is often a statement about current realities and not hardware issues. It’s as if the Scriptures say the computers do X every time they are booted but isn’t arguing whether its a hardware or software problem (software being our learnt behaviours).
And yup Augustine (who castrated himself) does play a huge part as does Cartesian dualism which influenced most theology since the Reformation.
Anyway you guys inspired me to write an article on our blog (www.theenvoy.wordpress.com). Hope it helps.

Your fellow follower of Jesus
paul

PS sanctification is sometimes past tense (1 Corinthians 6:11) as someone once said “a tense makes sense in a sentence, and a sentence makes sense in a story”

]]> By: theenvoy http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1667 theenvoy Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:08:21 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1667 Hi Guys I totally get why you're bugged. I think you should spend some time in the anabaptist tradtion (www.anabaptistnetwork.com) with regard to salvation theology. And if you can get your hands on John Howard Yoder's “Preface to Theology” you will not regret it. Many of your concerns seem to relate to penal substitution and its off shoots. Just some random thoughts. firstly the bible does talk of our nature being good (Rom 2:14) where the Gentiles do right by “nature”. Don't want to go into to much detail but nature in the the Scriptures (Eg Eph 2:3) is often a statement about current realities and not hardware issues. It's as if the Scriptures say the computers do X every time they are booted but isn't arguing whether its a hardware or software problem (software being our learnt behaviours). And yup Augustine (who castrated himself) does play a huge part as does Cartesian dualism which influenced most theology since the Reformation. Anyway you guys inspired me to write an article on our blogg (www.theenvoy.wordpress.com). Hope it helps. Your fellow follower of Jesus paul PS sanctification is sometimes past tense (1 Corinthians 6:11) as someone once said “a tense makes sense in a sentence, and a sentence makes sense in a story” Hi Guys
I totally get why you’re bugged. I think you should spend some time in the anabaptist tradtion (www.anabaptistnetwork.com) with regard to salvation theology. And if you can get your hands on John Howard Yoder’s “Preface to Theology” you will not regret it. Many of your concerns seem to relate to penal substitution and its off shoots.
Just some random thoughts. firstly the bible does talk of our nature being good (Rom 2:14) where the Gentiles do right by “nature”. Don’t want to go into to much detail but nature in the the Scriptures (Eg Eph 2:3) is often a statement about current realities and not hardware issues. It’s as if the Scriptures say the computers do X every time they are booted but isn’t arguing whether its a hardware or software problem (software being our learnt behaviours).
And yup Augustine (who castrated himself) does play a huge part as does Cartesian dualism which influenced most theology since the Reformation.
Anyway you guys inspired me to write an article on our blogg (www.theenvoy.wordpress.com). Hope it helps.

Your fellow follower of Jesus
paul

PS sanctification is sometimes past tense (1 Corinthians 6:11) as someone once said “a tense makes sense in a sentence, and a sentence makes sense in a story”

]]> By: Original Sin and The Sinful Nature pt. 3 : Sex, sexuality and homosexuality « Ryan Peter Blogs and stuff http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1662 Original Sin and The Sinful Nature pt. 3 : Sex, sexuality and homosexuality « Ryan Peter Blogs and stuff Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:30:39 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1662 [...] read Pt 1. of Original Sin and the Sinful nature, click here [...] [...] read Pt 1. of Original Sin and the Sinful nature, click here [...]

]]> By: stray http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1306 stray Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:46:15 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1306 Nic, great comments! Seriously, I think that's going to go down in my book of quotes! Nic, great comments! Seriously, I think that’s going to go down in my book of quotes!

