sin nature

[another spot]

Larry, I’d be glad to get into Romans, (and I think it’d be a great idea to) but there is more ground I would like to discuss first.

Sin and the Law

Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not know lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

This verse is saying the law defines sin. I only understood this a few days ago, and that puts the law in a very different light than I used to think of it (as opposed to rules and regs).

Romans 6:15

What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

What this is saying is we are not under the law but still responsible to avoid the sin that is described in the law. To take the phrase “not under the law” out of context as a blanket statement is misleading. Further, to understand the 7 administrations as compartmentalized where one section is addressed to us and to be taken literally and the rest is “for our learning” is a direct contradiction of this verse. For our learning implies we should learn it…At no time were we ever released from responsibility of avoiding the sin described in the law.

I Cor. 5:1

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

This is being confronted. I recently read the section in the law describing sexual sin. It is specific that one should not have sex with one’s mother. Paul isn’t confronting it because it is a weird thing to do, but on the basis that it is sin as described in the law.

I Cor. 5:9

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

Verse 10

Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the coveteous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Verse 11

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

All the sins listed above are described in the law. Paul is clearly expecting obedience to it.

Galatians 5:14

For all the law is fulfilled (pleroo) in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What the verse IS saying: we fulfill obedience to the law with regard to sin as we do the above.

What the verse is NOT saying: that it is up to us to assess what is or is not sin in light of the above.

There were three things that gave me trouble understanding Romans 5-7. I thought I was too dense to understand.

1. Sin being in my blood stream overriding my mind. (Mental meltdown for me.)

2. The seven administrations.

3. Not understanding that the law defines sin.

I don’t recall in 21 yrs in twi ever being taught the law defines sin. I can’t state unequivocally I wasn’t, but I sure don’t remember it. I surely never understood it that way. Certainly the phrase “not under the law” was bandied about almost as often as “speak in tongues” (at the twig level at least). Taken out of context as a stand alone, blanket phrase, it sounds like I can disregard the law in it’s entirety as not relevant.

For me personally, I don’t mind the 7 administrations as marking time. But, to understand it as chopping up the Bible into 7 pieces where one piece applies to me and the rest doesn’t, makes it a bit hard to understand some things and leads me to false conclusions. Now I look at it as one continuous thing, with some things starting at times, some things changing at times, and others remaining the same.

I don’t have much trouble understanding why it would be necessary to do a research paper on adultery to give to the top leadership at twi.

Well that’s my thoughts on this subject. What do you guys think?

[Larry N Moore]

WordWolf, I thank you for the links. I briefly skimmed through them. However, I think what I was looking for were posts made by former members of the editorial staff. If I recall you stated it was they who wrote or re-wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of two). Which, when you think of it, brings up a point which many might not have considered --

If the editorial staff actually wrote the VP's books (and slapped his name on the cover as you say) then it's not VP who is guilty of plagiarism but rather the editorial staff.

Fwiw, I've known since my early days in TWI that much of the PFAL book (class) was borrowed from Bullinger's work -- I suppose that's why I always found Bullinger to be an interesting person and worth reading. Yet I had no more passion to promote him, then I did for VP. I considered both of them merely conduits/vessels and what really mattered was whether what they spoke was true.

[Larry N Moore]

Larry, I’d be glad to get into Romans, (and I think it’d be a great idea to) but there is more ground I would like to discuss first.

That's fine with me Spot. It's your thread. I think Eyesopen suggested where in Romans you might have been referring to with regards to the sin being in the blood subject. I'll look them over while you go in this current direction.

[another spot]

Sin and the Law: Part II

Mat 22:37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mat 22:38This is the first and great commandment.

Mat 22:39And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mat 22:40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Mar 12:30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

Mar 12:31And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Mar 12:32And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Mar 12:33And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Mar 12:34And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him [any question].

Luk 10:25¶And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Luk 10:26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

Luk 10:27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Luk 10:28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Jhn 13:34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Jhn 13:35By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to

another.

The assertion that the greatest sin is not to love God and your neighbor seems logical unless you think about it very much. If I commit adultery, then I have violated both love God and love my neighbor. If I gossip, I have done the same. Based on what is the “greatest sin” then anything I do that violates those is the greatest sin.

