Original sin

Death = seperation
Physical death = seperation of soul from body
spiritual death = seperation of man from the life of God
Sin Nature = spiritual dead

Infants are inocent until age of ccountaboility. How? They have now a understanding of good & bad, threfore, can not be charged of sin.
If then, no charge of sin, then spiritualy alive(not seperated from the life of God) this means no "original sin".

When an infant dies, will go to heaven, therefore not spiritualy dead.

John the Baptizer was filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb ([b]luke 1:15[/b]). He was a child of God from birth(no original sin).

The fact that Adam still sinned and the angel, who is the devil now, sinned with out the "original sin" throws a rench the theory in that it is the cause of us sinning.

Babys don't sin(transgress), for they know not law.([b]Romans 5:13[/b] [color=990000]but sin is not imputed when there is no law.[/color])

Furhtermore, would you throw a retarded person with the mentality of a one year old to prison for (if posible) killing someone? Better yet, would God count that agains him?

Therefore, it is posible for a man to live a life not "born again" and never be charged of sin.

Wonderful theology!!! I love it. I deeply respect your study. I strongly agree with you. But i must humorously add that that man who lives a long life and never is charged of sin would have to be as ignorant as tree. and although david said, "i was shapen in mine iniquity. and in sin did my mother conceive me." This i believe only speaks of the sin nature in the flesh. Not the act of sinning in the heart. Because sin cannot "take occasion" by the entrance of the law, if there is never any law. So sin cannot slay even if it abides in the flesh. Only the flesh would die not the spirit. But if you can claim to be this ignorant, your not ignorant enough :)

What happens to infants who die?
(John Piper)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By DG Staff January 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a difficult and sensitive issue. Any answer must take into account that all of us are born sinful and thus worthy of judgment. The consistent New Testament emphasis upon the need for a second birth indicates that our natural state is that of sin, not innocence (John 3:1-12; Ephesians 2:1-5; cf. Psalm 51:5). We are "by nature children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3).

In addition to having sinful natures, we also come into the world with Adam's sin imputed to us. Because of our union with Adam, we are born guilty of his first sin (Romans 5:12-21). We go into this doctrine in detail elsewhere, but for now it is enough to point out that, according to Paul, the fact that all die physically (even those who, like infants, did not have the opportunity to knowingly transgress a law of God-Romans 5:13-14) is a demonstration that we are connected with the guilt of Adam's sin.

If we are all born under sin, and salvation is by faith in Christ (which infants do not seem to have the mental capacity to exercise), then it might at first seem that no infants can be saved. We are not, however, aware of anyone who actually takes this position. We are convinced that it would be a premature, unbiblical conclusion.

One reason is that there are apparent examples in Scripture of infants who were saved. We are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while yet in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). In Luke's theology, being filled with the Spirit is consistently seen as an aspect of the Spirit's work among those who are regenerate (Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 9:17; 11:24).

Hundreds of years before John the Baptist, David wrote: "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God." (Psalm 22:9-10). Because of David's apparent mention of having faith in God while still an infant, some have concluded that God saves infants by giving them a "primitive" form of faith. That conclusion, however, is not necessary to our point; the main thing to see in this passage is that David evidently was in a saving relationship with God from his mother's womb.

These verses make it very unlikely that all infants who die are lost. If God saved John the Baptist and David in infancy, surely we are warranted in concluding that he has saved others in infancy that were not given the opportunity to grow up. Yet, it would also be unwarranted to conclude from these texts that all who die in infancy are saved. The regeneration of infants does not seem to be God's usual way of working; we must keep in mind that "the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3).

In light of these things, some have held that God saves some infants who die and not others. They point that this is seems most consistent with the doctrines of election and original sin.

John Piper and many others, however, believe that there is one more biblical strand of evidence which must be considered. This evidence leads us to conclude that God saves all infants who die.

In a funeral sermon several years ago for an infant, Dr. Piper summarized the basis for his conclusion:

Jesus says in John 9:41 to those who were offended at his teaching and asked if he thought they were blind-he said, "If you were blind, you would not have had sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."

In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will or God's glory then that person's sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see.

The other text is Romans 1:20 where Paul is dealing with persons who have not heard the gospel and have no access to it, but who do have access to the revelation of God's glory in nature:

Romans 1:20 "Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

In other words: if a person did not have access to the revelation of God's glory - did not have the natural capacity to see it and understand it, then Paul implies they would have an excuse at the judgment.

The point for us is that even though we human beings are under the penalty of everlasting judgment and death because of the fall of our race into sin and the sinful nature that we all have, nevertheless God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure.

Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.

In another sermon, he adds:

God in his justice will find a way to absolve infants who die of their depravity. It will surely be through Christ. But beyond that we would be guessing. It seems to me that the most natural guess would be that babies will grow up in the kingdom (either immediately, or over time) and will by God's grace come to faith so that their justification is by faith alone just like ours.
It is important to emphasize that, in our view, God is not saving infants because they are innocent. They are not innocent, but guilty. He is saving them because, although they are sinful, in his mercy he desires that compassion be exercised upon those who are sinful and yet lack the capacity to grasp the truth revealed about Him in nature and to the human heart.

It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the individual). As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy. God's justice in condemnation will be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing transgression.

Finally, for those who have struggled with this issue through personal loss, we would want to say that knowing what happens to infants who die is a good place to rest your soul. But it is only the second best place for resting your soul. As John Piper has said in another funeral sermon for a young infant:

The first best place is simply this: Psalm 119:68—"Thou art good and doest good."

This was George Mueller's funeral text when his wife Mary died of rheumatic fever in 1860. His three points were:

The Lord was good, and did good, in giving her to me.
The Lord was good and did good, in so long leaving her to me.
The Lord was good and did good, in taking her from me.

He did not start from Mary and move to God's goodness. He started with the unshakable confidence in the goodness of God rooted in Jesus Christ, and he interpreted his life and his loss in view of that goodness.

That is the bottom line is the goodness of God—that is the hope for us all, and the only hope.

Our final song is a plea for God's Spirit to wean us away from everything in the earth that would tempt us not to believe that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.

_________________________________________________

What is the biblical evidence for original sin?

(John Piper)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By DG Staff January 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several lines of biblical evidence for the historic Christian doctrine that we are all born into the world with sinful natures, due to the sin of Adam.

Scripture says that we are born sinners and that we are by nature sinners
Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are "sons of disobedience." Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all "by nature children of wrath." If we are all "by nature children of wrath," it can only be because we are all by nature sinners--for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. But we fell into sin and became sinful due to the sin of Adam.

Scripture speaks of humans as unrighteous from infancy
There are also verses which declare that we are all unrighteous from the time that we are born. Proverbs 22:15 says "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child." Genesis 8:21 declares, "...the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." Jonathon Edwards, in his classic work The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, remarks that on this verse: "The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence...so that the word here translated youth, comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy."

Humanity is Often Described in General Terms as Unrighteous
Unrighteousness is often spoken of in Scripture as something belonging to the human race as a whole.This implies that it is the property of our species. In other words, sinfulness is considered a property of human nature after the fall. Thus, it must be concluded that we are all born sinners, since we are all born human and sin is regarded as a property of humanity. In this vein, consider Ephesians 2:1-3:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Paul is here reminding Christians of what they were like before their conversion to Christ ("you were dead in your trespasses...in which you formerly walked"). Thus, all people, until and unless they are converted, are sinners. Paul goes on to make it absolutely clear that all Christians came from this state ("...we to all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh") and that all non-Christians are still in this state ("...and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.") Thus, Scripture regards all people before they are saved by Christ as sinners and thus deserving of punishment from God. Which is to say that from the inception of our existence, we are sinful.

In Psalm 14:2, 3 we read: "The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." Here again we see unrighteousness as a property of the human race: "they have all turned aside...there is no one who does good."

Job 15:14 similarly declares that sinfulness is a property of humanity: "What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" Verses 15-16 then speaks of the human race as a whole in shocking terms expressing our general corruption: "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight; How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water!"

Jeremiah 17:9 says that "the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it." This seems to assume original sin--wickedness is a property of the human heart. Ecclesiastes 9:3 declares a similar truth: "...the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil, and insanity is in their hearts through their lives." Again, the human heart is sinful, and therefore all humans are sinful.

These texts indicate, then, that human nature is corrupt. Therefore, even infants are corrupt because they are human. And if infants are corrupt, then this is the same as saying that we are born corrupt--which means we are born with original sin. One may, however, object that these texts speak nothing of infants, only those who are old enough to make moral decisions. All of those people are sinful, but this doesn't mean that infants are.

This is an ingenious objection, but it does not succeed. First, the texts do not seem to restrict themselves to people who are old enough to make intelligent decisions. They seem to speak of human nature as a whole, a classification under which infants certainly fall. Second, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, "..this would not alter the case...For if all mankind, as soon as ever they are capable of reflecting, and knowing their own moral state, find themselves wicked, this proves that they are wicked by nature."

In other words, even if these verses were only speaking of people old enough to mentally understand sin, they would still be teaching original sin. For on that view, these verses would be saying that all people, as soon as they know good from evil, find themselves sinners. But if all people, as soon as they are capable of moral decisions, find themselves sinners, this proves that they are that way by nature.

Third, Edwards also says, "why should man be so continually spoken of as evil, carnal, perverse, deceitful, and desperately wicked, if all men are by nature as perfectly innocent, and free form any propensity to evil, as Adam was the first moment of his creation?" (Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin, 188).

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent
Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. It could be objected that Christ was sinless, and yet He died. But He willingly gave up His life, and He did it to conquer the curse of death that we were under. In fact, God imputed to Christ our sins on the cross, and Christ died in punishment of those sins.

If humanity is not born in sin, wouldn't we expect there to be some people who have "beaten the odds" and never sinned?
If we are born innocent and good, why aren't there at least some people who have continued in this state and remained sinless? The fact that everybody sins needs some explanation. The best explanation is that we are sinners by nature. Someone might argue that the reason all people sin is because society is sinful, and thus society renders it impossible for anybody to keep themselves entirely pure. But that only pushes the question back one step. How did society get sinful in the first place? If people are born morally good, then how did it come about that they congregated into socities that influence all people to sin?

Further Resources

Jonathan Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Volume I, pp. 143-233.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 24, "Sin."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.

I have a personal interest in this question, which led me to another question: Does an infant in body have an infant spirit? Does a spirit age or is aging evidence of decay, therefore, our spirits are ageless? Does anyone have any biblical support that babies' spirits are different from grown-ups?

What I am finding in the Scripture is that Matt 18:14 tells us "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" which speaks to me of our Father's mercy and grace, and Psalm 139 tells us "Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in Your book all the days [of my life] were written before ever they took shape, when as yet there was none of them" which tells me my God is all-knowing and timeless. Does it then follow that God knows which spirits are His and which are not (not will be, remembering that He is timeless) therefore, He will base His righteous judgement on all that He knows?

John Piper has stated it simply enough:
Psalm 119:68—"Thou art good and doest good."
That speaks to my heart!

Quote:

"Therefore, it is posible for a man to live a life not "born again" and never be charged of sin."

Why do all die? Why the statement, all have sinned?

Romans 5:13-21 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

If sin is not imputed, why death, and yet all died before the Law? Even though man cannot commit the sin of Adam all have sinned, for all now have the knowledge of good and evil that man cannot control.

Again, Quote: "Therefore, it is posible for a man to live a life not "born again" and never be charged of sin."

How? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Whether babies don't sin or the the retarded unaware of sinning, sin still abounds, for all die, whether baby, retarded or of old age.

Questions', Questions'

In Christ: Phillip

My pastor taught me that when you can't see God's hands you need to watch His heart. This i do believe and all should agree, Nobody will go to heaven unjustified and nobody will go to hell undeserving. God is good and just. we can all agree on his judgement as being perfect in every situation, whether we understand the technicalities or not. Psalm 119 says "therefore i esteem all thy testimonies concerning all things to be right."

my Question:
Eze 18:19 Yet you say, Why? Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father?

accept for God, He answers me:
Eze 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die. A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. And a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son

What makes Adam nature before he sinned any diferent than a baby?

What is the diference of the cause of his sin and ours?
Better yet, what is the diference of the cause of the angle who is now the Devil and ours?

What makes them worse is that they knew God more that any man alive today, and they still sinned.

How would God justify the judgement of guilt on one that did not commit an offence.

there is a true story of a child that grows up with Godly parents and teaches the child to love God.
The Child loves God and has a relationship even with Jesus(john 17:3)

The child is even filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born.(Luke 1:15)
He would not have done anything unrighteous(Rom 8:1-4)
Since the child had the Holy Spirit from the beginning, he would not have been accountable for any sin as Jesus takes the penalty of sin.

If then, the child had the righteousness of Jesus since before he was born because he had the Holy Spirit (Jesus/God) living in him to make him Holy and so he had the ability to be righteous/holy.

I think the better quiest to ask is this:
What is the cause of sin?
Adam's first sin?
The angle who is now the Devil's first sin?

This is what Paul calls "the mystery of iniquity".
The Mystery of Iniquity in [B]2Thes. 2:7[/B], though it could be 3 to 4 verses above the mention of it...
[B]2Thes. 2:4[/B] who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
To sum it up - Man acting as god, and thinking he is a god, liveing apart from God and being a god unto himself.
which is from “The Lie” from the beginning.

It is a mystery and that is why people need to make up theoretical theologies like "Original Sin"
There is no way to understand sin, and to blaim it on Adam is as bad as blaiming our parents.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die. A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. And a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son

http://www.ligonier.org/

Hear R. C. Sproul on the subject.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die. A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. And a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son

Luke 11

46 And He said, “Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ 50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

Matthew 27

25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

Psalm 106:6
We have sinned with our fathers,We have committed iniquity, We have done wickedly.

Lamentations 5:7
Our fathers sinned and are no more, But we bear their iniquities.

Leviticus 26:39
And those of you who are left shall waste away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands;also in their fathers’ iniquities, which are with them, they shall waste away.

Nehemiah 9:2
Then those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners; and they stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers.

Numbers 14:18
‘The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.’

Jeremiah 14:20
We acknowledge, O LORD, our wickedness And the iniquity of our fathers, For we have sinned against You.

Luke 11

46 And He said, “Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ 50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

Matthew 27

25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

I chalenge to answer these Five (5) questions:

1) What makes Adam nature before he sinned any diferent than a baby? (answer w/out useing the issues in question)

2) What is the diference of the cause of his sin and ours?

3) What is the diference of the cause of the angle who is now the Devil and ours?

4) How would God justify the judgement of guilt on one that did not commit an offence?

5) Why can't we just use the answer as the [u]"the mystery of iniquity"[/u] instead of takeing on a theory that involves an unjust charge of guilt by God.

The Pefect answer is [u]The Mystery of Iniquity[/u] in [B]2Thes. 2:7[/B], though it could be 3 to 4 verses above the mention of it...
[B]2Thes. 2:4[/B] who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Wasn't this the lie that Eve recieved "ye shall be as gods"?

To sum it up - This is how it has been from then on, man acting as god, and thinking
he is a god, liveing apart from God and being a god unto himself.

I chalenge to answer these Five (5) questions:

I wrote my verses first. Do you have a reply to those verses and what do you say to them?

GraceAlone wrote:
Psalm 106:6
We have sinned with our fathers,We have committed iniquity, We have done wickedly.

Lamentations 5:7
Our fathers sinned and are no more, But we bear their iniquities.

Leviticus 26:39
And those of you who are left shall waste away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands; also in their fathers’ iniquities, which are with them, they shall waste away.

Nehemiah 9:2
Then those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners; and they stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers.

This is a form of humility.

Jeremiah 14:20
We acknowledge, O LORD, our wickedness And the iniquity of our fathers, For we have sinned against You.

Luke 11:46-51
And He said, “Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48 In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ 50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

Ok. I'm not saying that God will judge us for another person's iniquity but that we sinned in Adam when he sinned. Why would our nature be effected by the fall if we didn't fall. If we didn't sin in Adam then we wouldn't be born sinners... we'd be just like how Adam and Eve were before the fall.

GraceAlone wrote:
Ok. I'm not saying that God will judge us for another person's iniquity but that we sinned in Adam when he sinned. Why would our nature be effected by the fall if we didn't fall. If we didn't sin in Adam then we wouldn't be born sinners... we'd be just like how Adam and Eve were before the fall.

