Obviously since Jesus commands us to "sin no more" it is possible to obey Him. He wouldn't command us to do something that is impossible for us to do. Most people, it seems to me, think not sinning is not possible. Sin is too systemic to live without, they seem to say. "We're only human, nobody is perfect," is the idea.

I think her interpretation was the same as mine. I even mentioned the paralytic.

Yes.



I don't follow you.

She was caught in the act of adultery, which was the result of her working as a prostitute. Her uncle seduced her, which led to her self-destruction. The first step back was this first encounter she had with Jesus Christ. Seven times Jesus cast demons out of her, until she was finally clean.

To be clear, I'm not saying that there's an excuse for sin, or that it's OK if one sins, or anything like that. I know you know that I believe in perfection of character, but I'll reassert this belief for others who may not. I was pointing out that in the context of what was happening, Jesus Christ was not saying to her, "Now don't ever commit another sin again as long as you live," but "Go and sin (this sin) no more." This isn't giving her permission to do other sins, but is concentrating on the specific sin which was the issue at the time, which is how God works with each of us. He takes us where we are when we come to Him, and heals us, as we are willing and able to be healed.

It's true that some have this idea, but I think the real problem is not recognizing what the real problem is, which has to do with God's character. Anything that takes the focus away from the real problem I think makes the solution to that real problem problematic.

They can both be inherited and cultivated. The difference is that the evil heart is a moral issue, while the sinful flesh is amoral.

Did Jesus have both of them? When one is made a new creature, in the image of Jesus, does that person have an evil heart?

I like it, too.

However, many people I know who like it put their own spin on "transgression" and limit its meaning to acts, and some even go so far as to limit it to willful acts of disobedience. That word requires no such limitation, and the Greek (anomia) even less so.

But I also like Paul's definition: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23) Faithlessness is also a sin, which the Greek of 1Jn 3:4 shows much better than the English. Whatever we think EGW meant in 1SM 320 must agree with this definition.

Agreed! Given this is the case, Christ having sinful flesh wouldn't be a (moral) problem, right?



Of course Jesus didn't have an evil heart.



No, right?

Regarding 1 John 3:4, do you mean "lawlessness"? (as opposed to "faithlessness"). I'm not disagreeing with your application of Rom. 14:23, just pointing out that the Greek in 1 John 3:4 is something like "anomonia," which is "lawlessness."

Right. But that's assuming we're limiting it to actual flesh, and not expanding it to corrupt thoughts and feelings.

But there are contexts in which "flesh" includes moral qualities, such as "walk in the Spirit and you won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh" and "the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh." I'm not talking about that.


I agree.


I'm not sure about that. In the Christian, the flesh and Spirit lust against each other. This is an instance where I believe the "flesh" includes moral qualities. In this context, the evil heart must be suppressed.

Right. I didn't intend to mix the two. What I was trying to get across is that Rom 14:23 fits better with the paradigm of sin = lawlessness, rather than sin = willful disobedience. It includes the idea of passive sin.

The "transgression" in 1Jn 3:4 is actually lawlessness - lack of law. And since the law is simply the transcript of God's character, it should be obvious why lacking it is a very bad thing. I've never expressed it this way, but it seems to be a reasonable way to reword the verse - sin is the lack of God's character.

WDYT?