I had done a search on “death” + “sin” and encountered this:

Deu 21:22¶And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

I hadn’t thought about it before, but obviously from this verse, some sins are worse than others. (Eyesopen, this is it) I’m sure you guys remember different sins had different consequences. That by itself is proof enough that no degree of sin is not right.

Returning to “the greatest sin” it would be more accurate to say some things reflect a greater lack of love for God and one’s neighbor than others.

[another spot]

Larry, re: this is my thread. I understand your heart. However, from my point of view all I did was start this thing. It’s just as much your thread as anyone’s. We work together, we figure it out together. I have no concern about “staying on topic.” We may swing wide left and wide right before it’s all over.

I basically feel it’s necessary to understand sin and law before going much further. How can you evaluate sin nature if you don’t understand sin? Further, without this understanding how can you really put the new birth into perspective? So, to my way of thinking, this is a rather important topic.

[WordWolf]

WordWolf, I thank you for the links. I briefly skimmed through them. However, I think what I was looking for were posts made by former members of the editorial staff.

I don't have those offhand.

I think ResearchGeek was one of the ones who was on the research staff,

and worked on either JCOP, JCOPS, or both.

If I recall you stated it was they who wrote or re-wrote all of VP's books (with the exception of two).

I believe that misrepresents what I said.

I said they wrote 2 books (or possibly 3, I don't know about JCING in this context),

JCOP and JCOPS, and vpw placed his name on the cover as AUTHOR and left out any

references to them.

The SIAL were EDITED by them- at least 1-4, and 5 was edited (as was the LV book)

by cg himself (AFAIK, he may have used anonymous staff as well.)

The subjects came from him. The wordings came from him. The books came from him.

He went to the staff and said "here's this tape and these notes- reformat this into a book."

They precise wordings are debatable, since they cleaned up some grammar-as any editor

would- and left out the jokes and so on.

Compare the LV tapes with the LV book and you'll see the process that was used.

A significant amount was a transcript, but some things were unnecessary and irrelevant

(like jokes and personal references) and weren't committed to paper.

The book was fundamentally what was on the tapes.

And in any case, vpw still endorsed them, signed off on them, and put his name on

the covers, saying he was the sole author.

(The exceptions being the books published after his death, SIAL 5, LV...)

To say that the staff wrote or re-wrote the SIALs is to misinterpret what happened.

Which, when you think of it, brings up a point which many might not have considered --

If the editorial staff actually wrote the VP's books (and slapped his name on the cover as you say) then it's not VP who is guilty of plagiarism but rather the editorial staff.

Congratulations!

You've presented the most original attempt to absolve vpw of the plagiarism that he intentionally committed

that's been seen for at least a month, probably longer!

(Whether you're doing that intentionally or not, I can't tell, but that is the net result.)

Please review WHAT PLAGIARISM IS and then we can discuss it.

"Plagiarism 101."

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=12755

Fwiw, I've known since my early days in TWI that much of the PFAL book (class) was borrowed from Bullinger's work -- I suppose that's why I always found Bullinger to be an interesting person and worth reading. Yet I had no more passion to promote him, then I did for VP. I considered both of them merely conduits/vessels and what really mattered was whether what they spoke was true.

I can believe that in part....but you're trying to absolve vpw of felonies that you either

lack full understanding of (which happens here a lot)

or you understand sufficiently and have no problems misrepresenting to claim vpw didn't commit them

(which happens here a lot)

I'll presume it's the first and give you the benefit of the doubt

(i.e. you neither understand the full meaning of plagiarism, nor the depth of what vpw did across

many sources), and presume that you are at least partly interested in learning more.

I was in that position at one point, and slow to believe vpw plagiarized, and QUITE surprised

when the evidence began piling up. That's also true of a lot of people here.

Perhaps it is true of you.

Edited June 5, 2007 by WordWolf

[Larry N Moore]

Please review WHAT PLAGIARISM IS and then we can discuss it.

WordWolf, in order to avoid any further derailing of this thread with this side-issue I'll respond to your latest post on this subject in this thread when I have more time.

[WordWolf]

Great. I'll meet you there when you have time. This isn't a race or anything.