[b]Nature[/b] = 1. The particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: [b]human nature.[/b]
or
2. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct:

3. characteristic disposition; temperament

4. by nature, as a result of inborn or inherent qualities; innately: She is by nature a kindhearted person.

5. of or in the nature of, having the character or qualities of: in the nature of an apology.
If Human Nature is sinful then Jesus, being fully human, was sinful. That whould be very wrong.

I don't believe people are born intrinsically sinful.
They become sinful being Godless.

A baby is not born Godless, therefore can not be born sinfull.

Being sinful is actualy being spiritualy dead;
[b]Romans 7:9[/b] [color=990000]For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.[/color]

Paul said he was alive before he the law came to him at the age of acountability, then he died(became sinful).

dorcas wrote:
GraceAlone said

If we didn't sin in Adam then we wouldn't be born sinners... we'd be just like how Adam and Eve were before the fall.

OK Logic, I'm reading this thread now. How do you answer the question from GraceAlone?

.....it is not because they were not ALL born with the potential to outwork their sinful nature.

A baby is included under the jurisdiction of its parents.

dorcas wrote:

Part of my concern is that my own words to her could be most faulty, and aught to be refined by another.

He didn't really state a question, and I realise you don't believe in the term 'Original Sin', which may be a reasonable term to resist.

However, in resisting it, you also resist the meaning of Romans 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:

The Apostle here draws a comparison between the evil potencial in the sinning Adam and the beneficent or saving potencial in Christ.

Both are pictured according to their tendency than according to literal fact.

Surely the potencial of grace in Christ does not actually come upon all men unto justification of life, but it only tends to that end.

In like manner the evil potencial in the sinning Adam is characterized according to its tendency.

and Romans 6:6 (KJV, then Young)

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

this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;

This is the Sin, to which philologos refers as having been EXECUTED.

All you are doing is pointing out that all men sin and will sin because of the flesh that is able to sin.

There is no reason to believe that sin is inherited from Adam or any way els you want to blame it on Adam.

Why cant you just admit it as the Mystery of Iniquity that even Adam and the Devil fell by, for there os no diference?

dorcas wrote:

the Mystery of Iniquity

I believe this refers to a future historic event, even if it is inspired by the fallen Lucifer.

It's up to you to know what GOD means by Romans 5:12. I don't have to take responsibility for your working out of your salvation, nor for your rendering of the meaning of scripture.

So, you don't accept that the NATURE of sin entered Adam, and affects every member of the human race, and was brought to an end through the work of Christ on the cross?

What makes Adam before his fall any difrent that any newborn babe?

How, then, do you account for the efficacy of Christ's death?

dorcas wrote:
Logic asked

Why shouldn't that state of Adam before he sinned be applyed to us?

[b]and [u]so death[/u] passed upon [u]all[/u] men[/b], on which [u]all sinned[/u]
From Romans 5:12

Spiritual death, no.
We bring the spiritual death upon ourselfs by our own sin.

It is true that [b]all[/b] people choose to [b]sin[/b] and bring the spiritual death on themselves.

However, God cursed all creation to decay(Romans 8:21) and we are aprt of the creation therefore, the flesh decays with all creation.

I mean, how does it actually work that Christ's death helps all of us, and not say, only the people who'd been alive up till His time on earth?

dorcas wrote:

OK, before I answer, can I check something with you....?

Is sin spiritual?

When David sinned w/Bathsheba, He sinned against God;
[b]Psalm 51:4[/b] [color=990000]Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight:[/color]

Another reason is:
[b]Isaiah 59:2[/b] [color=990000]But your perversities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.[/color]

Isaiah 59:2 is the spiritual death that this topic is all about.

Our own sins separate us from God, Not Adams' sin.

If they were separated, they must have been together.
So it is w/us, we were with God in the innocence of childhood.

The Age of Accountability is a reality because of Gods' justice and the Cross.

Of justice, because one shouldn't be charged guilty of an others' sin and if one has no capability of understanding the offence.

Of the Cross, because though an infant may rebel, it has grace; However it isn't because of ignorance but of incomprehension.

When one reaches that age of accountability without knowing God, one will rebel and become separated from God(spiritual death).

This is when the mystery of iniquity prevails, we want to be the god of our own lives and not submit to The One Who created us.

If one reaches that age of accountability knowing God, that one will submit to God and rely on HIM to preserve him as he transitions from that age of accountability and never taste spiritual death.

Though he may stumble, he will not be accounted for it because that fault is covered by Jesus work on the cross(1John 2:2).

You can believe in the age of accountability and still believe in original sin.

GraceAlone wrote:
You can believe in the age of accountability and still believe in original sin.

The age of accountability is completely inconsistent with the idea of original sin.

The two cannot exist together because the doctrine of original sin forbids that children wait until they reach a certain age before they become accountable. According to original sin, we are accountable and guilty for Adam's sin at birth! This leaves no room for a child to come to the "age of accountability" because he is already accountable, guilty, and under the wrath of God from birth.

GraceAlone wrote:
TOTAL DEPRAVITY

I. What it IS NOT
A. Not a: Absolute depravity

B. Not a: A complete absence of realative good

II. What it is
i. only and always sining

*B. It is: Negatively
i. total inability
a. man cannot do the good

b. man cannot understand the good

c. man cannot desire the good

III. What it does
A. It gives God glory for all His work

The proponents of Original Sin think that man is naturaly sinnful, they forget to acknowlege that with out knowing God one will naturaly do wrong.

Adam, on the otherhand, knew God but still chose to do wrong with out a "sinnful nature", however, he did have flesh that is able to sin which is the term "sinful flesh" that is used in Romans 8:3.

Therefor we must concied that man is born with flesh that is able to sin in a world with temptation.

Sin is universal, not because of an inherited sin nature, but because temptation is universal, and, because when men are tempted, they choose to indulge their own desires, rather than obey the law of God written in their hearts because they don't know God.

It has always been easier to sin than to resist temptation. [b]James 1:12[/b] [color=990000]Blessed is he that endureth temptation.[/color]

[b]Hebrews 2:18[/b] [color=990000]For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted,[/color]

[b]Heb. 12:4[/b] [color=990000]resisted unto blood, striving against sin.[/color]

The age of accountability is completely inconsistent with the idea of original sin.

[url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/QuestionsAndAnswers/ByTopic/86/1622_What_happens_to_infants_who_die/]John Piper on age of accountability[/url]

dorcas wrote:
Hi Logic,

[b]Romans 5:12[/b] [color=990000]Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.[/color]

And, despite Paul's clear statement that sin entered the world through Adam,

and thus DEATH passed upon ALL MEN (meaning mankind),

Furthermore, the rest of the verse that sais, "[u]Because all sinned[/u]" does not mean that whom ever will be in the futuer from when Adam sinned has already sinned but not yet existing.
That would be reading into the text which is eisogesis.

How can sin be charged on to someone who is not yet born, moreover, inocent newborns who have not sined yet?
To do this is unjust, please explain this!

but the GOSPEL is that the death of Jesus Christ put an end to sin for all who will receive it by faith,

and that children are included under their parents' belief system.

Regarding age of accountability, you are confusing a legal term here, which can be applied objectively by observers of a person's life - the signs of whether they are keeping the law or breaking it, and, the FACT that God sees the heart; even a very small child (less than a year old) knows how to comply or resist guidance, and a one year old can definitely 'sin', if obedience or lack of it, to a reasonable parent's request is taken into account.

The proponents of Original Sin think that man is naturaly sinnful, they forget to acknowlege that with out knowing God one will naturaly do wrong.

But this is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of Paul's statement in Romans 7:

To realy know Jesus is to be saved, not just know the law

You see, a person's sense of GUILT is awakened by a knowledge of the goodness of God (through His law), but their SINFULNESS was already there.

Sorry if this question has been asked and answered already, I was just trying to skim through the posts and didn't see it blunty stated.And Sorry if I'm mis-understanding you - if so, just ignore this.

Isn't physical death a wage of sin?
If a baby has no sin why is it possible for it to physically die?

AshleyJnr wrote:

Isn't physical death a wage of sin?
If a baby has no sin why is it possible for it to physically die?

Plants and animals die too, do they sin?

God sufferd all creation to corruption & transientness. This includes mankind, and what Romans 5:12 means that "so also death passed to all men"

Plants and animals do not have souls.

The whole creation is under the curse. So all of creation has death. Thats why the bible says that the whole creation was made subject. It was for the hope of redemption. "Cursed is the ground for your sake."

It might be cusred but it isn't alive to die. You can't murder a plant. These things are cursed but have not any soul.

GraceAlone wrote:
Plants and animals do not have souls.

GraceAlone wrote:
It might be cusred but it isn't alive to die. You can't murder a plant. These things are cursed but have not any soul.

The age of accountability is completely inconsistent with the idea of original sin.

The two cannot exist together because the doctrine of original sin forbids that children wait until they reach a certain age before they become accountable. According to original sin, we are accountable and guilty for Adam's sin at birth! This leaves no room for a child to come to the "age of accountability" because he is already accountable, guilty, and under the wrath of God from birth.

Romans 5:12 speaks of an event which impacted the whole race. It says that the person who committed the sin was Adam. Why not Eve? What does it mean to be 'in Adam'?

[color=0000ff]1Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. [/color]

...and how do we get to be 'in Adam' or 'in Christ'? The two states are apparently mutually exclusive.

It's important to note that scripture says we inherit "death" because of Adam, but never does it say that we inherit sin because of Adam. It does say sin entered "the world" but never does it say sin entered any individual or any persons "nature".

I think you will be hard pressed to divide the two issues from each other like this.

[color=0000ff]“because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;” (Rom 5:12 YNG)[/color]

That 'thus' captured here by Youngs is 'houtOs' which means 'consequently'. The second is the inevitable consequence of the first. ie The Death passing through to all men is the inevitable consequence of The Sin entering the world. The consequence of Adam's transgression, not Eve's, was that 'the many were made sinners'...

[color=0000ff]“for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.” (Rom 5:19 YNG)[/color]

This verse is saying very plainly that something happened to 'many' as the result of the behaviour of 'one man'. This is the human race, in Adam.

But man is not the victim of sin, but the author of his own sin. True "original sin" is that man originates his own sin. God is not a tyrant. God only asks us to do what he gives us the ability to perform.

If you are going to apply the first half of the verse "many were constituted sinners" universally and unconditionally, to say all inherit a sinful nature through Adam, then you must also apply the second half of the verse universally and unconditionally, to say that all will inherit eternal life because of Jesus Christ. To use this scripture for universal original sin, you also fall into the trap of universal justification!

This is not the case because folk are 'born' in Adam, they are 'Born Again' in Christ. The key is 'in' Christ. IF any man be 'in Christ' he is a new creature, all things have passed away and behold all things are become new. What Christ has done has been captured (as it were) in the Eternal Spirit. Hebrews tell us, [i]how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God...[/i] What Christ did on the Cross is appropriated to the sinner by grace through faith. It is not a universal appropriation. in Adam all die, but in Christ shall all men be made alive (I Cor 15:22). The key word again is '[b]in[/b]'. We are either 'in' Adam or we are 'in Christ.' We are born 'in' Adam and we are born again when we are baptized by the Holy Spirit 'in' (to) 'Christ'.

Amen RobertW.

So if you use this verse to believe in a physical sinful nature, then you would have to accept a notion that a Christian recieves a physical righteous nature. That would be a logical conclusion using your interpretation.

I am not quite sure what you mean by 'physical' in this context. I certainly don't believe it is in the genes. If you mean that a Christian receives a new righteous nature at regeneration, I plead guilty.

I long ago rejected the notion of two natures subsisting in the regenerate.

The word used here for 'made' as in 'made sinners' is [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?hr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blueletterbibl]kathistEmi[/url]. It means to 'establish as' or to 'put in the place of'. 'many' were placed in the category of 'sinners' as a result of the offence of one man and 'many' are placed in the category of 'righteous' as the result of the achievement of one man. To say that this would mean automatic 'righteousness' to the whole race is plainly not what this scripture is saying and would run counter to so much other scriptural revelation.

I have still not had any responses to my continuing question to those who doubt 'congenital sin' so here it is again. 'How does a man get to be 'in Adam' and how does a man get to be 'in Christ'? and is there any doubt that these two conditions are mutually exclusive?

We need a reformation back to the early Church. Before Augustine, the Church had no doctrine of original sin, that says all humans are born with a sinful nature because of Adam. Before Augustine, such a notion was no where in the early Church.

dorcas wrote:
AshleyJnr said

Isn't physical death a wage of sin?
If a baby has no sin why is it possible for it to physically die?

Logic, I believe this is a very fair question.... It strikes right at the heart of the issue - that eternal life is the [b]gift of God[/b] to those who have no sin, because they have accepted the death of Christ and been raised in Him to new life.

This was writen to Christians, therefore your statement is off.
The truth is that we are not accountable for our sin even thought we have sin and that is what makes us blaimless.
[b]Jude 1:24[/b] [color=990000]Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you with out blame before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,[/color]

[b]Romans 5:12[/b] [color=990000]because of this, even as through one man [b]the sin[/b] did enter into the world, and through [b]the sin[/b] the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;[/color]

The Greek Specific Artical directs to the specific Noune that follows it.
The Specific Sin is that disobediance which verse [b]14[/b] sais "Adam's transgression".

The Specific "death" is that what God condemned Adam with, "you shall surly die"(physical death) [b]Gen 2:17[/b].

[b]Romans 5:13-14[/b] [color=990000]for until the Law, sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account as there not being law yet.
[b]14:[/b] but the death[/color](physical) [color=990000]did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.[/color]

If the sin is not being accounted for, there would be no "spiritual" conemnation, but only physical.
This also teaches that Adam's sin was not the sin of Adams descendants: "Them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."
Those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression were most certainly sinners.
However, their sin was different from the sin of Adam. They sinned way before Moses even gave the law, and had only sinned against the law of their conscience(Romans 1:18-20 & 2:14-15).

Furhtermore, the fact that Paul says they "had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" shows that Paul did not consider that God put the guilt of Adam's sin to their account.

[b]Romans 5:17-19[/b] [color=990000][u]for if by[/u] the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, [u]much more those,[/u] who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one--Jesus Christ.
[b]:18[/b] [u]So, then, as through[/u] one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, [u]so also through[/u] one declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;
[b]:19[/b] [/u]for as through[/u] the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: [u]so also through[/u] the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.[/color]

In these verses,Paul is comparing between Adam and Christ.
Furthermore, interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and became sinners involuntarily and receiving a sinful nature from Adam; You must also use that same logic to the term "made righteous" since He was sllain from the foundation of the world([b]Revelation 13:8b[/b]).
(men are born righteous and became righteous involuntarily and receiving a righteous nature from Christ)

I believe you need to read a previous thread called 'What is sin?' to find philologos's explanation of Young's meaning in 'did sin'. It is different from eventually sinned when they were old enough.

philologos wrote:
Romans 5:12 speaks of an event which impacted the whole race. It says that the person who committed the sin was Adam. Why not Eve? What does it mean to be 'in Adam'?

Yes, Eve was the first one to eat of it, but Adam was the one accountable to God. Eve was accountable to her husband, Adam.
Eve was deceived but Adam must have wanted to eat of it in the first place, otherwise he would have stopped his wife from sinning.

[b]1Corinth 15:22[/b] [color=990000]For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.[/color]

...and how do we get to be 'in Adam' or 'in Christ'? The two states are apparently mutually exclusive.

[color=990000]because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;[/color] (Rom 5:12 YNG)

That 'thus' captured here by Youngs is 'houtOs' which means 'consequently'. The second is the inevitable consequence of the first. ie The Death passing through to all men is the inevitable consequence of The Sin entering the world. The consequence of Adam's transgression, not Eve's, was that 'the many were made sinners'...

[color=990000]for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.[/color] (Rom 5:19 YNG)

This verse is saying very plainly that something happened to 'many' as the result of the behaviour of 'one man'. This is the human race, in Adam.

RobertW wrote:

If you are going to apply the first half of the verse "many were constituted sinners" universally and unconditionally, to say all inherit a sinful nature through Adam, then you must also apply the second half of the verse universally and unconditionally, to say that all will inherit eternal life because of Jesus Christ. To use this scripture for universal original sin, you also fall into the trap of universal justification!