]]> By: Nic Paton http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1252 Nic Paton Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:56:09 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1252 Stray I counted - 36 questions out of 68 sentances, thats a question every 1.888 sentances. G-d is well pleased. Y'know, seek and you will find. So, Original Sin, eh? I trust you will take a look at the maverick views of Matthew Fox, in "Original Blessing". Be warned however it got him kicked out of the Catholic Church, it may endanger your NCMI cred. Simply put he says something like "It's as if 90% of the Church has just torn Genesis 1 and 2 out of their bibles and started with Chapter 3." Thats straight, and profound. I design software, and I have learned that if your original idea is not "right" then as time goes on what you build around this gets further and further from the original intention. If we start our theology with sin, sin is what we will have, morning day and night. Sin sin sin. Sin sin sin sin. Sin. OK lets layer some Redemption over that, oh no the colour of sin starts bleeding right on through. Honestly, there has GOT to be a better way for us to think in line with what our hearts tell us: G-d is Love. You mention dualism - that good, because for me that is one of our major issues. Augustine (the most influential post-Paul theologian in Christendom) was a neo-platonist with sexual frustration issues. (I'd better read up on that a bit more; here I am just quoting something I heard) Neo-Platonism has at its heart separation (between real and ideal in Platos case, but leading on to Sacred-Secular, Grace-Works, Work-Play, Heaven-Hell etc etc etc), unlike most other worldviews which embrace or are built on ideas of Oneness (Hebrew, African, Oriental). Hellanistic thought is PECULIAR in history, but we see it as normal, thanks to the Roman Empire and the Christendom it perpetrates. I welcome other models of thinking with arms and mind open wide. I think there is a revival going on of all sorts of things, and I am excited. The wrestling you are doing is part of that. Strength! Stray
I counted – 36 questions out of 68 sentances, thats a question every 1.888 sentances. G-d is well pleased. Y’know, seek and you will find. So, Original Sin, eh?

I trust you will take a look at the maverick views of Matthew Fox, in “Original Blessing”. Be warned however it got him kicked out of the Catholic Church, it may endanger your NCMI cred.

Simply put he says something like “It’s as if 90% of the Church has just torn Genesis 1 and 2 out of their bibles and started with Chapter 3.” Thats straight, and profound.

I design software, and I have learned that if your original idea is not “right” then as time goes on what you build around this gets further and further from the original intention. If we start our theology with sin, sin is what we will have, morning day and night. Sin sin sin. Sin sin sin sin. Sin. OK lets layer some Redemption over that, oh no the colour of sin starts bleeding right on through.

Honestly, there has GOT to be a better way for us to think in line with what our hearts tell us: G-d is Love.

You mention dualism – that good, because for me that is one of our major issues. Augustine (the most influential post-Paul theologian in Christendom) was a neo-platonist with sexual frustration issues. (I’d better read up on that a bit more; here I am just quoting something I heard)

Neo-Platonism has at its heart separation (between real and ideal in Platos case, but leading on to Sacred-Secular, Grace-Works, Work-Play, Heaven-Hell etc etc etc), unlike most other worldviews which embrace or are built on ideas of Oneness (Hebrew, African, Oriental). Hellanistic thought is PECULIAR in history, but we see it as normal, thanks to the Roman Empire and the Christendom it perpetrates.

I welcome other models of thinking with arms and mind open wide. I think there is a revival going on of all sorts of things, and I am excited. The wrestling you are doing is part of that.

Strength!

]]> By: stray http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1216 stray Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:07:31 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1216 Great comments, thanks :) Not to be argumentative, but the problem I have with the idea of a 'good nature' and a 'bad nature' is that I can't find that in the Bible. There is no mention of mankind having a 'good nature,' only a 'sinful nature.' The conflict mentioned in the Bible is between the "sinful nature" and the Holy Spirit (see Gal 5:17.) There's no mention of a conflict between OUR good nature and evil nature. But yet there is a time when I've felt as I am two people living in the same body. However, according to Genesis, when God created man he said it was 'good.' The present state doesn't appear, to me, to be something God has created but rather a result of the fall. He he, don't think your theory is blasphemous :) Although, you do need to consider that the statement "God is Love" is found in the Bible (1 John 4:8.) I find difficulty in disagreeing what the Bible says. What is interesting to note is that the Bible doesn't claim that God is Wrath, although it certainly says God can be wrathful. I know what you're getting across, though, and that is that God can be darker than we think. This is true, from experience. He created the darkness of the ocean... heck, he created darkness. But darkness and evil are not the same thing. And everything He is, is laced with love. In other words, his wrath is laced with love. When he destroys, he destroys with love and mercy and justice all mingled into one. Thanks for the comments, great thoughts, keep them coming... and let me know what you think of mine Great comments, thanks :)

Not to be argumentative, but the problem I have with the idea of a ‘good nature’ and a ‘bad nature’ is that I can’t find that in the Bible. There is no mention of mankind having a ‘good nature,’ only a ’sinful nature.’ The conflict mentioned in the Bible is between the “sinful nature” and the Holy Spirit (see Gal 5:17.) There’s no mention of a conflict between OUR good nature and evil nature.

