Is The Flesh Sinful? Is The Body A Sin?

In order to understand the issues that arise from Charles Finney’s teachings, it is helpful to outline the basic ideas of Pelagius. The following are the key teachings of Pelagianism:

An insistence of the adequacy of created human nature, essentially unimpaired by Adam’s fall, to fulfill the will of God; the denial of original sin as either guilt or corruption transmitted from Adam to all mankind; the highest moral and spiritual expectations of the baptized Christian who must be capable of a life of perfect holiness, because God commands him thereto; and an understanding of the gifts of grace that excludes, or at best drastically minimizes, that enabling power without whose inner working we can do nothing acceptable to God.

Finney on Original Sin

An important issue in the Pelagian controversy that resurfaces in Finney is the manner in which Adam’s sin influences the Adamic race. Finney’s Calvinistic background, that apparently had little influence on his theology, held that Adam sinned on behalf of the human race, that original sin included a "sin nature,” and that all are "by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3) Finney rejected that notion and taught that depravity is moral and not physical. He meant by this that the will, though strongly influenced by "sensibilities” and temptations, commits itself to selfish gratification. Since there is no physical depravity and "moral depravity can only be predicated of violations of moral law,” sinfulness is an act of each individual’s will and not a "sin nature” that can be predicated of the whole Adamic race. Thus Adamic guilt and corruption of nature, the historical doctrine of original sin, is denied by Finney as it was by Pelagius.

Studying Finney’s Systematic Theology shows that this is not a caricature of his position. For example:

Moral depravity, as I use the term, does not consist in, nor imply a sinful nature, in the sense that the substance of the human soul is sinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness. It is not an involuntary sinfulness. Moral depravity, as I use the term, consists in selfishness; in a state of voluntary committal of the will to self-gratification.

The reason this is significant in relationship to Finney’s millennial teaching, is that it implies that if enough influence is exerted on the minds and hearts of humans, they could be persuaded to commit to a different principle. This principle, according to Finney, was to be "disinterested benevolence.”

The Holy Spirit is necessary to convince the mind of the need to repent of selfishness and turn to the principle of divine love, but the human will is innately capable of choosing to obey God’s moral law. This would make a millennial kingdom without a bodily resurrection of the saints and the return of Christ seem feasible.

If the sin nature is non-existent and the human will capable of being persuaded, what stands in the way of reforming society? Finney’s answer was merely the lack of Christians getting on board his process of "new measures” revivalism.

More false teaching from his holiness, truefaithsav, who is a disciple of Finney, not of Christ. He hopes to draw others with him down the slippery slope. Beware.

No serious, learned believer asserts that simply to have human flesh is a sin. The Bible teaches that it is our will that is in bondage to sinful desires unless we are given a new heart by God (Ezekiel 36). Your position requires no new heart given by God. Actually, God states that it is He who will [b]cause[/b] us to walk in His statutes. Could you give us an account of why a new heart is needed, and why God causes us to walk in His ways?

Also, I still would like to see a serious exegetical discussion on Paul's phrase in Ephesians 2:3...

among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. (NKJV)

among whom also we all did walk once in the desires of our flesh, doing the wishes of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath -- as also the others, (YLT)

among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:-- (ASV)

I see this passage as stating that we are inclined to sin, we are children of wrath by nature, and must be changed by God to be otherwise.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that [b]our old man[/b] is crucified with him, that [b]the body of sin[/b] might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from [b]the body of this death?[/b]

Ephesians 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation [b]the old man, which is corrupt[/b] according to the deceitful lusts;

Colossians 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off [b]the old man [u]with[/u] his deeds;[/b]

Your position requires no new heart given by God

This is the crux of Jesse's moral government theology. No new heart required, because man is not seen as having a wicked and corrupt nature to begin with. His doctrine destroys the notion of the necessity of the new birth.

Also, I still would like to see a serious exegetical discussion on Paul's phrase in Ephesians 2:3...

You'll never get serious exegetical discussion for Jesse. He doesn't exegete passages of Scripture, he simply cherry picks and proof texts. All of these years he's been reading his Bible, and he probably couldn't even tell you the basics of what Ephesians is about.

Alive-to-God wrote:

But, flesh (that of which the body is made), which was originally at peace with God (the Eternal Spirit) and at peace with the human spirit through which it receives a quality of life other than that supported by physical food, is now struggling with 'the sin' Rom 5 and 6, Young's Literal Translation), which entered the world through Adam, through whom death passed to all men.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1Corinth 15:50)
Do you imply that Flesh and blood could have inherited the kingdom of God?