This is not the case because folk are 'born' in Adam, they are 'Born Again' in Christ. The key is 'in' Christ. IF any man be 'in Christ' he is a new creature, all things have passed away and behold all things are become new. What Christ has done has been captured (as it were) in the Eternal Spirit. Hebrews tell us, [i]how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God...[/i] What Christ did on the Cross is appropriated to the sinner by grace through faith. It is not a universal appropriation. in Adam all die, but in Christ shall all men be made alive (I Cor 15:22). The key word again is '[b]in[/b]'. We are either 'in' Adam or we are 'in Christ.' We are born 'in' Adam and we are born again when we are baptized by the Holy Spirit 'in' (to) 'Christ'.

Romans 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

The Greek Specific Artical directs to the specific Noune that follows it.
The Specific Sin is that disobediance which verse 14 sais "Adam's transgression".

I have dabbled in the Greek a little myself over the years but I have no idea what this statement of yours means. Please quote your sources. Are you referring to the definite article?

philologos wrote:

Romans 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

The Greek Specific Artical directs to the specific Noune that follows it.
The Specific Sin is that disobediance which verse 14 sais "Adam's transgression".

I have dabbled in the Greek a little myself over the years but I have no idea what this statement of yours means. Please quote your sources.

Are you referring to the definite article?

Common scene.

Did you mean common sense? To be honest, you have lost me on that thought also. If you meant common sense, that doesn't make any sense to me. It isn't common for an English speaking person to know about Greek articles.

Sorry for the confusion, let me explain:

philologos wrote:
[color=0000ff]“because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;” (Rom 5:12 YNG)[/color]

That 'thus' captured here by Youngs is 'houtOs' which means 'consequently'. The second is the inevitable consequence of the first. i.e. [b]The[/b] Death passing through to all men is the inevitable consequence of [b]The[/b] Sin entering the world. The consequence of Adam's transgression, not Eve's, was that 'the many were made sinners'...

You capitalized the words "The Death" & "The Sin"

Therefore, you were pointing out that the "Death & Sin" are specific.
All I did was point out what the specific Death & Sin was.

Since some versions don't have the specific article before Death & Sin, I went to the Greek which has the specific article and put them in context useing common sense.

Therefore, you were pointing out that the "Death & Sin" are specific.
All I did was point out what the specific Death & Sin was.

I believe those that hold a view point similar to Ron's will say that "Death and Sin" are personified, so there is no question to "what" the sin or death is. When you personify something it turns into a "who" not a "what." In other words in that view Death and Sin are not actions but entities.

PreachParsly wrote:

Therefore, you were pointing out that the "Death & Sin" are specific.
All I did was point out what the specific Death & Sin was.

I believe those that hold a view point similar to Ron's will say that "Death and Sin" are personified, so there is no question to "what" the sin or death is. When you personify something it turns into a "who" not a "what." In other words in that view Death and Sin are not actions but entities.

To put the indictment or a responsibility of sin that has not yet been committed and put a penalty or a price on the inocent is unjust.

If "Original Sin" and/or "Sin Nature" is true would pervert the justice of God and distort the love of God.

Since God loves His creation so much, why would He impose a nature on it againt it's will and/or charge it with an indictment or a responsibility which they don't deserve?

Our natuer comes from what we naturaly do out of instinct.

Our natuer comes from what we love.

To know Jesus is to love Him.

Since you did't know Jesus befor you were accountable for your sin as an infant, you naturaly recieved the condemnation of death when you reached the age of accountability and sinned.

You didn't know God therefore you love yourself and inturn you sin.

Now you know God and therefore admit to your sin and gree to the penalty for sin.
You know that you [u][b]choose[/b] to sin[/u] and inturn deserve death.

We are only born with flesh that is able to sin because of temptation.

No one forces you to sin, however, you blaim it on the so called "sin nature".
The reason that you sin is because you love it more that the ONE who can deliver you from it.
If you Love the ONE who can deliver you from sin more than sin, you wouldn't choose to sin.

For example:
Do you try not to cheet on your wife?
No, there is no need to "try" because you [b]naturaly[/b] don't cheet on your wife because you love her.

You [b]naturaly sin[/b] because you love it, However, if you love the one who keeps you from sin, you would [b]naturaly not sin[/b].

To be born with a "sin nature" you are assuming that an infant already loves sin, however, as an infant, one does not understand sin and therefore can not love it and inturn can not have a nature for it.

dorcas wrote:
I disagree with 'we are not accountable for our sin'.

The Greek Specific Artical directs to the specific Noune that follows it.
The Specific Sin is that disobediance which verse 14 sais "Adam's transgression"..

Are you going to explain what this means? I don't know what level of Biblical Greek you have but this and your following comments just do not make any sense.

The point of the definite article which precedes the word "Sin" or "Death" is that it characterises the noun and sets it apart from every other 'death' and every other 'sin'. But at the point of Rom 5:12 there had been no mention made of Adam's sin or his death.

It is true that a definite article is often used to precede a name so that in a foundational sentence it might says 'Christ' and in subsequent sentences would say 'the Christ'. That is almost the equivalent of saying 'that Christ'. But at Romans 5:12 there has been no reference to Adam's sin; this verse introduces the theme and from then on constantly emphasises the fact that is was 'the one transgression' of the 'one man' which had had such devasting consequences.

Unless you have a fairly solid grasp of Greek grammer, and from this post I doubt it, I would caution you against using 'common sense' in language translation; it often doesn't work that way.

Death and Sin are not entities!

Our natuer comes from what we naturaly do out of instinct.

No one forces you to sin, however, you blaim it on the so called "sin nature".

philologos wrote:

Death and Sin are not entities!

But they are, and plainly so. Sin reigns and Death reigns. A reign is possible only as one entity controls another.

But, what does that prove for "original sin" & "sin nature"?

Our nature comes from what we naturally do out of instinct.

Quite the opposite, our instinct reveals our nature but does not create it. Is a dog a dog because is behaves like a dog, or does a dog behave like a dog because it has the nature of a dog. There is a very plain biblical answer to this; “Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.” (Dan 4:16 KJVS) The consequence of this 'change of heart' was that the king began to behave like a beast. Behaving like a beast would not 'change his heart' but having a 'beast's heart' changed his behavior.

The root of our problem is not knowing God [b]John 17:3[/b]
With out knowing God, how could one do or be good?

Furthermore, being born spritualy dead because of one person defies justice.

One becomes spiritualy dead from not knowing God and sinning against Him by choice.

The point of the definite article which precedes the word "Sin" or "Death" is that it characterises the noun and sets it apart from every other 'death' and every other 'sin'. But at the point of Rom 5:12 there had been no mention made of Adam's sin or his death.

Question then what is meant by "let him die [u]the death[/u]" in [b]Matthew 15:4[/b].

There is mention of death though in Romans 5:10 "the death of his Son"
However, that would not make sence unless one knows that the death of his Son is in our place.
Furthermore, Paul did not make that evident in this apistal yet.
So, wouldn't one figure that "the sin" & "the "death" is the originals, namely, Adams, since he does say, "as by one man" meaning Adam?

Therefore, we should go back to the garden when the first mention of "the sin" & "the death" occures; knowing that [b]Rom 5:14[/b]...[color=990000]Adam's transgression[/color]...
is mentioned.

This "transgression" is particularly disobediance of the Law [b]Gen 2:16-17[/b]

Just to note, this passage is also to be read sorta poeticly (if it matters any) in the way it is worded, "as by one man" meaning Jesus or Adam also, "the free gift" V:15 is not revieled until later as "the gift of righteousness" V:17.

Crude definition of entity is something that exists.

But, what does that prove for "original sin" & "sin nature"?

That is a good point.
However, wouldn't you say that we have a dead nature instead of a sin nature, as we are intrinsically dead and not intrinsically sinful.

[color=0000ff]“because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;” (Rom 5:12 YNG)[/color]

Furthermore, being born spritualy dead because of one person defies justice.

There are some truths which do not 'appear' to the natural mind. They appear to be illogical and against 'natural justice' but they are part of propositional revelation. There is a classical example in...
[color=0000ff]“And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” (Heb 7:9-10 KJVS)[/color]
This statement defies all 'natural logic and justice'. It cannot be explained by any logical thought process; it is a revelation. There are many who feel acutely uncomfortable with this short passage because it strikes at their sense of 'right' but it stubbornly remains here in the divine revelation that there is a corporate aspect of the human race. That one man, and that an unborn one, is in another man in certain aspects of truth.

It is an aspect of this corporate reality of the human race that underlies Paul's teaching in Romans of the effect of 'one act of disobedience' upon a whole race. I can't think how this statement could be said any more plainly than we have it in the scripture; [color=0000ff]“...by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one...” (Rom 5:17 YNG)[/color] The word for 'through' her is 'dia'; this is the channel through which The Death. It is the same preposition that is used in Romans 5:12 ie "through one man the sin entered" and "death through sin". How much plainer could this be?

I may not like it and it may strike at my sense of 'natural justice' but it is propositional revelation and must be received and believed by bible-believers. 'one man' has affected 'the many'... twice! the first 'one man' was the First Adam, the second 'one man' was the Last Adam. Adam, as head of the race has affected us all, and Christ as 'head of the church-race' has also affected all who are in Him.

Question then what is meant by "let him die the death" in Matthew 15:4.

philologos wrote:

But, what does that prove for "original sin" & "sin nature"?

It shows that Sin, as an entity, predates the human race. 'The Sin' entered as a result of one man's transgression; it did not begin with Adam but entered as a result of Adam's disobedience. It is very significant that it did not 'enter' as a result of Eve's transgression although hers was earlier chronologically. It 'entered' through the on that God had created as head of the race.

[b]Eze 28:15[/b] [color=990000]Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.[/color]

Lucifer did not have a "sin nature" what would cause him to sin?

wouldn't you say that we have a dead nature instead of a sin nature, as we are intrinsically dead and not intrinsically sinful.

Just follow the pattern... The Sin entered and The Death by The Sin. Why change the Biblical order and emphasis?

Inturn, one naturaly did not accept the sacrifice that Jesus paid on the cross, along with His resurrection to keep one faultless or without blame and therefore one died spiritualy after one sin after our age of accountability.

In contrast:
one is born with out a Sin nature(original sin) and grew up knowing GOD.
Inturn, one naturaly did accept the sacrifice that Jesus paid on the cross, along with His resurrection to keep us faultless or without blame and therefore one did not die spiritualy after we sin after our age of accountability.

[b]Romans 5:12[/b] [color=990000]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:[/color]

I don't know why you use this verse to prove your point, all it says is that "as by one man sin entered into the world"
Adam is the first to sin.

"and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men"
the creation was made subject to vanity(temporaryness) and put into the bondage of corruption(Romans 8:20-21)

"on which all have sinned"
The eath came apon them that sinned.

This, of course, is your real problem just as it was Finney's. He begins his theology with categoric statements about natural justice, and at every point reverts to this position.

Does not one person being born with an hereditary disease also 'defy natural justice'?

I am not Calvinist but it is very significant that Calvinist Systematic Theologies always begin with God, Finney begins with moral obligation and the nature of truth.

There are some truths which do not 'appear' to the natural mind. They appear to be illogical and against 'natural justice' but they are part of propositional revelation. There is a classical example in...
[b]Herewsb 7:9-10[/]b [color=990000]And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
[b]:10[/b] For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.[/color]

Notice in [b]Hebrews 7:9[/b] says He says,
[color=990000]And as I may so say,[/color]
this means "and so to speak" or "if you will"
The Author isn't makeing this a literal sence but figurative.
He was compairing Levitical priesthood(temporal & difican) as inferior to the priesthood of Christ(eternal & eficiant) "after the order of Melchisedec,"
To put this as literal would have been impossible, because Levi did not even exist yet.

This statement defies all 'natural logic and justice'. It cannot be explained by any logical thought process; it is a revelation.

It is an aspect of this corporate reality of the human race that underlies Paul's teaching in Romans of the effect of 'one act of disobedience' upon a whole race. I can't think how this statement could be said any more plainly than we have it in the scripture;...by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one...” (Rom 5:17 YNG)

[b]Romans 5:17[/b] [color=990000]For if by the offense of the one man death reigned because of the one,[/color]
in comparison to Adams disobediance in which death took over putting the creation under the bondage of corruption and made it subject to vanity

[color=990000]much more the ones receiving the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness in life will reign through the one Man, Jesus Christ.[/color]
How much more great is the one Man, Jesus Christ is by giveing the ones receiving the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness in life to reign in life.

This is a compairison

What about "the sin" here?

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Lucifer did not have a "sin nature" what would cause him to sin?

It cannot be explained by any logical thought process because it is obsured to take it literaly

Romans 5:17 For if by the offense of the one man death reigned because of the one,
in comparison to Adams disobediance in which death took over putting the creation under the bondage of corruption and made it subject to vanity

Have you explained yet how we come to be in Adam?

philologos wrote:

What about "the sin" here?

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Lucifer did not have a "sin nature" what would cause him to sin?

Angels are not human beings. They have no common ancestor.

It cannot be explained by any logical thought process because it is obsured to take it literaly

It is a revelation. “[color=0000FF]And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;”[/color] (2Pet 3:15 KJVS) The wisdom 'was given unto him'.

Your thinking that Hebrews was writen by Paul.
[b]Hebrews 2:3[/b] [color=990000]How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto [b]us[/b][/color](Laymen or Not Apostles) [color=990000]by [b]them[/b] that heard him;[/color](Apostles that Heard Him)

However, by the statemnet, [color=990000]And as I may so say[/color] in [b]Herbews 7:9-10[/b] tells us that he was speeking from his own and making a comparison between Levi & Christ (Melchizedek)

Paul does not say it was a comparison but that Adam himself was a 'type' of Christ.

And it is a comparison by the words, "For if by"(the offense of Adam) & "much more"(the greatness of Christ)

Have you explained yet how we come to be in Adam?

However, I will answer again.

1Corinth 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

...and how do we get to be 'in Adam' or 'in Christ'? The two states are apparently mutually exclusive.

This "in Christ" is by faith, so therefore, "in Adam" is by default and from no faith in Christ.

Furthermore, it is by conformity.
"in Christ" by conformity to His Word & to Him alltogether;
"in Adam" is by conformity to to this world as all men are conformed to and this is also by default.
How elso would we be "in Christ" & "in Adam"?

It is also "in faith" besides "[b]by[/b] faith" or [b]throught[/b] faith.

Sorry, you still didn't answer the question; what would cause Lucifer to sin?

However, by the statemnet, And as I may so say in Herbews 7:9-10 tells us that he was speeking from his own and making a comparison between Levi & Christ (Melchizedek)

This "in Christ" is by faith, so therefore, "in Adam" is by default and from no faith in Christ.

How does a person get into Adam?

By following the same order.
By Choice and Choice alone.
No one is born into Adam by default.

This is Finneyism with a vengeance!

Head for the hills! :-o

This does not mean babies are born with sinful natures. They are NOT born evil, guilty, sinners or enemies of God.

Then who taught them to lie and rebel? Who taught them to disobey and then look over their shoulder as they do it? This surely was not Adam's behavior.

How does a person get into Adam?

Two things you don't have to teach a person:

1) How to lie
2) That lying is wrong

Finney would agree to the second fact as is stated in his works on conscience. Yet these are not exclusive truths. They are both true at the same time.

philologos wrote:

Sorry, you still didn't answer the question; what would cause Lucifer to sin?

He chose to.

what would cause Adam to sin?
You chose to.

Why is there only a diference with us, that we must have a "sin natuer" to sin?

However, by the statemnet, And as I may so say in Herbews 7:9-10 tells us that he was speeking from his own and making a comparison between Levi & Christ (Melchizedek)

so this bit of the scripture is not 'inspired by God'?

It is but you musent take it literaly.

"in Christ' is not 'by faith' but by regeneration. Faith has its part to play but it does not, of itself, put us 'into Christ'. We have to be 'baptized into Christ' by the Spirit. So I repeat "how did we get to be in Adam'?

Moreover, do you no what "baptized into Christ" means?
It is His death:
[b]Romans 6:3[/b] [color=990000]Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?[/color]

Galatians 3:26-27 [color=990000]For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
[b]:27[/b] baptized into Christ have put on Christ.[/color]

Therfore, we have to be 'baptized into Christ' by faith through His death and that through faith.
[b]Romans 5:10[/b] ...[color=990000]we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,[/color]...

freecd wrote:
How does a person get into Adam?

