ECT Nang's Boastful Lie

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No, I'm not. I'm asking a question you're evidently reluctant to answer forthrightly. If that's because this is a very, very deep area and you're not actually sure of the answer, that I can understand and respect because neither am I. IF that is the case.

What I was referring to is that sin isn't a "something", so it's not at a "somewhere". So questions about "where" sin is aren't really getting to the subject for an answer.

What I was trying to do was clearly distance myself from any from of Gnosticism, where matter (including flesh) is inherently evil and beyond the reach of a transcendent God.

"Sin in the members" is not like a tumor somewhere. Sin, by defintion, is an "a-" something. It's a "not" something. That "not" is the missing share or part that is a lack of righteousness from spiritual death. The members are our only means of demonstration, so "sin in the members" relates to causation of action rather than location of a "something" like a tumor.

Death (thanatos) is a cessation of communion with environment of origin. The human spirit is conceived in spiritual death, having no communion with God's Spirit. Spiritual death inevitably brings forth sin, the wages for which is physical death.

This is what shows the subtle error of Augustinian Original Sin, since sin is not genetic. It isn't a "something" in our DNA. There isn't sin in our nature (physis) because sin isn't a "something". It's an "a-" prefixed noun.

It has to be committed as a verb, and that must be conscious and willful as a standard of conduct that is ours rather than God's. All have sinned (hamartano, the verb), and it's because the missing share or part is UNrighteousness that can't bring forth righteousness.

Again, that's why imputed righteousness has to include conduct with the character, and it can't just be a label to assign a status. It has to be ontological for our very existence and being, not just a title pointing to Christ. Identity is not ontology. The map is not the territory.

 

[Nick M]

People sin and murder their offspring, but the blame remains on them, not God.....Homosexuality and abortion are both judgments unto condemnation imposed by God upon reprobate souls, for their gross lack of morality, their unbelief, and to manifest His Justice against sin.

Why multiquote when the poster will show their own hypocrisy without any help?

 

[musterion]

What I was referring to is that sin isn't a "something", so it's not at a "somewhere". So questions about "where" sin is aren't really getting to the subject for an answer.

What I was trying to do was clearly distance myself from any from of Gnosticism, where matter (including flesh) is inherently evil and beyond the reach of a transcendent God.

"Sin in the members" is not like a tumor somewhere. Sin, by defintion, is an "a-" something. It's a "not" something. That "not" is the missing share or part that is a lack of righteousness from spiritual death. The members are our only means of demonstration, so "sin in the members" relates to causation of action rather than location of a "something" like a tumor.

Death (thanatos) is a cessation of communion with environment of origin. The human spirit is conceived in spiritual death, having no communion with God's Spirit. Spiritual death inevitably brings forth sin, the wages for which is physical death.

This is what shows the subtle error of Augustinian Original Sin, since sin is not genetic. It isn't a "something" in our DNA. There isn't sin in our nature (physis) because sin isn't a "something". It's an "a-" prefixed noun.

It has to be committed as a verb, and that must be conscious and willful as a standard of conduct that is ours rather than God's. All have sinned (hamartano, the verb), and it's because the missing share or part is UNrighteousness that can't bring forth righteousness.

Again, that's why imputed righteousness has to include conduct with the character, and it can't just be a label to assign a status. It has to be ontological for our very existence and being, not just a title pointing to Christ. Identity is not ontology. The map is not the territory.

So if the believer's un-eradicated indwelling sin is (a) not from the new man, (b) not from the physical sarx, (c) not solely/merely a state of mind, and (d) cannot be attributed to outside influences (I had an eradicationist tell me it's from demons the Christian "takes on board"), then it must arise from some non-physical, spiritual aspect of our being, yes?

You see the offramp I've been driving toward yet?

 

[Nick M]

Please provide a quote of these words being attributed to me.

Repent, skubala.

God never rejected the reprobate according to His foreknowledge of their actions. God rejects reprobates according to His will. God formed all men, either for dishonor or honor, according to His willful purposes and good pleasure.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So if the believer's un-eradicated indwelling sin is (a) not from the new man, (b) not from the physical sarx, (c) not solely/merely a state of mind, and (d) cannot be attributed to outside influences (I had an eradicationist tell me it's from demons the Christian "takes on board"), then it must arise from some non-physical, spiritual aspect of our being, yes?

It's all because of our disarranged constitution, and it was from spiritual death resulting in sin with its wages as physical death.

You see the offramp I've been driving toward yet?

I'm not sure. But if you're throwing down the human soul, then I'm picking it up.

It's pathos, as the diseased condition of the soul. And sin is in the members because the life (nephesh-soul life) of the flesh is in the blood. That's what marrow is relative to joints. The marrow produces the blood. Joints and marrow is body and soul.

That's why they must be pierced and dividing asunder (redistributed) by the Logos on one edge of the Rhema sword. The other edge is for soul and spirit.

The hypostasis must be translated, which is the spirit and the cognitive portion of the mind of the soul; and the body must be disjoined by the reckoning of crucified death and burial. Then the process of imputed inner conduct is ministered to from the spirit in which God's Spirit dwells.