Unless that [the] 'sin' - the sinful nature - is reckoned by us to be dead through the death of Christ on the cross, we will continue to find the flesh more sinful than we can control by willpower or good intentions...

The flesh is a tool, if you will. What matters is how we choose to use our flesh & what we choose to put or affections (desires) on.
The flesh will give pleasure because of the senses. The flesh is amoral; it takes pleasure in what ever & however, good or bad, morally or immorally for it has no mind to discern. This is unchangeable, it will remain the same even after we are saved; the flesh needs to be done away with. That will happen in the resurrection.

The flesh is not our so called "sin nature".

truefaithsav wrote:
4. Ephesians 2:3 in context is talking about those who choose to live for their flesh. The natural man is someone who doesn't live for God, but lives for the gratification of their flesh. When it says that they are, by nature children of wrath, it means that they are children of wrath because they choose to live for the gratification of their flesh (selfishness). They are under the wrath of God because they are living a natural life, a life seeking after the gratification of lust.

You're not grappling with the language of the text. Consider Paul's use of the same Greek word for "nature" as it occurs in Galatians:

"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,"

In the same way that Jews are Jews "by nature" (it is part of their being from their birth), mankind is inclined towards wrath "by nature".

Ver. 15. We who are Jews by nature,.... I Paul, and you Peter and Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews at Antioch. Some are Jews by grace, in a spiritual sense, as all are that are Christ's, that are true believers in him, that are born again, and have internal principles of grace formed in their souls, of whatsoever nation they be; see Ro 2:28. Others become Jews by being proselytes to the Jewish religion: such were the Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven, that were dwelling at Jerusalem, when the Spirit was poured down on the apostles on the day of Pentecost, Ac 2:5, but these here spoken of were such as were Jews by birth; they were born so, were descended of Jewish parents, and from their infancy were brought up in the Jewish religion, and under the law of Moses, and in the observance of it:

and not sinners of the Gentiles: Mleih twmwa yevr, "the wicked of the nations of the world", as the {l} Jews call them. Not but that the Jews also were sinners both by nature and practice, were involved in the guilt of sin, under the power of it, and defiled with it, as the apostle elsewhere most fully proves: nor is this said with regard to the vain opinion the Jews had of themselves, as very holy and righteous persons, who in their own apprehension needed neither repentance nor remission; and who looked upon the Gentiles as very unholy and unfit for conversation with them: but this more particularly respects that part of the character of the Heathens, that they were without the law, and were under no restraints, but lived in all manner of wickedness, without hope and God in the world, and so were notorious sinners, filled with all unrighteousness, profligate and abandoned to every evil work, and are therefore called emphatically "sinful men", Lu 24:7.

-- John Gill

You're doing serious violence to the text to twist it to read "we are under the wrath of God because we live as natural men" (which is true, just not what this particular text says). The text reads "we are by nature children of wrath". The clear reading of the text both in English and in Greek is that being a child of wrath is something tied so close to us that it is part of our very nature. Our hearts are "by nature" corrupt. We "by nature" flee from God and pursue wickedness. This can only remedied by a supernatural intervention from God Himself (Ezek. 36).

Secondly, are people given a new heart before or after they come to Christ? If before, I assume you believe regeneration occurs prior to faith. If after, why do they even need a new heart if they could see Christ as more precious than the world and desire to obey Him rather than rebel against Him?

Brethren,

I believe the major difference is that Logic and trufaithsav believe that people can live sin free by just looking to Jesus as an example. They actually believe that it is possible to live sin free, because sin is only a choice, because Jesus did.

They only see Jesus as an example, instead of a necessity of his life being in them, to cause them to be saved and live holy.

Blessings to all!

I found this book review on Amazon.com and thought it was enlightening as to how some people not only have heretical views but actually glory in them. From Amazon.com:

[i] Pelagius is my hero, July 28, 2008 By \tJesse Morrell "Jesse Morrell" (USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) I am just about finished with "Pelagius: Life & Letters". I personally did not care too much for the biography section of the book - the "life" section. But I really enjoy the actual writings of Pelagius. Pelagius is my hero. He represented Apostolic Christianity in a time when Gnosticism was taking over. I did wish that his letters were more theological. Pelagius was really a practical holiness teacher. But his theology of free will and human nature was touched upon in his letters. I really wish that his books on "Free Will" and "Nature" were not lost in history. This book was great. I also recommend "Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from Original Sources" by Dr. Wiggers, translated by Ralph Emerson. That covers the theology of Pelagianism very thoroughly. [/i]

Even if truefaithsav is not Jesse Morrell, you can read up on why Jesse is a heretic here:
http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2009/08/heretical-theology-of-jesse-morrell.html

4. Ephesians 2:3 in context is talking about those who choose to live for their flesh. The natural man is someone who doesn't live for God, but lives for the gratification of their flesh. When it says that they are, by nature children of wrath, it means that they are children of wrath because they choose to live for the gratification of their flesh (selfishness). They are under the wrath of God because they are living a natural life, a life seeking after the gratification of lust.