By following the same order.
By Choice and Choice alone.
No one is born into Adam by default.

philologos wrote:
The implication of this, of course, is that every individual sin I commit puts me straight back 'into Adam'. This is Finneyism with a vengeance!

RobertW wrote:

This does not mean babies are born with sinful natures. They are NOT born evil, guilty, sinners or enemies of God.

Then who taught them to lie and rebel? Who taught them to disobey and then look over their shoulder as they do it? This surely was not Adam's behavior.

If God put the Law in our hearts, does that not mean that our nature is not corrupted and sinful at birth?

philologos wrote:
“[color=0000FF]Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.[/color]” (Dan 4:16 KJVS) The consequence of this 'change of heart' was that the king began to behave like a beast. Behaving like a beast would not 'change his heart' but having a 'beast's heart' changed his behaviour.

Mahoney wrote:
According to Romans 5, we are guilty in Adam. Because of his disobedience sin and death entered the world. We were not only corrupted by Adam's disobedience, but we were in Adam and therefore we disobeyed with Adam. We were shapen in iniquity. All men are born under the judgment of God. The evidence of that corruption is revealed, of course, in our own rebellious hearts.

The law (The Commands of God) was given so that Sin may abound. So that men might be convinced of their corrupt state in which they are born. The law was given so that men might be convinced that they are not righteous. When the law was given to Israel, at Sinai, they had already disobeyed it.

Moreover, in Romans 5, Paul also states that death reigned from Adam to Moses, at a time when there was no law. There was no law, and therefore, no sin could be imputed to any of earth's inhabitants. (Sin can not be imputed where there is no law!) Nevertheless, death reigned. The whole world was still under the judgment of God even though they did not sin like Adam.

By one man's disobedience sin and death entered the world!

Usually I don't like to put the same post on two different threads, but I realized when I posted this on the Atonement thread that I should have put it here.

It also plays a part on what it is to have "a change of nature."

Here are a few posts I put on another message board on this subject that show what I mean.

I guess what seems hard for me to grasp is that if they are merely trained to sin, why can they not be trained not to sin? How would that action turn into a "nature." I haven't listened to that Pratney teaching in about a year or so, but I think he explained the two views of what "nature means.

Nature can mean something that a person is naturally inclined to do or it is instinctive (inbred) in them to do. Nature can also mean something someone habitually does. Ex. "I know John lies a lot. That is just his nature." When someone makes that statement he is not saying John was born to lie, but rather that is "just the way he is." So, if nature is not what a person is inbred to do, then it is their habitual action.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't see it possible to not believe you are born with a "sinful nature" and believe that Christian still has an "old sinful nature." Because it's not a Christian's "nature" to sin. Are you following me?

In my mind, the two are connected. If you believe in a Christian having a "sinful nature" then you have to believe that nature means that is what they are inbred to do. If you believe that nature is something that is habitually done, then you can't believe Christians have a "sinful nature." Because we all agree Christians don't habitually sin.

This is surely why Jesse rejects the view of a Christian having a dual nature since he doesn't believe in "original sin." At least as far as any version resembling the reformed tradition. By the way, not everyone who believes in inbred sin believes that Christians still have sinful natures. Those that hold that view believe that the old nature is killed and we now are partakers of the divine nature.

and

I've been thinking some about this topic and wondering what is does to being born again, regeneration, conversion, ect. If nature merely means a habitual action, then there is no need for a change of heart. All that is needed is a change of will. I think Finney believed that the heart was the same as the will. That is the only way you could really put it to make it consistant if there is no corrupted nature- and you interpret nature to NOT be what is naturally inclined, but only your habitual action.

Below is what John Wesley said about this topic. My thoughts arn't nearly as strong as his, but it does share some of the same concerns I have (mainly what is in bold.)

Also, could anyone ever call sin a disease and Jesus the cure? How can something be a disease if it is always a mere action? How could being born again be anything other than a 'decision?' What does it mean to "have a change of nature?" Is it mere self-reformation to the "moral law" of God?

2. Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, “We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation.” But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? or, to come back to the text, is “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?” Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still.

3. We may learn from hence, in the Third place, what is the proper nature of religion, of the religion of Jesus Christ. It is therapeia psyches, God’s method of healing a soul which is thus diseased. Hereby the great Physician of souls applies medicines to heal this sickness; to restore human nature, totally corrupted in all its faculties. God heals all our Atheism by the knowledge of Himself, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent; by giving us faith, a divine evidence and conviction of God, and of the things of God, — in particular, of this important truth, “Christ loved me” — and gave himself for me.” By repentance and lowliness of heart, the deadly disease of pride is healed; that of self-will by resignation, a meek and thankful submission to the will of God; and for the love of the world in all its branches, the love of God is the sovereign remedy. Now, this is properly religion, “faith” thus “working by love;” working the genuine meek humility, entire deadness to the world, with a loving, thankful acquiescence in, and conformity to, the whole will and word of God.

4. Indeed, if man were not thus fallen, there would be no need of all this. There would be no occasion for this work in the heart, this renewal in the spirit of our mind. The superfluity of godliness would then be a more proper expression than the “superfluity of naughtiness.” For an outside religion, without any godliness at all, would suffice to all rational intents and purposes. It does, accordingly, suffice, in the judgment of those who deny this corruption of our nature. They make very little more of religion than the famous Mr. Hobbes did of reason. According to him, reason is only “a well-ordered train of words:” According to them, religion is only a well-ordered train of words and actions. And they speak consistently with themselves; for if the inside be not full of wickedness, if this be clean already, what remains, but to “cleanse the outside of the cup?” Outward reformation, if their supposition be just, is indeed the one thing needful.

Mahoney wrote:
With all respect, then you must not agree with Romans Chapter 5 because, if you go back and actually read it, that is what is says.

Let me "actually read it" and then explaine it.
[b]Romans 5:12[/b] [color=990000]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:[/color]

I don't know why you use this verse to prove your point, all it says is that "[u]as by one man sin entered into the world[/u]"
Adam is the first to sin.

"[u]and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men[/u]"
the creation was made subject to vanity(temporaryness) and put into the bondage of corruption(Romans 8:20-21)

"[u]on which all have sinned[/u]"
The death came apon them that sinned.

[b]Rom 5:13[/b] [color=990000](For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.[/color]

However, this does not excuse ignorance. Furthermore, their sin was different from the sin of Adam. They sinned way before Moses even gave the law, and had only sinned against the law of their conscience(Romans 1:18-20 & 2:14-15).

[b]Romans 5:14[/b] [color=990000]Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.[/color]

If the sin is not being accounted for, there would be no "spiritual" condemnation, but only physical.
This also teaches that Adam's sin was not the sin of Adams descendants: "[u]Them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.[/u]"
Those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression were also sinners just as much as you & I.

Furhtermore, the fact that Paul says they "had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" shows that Paul did not consider that God put the guilt of Adam's sin to their account.

The death reigned from Adam to Moses is the same death that reigns today which is read in Romans 8:20-21.
However, the sin that is after the similitude of Adam's transgression is a sin against a law.
Adam had the law "[b]Gen 2:16-17[/b] [color=990000]And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou may freely eat:
[b]17:[/b] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die[/color]

Moses' law is the one that is evident in the Tunnock.

[b]Romans 5:17[/b] [color=990000][u]For if by[/u] the offense of the one man death reigned because of the one, [u]much more[/u] they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)[/color]
This is a compairison because the words, "For if by" & "much more".
For if by (In comparison) to Adams disobediance in which death took over putting the creation under the bondage of corruption and made it subject to vanity
(How)much more(would greatter) is the one Man, Jesus Christ is by giveing the ones receiving the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness in life to reign in life.

[b]Romans 5:18[/b] [color=990000] [u]So, then, as through[/u][/color] (In comparison to) [color=990000] one offence to all men to condemnation, [u]so also through[/u][/color](it is for) [color=990000]one declaration of `Righteous' to all men to justification of life;
[b]:19[/b] [u]for as through[/u][/color](In comparison to) [color=990000]the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners: so also through[/color](the same is for) [color=990000]the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous. [/color]

"on which all have sinned"
The death came apon them that sinned.

Who do you mean by 'them?' Babies die....

I don't think anyone here is pressing that men are guilty of Adam's sin, but that the consequence of Adam's sin brought corruption to the human race. I may be wrong on that.

Logic,

If you have time, what do you think about my post on "nature?"

dorcas wrote:
Logic said

However, this does not excuse ignorance.

I'd just like to counter this with a few words from Paul:

Acts 17:26 - 30
"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

"Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. [b]Truly, [u]these times of ignorance God overlooked[/u], but now commands all men everywhere to repent[/b],

"on which all have sinned"
The death came apon them that sinned.

PreachParsly wrote:
Who do you mean by 'them?' Babies die....

PreachParsly wrote:
Logic,
If you have time, what do you think about my post on "nature?"

I like this part:

Nature can mean something that a person is naturally inclined to do or it is instinctive (inbred) in them to do. Nature can also mean something someone habitually does. Ex. "I know John lies a lot. That is just his nature." When someone makes that statement he is not saying John was born to lie, but rather that is "just the way he is." So, if nature is not what a person is inbred to do, then it is their habitual action.
&
In my mind, the two are connected. If you believe in a Christian having a "sinful nature" then you have to believe that nature means that is what they are inbred to do. If you believe that nature is something that is habitually done, then you can't believe Christians have a "sinful nature." Because we all agree Christians don't habitually sin.

However, y'all forget that y'all are useing adults or people who are of age to understand sin and rebelion as y'alls examples for y'alls stance on this topic.
Use instances of before one willingly chooses to sin as examples of a "sin nature" or "original sin".
Adults or people who are of age to understand sin and rebelion, naturaly will sin if they do not know God.
In contrast, Christians do not sin(1John 3:9) for it is against there nature to sin because they do know God.

However, an infant or a newborn just out of the womb can not know God and can not be put under the same assessment as the mature for it can not comprehend and therfore can not have a nature against God nor for God (could I say that they are nutral?).

When the infant matures, but not yet accountable, has appearances of what we may see as sin, however, babies fuss and scream, refuse to eat, and throw tantrums before they know the difference between right and wrong.

Babies fuss and scream, refuse to eat, throw tantrums, etc., not because of a sinful nature, but in response to pain and discomfort and the likes and dislikes of disposition, and the urges and desires of the sensibility.

1) What is an infants nature?
2) Is it natural for a newborn to rebel?
3) Can a babe just out of the womb have sinfull thoughts?
4) What law do they [b]know[/b] in their hearts yet?
5) What is their guilt since they are not even ignorant of a law, but unable to be put under a law?
6) Why would God, with such a great love for His creation, condemn it with Adam's sin when it has not yet sinned?
7) Furthermore, put a nature on creation for it to do naturaly what HE hates?

Mahoney wrote:
If we are not legally held responsible for Adam's sin, then please explain to me how Jesus could legally be held responsible for our sin on the cross?

To understand how the sacrifice of Jesus satisfies God, we must know what God says. God uses His law of death on the account of sin to implement the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. God says, in [b]Romans 6:23[/b], [color=990000]for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.[/color] and, [b]Deut.21:23[/b], [color=990000]His body shall not remain overnight on the tree (cross), but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who hangs on a tree is accursed of God.[/color]
Jesus was taken off the cross that same day He died so the curse of sin would stay on Him. [b]Lev.17:11[/b], [color=990000]For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the alter to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.[/color] [b]Hebrews. 9:22[/b], [color=990000]for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin[/color]
When Jesus shed His blood on the cross which is Gods’ alter, God accepted His sacrifice. In verification of Gods' acceptance, He raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection is the basis of our Faith [b]1Corinth 15:14[/b] [color=990000]and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.[/color]
God lets there be a proxy (replacement for you & I) to take the judgment, but the proxy must not be guilty like the one accused or he would be taking the judgment for himself and not for us.
Jesus had never sinned, moreover, He was also [b]infinite[/b](Hebrews 9:14). And for this reason He is Mediator of a new covenant, in order that (a death having occurred for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant) the ones having been called shall receive the promise of the [b]eternal[/b] inheritance(Hebrews 9:15).
If we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, how much more shall we shall be saved by His life!(Romans 5:10)
Jesus is Infinit & eternal, therefore, He can take on the sin of the world.

He died on the cross, or we may call it a tree because it is made of wood, to take the curse of sin and the curse of the law. [b]Galatians.3:10[/b], [color=990000]for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.[/color] [b]Galatians 3:13[/b], [color=990000]Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:[/color]

Mahoney wrote:
What?

Furthermore

If we are not legally held responsible for Adam's sin, then please explain to me how Jesus could legally be held responsible for our sin on the cross?

How could we be legally held responsible for Adam's sin?

Please read and pray about the following passages:

[url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.%205:12-19;%201%20Cor.%2015:21,22,45,49%20&version=47]Scripture on Original Sin[/url]

Logic,

In what way do you believe that a person receives a new nature when they are born again?

PreachParsly wrote:
Logic,

In what way do you believe that a person receives a new nature when they are born again?

How could we be legally held responsible for Adam's sin?

Adam's sin brought death and sin into the world. Romans 5:15 says that 'many died through one man's trespass...'
Romans 5:16 says 'For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation'

and
Romans 5:18 says, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men"

We are legally held responsible because through Adam's sin our human nature became sinful and thus we sin. It is because of Adam that we need a Savior!

By knowing Jesus as described in John 17:3 And this knowlege is only is given by grace through faith and By hope through perseverance(Romans 8:23-25 & Eph 2:8)

What I meant by my question is "what does it mean to have a new nature?" Does nature mean you merely habitually act different or that since you have been born again you now do what is 'inbred' in you?

I'm probably not expressing what I mean very well. I'm sorry.

1)The natural man does what is 'inbred' in himself. It's not his mere actions that define his nature, but that his actions flow from his heart.

or

2)Nature means what is habitually done. There really is no 'sinful nature,' but rather you define your nature by what you decide to habitually do.

If 1 is true then when you are 'born again' God gives you new desires and your actions are changed since you have a new heart.

If 2 is true when you are 'born again' you clean yourself by deciding to obey the commands. In this view the 'heart' is seen better as 'the will.'

The reason this concerns me is because I was once talking to someone who does not believe in inbred sin and something was mentioned about 'a radical heart change.' And then he said a horrifying thing, "I really don't see in the Bible where you have a 'radical heart change' but that you just decided to obey Christ."

PreachParsly wrote:

What I meant by my question is "what does it mean to have a new nature?" Does nature mean you merely habitually act different or that since you have been born again you now do what is 'inbred' in you?

It is known that Faith with out works is dead, but what are works? [u]Works are the fruit of righteousness.[/u] In other words, [b]a changed life, a new view on life, and a new motive for everything that you do.[/b]

In these new aspects of your life will become actions or works that give a testimony of [b]Christ in you[/b] which prooves that you are a new creation.
In other words, you don't work to get a job; you work because you have a job. You don't work to be saved; you work because you are saved.

We dont have eternal life because we do works of faith, on the contrary, we do works of faith because we have eternal life.

Salvation isn't a thing, but a person, Jesus Christ. This is why knowing Jesus is eternal life(John 17:3).

Christ in you, the hope of glory is that hope of which we are save by in Romans 8:23-25

1)The natural man does what is 'inbred' in himself. It's not his mere actions that define his nature, but that his actions flow from his heart.

I wouldn't say 'inbred' but say moved toward or "drawn away".

In otherwords, The natural man does what he is moved toward to do of his own desire in himself(James 1:14).

Furthermore, it is more that just the "actions" that flow from his heart, but, his own desires.

2)Nature means what is habitually done. There really is no 'sinful nature,' but rather you define your nature by what you decide to habitually do.

If 1 is true then when you are 'born again' God gives you new desires and your actions are changed since you have a new heart.

Being born again means starting over.

If 2 is true when you are 'born again' you clean yourself by deciding to obey the commands. In this view the 'heart' is seen better as 'the will.'

The commands are there to show us that we can not keep them and to bring us to Christ.
[b]Galatians 3:24[/b] [color=990000]Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.[/color]

Your conclusion to #2 is legalism.
Any effort on your part to clean yourself up is only trying to live up to the standards of the law which only brings a curse
[b]Galatians 3:10[/b] [color=990000]for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them[/color]

The only way to free us is to Love Him supremly and then we "naturaly" do His will.

This is why the law of Christ is the law of Love and the works of faith is also love.