[Eyesopen]

I don’t recall in 21 yrs in twi ever being taught the law defines sin. I can’t state unequivocally I wasn’t, but I sure don’t remember it. I surely never understood it that way. Certainly the phrase “not under the law” was bandied about almost as often as “speak in tongues” (at the twig level at least). Taken out of context as a stand alone, blanket phrase, it sounds like I can disregard the law in it’s entirety as not relevant.

For me personally, I don’t mind the 7 administrations as marking time. But, to understand it as chopping up the Bible into 7 pieces where one piece applies to me and the rest doesn’t, makes it a bit hard to understand some things and leads me to false conclusions. Now I look at it as one continuous thing, with some things starting at times, some things changing at times, and others remaining the same.

Well that’s my thoughts on this subject. What do you guys think?

I also don't recall being taught that the law defined sin. Although I am not certain that this is always the case. It certainly is in the majority of places that I have seen. However, the laws that were given to the Levites concerning the "forms" that needed to be observed for example when they prepared an animal sacrifice. I am not certain that breaking any of those would have been considered a "sin" in the same manner that sleeping with your neighbors wife is considered a sin.

I totally agree about the prevailing attitude that the law was to be disregarded in favor of grace. More than once I heard "We can do anything because we're not under the law but under grace!" This was often quoted when one wanted to get drunk, do drugs or participate in promiscuous sex.

As for the administrations...I really didn't like the way that VP cut it up (it was of course Bullingers work originally). It was much too restrictive. I look at the bible as a flowing thing with all things relating to other things.

[Eyesopen]

I had done a search on “death” + “sin” and encountered this:

Deu 21:22¶And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

I hadn’t thought about it before, but obviously from this verse, some sins are worse than others. (Eyesopen, this is it) I’m sure you guys remember different sins had different consequences. That by itself is proof enough that no degree of sin is not right.

Returning to “the greatest sin” it would be more accurate to say some things reflect a greater lack of love for God and one’s neighbor than others.

Absolutely! No argument there. Adultery would be more of a lack of love (and respect) for your neighbor where idolatry would be a lack of love for God. Well put!

[Larry N Moore]

Great. I'll meet you there when you have time. This isn't a race or anything.

WordWolf, you'll find my response here.

[another spot]

“However, the laws that were given to the Levites concerning the "forms" that needed to be observed for example when they prepared an animal sacrifice. I am not certain that breaking any of those would have been considered a "sin" in the same manner that sleeping with your neighbors wife is considered a sin.” – Eyesopen.

I agree with that. I was more thinking about the ethics and morals of the law. Twi was sure a really strange blend of license and legalism. I think this one area has been the most difficult for me to sort out. I haven’t really gotten into the higher standards of the NT just yet. I have read some good posts on the subject. But by logic, a higher standard doesn’t discard the lower.

[Eyesopen]

I agree with that. I was more thinking about the ethics and morals of the law. Twi was sure a really strange blend of license and legalism. I think this one area has been the most difficult for me to sort out. I haven’t really gotten into the higher standards of the NT just yet. I have read some good posts on the subject. But by logic, a higher standard doesn’t discard the lower.

In the natural world the "higher" standard includes the "lower". The lower standard is expected behavior and the higher standard is the behavior that we must attain. Such as Police Officers are expected to keep all of the normal laws and to also attain the higher standard of being a leader in their own neighborhoods and always being the person that "helps" when things go wrong, etc.

In TWI the standards were a bit scewed. Those at the very top were not expected to adhere to any standard, but those below were expected to follow all the law. It was legalistic on the "leaf and branch" level but the laws became more lax the further you went up the ole Way tree.

The NT doesn't really have any higher standards. It has less law. It is fairly simple, at least as I see it. The two great commandments are to Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself on these two hang all the law and the prophets. I think that if a person just remembers to do these two in everything that they do then they will be fine. If we are doing something that involves believers (our neighbors) then remember to love them or treat them as you would wish to be loved or treated. Loving God at all times is the easy part. There is one other little rule that was thrown into the mix. It is in regards to our enemies. We are expected to be kind and not be judgemental of them either. Basically remember that it is God's job to dish out punishment.