Jesse, this sounds like how you interpret every verse in the Bible. You clearly do not know how to do even the most basic inductive study of Scripture. If you don't mind, I'll show you how to do some basic "exegesis."

Reading Ephesians 2:3 in it's immediate context. This is a very basic, very broad, and very quick interpretation of Ephesians 2:3, as placed in it's immediate context within this Pauline epistle.

===

Ephesians is an epistle of the apostle Paul to the church in Ephesus. After a general introduction and salutations, Paul immediately begins the task of combating some false ideas that had begun to make inroads into this church. To do this, he shows the ovearching predetermined plan of God for all of history, and how that relates to Christ and how that relates to the Church. He shows how all things are ultimately summed up in Christ, and how we as believers fall into that ultimate summation in God's redemptive plan for history-- which has as it's chief end the resurrection of the dead. Paul says that the downpayment and proof of this future plan that we can count on God bringing to pass is demonstrated by the gift of the Holy Spirit, who serves as a fortaste of the fullness that will eventually come.

Paul goes on to thank God for the church at Ephesus, and prays that their eyes might be enlightened so that they can have a personal revelation and insight into these precious truths. For if they do, it will revolutionize their lives. He then goes to assert the greatness of Christ, and shows how Christ is above every order of every created thing, things in heaven and earth.

In chapter 2 Paul continues on this theme of the greatness of Christ, and shows how Christ rescued us while we were dead in our sins and the worldly and demonic forces and influences we were subjected too. Prior to this supernatural and divine rescue by the risen and exalted Lord, who is greater than all these forces, we walked as the rest of the children of wrath, who we were part of by nature. For apart from being resecued by the supreme and exalted Lord who sits above the forces that rule over and enslave mankind (the prince and the power of the air) to their wicked nature, we would still be in that state.

"But God" made a difference in this, and shined on us His great love and mercy, rescuing us not only from these cosmic forces, but also rescuing us while we were dead and in our sin. And when He rescued us and saved us from all this, He lifted us up out of the mire and clay, and has caused us to sit with Christ in heavenly places in order to demonstrate the riches of God in us in the ages to come. He did this apart from anything we did, He did it by grace working through faith. With that, all credit belongs to Him, and we have become His divine workmanship, so we could walk in the good works God has prepared for us.

====

That, Jesse, is a simple and sweeping exegesis of Ephesians 1 through 2:10. That is reading Ephesians 2:3 in "context."

The only reason that Pelagius is a heretic today is because Emperor Honorius was a target of his exhortations against the abuses of wealth and power.
Pelagius chastised the wealthy and powerful, including Emperor Honorius, for their abuses of property and privilege, exhorting them to the Christian virtues of mercy and charity.

Therefore Emperor Honorius willingly came to the assistance of the Augustinians.

In 415 Augustine sent Orosius to Jerome in Palestine with the mission of convicting Pelagius of heresy.
In June 415, a Synod was convened in Jerusalem with Orosius accusing Pelagius of heresy. Pelagius was present to defend himself and was acquitted.

A second council was called in December at Diospolis (Lydda) with two previously deposed Gallic Bishops bringing charges against Pelagius.
Again, he was present to defend himself and, again, he was acquitted.
In a dissatisfied reaction the Augustinians convened two of their own councils in 416 -- at Carthage and Milevum where they condemned both Pelagius and Celestius. Pelagius was not present to defend himself.

The Augustinians also appealed to Pope Innocent I who claimed universal authority for the Bishop of Rome by declaring that nothing done in the provinces could be regarded as finished until it had come to his knowledge. Innocent I, often referred to as "the first Pope", declared that the Pope's decisions affected "all the churches of the world" and reflects his attempt to exert control over the East as well as the West. The Augustinians successfully persuaded him to issue a conditional condemnation of Pelagius and Celestius on January 27, 417 which would be effective only if they did not return to orthodoxy. However, Innocent I died on March 12 and was replaced by Pope Zosimus I on March 18.