Loveing God supremly naturaly gives you the ability to fulfill the Law, (Romans 13:8,10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)

JaySaved wrote:

How could we be legally held responsible for Adam's sin?

Adam's sin brought death and sin into the world. Romans 5:15 says that 'many died through one man's trespass...'
Romans 5:16 says 'For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation'

and
Romans 5:18 says, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men"

We are legally held responsible because through Adam's sin our human nature became sinful and thus we sin. It is because of Adam that we need a Savior!

Thanks for the response, Logic.

I guess I struggle seeing what God does in conversion if there is no sinful nature.

PreachParsly wrote:
Thanks for the response, Logic.

I guess I struggle seeing what God does in conversion if there is no sinful nature.

If one does not have eternal life, one would have a natural disposition to sin, hence sinful nature.

Wowever, to be born with a sinful nature, defies God's love for His creation, justice, and even common sence.

One should read the scriptures without a bias toward any preconcieved theologies.

I agree with the fact that there is a sinfull nature. I was saved one week after my 22nd brithday, on a Thursday night at home. I left the Wed. service under heavy conviction. I repented of my sins and ask the Lord to save me on my knees. He did save me, right there and then. He saved the soul, not the flesh, it sin must die, it still give me problems. I still am tempeted to sin by it. Everyday I must get the grace of God to fight agaist it. I still have that nature because the flesh is never saved. Thanks be unto God that there is grace to stand agaist it.

Logic,

Your understanding of Romans 5:14 puts you at odds with the rest of Romans 5.

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

In the above verses we see that sin entered the world and death through the sin because all sinned. Have you ever asked yourself why is it that all sinned? This is what we mean by Original Sin. Our nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam so that we are sinful by nature.

You seem to suggest that before the Law of Moses was given, nobody was guilty of sin. Does this mean that every person who lived before Moses is in heaven?

To go against Original Sin is to go against Historic Christianity and engage in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism]Pelagianism[/url].

However, to be born with a sinful nature, defies God's love for His creation, justice, and even common sense.

Then how do you explain David's statement in Psalm 51:5
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (ESV)

Mahoney wrote:

We, all of us, were IN Adam when he disobeyed. We were IN his loins, if you will. So we were there, yet unborn, and thus guilty with Adam.

However, if you are alluding to [b]Herewsb 7:9-10[/b][color=990000]And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.[/color]
Notice in [b]Hebrews 7:9a[/b] the author says,
[u]And as I may so say,[/u]
this means "and so to speak" or "if you will"
The Author isn't makeing this a literal sence but figurative.
He was compairing Levitical priesthood(temporal & difican) as inferior to the priesthood of Christ(eternal & eficiant) "after the order of Melchisedec,"
To put this as literal would have been impossible, because Levi did not even exist yet.

It is almost saying that Jesus is a door.
He is not a literal door, but a figurative door, you would never think to make this literal, why make another figurative statment literal?

Conversley, that is why the scritpure can say we HAVE BEEN crucified WITH Christ, and we HAVE BEEN raised up WITH Him.

We, who have recieved the gift of Salvation through Christ Jesus, are IN Christ. Therefore, just as we owned Adam's disobedience because were were in him, we now own Christ's obedience because we are IN Him.

You are puting a concept of faith with conjecture that ha snothing to do with faith.
We can not "own" anyones disobedience, but our own.
moreover, We were given Christ's obedience throught faith.

JaySaved wrote:
Logic,

Your understanding of Romans 5:14 puts you at odds with the rest of Romans 5.

In the above verses we see that sin entered the world and death through the sin because all sinned.

Furthermore, the term all have sinned" does not mean those who are not born yet, but, only those who actualy sinned.

Have you ever asked yourself why is it that all sinned?

This is what we mean by Original Sin. Our nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam so that we are sinful by nature.

Our nature was corrupted by not knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ(John 17:3).
andfurthermore, having known God, they did not glorify Him as God nor did they give thanks, but [b]they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.[/b]...
Just read [b]Romans 1[/b] and you will find out why our nature was corrupted.

You seem to suggest that before the Law of Moses was given, nobody was guilty of sin.

Does this mean that every person who lived before Moses is in heaven?

No one goes to hell because of there sins, but only for rejecting the sacrifice that Jesus paid on the cross, along with His resurrection.

All men are only condemned or justified by God in the New Testament for their rejection or accepting of Christ.

However, in the [u]Old Testament[/u] They were only [b]condemned or justified by God for their unbelief and disobedience or belief and obedience[/b] of and to HIM. (See Romans & 1:18-20, 2:14, 15 which is talking about the reality of God.)

[b]Galatians 3:6[/b] [color=990000]Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.[/color]
[b]Job 19:25[/b] [color=990000]For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:[/color]

Also for the non-Jews [b]Jonah 3:5[/b] [color=990000]So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.[/color]
Their fast was the obedience.
Before the flood they all believed for it was plain to all since Adam would have been alive with them, or he would have been known for his fame of being the first man ever created.

To go against Original Sin is to go against Historic Christianity and engage in Pelagianism.

However, as I have said, To go with Original Sin is to go against Justice, the love of GOd for His creation, and common sence.

Then how do you explain David's statement in Psalm 51:5

Since the world has sin [b]in[/b] it, the inocent are also [b]in[/b] iniquity but not [b]with[/b] iniquity.

Iniquity is also the consequence of sin and
Even the righteous suffers the consequence from sin.
The righteous also died on [u]911[/u] which was brought by sin.

Notice, also, in [b]Psalms 139:13-14[/b] [color=990000]For You have possessed my inward parts; [b]You did cover me in my mother's womb.[/b]
[b]:14[/b] I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.[/color]
God covers us in our mother's womb.
He only covers them who are inocent.

Logic,

Your statement on Romans 5:14 says that the death that reigned from Adam to Moses was not spiritual but physical.

This is at odds with the rest of Romans 5 because Chapter 5 (and the rest of Romans) tells us that all men are born spiritually dead and that eventually leads to physical death.

Logic,

You have taken the position of defending God and his justice. You say that it would be unjust for God to condemn someone on the basis of another person's sin. The truth is, no one is judged based on another person's sin. We will all give an account of ourselves before God.

What Original Sin describes, is that through the Fall of Adam, all men became spiritually dead. God told Adam in Genesis 2:16-17:
"You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

God told Adam that 'in the day that you eat you shall surely die. Have you ever wondered why Adam and Eve did not physically die that day? It is because God was referring to spiritual death, not physical.

On the day Adam ate the fruit, he spiritually died. He hid himself from God and God cast him out of the garden. From that day until now, all men are born spiritually dead.

This is why the gospel of Christ is so important! He redeemed us from our sin, He saved us from our spiritual death. We were all under condemnation because of our sinful nature, but Jesus set us free. Romans 8:2-4
2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you[a] free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,[b] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Logic,
What translation are you using from Romans 5:12? You might want to recheck that...[url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%205:12;&version=47;9;49;15;50;]Romans 5:12 translations[/url]

Freedom: Before we are saved we have only the freedom to sin.

Romans 6:20
For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

Liberty: Being free to live in righteousness through salvation.

Romans 6:22
But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.

JaySaved wrote:
Logic,
What translation are you using from Romans 5:12? You might want to recheck that...Romans 5:12 translations

What Original Sin describes, is that through the Fall of Adam, all men became spiritually dead. God told Adam in Genesis 2:16-17:

God told Adam that 'in the day that you eat you shall surely die. Have you ever wondered why Adam and Eve did not physically die that day? It is because God was referring to spiritual death, not physical.

On the day Adam ate the fruit, he spiritually died. He hid himself from God and God cast him out of the garden. From that day until now, all men are born spiritually dead.

spiritual death is separation from God.
This verse sais that your own iniquities separated you from God.
[b]Isaiah 59:2[/b] [color=990000]But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.[/color]

Adam's sin separated himself and himself only from God and we separate our selves.

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus 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 to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
If we say only our individual acts of sin condemn us we also say that only our individual acts of righteousness save us.

Adam's sin separated himself and himself only from God and we separate our selves.

GraceAlone wrote:
Then why does EVERYBODY sin?

Why does theire need to be a fault other than ourselves?

[b]Romans 5:19[/b] [color=990000][b]For as by one man’s[/b] disobedience many were made sinners, [b]so also by one Man’s[/b] obedience many will be made righteous.[/color]
Remember this is a verse of comprison:

If by one man’s disobedience all humanity were made with a sinful nature with your interpritation
Then
by one Man’s obedience, all humanity was made with a righteous nature.
But
This is only showing how much greater Jesus is to Adam.

If we say only our individual acts of sin condemn us we also say that only our individual acts of righteousness save us.

It is accepting the sacrifice that Jesus paid on the cross, along with His resurrection so that He will take our place of judgment.

If we say only our individual acts of sin condemn us we also say that only our individual acts of righteousness save us.

Yes!
But what is that one individual act of righteousness that saves us?

It is accepting the sacrifice that Jesus paid on the cross, along with His resurrection so that He will take our place of judgment.

"Us accepting Christ" doesn't save us that would be working for salvation. We do not have any GOOD WORK of our own TO MERIT SALVATION. ALL we have is Christ ALONE.

It is God giving us the ability to have faith in Christ so that He accept us.

GraceAlone wrote:

"Us accepting Christ" doesn't save us that would be working for salvation. We do not have any GOOD WORK of our own TO MERIT SALVATION. ALL we have is Christ ALONE.

It is God giving us the ability to have faith in Christ so that He accept us.

Say, you were sinking in quicksand and one comes along to save you.

You must put your hand out for Him to grab, fruthermore, you must hold on.
[b]Hebrews 4:11[/b] [color=990000]Let us [b]labour[/b] therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.[/color]

This is the work I wa stalking about.

Logic said in response to Romans 5:12 (ESV) "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--"

Bad translation.
Actualy it is: Romans 5:12 For this reason, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and thus death passed through [or, extended] to all people, on which all have sinned.

When asked to explain his using a translation that changed 'all men sinned' to 'on which all have sinned', Logic states:

I usualy use the greek to mix translations for best accuracy.

I listed 5 reputable translations (1 if you are a KJV only) that refute your 'translation'. Honestly, who do you think you are that you can change the meaning of scripture to fit your theology?

Logic also said:

Prove that all men became spiritually dead.

First read Ephesians 2:1-3
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. "

Why do you think this says that we were quickened? Why do you think it says that we were dead? Were we physically dead? That would be absurd, we were spiritually dead.

But, I know what you are thinking. 'We were dead because we choose to sin.' But you fail to see the obvious conclusion. All men sin because all men are spiritually dead. It is not our sin that makes us sinners by nature, we are sinners by nature and therefore we sin.

Please listen to GraceAlone when she says,

Then why does EVERYBODY sin?

Have you wondered why we have only one example of a person living a life without sin? Nobody but Jesus (who was God in human flesh) could do it. NOBODUM Jesus didn't have Original Sin because He was born of God.

Please pray over these words that God may open your eyes to the truth. I love you brother Logic.

Have you wondered why we have only one example of a person living a life without sin? Nobody but Jesus (who was God in human flesh) could do it. NOBODUM Jesus didn't have Original Sin because He was born of God.
Please pray over these words that God may open your eyes to the truth. I love you brother Logic.

I think you should really consider what he is saying logic.

So are you saying that we merit our salvation by taking hold of God?

Isaiah 64:7
And there is NO ONE who calls on Your name, Who stirs himself up to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us, And have consumed us because of our iniquities.

LOL. All glory goes to God. Even your faith.

JaySaved wrote:
Logic said in response to Romans 5:12 (ESV) "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--"

I listed 5 reputable translations (1 if you are a KJV only) that refute your 'translation'. Honestly, who do you think you are that you can change the meaning of scripture to fit your theology?

Where did I change the meaning of scripture?

I actualy change my theology to fit scripture.

1And you hath he quickened, [b]who were dead in trespasses and sins[/b]; 2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

People forget that they tend to use adults or people who are of age to understand sin and rebelion as their examples for their stance on this topic.

Are infants dead in trespasses and sins?
They never "walked according to the course of this world"
They barely started yet.

But, I know what you are thinking. 'We were dead because we choose to sin.' But you fail to see the obvious conclusion. All men sin because all men are spiritually dead. It is not our sin that makes us sinners by nature, we are sinners by nature and therefore we sin.

You have not yet proved this conclusion, Though I have proven mine.

Disprove me then your view will come to light.

Have you wondered why we have only one example of a person living a life without sin? Nobody but Jesus (who was God in human flesh) could do it. NOBODUM Jesus didn't have Original Sin because He was born of God.

Please pray over these words that God may open your eyes to the truth. I love you brother Logic.

How do you think I came to this understanding.
Have you prayed and read with out preconcieved theology, that you have not learnd from another, but form the Scripturse with out bias?

I once thought as you, but I've always wondered about the justice in "original sin".
I prayed and prayed more until I came to understand.

Please, go back and re-read [b]all[/b] of what I have to say with [b]out bias[/b], forgeting what was taught.

When you read with out preconcieved theology and with out bias for all times, you might confirm what you've learned and sometimes, you find the truth.

GraceAlone wrote:
So are you saying that we merit our salvation by taking hold of God?

Have you ever concidered that He didn't sin because He is God and we sin not because of "original sin" but only because we aren't God?

Hebrews 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

i. total inability
a. man cannot do the good
(i) Matthew 7:17-18; Christ says a bad tree bears bad fruit and cannot bear good fruit.
(ii) 1 Cor 12:3; Only by the spirit can somebody submit to Jesus as Lord.
(iii) John 15:4-5; You cannot bear fruit apart from Christ.
(iv) Romans 8:7-8; in the flesh you cannot please God and the carnal mind is hostile toward God and cannot be subject to God's law
b. man cannot understand the good
(i) Acts 16:14; only after God gave Lydia an open heart to give heed to Paul.
(ii) Eph 4:18; understanding is darkened
(iii) 2 Cor 3:12-18; a veil over thier hearts.
(iv) John 1:5; darkness doesn't comprehend the light.
(v) John 8:43; They cannot understand because they are not able.
(vi) Matthew 13:14; Hearing they will never understand.
(vii) 1 Cor 1:18, 21; 2:4; without the spirit a man cannot understand the things of God.
c. man cannot desire the good
(i) Matthew 7:18 They are unable by nature.
(ii) John 3:3; 6:44-55; 8:43; 15:4-5; They cannot and are unable.
(iii) Ezeikiel 11:19; heart of stone
(iv) 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; must be a new creation.
(v) Col 2:13; Dead in sins.
(vi) Eph 2:1, 5; Dead in sins.

GraceAlone wrote:
Our nature is depraved because we were made sinners when Adam sinned and are unable to do good.

I have made clear, but you refuse to take heed.

by Logic on 2006/12/23 16:30:39

Why is there only a diference with us, that we must have a "sin natuer" to sin?

Please don't be rediculous.

It is but you musent take it literaly.

If we are not in Christ, what other is there to be "in"?
There is only Christ or Adam.
Therefore being "in Adam" is by default if not "in Christ".

philologos wrote:
The implication of this, of course, is that every individual sin I commit puts me straight back 'into Adam'. This is Finneyism with a vengeance!

This is an error;
[b]1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

philologos wrote:
“Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.” (Dan 4:16 KJVS) The consequence of this 'change of heart' was that the king began to behave like a beast. Behaving like a beast would not 'change his heart' but having a 'beast's heart' changed his behaviour.

If our nature stems from our heart, Haveing a law from God put in our heart would show that our nature is not corupted.

Christ's words make little sense if your assertions are correct...[color=0000ff]“Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Matt 12:34 NKJV)[/color] If anything showed the need for a new heart, this statement does.

Ron's: If a single sin does so our whole Christian condition is subject to constant oscillation. This is nonsense.

Is it because of the blood of the covenant that we have been eternally sanctified? I am really trying to understand this because the 'oscillation' you mention is a good word for teachings that are hard wired into my conscience. I try to disregard them, but I keep being troubled. Perhaps if I can be convinced in my own mind in this area to the satisfaction of my conscience I can get past this.

Thanks!

logic,

I thought it would be interesting to ask you why you think toddlers don't have to be taught to lie- they just do it? lol- I was talking with my friend and thought about this discussion.

philologos wrote:
Who said you have to have a sin-nature in order to sin?

Y'all say that we sin because we have a sin nature.

