Originally posted by no1marauder
Define "sin".

sin

is "any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God" (1 John 3:4;
Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward
conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; 7:5-24).
It is "not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system
of things, but an offence against a personal lawgiver and moral governor who
vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that
his sin is (1) intrinsically vile and polluting, and (2) that it justly
deserves punishment, and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin
carries with it two inalienable characters, (1) ill-desert, guilt (reatus); and
(2) pollution (macula).", Hodge's Outlines. The moral character of a man's
actions is determined by the moral state of his heart. The disposition to sin,
or the habit of the soul that leads to the sinful act, is itself also sin (Rom.
6:12-17; Gal. 5:17; James 1:14, 15). The origin of sin is a mystery, and must
for ever remain such to us. It is plain that for some reason God has permitted
sin to enter this world, and that is all we know. His permitting it, however,
in no way makes God the author of sin. Adam's sin (Gen. 3:1-6) consisted in his
yielding to the assaults of temptation and eating the forbidden fruit. It
involved in it, (1) the sin of unbelief, virtually making God a liar; and (2)
the guilt of disobedience to a positive command. By this sin he became an
apostate from God, a rebel in arms against his Creator. He lost the favour of
God and communion with him; his whole nature became depraved, and he incurred
the penalty involved in the covenant of works. Original sin. "Our first parents
being the root of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was imputed, and the same
death in sin and corrupted nature were conveyed to all their posterity,
descending from them by ordinary generation." Adam was constituted by God the
federal head and representative of all his posterity, as he was also their
natural head, and therefore when he fell they fell with him (Rom. 5:12-21; 1
Cor. 15:22-45). His probation was their probation, and his fall their fall.
Because of Adam's first sin all his posterity came into the world in a state of
sin and condemnation, i.e., (1) a state of moral corruption, and (2) of guilt,
as having judicially imputed to them the guilt of Adam's first sin. "Original
sin" is frequently and properly used to denote only the moral corruption of
their whole nature inherited by all men from Adam. This inherited moral
corruption consists in, (1) the loss of original righteousness; and (2) the
presence of a constant proneness to evil, which is the root and origin of all
actual sin. It is called "sin" (Rom. 6:12, 14, 17; 7:5-17), the "flesh" (Gal.
5:17, 24), "lust" (James 1:14, 15), the "body of sin" (Rom. 6:6), "ignorance,"
"blindness of heart," "alienation from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18, 19). It
influences and depraves the whole man, and its tendency is still downward to
deeper and deeper corruption, there remaining no recuperative element in the
soul. It is a total depravity, and it is also universally inherited by all the
natural descendants of Adam (Rom. 3:10-23; 5:12-21; 8:7). Pelagians deny
original sin, and regard man as by nature morally and spiritually well;
semi-Pelagians regard him as morally sick; Augustinians, or, as they are also
called, Calvinists, regard man as described above, spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1;
1 John 3:14). The doctrine of original sin is proved, (1.) From the fact of the
universal sinfulness of men. "There is no man that sinneth not" (1 Kings 8:46;
Isa. 53:6; Ps. 130:3; Rom. 3:19, 22, 23; Gal. 3:22).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin

Originally posted by dj2becker
sin

is "any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God" (1 John 3:4;
Rom. 4:15), in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward
conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (Rom. 6:12-17; 7:5-24).
It is "not a mere violation of the law of our constitution, nor of the system
of things, but an offence ...[text shortened]... 53:6; Ps. 130:3; Rom. 3:19, 22, 23; Gal. 3:22).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin

LOL, let this be a lesson to those would ask Mr. Becker to define something.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
LOL, let this be a lesson to those would ask Mr. Becker to define something.

I'm waiting for no1 to criticize him for not thinking for himself and parroting someone else. But had dj2 posted it in his own words as he understands it, no1 would have accused him of making up definitions. (You could quote no1 himself and he would argue against it.)

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm waiting for no1 to criticize him for not thinking for himself and parroting someone else. But had dj2 posted it in his own words as he understands it, no1 would have accused him of making up definitions. (You could quote no1 himself and he would argue against it.)

First, you'd have to wake him up. Leave it to dj to find perhaps the most long-winded definition available.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If I worshipped a book you could call me a paper worshipper. But I don't worship a book. I worship the living God of the Bible.

Does that mean you believe the bible in it's entirity?

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm waiting for no1 to criticize him for not thinking for himself and parroting someone else. But had dj2 posted it in his own words as he understands it, no1 would have accused him of making up definitions. (You could quote no1 himself and he would argue against it.)

LMFAO! dj2becker did EXACTLY what you do with the word "transform"; he gave it a non-standard definition i.e. "changing Man's sinful nature" or some such rot. Then when I asked him to define the term sin, rather than using a short, clear definition, he cut and pasted a long, rambling one and then could not express himself at all on how that definition applied to his argument. When I use definitions, I do what someone is supposed to do: use standard ones and apply them directly to my points. dj2becker does neither and you just make up your own definitions and then say your arguments are logically unassailable because they are internally consistent BECAUSE you use non-standard definitions to make them so! Both these "methodologies" yours and dj2becker are so irrational they border on delusional insanity.