Zosimus was an Eastern Christian who decided to re-examine the case, calling for a Synod at the Basilica of St. Clement in Rome. Pelagius was unable to attend but sent a Confession of Faith which was intended for Innocent I (Pelagius being unawares of the previous Pope's death). Zosimus was favorably impressed with Pelagius' defense and proclaimed that Pelagius was totally orthodox and catholic and that he was a man of unconditional faith. Zosimus went on to say that Pelagius had for many years been outstanding in good works and in service to God; he was theologically sound and never left the catholic faith.

Augustinians had been thoroughly defeated. They had been unable to successfully condemn Pelagius whenever he was present or when allowed to present his defense in writing. Three councils had declared him innocent of heresy. All they had to show for their efforts were Pelagius's condemnation by their own courts and their own chastisement by the Bishop of Rome. Undaunted and disobedient, they appealed to the Roman Emperor Honorius; the one who was being chastised by Pelagius for his abuses of wealth and power.

On April 30, 418 Emperor Honorius invoked the power of the state and issued an Imperial Rescript -- a civil document -- ordering action against Pelagius on the charge that public meetings and credulous adolescents affect the peace of Rome.

An ecclesiastical document written by Pope Zosimus followed. It condemned Pelagius as a heretic and banned him from Rome. The exact reasons why Zosimus reversed his position after the Imperial Rescript are unknown but it was done only after pressure from the Emperor. The text of Zosimus' condemnation is lost and the formal grounds for the condemnation are purely a matter of speculation.

Immediately upon Zosimus' death in 418 two different Bishops were consecrated Pope - Eulalius and Boniface I. Eulalius, like Zosimus, was a Greek. At the Synod of Gangra (Armenia) in 381, Eulalius was among the Bishops who passed Synodical canons in support of the equality of marriage and celibacy and condemned those who denied the legitimacy of the married priesthood.

Both positions were in opposition to the views of the Augustinians. In 419 Eulalius was replaced with the pro-Augustinian Boniface only through the intervention of the Emperor.

It is only a matter of time that when Pelagius dies and not able to defend himself that he would remain accused as a heretic.

The Church as been polluted with Augustine’s Neo-platonic (Neoplatonism) Gnosticism/Manichean theology.

You all should listen to [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=1973]The Hidden Things of God - Part 1 by Paris Reidhead[/url]

It explains how the church got into Neo-Platonic Gnostic/Manichean theology through Augustine.

(Information is from Rev. Thomas J. Faulkenbury)
Evans, R. F.; Four Letters of Pelagius, London, 1968
Evans, R. F.; Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals, London, 1968
Ferguson, J.; Pelagius: A Historical and Theological Study, Cambridge, 1956
Nicholson, M. Forthomme; "Celtic Theology: Pelagius", An Introduction to Celtic
Christianity, edited by James P. Mackey, Edinburgh, 1995
Rees, B. R.; Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic, Suffolk, 1988

Logic,

I think the pertinent point in this thread is not whether Pelagius was correctly or incorrectly labeled a heretic, but rather the meaning of Paul's teaching in Ephesians 2:3.

truefaithsav

David wrote in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” (NASB). The NIV’s translation is even clearer. “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

In Psalm 58:3 David wrote, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.”

Then note Paul’s statement in Eph. 2:1-3, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.” (NIV)

Note two important points here: First, speaking about his readers’ former life (a statement which applies to all of us before salvation) he states they were dead in their transgressions and sins and as a result they followed the ways of the world. Following the sinful ways of the world and the typical lusts patterns of men is the product of spiritual death; the issue of root to fruit. Men sin because they are sinners.

Second, he shows this sinful condition and a further consequence, being under the wrath of God, is “by nature,” a condition received by nature, i.e., inherited from our parents, just as David pointed out in Ps. 51:5.

This is further supported by Paul’s statements in Romans 5. Though this passage is dealing with the imputation of Adam’s sin as the federal head of the human race, it also shows us man is sinful because of his relation to Adam.

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—13 for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

The point is, after Adam sinned, he and his descendants could only beget sinners, so all men are under the sentence of death, the penalty of sin (see Heb. 7:9-10 for the principle of imputation).

In essence then, all men are behind the eight ball or constituted a sinners for three reasons:

Inherited Sin: They are sinners by nature; possessing an inherited sinful nature Ps. 51:5; 58:3 and see also Gen. 5:3

Imputed Sin: They are sinners by imputation Adam’s sin is imputed to man’s account Rom. 5:12 just as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us when we believe in Christ.

Individual Sin: They are personal sinners; all men sin as individuals since they posses a sinful nature. Even in a godly environment children naturally are selfish and tend to tell lies, etc. Rom. 3:23