The whole point of Hebrews is to show that Christ's mediatorship and covenant is superior to any that preceeded it. If you relegate this part to 'non -literal' interpretation, why not do the same with his taking on the seed of Abraham, becoming flesh etc. Your interpretation of this single passage shows your willingness to duck and weave simply to satisfy your own opinions.

If He came literaly frome the seed of Abraham, He would have been born from sperm.

This is quite illogical. We might be in Noah or any other common ancestor. But Romans keeps us fixed on that 'one man' who acted as our representative and who determined the nature of the human race until another 'man' appeared to co-crucify that 'old man' and begin a new race of those 'in Christ'.

Don't you know that it is in faith and from conformity that we are in christ?
How would we be in Noah or any other common ancestor?
Jesus is the Second Adam; Noah or any other common ancestor was never called a first anything nor second anything.

God made man from one blood, not from many as from other ancestors.
This is what Paul was stalking about, Are you only from the bloodline of Adam or Jesus'?

My objections are not with John but with the inevitable consequences of a teaching that a single sin puts us into the exact condition of Adam. If a single sin does so our whole Christian condition is subject to constant oscillation. This is nonsense.

If a person gets into Adam by choosing not to be in Christ, how would that put us into the exact condition of Adam and subject the Christian condition to constant oscillation?

You are missing the whole significance of...
“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” (Ezek 36:26-27 NKJV)

You would do well to consider this microcosm of regeneration. You will notice the order in which God declares it. It includes the removal of the old heart before the arrival of the new, followed by 'new spirit' AND God's own Spirit. This is a total renewal of the inner man which is necessitated because of the incurable nature of the 'old heart'. “Crooked [is] the heart above all things, And it [is] incurable — who doth know it?” (Jer 17:9 YNG) Here the Spirit of God in Jeremiah puts His finger right on the spot. That 'old heart' in incurable, hence the need for a new one.

Christ's words make little sense if your assertions are correct...“Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Matt 12:34 NKJV) If anything showed the need for a new heart, this statement does.

How can an infant right from the womb have a sinful nature?
Adults or people who are of age to understand sin and rebelion, naturaly will sin if they do not know God.
In contrast, Christians do not sin(1John 3:9) for it is against there nature to sin because they do know God.

However, an infant or a newborn just out of the womb can not know God and can not be put under the same assessment as the mature for it can not comprehend and therfore can not have a nature against God nor for God.
Infants can not hate God, know good nor evil, hate, envy...ect...
How do you think they have a "sin nature"?

GraceAlone wrote:
logic,

I thought it would be interesting to ask you why you think toddlers don't have to be taught to lie- they just do it? lol- I was talking with my friend and thought about this discussion.

GraceAlone wrote:
logic,

I thought it would be interesting to ask you why you think toddlers don't have to be taught to lie- they just do it? lol- I was talking with my friend and thought about this discussion.

Logic wrote:
A better question to ask is, How do toddlers know it is wrong to lie?

JaySaved writes:
You did not answer the question.

Don't you?

Y'all say that we sin because we have a sin nature.

It wasn't realy the literal seed of Abraham, since HE came not from the seed of man.

If He came literaly frome the seed of Abraham, He would have been born from sperm.

Are you talking about infant right from the womb?
This is the most important thing to remember in your mind when talking about my whole premise.

However, an infant or a newborn just out of the womb can not know God and can not be put under the same assessment as the mature for it can not comprehend and therfore can not have a nature against God nor for God.
Infants can not hate God, know good nor evil, hate, envy...ect...
How do you think they have a "sin nature"?

dorcas wrote:
Are you saying God could not make one single sperm with which to fertilise Mary's egg - God who made the first whole man, consisting of so much more than sperm?

OK. How else could Mary have become pregnant?

JaySaved wrote:
GraceAlone wrote:
logic,

I thought it would be interesting to ask you why you think toddlers don't have to be taught to lie- they just do it? lol- I was talking with my friend and thought about this discussion.

Logic wrote:
A better question to ask is, How do toddlers know it is wrong to lie?

JaySaved writes:
You did not answer the question.

Same way Adam or the devil didn't need to be taught, by selfishness, They love themselves more that the person they lie to.

Why els would it be?

philologos wrote:
I think its time you started listening. We sin because we choose to, we act righteously because we choose to, otherwise there is no vice nor virtue but just nature. Pre-disposition is not pre-destination.

You can't use Romans 5 because there is no proof there, as I have shown.

It's time you started reading too. This verse says he took hold of the seed of Abraham. We have had this conversation here before. The Bible does not use the words 'conceive' or 'seed' in the biological sense of reproduction as applying to the feminine in the former or the masculine in the latter. Christ took hold the seed of Abraham i.e. Abraham's progeny through both male and female which culminated in Jesus of Nazareth who was born "of the woman's seed".

That is intresting, please show me where He took hold of the seed of Abraham.
What verse?

Are you talking about infant right from the womb?

Yes, I am. Your premise is that the heart becomes 'incurable' as a result of personal transgression. If that is true then your every individual transgression will re-create in you an 'incurable condition'. I presume that every repentance and turning in faith will also recreate a 'new heart'? This is nonsense, although it is getting towards the position of Finney.

How do you think they have a "sin nature"?

By regeneration we receive a new nature. Do you agree with this? Our new nature does not predetermine us to righteous acts but it certainly predisposes us to righteous acts.

This "washing of regeneration" means cleansing the nature to what it was.
Therefore we don't receive a new nature, but we keep our nature only cleansed.
The Holy Spirit renovats our nature by making it as it was befor afresh.

Do a Greek study on "regeneration" & "renewing"

You can't use Romans 5 because there is no proof there, as I have shown.

Should the below verse show that man is born dead to God?

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

PreachParsly wrote:

You can't use Romans 5 because there is no proof there, as I have shown.

Should the below verse show that man is born dead to God?

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Being dead to sins, means being alive to God:

[b]Colosians 2:13[/b] [color=990000]And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;[/color]
[b]Eph 2:1[/b] [color=990000]And you hath he quickened[/color](mad alive to God)[color=990000], who were dead in trespasses and sins;[/color]

Were we born dead in sins?
No.
If we were, what sins were you doning as a new born babe?

What is a natural man?

PreachParsly wrote:
What is a natural man?

Greek Strongs #5591 ψυχικός
psuchikos (psoo-khee-kos')
Therefore, a natural man is not a spiritual man.
This is the same as being carnal.

Therfore, it is one that does not know Jesus as in John 17:3

Are men born with the Spirit?

This morning I was browsing, again, through Romans 5. My attention was drawn to the little word 'by' as in

[color=0000ff]“Wherefore, as [u]by[/u] one man sin entered into the world, and death [u]by[/u] sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Rom 5:12 KJVS)[/color]

The NKJV uses the word ''through' here to translate the Greek word [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?hr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blueletterbible.org%2Fsearch.html&icon=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blueletterbible.org%2Fgifs%2Fsearch_tools.gif&bgcolor=FFFFFF&textcolor=000000&linkcolor=39398C&vlinkcolor=0000FF&strongs=1223&language=G&anything.x=29&anything.y=9]dia[/url] which the Blue Letter Bible site makes clear is "a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act". The text of Rom 5:12 therefore is telling us very plainly that 'one man' was the channel through whom Sin entered into the world. Moreover the word 'dia' is repeated in reference to the Sin which entered 'through Adam'. Not only did Sin enter 'through the channel' of Adam but Death entered 'through the channel' of Sin. We have here two identifiable 'stages'; Sin entered, Death entered.

We know from Genesis that Adam experienced 'Death' in the day that he ate the forbidden fruit. So the sequence is
1. Adam transgressed
2. Sin entered through Adam
3. Death entered through Sin's presence 'in' Adam.

This is the plain statement of the scripture.

In case we should have any doubt about the significance of 'dia' we can see Paul's consistent use of the preposition in Romans and particularly in Romans 5...
[color=0000ff]Rom. 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God [u]through[/u] our Lord Jesus Christ,
Rom. 5:2 [u]through[/u] whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom. 5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts [u]by[/u] the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Rom. 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath [u]through[/u] Him.
Rom. 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God [u]through[/u] the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom. 5:11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God [u]through[/u] our Lord Jesus Christ, [u]through[/u] whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Rom. 5:12 ¶ Therefore, just as [u]through[/u] [b]one[/b] man sin entered the world, and death [u]through[/u] sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Rom. 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the [b]one[/b] man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the [b]one[/b] Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
Rom. 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came [u]through[/u] the [b]one[/b] who sinned. For the judgment which came from [b]one[/b] offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Rom. 5:17 For if by the [b]one[/b] man’s offense death reigned [u]through[/u] the [b]one[/b], much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life [u]through[/u] the [b]One[/b], Jesus Christ.)
Rom. 5:18 ¶ Therefore, as [u]through[/u] [b]one[/b] man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so [u]through[/u] [b]one[/b] Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
Rom. 5:19 For as [u]by[/u] [b]one[/b] man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also [u]by[/u] [/b]one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Rom. 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign [u]through[/u] righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [/color]

All we have to do to get the sense of 'through' is read these verses. It is the channel through which something flows. In addition to underlining the word 'through' I have also emboldened the word 'one'. 8 times and in 5 verses Paul uses the phrase 'by one' or 'through one'; Rom 5:12,15-17,19

All we have to do to understand this passage's teaching is to ask the same question, twice!

What was channeled by the first 'one' man?
What was channeled by the second 'one' man?

According to Rom 5:14 Adam was a 'type'; [color=0000ff]“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (Rom 5:14 NKJV)[/color]. A 'type' is not just an illustration is serves as a template. Adam, the first man was, in this point, a template for the second man. Christ is, according to 1Cor 15:47, the second man. In this way of revelation it is as though there have only ever been two men. Hence, we are in one or the other, and these two states are mutually exclusive. Entrance into the 'second man' is by baptism into Him by the Holy Spirit, otherwise known as 'birth'. Second birth puts us into the Second Man. Entrance into the 'first man' was also by birth; First Birth puts us into the First Man.

The inclination of our will effects vidual choices that we make. The choice that you make will naturally follow your inclination. Consequently, if you love yourself or the world more than the one commanding you, you cannot consistently do things that please the commander. Your decisions are in bondage to your effections and inclinations so that you only do what you have favor towards.
Love God, hate sin; Love yourself and the world, hate God.

[color=990000]When the mind is set on the things of the flesh, it is not subject to the law of God, not indeed can be[/color] [b]Romans 8:7[/b]. You cannot love God when you love yourself more.
However, there is liberty in turning to God and setting your effection on Christ.
In other words, [b]Romans 8:4-5[/b] [color=990000]That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
[b]:5[/b] For the ones that are according to the mindset of the flesh naturaly do the things of the flesh. And the ones according to the mindset of the Spirit naturaly do the things of the things of the Spirit.[/color]

The inclination of our will

I'm also curious if you believe men are born with the Spirit of God... If they are not then they are carnal.

philologos wrote:

The inclination of our will

Can you give me a biblical definition of what you mean by 'the will'?

God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart(Hebrews 4:13).
[b]Jer 17:10[/b] [color=990000]I, Jehovah, search the heart, I try the reins, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.[/color]
[b]Revelation 2:23b[/b] [color=990000]I am the One searching the inner parts and hearts. And I will give to each of you according to your works.[/color]

PreachParsly wrote:
I'm also curious if you believe men are born with the Spirit of God... If they are not then they are carnal.

Natural from the greek word for soul;
Natural is the Greek Strong No.#5446
φυσικός (phusikos)
foo-see-kos'
“physical”, that is, (by implication) [b]instinctive[/b]: - natural

Here is why they are not carnal but only natural:
Does an infant walk after the flesh and does an infant mind the things of the flesh?
remember the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, ect...Gal 5:19-21
Infants are not any of these.

Can you give me a biblical definition of what you mean by 'the will'?

Your will is your intension, or your desire, or in todays venacular; it's what you want.

No, they are not carnal, [b]but only natural,[/b]

I guess what confused me is that in the previous post you said "This is the same as being carnal."

Reguardless, it proves the point that children are "natural."

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

PreachParsly wrote:

No, they are not carnal, [b]but only natural,[/b]

I guess what confused me is that in the previous post you said "This is the same as being carnal."

Reguardless, it proves the point that children are "natural."

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Furthermore, when I said, "This is the same as being carnal." I was probly talking about a diferent Greek word for natural than I am now.

The language of inheritance has been used in some of these current threads, but what does this mean? Do we 'inherit' either Sin or Death? This is known theologically as 'the doctrines of transmission'. In other words how does what Adam did get to me, and in what sense?

As always the starting point is [color=0000ff]“because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;” (Rom 5:12 YNG)[/color] I am opting for Youngs partly because he puts the definite article of the original into his English translation and partly because he starts the sentence with 'because'. That is, he forces us to connect Rom 5:12 with what immediately precedes it, which is...[color=0000ff]“for if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. And not only [so], but we are also boasting in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom now we did receive the reconciliation;” (Rom 5:10-11 YNG)[/color] It is important to notice that these verses are taking us beyond 'reconciliation'. "having been reconciled..." then what? In Rom 5:10 part of the 'then what?' is salvation! This is a vital part of the argument here. "having been reconciled we shall be saved..." Paul, by the Spirit, is not thinking about a crisis event called 'getting saved' but a continuing process in which the whole of my life in all its moments is 'saved'. This 'salvation' Paul says is by (or in) in His life. This is a great text. The Greek word translated 'in' by Young and 'by' by most other translators is the word 'en'. 'en' says Thomas Newberry is "In, of time and place; also of the instrument and manner, equipment or qualification." What this means is that in strictly geographical terms 'en' would mean 'within' but in other uses it signifies the 'instrument'. It is an idiomatic use of the word in NT Greek. NT Greek would say "he was killed 'by' the sword" and "by" would be 'en'.

Our 'salvation' then is 'in' or 'by' Christ's life; literally "in the life, his." This is not just the event of reconciliation but the ongoing effect of Christ's life for those who are 'in Christ'. 'through' Christ we [u]have[/u] received 'reconciliation; 'in' Christ we [u]are[/u] receiving moment by moment salvation. There is a great old Pentecostal/Holiness hymn with the chorus "Jesus saves me now. Jesus saves me all of the time. Jesus saves me now." Romans 5:10 is speaking of the 'all of the time' salvation that is ours only 'in Christ'.

Life, here has become a condition and not an event. This is now the truth of justification and reconciliation but 'much more'; it is the truth of 'salvation to the uttermost' in Christ. This is the natural place for the revelation to flow on and Paul does so with a remarkable statement that is part of what, in Romans, he calls 'my gospel' .(Rom 2:16; 16:25)

Now we shall come to that word 'because' which opens verse 12. Why would justificiation and reconciliation not be 'sufficient' for this "all the time" salvation? The answer is because of the real nature of sin which was only dimly revealed in the OT. Sin is not just an act of rebellion but a spiritual state which came into existence long before Adam sinned. This is why Paul tells us that 'The Sin' entered the world by one man. We must be cautious in pressing too earnestly into a comparison between angelic sin and human sin; angels are quite a different order of creation to human. They have no genetic connection with each other and their first sin is only revealed in a veiled form in the scriptures.

Although we need to understand there is a connection between Sin and the physical, angels have no such connection. They have no bodies and some of them have become terminal 'sinners'. So far as the scriptures reveal there is no salvation available for them. And yet sin 'entered' the human race from an angelic infection. The Sin which 'entered' is much more than a transgression, it is a spiritual dynamic. [color=0000ff]“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you [u]once[/u] walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all [u]once[/u] 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.” (Eph 2:1-3 NKJV)[/color]The word translated 'desires' here is the word usually translated 'will'; note that it is in the plural.

Paul writes to people who used to be one thing and are now another; once... now. Some people referred to in this passage are unchanged; they are now still what they 'were'. He calls these "the sons of disobedience'; what does he mean by this phrase? They are men (and women) whose life is charaterized by their disobedience. We might call them 'sinners'. Their disposition is that of the disobedient; they are rebels in nature. Paul explains the forces at work here and describes them as being in accordance with "the prince of the power of the air" who he further describes as "the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience". He continues by showing that the experience of these 'sons of disobedience' was once our own experience, and he calls it their 'nature' and says that they were destined for wrath.