This is the last man Adam, made a quickening spirit and deposting the Holy Spirit in our human spirit. With the veil torn between the Holy of Holies of our spirit and the Holy Place of our soul, the spiritual resurrection of zoe life fills all the temple not made with hands.

That imputed righteousness prevades outward from our spirit into our soul, and into the depths of our heart that is our sub-cognitive where so much is sown by the enemy. This righteousness then proceeds outward to the outer courts, which is our body. And our body is empowered to do works of faith as our righteous conduct.

This is a brief snippet in narrative form, but there is copious scriptural exegesis to support it.

The pathos of the soul. Our pathology of sin, which is our perpetual lack as unrighteousness. But since the soul has no environment of origin except spirit-body joining, then righteousness must be distributed throughout our being from the tranlsated hypostasis "outward".

No works could EVER attain, obtain, maintain, retain, or regain salvation and its imputed righteousness.

 

[Right Divider]

It's all because of our disarranged constitution, and it was from spiritual death resulting in sin with its wages as physical death.

You have it backwards.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
​

 

[musterion]

I'm not sure. But if you're throwing down the human soul, then I'm picking it up.

I'm harking back to your earlier denial that two natures (however one chooses to define them) reside simultaneously within the believer...one old, one new. If that be so - that is, if you're correct that only the new nature remains - the answer to where the capacity for sin in a believer resides gets a whole lot murkier. For the source, let's consider our options: you agreed (I think you did) that the following are excluded: the physical flesh, the new nature, the mind (as in "a figment of"), and demons.

Okay...so what's left? "Deranged constitution" is a bit vague...murky.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You have it backwards.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
​

No, you should read more carefully and according to the whole counsel of God and His Word instead of selected proof-texting.

Sin entered the cosmos. It had previously been in the heavenlies because of the angelic rebellion.

Physical death is by sin, and it is DEATH that passed upon all men, not sin.

"For that all have sinned" refers to each and every living human sinning. But there is no sin imputed where there is no law.

Law is nomos, which is distribution, allocation, apportionment, allotment. One must be competent to have the to have the righteousness of God distributed by the law to impute sin. Righteousness is justice, and God's justice doesn't impute sin to those who are incompetent to have the law distributed to them.

And since sin isn't a "something" but an "a-" "something" (hamartia, from ameros), it can't be in physical DNA as genetic material. That's why sin couldn't be passed to all men. It's not a "something". Only the precipitant spiritual death and resultant physical death could be passed to all men, as evidenced by the scripture you quoted that everyone presumes according to Augustinian error from his misapplication of Psalm 51:5. (Those are the Reformed that you hate so much.)

"For since by man came death (NOT SIN), by man came also the resurrection of the dead (NOT resurrection from sin)." 1Cor 15:21

"For as in Adam all die (NOT as in Adam all sin), even so in Christ shall all be made alive (NOT sinless)." 1Cor 15:22

"The sting of death is sin (NOT vice versa)' and the strength of sin is the law." 1Cor 15:56

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'm harking back to your earlier denial that two natures (however one chooses to define them) reside simultaneously within the believer...one old, one new. If that be so - that is, if you're correct that only the new nature remains - the answer to where the capacity for sin in a believer resides gets a whole lot murkier. For the source, let's consider our options: you agreed (I think you did) that the following are excluded: the physical flesh, the new nature, the mind (as in "a figment of"), and demons.

Okay...so what's left? "Deranged constitution" is a bit vague...murky.

It's "in" the soul. Mind, will, emotion, desire; bolstered by the conjoing of the soul to the body, from which it partakes of senses-based experience and knowledge, and reciprocally exhibits and expresses outwardly with no flow from the spirit to and through the body and outwardly.

It's particularly in the sub-cognitive (heart), as the cognitive has the advantage of conscious metanoia (repentance). But the mind and will are closely conjoined, as are the emotions and desires to each of them. (And kardia and nous as heart and mind are metonyms.)

The DISarranged constituion I was referrring to is the spirit being "buried" in the soul and them being inverted in preeminent function.

 

[Nang]

That's why sin couldn't be passed to all men.

Sin corrupted the human nature and caused death. It is death and the bondage to sin, that is inherited by all the descendents of the first Adam.

It's not a "something". Only the precipitant spiritual death and resultant physical death could be passed to all men.

Surprise! Agreed!

However, both forms of death (both spiritual and consequently, physical) inherited and passed along universally to all the natural seed of the first Adam, evidences the lack of belief and love for God, that is required for Life.

Augustinian error from his misapplication of Psalm 51:5. (Those are the Reformed that you hate so much.)

You will need to clarify how you think the Reformers responded to Augustine . . rather I would say the real question is how Augustine responded to the Apostles, and even still, please explain how you think Augustine differed from the Apostles' teachings of "original sin?"

"For since by man came death (NOT SIN), by man came also the resurrection of the dead (NOT resurrection from sin)." 1Cor 15:21

"For as in Adam all die (NOT as in Adam all sin), even so in Christ shall all be made alive (NOT sinless)." 1Cor 15:22

"The sting of death is sin (NOT vice versa)' and the strength of sin is the law." 1Cor 15:56[/QUOTE]

Resurrection from the bondage to sin, death, and the devil through the grace and power of the last Adam, alone rectifies the "sin" of the first Adam.