But yet there is a time when I’ve felt as I am two people living in the same body.

However, according to Genesis, when God created man he said it was ‘good.’ The present state doesn’t appear, to me, to be something God has created but rather a result of the fall.

He he, don’t think your theory is blasphemous :) Although, you do need to consider that the statement “God is Love” is found in the Bible (1 John 4:8.) I find difficulty in disagreeing what the Bible says. What is interesting to note is that the Bible doesn’t claim that God is Wrath, although it certainly says God can be wrathful. I know what you’re getting across, though, and that is that God can be darker than we think. This is true, from experience. He created the darkness of the ocean… heck, he created darkness. But darkness and evil are not the same thing. And everything He is, is laced with love. In other words, his wrath is laced with love. When he destroys, he destroys with love and mercy and justice all mingled into one.

Thanks for the comments, great thoughts, keep them coming… and let me know what you think of mine

]]> By: Conflicted http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1199 Conflicted Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:55:21 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1199 I think it’s becoming quite obvious that the “good nature” and “bad nature” in us are beginning to rise up and “wage war” on each other. I don’t think there has ever been a time where I’ve felt like I am literally two people living in the same body. Perhaps this is God’s design for this stage in his creation. This “uprising” is perhaps what is necessary to force us to decide which nature will prevail. Perhaps after this period of conflict, one nature will literally be put to death to allow the other to live. When that happens we no longer have a choice to go to the other nature anymore and that is what is defined as the “end times”? Also, this dualism is similar to my following theory. It’s often felt blasphemous to me so I’ve kept it quiet, but I know God know that I’m not intending it to be so... We are often told that “God is Love” – well, I disagree to a point. He is far more than that “Sunday School” statement. God is sovereign, so he is everything from love, to wrath, to destruction, to creation. Our lives are the battle between what we want and what God wants. I think this battle exists due to the fact that somewhere in us we realize that we actually don’t have a choice. Everything we dream of achieving, owning, etc. has so little relevance to God. So, how do we accept this? This is the nature battle – it’s the place where we have to submit so completely to God... even if it means that we derive absolutely no satisfaction from this life? Anyway, just another theory... I think it’s becoming quite obvious that the “good nature” and “bad nature” in us are beginning to rise up and “wage war” on each other. I don’t think there has ever been a time where I’ve felt like I am literally two people living in the same body.

Perhaps this is God’s design for this stage in his creation. This “uprising” is perhaps what is necessary to force us to decide which nature will prevail. Perhaps after this period of conflict, one nature will literally be put to death to allow the other to live. When that happens we no longer have a choice to go to the other nature anymore and that is what is defined as the “end times”?

Also, this dualism is similar to my following theory. It’s often felt blasphemous to me so I’ve kept it quiet, but I know God know that I’m not intending it to be so…

We are often told that “God is Love” – well, I disagree to a point. He is far more than that “Sunday School” statement. God is sovereign, so he is everything from love, to wrath, to destruction, to creation. Our lives are the battle between what we want and what God wants. I think this battle exists due to the fact that somewhere in us we realize that we actually don’t have a choice. Everything we dream of achieving, owning, etc. has so little relevance to God. So, how do we accept this? This is the nature battle – it’s the place where we have to submit so completely to God… even if it means that we derive absolutely no satisfaction from this life?

Anyway, just another theory…

]]> By: Heavy Metal Albums » Blog Archive » Original Sin and the Sinful nature, pt. 1 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1175 Heavy Metal Albums » Blog Archive » Original Sin and the Sinful nature, pt. 1 Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:54:34 +0000 http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/original-sin-and-the-sinful-nature-pt-1/#comment-1175 [...] Original Sin and the Sinful nature, pt. 1By strayI take no real pleasure in being controversial, to be honest. Although, I love making people think because I enjoy thinking. And I take pleasure in being free, and seeing others free, which is what I hope my writing would do. …Ryan Peter Blogs and stuff - http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com [...] [...] Original Sin and the Sinful nature, pt. 1By strayI take no real pleasure in being controversial, to be honest. Although, I love making people think because I enjoy thinking. And I take pleasure in being free, and seeing others free, which is what I hope my writing would do. …Ryan Peter Blogs and stuff – http://ryanpeterblogs.wordpress.com [...]

]]>