The combination of descriptions here is very powerful. There is an indwelling spirit who "works in the sons of disobedience". The verbs 'works in' is energeO, the word from which we derive 'energy'. It is contrasted later in Ephesians with the work of another indwelling spirit; [color=0000ff]“Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,” (Eph 3:20 NKJV)[/color] This is a fascinating contrast. Christians have one indweliing spirit which is working within them, and non-Christians have another indwelling spirit which is working in them.

Romans 5:12 says this Sin entered the world through Adam's failure. Adam had been commissioned to serve and guard the world but he opened the door of the sheepfold to a murderer and a thief. Something happened to the human race which is uniquely the consequence of Adam's transgression. Eve sinned first, chronologically, but it is Adam's transgression and not Eve's which allowed Sin to 'enter'. There is deep significance here too.

The Sin entered and The Death entered too, through The Sin. This is not physical death but a far greater Death. This is what had been threatened at the first. Hebrew intensifies words by repeating them ie Song of Songs, Lord of lords, Holy of Holies. God warned Adam that "dying he would die" in the day of his transgression. Hence from Adam's transgression has entered first The Sin and then The Death. Forgiveness is no cure for men and women indwelt by an alien spirit, neither is reconciliation. It takes nothing less than New Birth to effect this miracle, but the miracle is achieved in all those who are put into Christ: [color=0000ff]“this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;” (Rom 6:6 YNG)[/color]

The reason that y'all believe in "original sin" & "sin nature" is because y'all believe, that Christ's righteousness is accounted as a [b]transferance[/b] on or in us.
It is only an accountance by [b]transaction[/b] through faith to ordain us to be righteous.

If Christ's righteousness is accounted to us as a transference of [b]righteousness in[/b] or [b]on[/b] us, [b]instead[/b] of an accountance of transaction through faith to be righteous, then Adams act can be transfered to us also.

However, if Christ's righteousness is not accounted as a transferance in or on us, but we are only accounted as by transaction as [b]being righteous[/b], Adams sin couldn't be transacted, for all must pay for their own sin, and a person is only rewarded for his own obedience just as Christ's own obediance satisfed the Law for HmSelf.

This is why I agree to Finney when He sais, "The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ's righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf." This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp. 320-322).

It is the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit which He offered Himself by means of death is the deliverance of transgressions.(Heb 9:14-15)
In other words, it is because He is God, that we are righteous, not that He was obediant that we are righteous.
It is because He is God that He was obediant, however, that did not save us.

Our righteousness is because of a transacton of His Blood [b]Leviticus.17:11[/b] [color=990000]For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the alter to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul[/color]
[b]Hebrews 9:22[/b] [color=990000]for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin[/color]

Adam's sin was not a transaction and can not be a transaction becaus his own blood paid for his own sin.
When Jesus shed His blood on the cross which is Gods’ alter, God accepted His sacrifice and it is through faith in that Blood to cleans us from all unrighteousness that saves us(1John 1:7,9).

Jesus obediance is only for Himself, because He must not have been guilty like we are or he would have taken taking the judgment for Himself as we do with out sin.
[color=990000]

The reason that y'all believe in "original sin" & "sin nature" is because y'all believe, that Christ's righteousness is accounted as a transferance on or in us.

for all must pay for their own sin, and a person is only rewarded for his own obedience just as Christ's own obediance satisfed the Law for HmSelf.

"The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ's righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf." This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp. 320-322).

It is the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit which He offered Himself by means of death is the deliverance of transgressions.(Heb 9:14-15)
In other words, it is because He is God, that we are righteous, not that He was obediant that we are righteous.
It is because He is God that He was obediant, however, that did not save us.

The blood is the essence and outpouring of the life.

Adam's sin was not a transaction and can not be a transaction becaus his own blood paid for his own sin.

What do you think 'through one man's offence' means if it doesn't mean that Adam's first sin has impacted the whole race? The condemnation ie the sentence was pronouned before the transgression... dying thou shalt die. This is not physical death, that came much later. this is spiritual death.

philologos wrote:

for all must pay for their own sin, and a person is only rewarded for his own obedience just as Christ's own obediance satisfed the Law for HimSelf.

If you distinguish between original sin and original guilt, as I do, you would see that Adam's first transgression had both consequence and impact upon the rest of the race.

Your view would create a new Fall with every individual transgression.

This quotation neatly sums up Finney's position. He does not understand that Christ, as was Adam, was Representative for the whole race. This is why he had to become human to qualify our our 'goel' kinsman-redeemer.

This is folly. The blood represents the person.

The person of Jesus Christ was obedient because he chose to be, not because he was God.

Adam's sin was not a transaction and can not be a transaction becaus his own blood paid for his own sin.

What does this mean?

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with His own blood.

By the blood of God, Jesus Christ, we stand at the foot of the Cross drenched in the Blood God the Father supplied by the Son of God. A father's blood is in the children. The Seed is the blood maker. The Seed of God in Mary is the blood maker of Jesus The Christ, hence the blood of Jesus is the blood of God shed for us, that we might have life in Christ, who now is without blood, it was shed on the altar for us. How can the Blood of Christ not be the Blood of God.

In the Blood of Christ, always drinking Him in and eating of Him into His life in remembrance of these blessed sacraments, the Blood and Body of God. Phillip

No I am not Catholic.

[b]1John 3:4b[/b] [color=990000]sin is the transgression of the law.[/color]
[b]1John 5:17[/b] [color=990000]All unrighteousness is sin:[/color][/color]
We are not only sinners by action, but by intention also we are enemies of God.
[b]Romans 5:10[/b] [color=990000]For if while [b]being enemies[/b] [u]we were reconciled to God[/u] through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life;[/color]
[b]Colosians 1:21[/b] [color=990000]And you, that were sometime alienated and [b]enemies in your mind[/b] by wicked works, [u]yet now hath he reconciled.[/u][/color]

However, we have peace with God by faith: [color=990000]Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:[/color] [b]Romans 5:1[/b]
[b]Galatians 3:6[/b] [color=990000]Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.[/color]
As for righteousness and justification, there is a transaction; Blood for sin, faith for righteousness and justification.

There are many verses which say that we are accountable for our own sin and responsable for our own guilt.
1) What transaction is there for Adams sin to be accounted to us?

2) How is sin and guilt Imputated to us?

3) Other than Romans 5, where does it imply Imputation of anothers sin or guilt?

How was Adam's nature effected by his actions?
It would be his disposition, not his nature that was corrupted.

If you choose to believe God about Jesus Christ, who's nature is born again in you to be able to see and hear the things of God and His Kingdom?
Who is now your life and nature?

If you choose to believe the lie of Satan when God Himself told you not to, who's nature have you chosen to believe? Who wants the death of God's Creation? Only One, Satan. "You shall surely die". Adam did not have a nature, he had a soul and a body that would live forever if he chose the Tree of Life. That is why God put Adam out of the Garden so he would not be eternally evil in his chosen nature.

When you chose to believe God instead of, "your father the devil", Satan is defeated and he is out of the believer, nature and all, defeated at the Cross. Christ is born again in the believer and he now has the nature of God by the Christ that is birthed of God in him.

Now God has said, Choose the Tree of Life or stay in your chosen nature of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Tree of Life, Christ, God nature and life forever.
Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, keep the nature of "your father the devil", die forever.

God has given man, all man, a measure of faith, and when the Holy Spirit activates that faith and man makes the decision to believe God instead of his own chosen nature as a god himself, with Satan as his father. Created beings serving a created being that wants to be god. Or Born Again believers that will live forever in Christ and the new life He is purchased for them forever.

One earthly, dead unto God and alive unto Satan.

The other Heavenly, alive unto God being purchased by another life on a Cross, in that life being our life and we will be with God forever.

Is not Romans 5 good enough?

Evil and sin are a nature and a choice. Adam chose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and believing Satan served him all his life and it passed unto all his children all the way down to us. Sin was imputed to mankind in the garden by the federal head of the human race, Adam, and in Christ there is "now no condemnation". Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. This is our imputation in Christ, walking after the Spirit.

In Christ: Phillip

philologos wrote:
This morning I was browsing, again, through Romans 5. My attention was drawn to the little word 'by' as in

[color=0000ff]“Wherefore, as [u]by[/u] one man sin entered into the world, and death [u]by[/u] sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Rom 5:12 KJVS)[/color]

The NKJV uses the word ''through' here to translate the Greek word [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?hr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blueletterbible.org%2Fsearch.html&icon=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blueletterbible.org%2Fgifs%2Fsearch_tools.gif&bgcolor=FFFFFF&textcolor=000000&linkcolor=39398C&vlinkcolor=0000FF&strongs=1223&language=G&anything.x=29&anything.y=9]dia[/url] which the Blue Letter Bible site makes clear is "a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act". The text of Rom 5:12 therefore is telling us very plainly that 'one man' was the channel through whom Sin entered into the world. Moreover the word 'dia' is repeated in reference to the Sin which entered 'through Adam'. Not only did Sin enter 'through the channel' of Adam but Death entered 'through the channel' of Sin. We have here two identifiable 'stages'; Sin entered, Death entered.

We know from Genesis that Adam experienced 'Death' in the day that he ate the forbidden fruit. So the sequence is
1. Adam transgressed
2. Sin entered through Adam
3. Death entered through Sin's presence 'in' Adam.

This is the plain statement of the scripture.

In case we should have any doubt about the significance of 'dia' we can see Paul's consistent use of the preposition in Romans and particularly in Romans 5...
[color=0000ff]Rom. 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God [u]through[/u] our Lord Jesus Christ,
Rom. 5:2 [u]through[/u] whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom. 5:5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts [u]by[/u] the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Rom. 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath [u]through[/u] Him.
Rom. 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God [u]through[/u] the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Rom. 5:11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God [u]through[/u] our Lord Jesus Christ, [u]through[/u] whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Rom. 5:12 ¶ Therefore, just as [u]through[/u] [b]one[/b] man sin entered the world, and death [u]through[/u] sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Rom. 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the [b]one[/b] man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the [b]one[/b] Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
Rom. 5:16 And the gift is not like that which came [u]through[/u] the [b]one[/b] who sinned. For the judgment which came from [b]one[/b] offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Rom. 5:17 For if by the [b]one[/b] man’s offense death reigned [u]through[/u] the [b]one[/b], much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life [u]through[/u] the [b]One[/b], Jesus Christ.)
Rom. 5:18 ¶ Therefore, as [u]through[/u] [b]one[/b] man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so [u]through[/u] [b]one[/b] Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
Rom. 5:19 For as [u]by[/u] [b]one[/b] man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also [u]by[/u] [/b]one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Rom. 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign [u]through[/u] righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [/color]

All we have to do to get the sense of 'through' is read these verses. It is the channel through which something flows. In addition to underlining the word 'through' I have also emboldened the word 'one'. 8 times and in 5 verses Paul uses the phrase 'by one' or 'through one'; Rom 5:12,15-17,19

All we have to do to understand this passage's teaching is to ask the same question, twice!

What was channeled by the first 'one' man?
What was channeled by the second 'one' man?

According to Rom 5:14 Adam was a 'type'; [color=0000ff]“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (Rom 5:14 NKJV)[/color]. A 'type' is not just an illustration is serves as a template. Adam, the first man was, in this point, a template for the second man. Christ is, according to 1Cor 15:47, the second man. In this way of revelation it is as though there have only ever been two men. Hence, we are in one or the other, and these two states are mutually exclusive. Entrance into the 'second man' is by baptism into Him by the Holy Spirit, otherwise known as 'birth'. Second birth puts us into the Second Man. Entrance into the 'first man' was also by birth; First Birth puts us into the First Man.

Logic you never replied to this comment.

GraceAlone wrote:
Logic you never replied to this comment.

Grace alone is right on.

Adam had no nature, he was a created being. Adam became a natured being when he chose to believe Satan instead of God. "A Type"

The Second Adam was not a created being He was a birthed being of His Father God who gave Jesus as Father, His Nature.

Adam was not birthed, but all from Adam are and have his nature, like you and me and Abraham and all else until they are Born Again by God the Father by the Christ Seed that is in them.
"Born again not of corruptible seed, (Adam) But of Incorruptable Seed, (Jesus)" by the Word of God.

"Word" Logos, not Rhema. Logos; (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--

One created nature by Adam's choice, unto his father the devil, the other birthed by the Heavenly Father's Nature birthed in the son's of God by Christ Seed from the Father. John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Are we born of Spirit? Was Adam born of Spirit?
Adam was created not birthed as the son's of God are.

Born again of water? Jhn 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Jhn 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Born of water unto everlasting life.
Born of the Spirit of Christ the Seed of God.

John 4:13-14 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: (Adam) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him (Christ) a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Two wells, one of earth, Jacob's well.
The other not of this earth but heavenly, Christ's well of Living Water unto everlasting live.

In Christ, the Water of Life from His well: Born Again of His Spirit and His Water.
Phillip

Adam had no nature...

...Adam was not birthed, but all from Adam are and have his nature,

Christinyou wrote:
...Jesus Christ, who's nature is born again in you

dorcas wrote:
Logic said

We choos to be obedient also, but we still sin.
Therefore....,

Isn't the big difference, not that He was God, but that as a man, unlike us, He could choose [i]not[/i] to sin, and we can't?

Without this factual truth men could not so much as conceive the possibility of being responsible. This all seems like common sense, doesn't it?

Example, if you were required by run 60 MPH without the aid of anything, and were sentenced to death it you failed to do so, would such a law be just or unjust?
So if God was to command you to do something impossible, would such a command be just or unjust?
We are told by some that we cannot fully obey God's commandments, but the Bible says "His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).

All people are able to obey God, but not all want to. God does not come and make them able to obey, rather He comes and makes them willing to obey,this is how Christians are.

On the other hand, one could say that non-christians are not being able to obey because they don't want to obey. In other words, one cannot do what one does not wnat do, or in contrast, I will do and can do what I want to do.

GraceAlone wrote:

Logic you never replied to this comment.

First off I'd like to say that we've uncovered the real issue. You want God to fit what you want God to be. You've got to realize that God is who is who He is whether or not you like Him. What if God gave his commands knowing that we could not obey them without his help- yet with his help we could. That is not "unjust" its mercy and grace.

YOU DIDN'T REPLY TO THIS IN THAT POST
What was channeled by the first 'one' man?
What was channeled by the second 'one' man?

Once again my post on depravity.

The problem started in this post is the assumption that supposedly GOD MUST ONLY command what we are able to do ourselves without his help.

[color=0000ff]Remeber when Jesus told Lazarus
John 11:43
And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

Lazarus HAD NOT the ability in himself to raise himself from the dead- but by the grace of God by God's power he arose and obeyed the voice of Christ.[/color]

Colossians 2:19
19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

1 Cor 3:7
So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

Isaiah 64:7
And there is NO ONE who calls on Your name, Who stirs himself up to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us, And have consumed us because of our iniquities.

Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, [b]as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.[/b]

First what constitutes a sin?

Point 1: You must have true faith to please God.
Proof: Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
Proof: John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Sub-point: Before the cross the Jews must have put thier faith in God since they were awaiting the arrival of the messiah.

Point 2: You must do all thing to His glory.
Proof: 1 Corinthians 10:31 "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Point 3: Good is in accordance with His law
Proof: Romans 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

If a man's work is not in accordance with these points that man's work is sinful and not pleasing to God. In other words man is constantly in sin until salvation.

[color=0000ff]The Heidelberg Catechism on "But what are good works?", "Only those which are done from true faith, according to the law of God, and to His glory" (Question #91)[/color]

__________________________________________

Romans 1:29 "29 being FILLED with ALL unrighteousness"
TOTAL DEPRAVITY

I. What it IS NOT

A. Not a: Absolute depravity
i. Gen 20; Ambimelech held back from sinning by God's power
ii. 2 Thes 2:7; One who is at present restraining lawlessness is God.

B. Not a: A complete absence of realative good
i. Luke 6:33; sinners can do relatively good things.
ii. 2 Kings 10:30; You can do things in accordance to God's law yet still lack faith and not give God glory.

II. What it is

A. It is: Positively
i. only and always sining
a. Gen 6:5; 8:21; every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart being only evil continually from his youth.
b. Jer 17:9; the heart is desperately wicked above all things.
c. Psalm 51:5; We are concieved in pollution
d. Romans 3:10-18; There is no one who does good.