 

[musterion]

So it resides in a non-physical aspect of our deepest being that, for God's own purposes, is judicially condemned and to be reckoned as crucified but is (for now) left intact within those who are in Christ. We agree on that.

Where I differ with you is that there definitely are two natures within the believer. The old nature remains and has every bit the mind and will of its own as it did before - no one who is truly saved will deny that. Only thing is, we can now see it for what it is and each of us knows that "I" am no longer "him."

It's the unbeliever, perhaps devoutly religious but who has no new life in Christ, who cannot see it because what he is, is still all that he/she has ever been: a child of Adam in which NOTHING good dwells.

 

[musterion]

(Those are the Reformed that you hate so much.)

Cheap shot, unfair and inaccurate. I do not hate the Reformed. I hate their slanderous caricature of God and His Christ and the horrendous damage it inflicts.

 

[Nang]

Cheap shot, unfair and inaccurate. I do not hate the Reformed. I hate their slanderous caricature of God and His Christ and the horrendous damage it inflicts.

This is claimed against Reformers all the time, but it is an assertion that is never backed up with actual evidence.

What specific "horrendous damages" do you refer to?

 

[Nang]

So it resides in a non-physical aspect of our deepest being that, for God's own purposes, is judicially condemned and to be reckoned as crucified but is (for now) left intact within those who are in Christ. We agree on that.

Where I differ with you is that there definitely are two natures within the believer. The old nature remains and has every bit the mind and will of its own as it did before - no one who is truly saved will deny that. Only thing is, we can now see it for what it is and each of us knows that "I" am no longer "him."

It's the unbeliever, perhaps devoutly religious but who has no new life in Christ, who cannot see it because what he is, is still all that he/she has ever been: a child of Adam in which NOTHING good dwells.

The original human nature corrupted and died with the first Adam. Thus, the only human nature a sinner can hope to regain, is the new human nature provided by God through the perfect God/Man nature of Jesus Christ.

 

[musterion]

This is claimed against Reformers all the time, but it is an assertion that is never backed up with actual evidence.

What specific "horrendous damages" do you refer to?

I posted my testimony some time ago on a thread with the name of "Fred's Story" or something like that. Read it, reject it as anecdotal if you like. But it's my story and I do not lie.

 

[musterion]

I find this helpful. Others may or may not.

“The NT teaches that the old Adamic man is positionally dead in virtue of the Cross of Christ, but it nowhere says it will become experientially dead by faith in that fact. What it does say is, that when counting on that fact the indwelling Adamic life will lose its governing power over me.

“In Romans 6 we find that through the death of Christ unto sin, sin shall not have dominion over you - the thought is one of bondage, ruling, governing, dominating, reigning. There is no such view presented in the Word as the eradication of its presence, but the loss of its governing ability, [and that only] by faith.​

“In the death of the Cross the old man was crucified (Rom. 6:6). It is not annihilated, but it has lost its throne. We will feel it there, but we are to reign in life - His Life. It is a greater testimony to the grace and power of the Father to let that old life be in us and give us dominion over it, than to remove it to begin with.​

“We want to get clear that the Father does not mean to improve that old life on the one hand, nor eradicate it on the other. The fact that it does not improve is not a sign that we are not growing in the new life. And the fact that it is still within does not mean that we are not growing in Christ, who is our Christian Life.”​

I wish someone had shown me these truths years before I read them.

 

[musterion]

Actually, Nang, you will find this interesting. The man who wrote it was a Calvinist but not Reformed.

http://ginnyl.tripod.com/miles.htm

 

[glorydaz]

Doom first posted it on #6 in the thread:


"Do you acknowledge the error made by Nang, where she equates acting as holy as Jesus with salvation? Do you agree or disagree with her view on this?"

Nang, as usual you try to squirm your way out of what you said. Tell me, how holy is Jesus and how holy are you? Are you holy as Jesus is holy? Or are you holy as the Jews were holy? Or are you holy as the pharisees were holy?

If you think you are holy as Jesus is holy, then you are a bigger fool than I thought. Doom is absolutely correct, and you, as usual, refuse to admit your error. :chuckle:

 

[Nang]

I posted my testimony some time ago on a thread with the name of "Fred's Story" or something like that. Read it, reject it as anecdotal if you like. But it's my story and I do not lie.

Link?

 

[Nang]

Nang, as usual you try to squirm your way out of what you said. Tell me, how holy is Jesus and how holy are you? Are you holy as Jesus is holy? Or are you holy as the Jews were holy? Or are you holy as the pharisees were holy?

If you think you are holy as Jesus is holy, then you are a bigger fool than I thought. Doom is absolutely correct, and you, as usual, refuse to admit your error. :chuckle:

I never said any person, including myself, can or will ever be "as holy" as Jesus Christ.

That false witness, purported by Doom, is exactly what this entire thread is all about.

Get with it, late-comer . . .