B. It is: Negatively
i. total inability
a. man cannot do the good
(i) Matthew 7:17-18; Christ says a bad tree bears bad fruit and cannot bear good fruit.
(ii) 1 Cor 12:3; Only by the spirit can somebody submit to Jesus as Lord.
(iii) John 15:4-5; You cannot bear fruit apart from Christ.
(iv) Romans 8:7-8; in the flesh you cannot please God and the carnal mind is hostile toward God and cannot be subject to God's law
b. man cannot understand the good
(i) Acts 16:14; only after God gave Lydia an open heart to give heed to Paul.
(ii) Eph 4:18; understanding is darkened
(iii) 2 Cor 3:12-18; a veil over thier hearts.
(iv) John 1:5; darkness doesn't comprehend the light.
(v) John 8:43; They cannot understand because they are not able.
(vi) Matthew 13:14; Hearing they will never understand.
(vii) 1 Cor 1:18, 21; 2:4; without the spirit a man cannot understand the things of God.
c. man cannot desire the good
(i) Matthew 7:18 They are unable by nature.
(ii) John 3:3; 6:44-55; 8:43; 15:4-5; They cannot and are unable.
(iii) Ezeikiel 11:19; heart of stone
(iv) 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; must be a new creation.
(v) Col 2:13; Dead in sins.
(vi) Eph 2:1, 5; Dead in sins.

III. What it does

A. It gives God glory for all His work
i. We thank Him for His grace in the giving of Christ and our faith resulting in our justification.
a. Philippians 2:13 "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."
b. Philippians 1:6 "being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ"

When it comes to "depravity" support comes from John Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Edwards, Warfield, Gerstner, Sproul, Piper, Whitefield, MacArthur, Brunner (and lots more) for it.

(ref) Romans 5:10; 1 Cor 1:21; Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 2:14; Rom 14:23; John 1:13; 2 Peter 2:14; Romans 5:12-19; John 6:44; Romans 5:6; 8:7; Titus 3:3-5; Romans 7:15,18,19,21,23; Matthew 19:17; Matthew 19:26; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 6:13; 8:10; 9; 25:5; 26:3; 2 Chronicles 6:36; John 3:20; Galatians 3:10; 1 John 1:8; John 8:44; Isaiah 64:6; John 5:40

YOU DIDN'T REPLY TO THIS IN THAT POST
What was channeled by the first 'one' man?
What was channeled by the second 'one' man?

First off I'd like to say that we've uncovered the real issue. You want God to fit what you want God to be. You've got to realize that God is who is who He is whether or not you like Him.

He is saying that God cannot command what we are unable of our own resources to do- the only reason being is because supposedly it makes God unjust. But what if God knows we are unable by ourselves yet able with His grace. Matthew 19:26

"So if God was to command you to do something impossible, would such a command be just or unjust?

Its not that God only makes us willing but He also makes us able by His grace. Either path you take- the arminian "path" or the calvinist "path"- God is never unjust.

"The command [of God] itself implies ability to obey it. Every command of God implies this in accordance to common sense. It is a fact, that, God is perfect in both love and wisdom; therefore He cannot be so unjust as to demand of us an impossibility and not so ignorant as not to know the real limits of man's abilities."

So if God was to command you to do something impossible, would such a command be just or unjust?

Does God command men/women to do the impossible?
First of all God commands us to keep His Law. Is it possible to keep His Law? James 2:10-12 says, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty."

If a person fails in one point of the Law then they are accountable for all of it. Has there ever been a person (save Christ) who has kept the whole Law?

The question then becomes: Did God command the impossible when He commanded all men to keep the whole Law? Since it is impossible for man to keep the whole Law, is God unjust?

I would answer as the apostle Paul would: God forbid!

This is an example of God commanding the impossible, but also providing the grace to make the impossible possible. Matthew 19:25-26 says, "When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Does God command men/women to do the impossible?

JaySaved wrote:
Does God command men/women to do the impossible?

Philiologos wrote:
I'm not sure why SI posters keep asking this question.

Because we are debating the answer. The question keeps getting asked because some of us believe (myself included) that God does command the impossible yet provides to grace to make it possible. Some believe (e. g., Logic) that

"The command [of God] itself implies ability to obey it. Every command of God implies this in accordance to comman sence.

The fundamental difference between us is the idea of God commanding man to do something that is an impossibility for man in his natural state to accomplish.

Is there anyone posting here who disagrees with this statement? Individual sins are the consequence of individual disobediences.

I agree with that statement. My disobedience to God results in my sin.

My reason for asking that question was to respond to Logic. He believes that God does not command men to do the impossible, but that every command God gives can be met by man in his natural state. My response was that God has commanded all men to keep His entire Law. In this God has commanded an impossibility because no man can keep His entire Law.

Does anyone agree or disagree with that statement?

My response was that God has commanded all men to keep His entire Law. In this God has commanded an impossibility because no man can keep His entire Law. Does anyone agree or disagree with that statement?

Another good point.

My response was that God has commanded all men to keep His entire Law. In this God has commanded an impossibility because no man can keep His entire Law.

JaySaved wrote:
My response was that God has commanded all men to keep His entire Law. In this God has commanded an impossibility because no man can keep His entire Law.

Philiologos wrote:
So you are saying that the keeping of the law was always only possible by faith?

What I am saying is that God commanded an impossibility but provided grace to make it possible. He did this in the Old Covenant in the form of the ceremonial sacrifices. He does this in the New Covenant in the form of the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The Law was designed to be our ‘schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.’ (Galatians 3:24)

Failure to keep the Law is death. No one can keep the Law therefore only those who are in Christ will escape the God’s punishment for not keeping the Law.

My point being that God does command man to do something that man cannot do--keep the Law. Therefore it is incorrect to say, 'God never commands something that is impossible for man to accomplish.' or as Logic wrote before

"The command [of God] itself implies ability to obey it. Every command of God implies this in accordance to comman sence.

What I am saying is that God commanded an impossibility but provided grace to make it possible. He did this in the Old Covenant in the form of the ceremonial sacrifices. He does this in the New Covenant in the form of the perfect sacrifice of Christ. The Law was designed to be our ‘schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.’ (Galatians 3:24)

I think to take this route is to misunderstand the cross. It is because it [i]is[/i] possible that we are guilty. It is because it [i]is[/i] possible that Christ had to die for our sins. If it had been impossible it had been unjust for God to have punished man. If it had been impossible then man has not sinned. Suppose a man commanded his small son to carry a 100lb sack of feed and the son could not carry it physically. The father then takes off his belt and spanks the child for not carrying it. That would be a sore injustice. It is because we could have carried the sack (as it were); albeit it had been difficult, that we are guilty before God and worthy of the sentence. The revelation of scripture is that man knew what was right and refused to walk in the light they had. Man is also guilty of striving with the Holy Spirit (resisting the Holy Ghost).

The law is our schoolmaster in the sense that it reveals the personality of God. It is a Spiritual law. It reveals man's opposition to God. But to suggest that man 'can't' do what God has commanded and that God is prepared to send souls into everlasting fire for crimes they could not help is to charge God with injustice. God has shown that man has chosen not to walk in the light that they had. It was their choice. Even though oppressed by the Sin nature, there was still a conscious decision to be made. Man did not choose rightly and for that they are guilty. There is none righteous- no not one. This is and will always be true of the unregenerate. Not because it is 'impossible' to obey God, but because man has consistently chosen [u]not to[/u] without exception save our Lord Jesus Christ.

If it had been impossible it had been unjust for God to have punished man.

But to suggest that man 'can't' do what God has commanded and that God is prepared to send souls into everlasting fire for crimes they could not help is to charge God with injustice.

I know that I am speaking truth when an objector’s rebuttal perfectly lines with scripture. For my response I will direct you to the apostle Paul in Romans 9. Paul defends the doctrine of election by saying:

“14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?”

By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

But I believe that sin is entirely ethical. We cannot be born with sin, because sin is a choice to transgress God's law. Sin is not some "thing" to be transferred from one person to another, because sin is not a "thing" at all that can be transferred, but is a choice. It is not physical, but soley moral, and therefore our physical nature, our physical flesh, our physical constitution, cannot of itself be sinful. But can only be a source of temptation to make an immoral choice, which choice would be sinful.

The issue of Original Sin is that man's nature is corrupted to the point that man cannot not sin. By simply saying that 'sin is a choice to transgress God's law' you are implying that man can choose not to transgress God's law. You are implying that it is possible for a person to be born and live a sinless life. You are saying that a man can simply choose not to sin.

This is the ancient heresy of Pelagianism.

Their view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that we can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stand at the core of Pelagian teaching, and comes through even in the writings of Pelagius' opponents.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

I know that I am speaking truth when an objector’s rebuttal perfectly lines with scripture. For my response I will direct you to the apostle Paul in Romans 9. Paul defends the doctrine of election by saying:

You are confusing two seperate issues here. We are not discussing election, infralapsarianism, or any like doctrines. We are simply discussing is it possible to God to say, "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" and man obey Him. The answer is clearly [i]yes[/i]- man can and must obey God. Has man done this? No.

BTW, I am not a Pelagian.

JaySaved wrote:
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

Paul then tells us who the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory are

[b]2Timothy 2:20-21[/b] [color=990000]But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor.
[b]21[/b] If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.[/color]

It says here that we have choice to be eather vessel unto honor or dishonor.

1 Corinthians 3:11-13 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

2Timothy 2:20-21 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

How does a "Man purge himself from these"? Purge: 1571. ekkathairo
Search for G1571 in KJVSL
ekkaqairw ekkathairo ek-kath-ah'-ee-ro

from 1537 and 2508; to cleanse thoroughly:--purge (out).

Can a man cleanse himself thoroughly? Never.
Only One can sanctify him and cleanse, that is the Sanctified one Himself. In other words.
If a man believe that his righteousness is the Christ in him, he has purged himself of the things of this world and is partaking of the Heavenly things in Christ Jesus where we are already seated. I cannot choose to cleanse myself, all I can do is believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God which is the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit that we might believe. Pray, knowing that the only good work in me is Christ, and He that has begun that work will finished it until the day of Jesus Christ manifested to all creation. We will be with Him. Phl 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus Christ:

We can only choose dishonor, we cannot choose our own honor. To choose is God's choice, one to honor, the other to dishonor.

In Christ: Phillip

Can a man cleanse himself thoroughly? Never.

We are told 'not to fashion ourselves according to our former desires'; there is an implication that we may and must fashion ourselves according our new desires. 1Pet 1:14

We are told to 'cleanse ourselves' 2Cor 7:1

The Laodiceans were told, to buy gold and white raiment and to anoint their eyes with eyesalve, Rev 3:18

This is all part of the 'the life which I now live'. Paul lived this life in his flesh by the faith of Christ, but it was Paul who lived it, and we must live ours.

Yes, he can and because he can, he must. There are constant admonitions in the scripture to do such things. He can only cleanse himself by cooperating with God's provision for him but he must exercise himself to engage with God in the process.

The key to this is that only man can be cleansed by the grace of God. Man can cooperate with God, but it is God who cleanses and initiates the action.

Logic if you read those verses in context you will see that this is talking about staying clear of heresy and false doctrines.

Paul is saying that if a man removes himself and keeps himself from the erroneous doctrines (2Ti 2:16-17 says, "But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,) then he proves he is a Christian and chosen of God because "God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." (verse 19)

You are confusing two seperate issues here. We are not discussing election, infralapsarianism, or any like doctrines. We are simply discussing is it possible to God to say, "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" and man obey Him. The answer is clearly yes- man can and must obey God. Has man done this? No.

Do you not see how all of this is related? One cannot remove one from another because all of God's word builds upon itself.

The reason God can command an impossibility is that He provides grace to accomplish it. He does not provide this grace to all men and this upsets our modern mindset. Thus the objection occurs 'God cannot elect some and not others because that would be unjust!" Yet scripture clearly teaches God's gracious election in that salvation is by grace through faith, and this is not of yourselves--not by works so that no man may boast. (Eph 2:8-9)

It all fits together and just discussing it makes me rejoice in God!

BTW, I am not a Pelagian.

You may not hold all of his views but you hold the fast to the doctrine that was condemned as heresy which is:

Their view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that we can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stand at the core of Pelagian teaching, and comes through even in the writings of Pelagius' opponents.

Christinyou
Can a man cleanse himself thoroughly? Never.
Only One can sanctify him and cleanse, that is the Sanctified one Himself. In other words.
If a man believe that his righteousness [b]is the Christ in him[/b], he has purged himself of the things of this world and is partaking of the Heavenly things in Christ Jesus where we are already seated. I cannot choose to cleanse myself,[b] all I can do is believe[/b] that Jesus Christ is the Son of God which is the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit that we might believe. Pray, knowing that the only good work in me is Christ, and He that has begun that work will finished it until the day of Jesus Christ manifested to all creation. We will be with Him. Phl 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus Christ:

JaySaved
The key to this is that only man can be cleansed by the grace of God. Man can cooperate with God, but [b]it is God who cleanses and initiates the action.[/b]

amen,amen, amen, brothers, ahh, it's just music to my ears whenever I hear brethren boasting of our own Christ,it's about time for us to boast Him more, praise God really, pray we only see all and all from God downward.

Philologos
Yes, he can and because he can, he must

Yes, we can cleanse ourselves and must, but, thoroughly? Even to do that, we have to count on God's grace and help. Surely we can clean up our ungodly ways from time to time, again by His Grace, but to cleanse ourselves thoroughly? How about even permanently?

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very[b] God [/b]of peace [b]sanctify you wholly;[/b] and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and [b]the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.[/b]

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, [b]He is[/b] faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

To cleanse ourselves thoroughly on our own?? I must be misunderstanding somethings here.

Yes, he can and because he can, he must. There are constant admonitions in the scripture to do such things. He can only cleanse himself by cooperating with God's provision for him but he must exercise himself to engage with God in the process.

He can only cleanse himself [b]by cooperating with God's provision[/b] for him but he must exercise himself to engage with God in the process.

On a connected topic this verse shows the vital connection between God and man...[color=0000ff]“For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom 8:13 NKJV)[/color]Ask the question who is responsible, according to this verse, for "putting to death the deeds of the body". And then ask how?

Answers.
Q1. You: "you put to death... the deeds of the body"
Q2. Him: "by the Spirit"

He will do the work but you must sign the death warrant.

Death in the Bible is always pictured as a separation between two things.
Physical Death: The separation of the body and soul.
Spiritual Death: The separation of the man from God.

Example: If we are to be dead to sin, we are to be separated from it.

Death is also corruption, and/or decay and temporaryness as the opposit of physical life.(Romans 8:20-21)

On the other hand, what is life?
Is it consciousness?
Is it repair and growth as in the opposit ofphysical death?
Is it a span of time that one lives?

Or, is it what happens during the span of time?

So, what is life, is it a condition or, could it be a state of being?
[b]John 17:3[/b] [color=990000]Now this is eternal life: that they shall be knowing You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You sent.[/color]

Life, here, in this vere is actualy a relaitionship with [u]The Life Himself Self.[/u]

Now the catalyst of death is sin(1Corinth 15:56)
Sin is nothing more than whatever is not of faith(Romans 14:23),
knowing to do good, and not doing it(James 4:17), the transgression of the law.(1John 3:4)
& unrighteousness (1John 5:17)

The penalty of sin is death, and as I said earlier, spiritual death is a severed realtionship with God Himself.

Nature can not be changed just from a severed realtionship with God, but only by reinventing man.
God does not create every human to be criminal, or as some say they were brought forth [b]with[/b] iniquity and [b]with[/b] sin their mother conceived them.
The text sais [b]in[/b] sin, not [b]with[/b] sin.(Psalm 51:5)

Adams Nature did not change the day he ate of the tree, but his and Eve's eyes were opend.
If you study the Hebrew words for "eyes" and "open" in [b]Genisis 3:7[/b]
The term "the [u]eyes[/u] of both of them were [u]opened[/u]" Could mean their Knowlege was perceptive and/or alert to Gods disaproval and anger, for that is why they hid themselves.

The term "and they knew that they were naked" was that they became ashamed, being naked, because of they knew that they rebeled the Command "[color=990000]thou shall not Eat of the tree[/color]".
For, in Gen 2:25 sais "[color=990000]And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed."[/color]
They were not ashamed because they did not choose to rebel yet.

This consept of hidieng themselves and shame is a key to this discussion.
Hideing from God is in a way not acknowledging Him, or to ignore Him.
[b]Romans 1:18[/b] [color=990000]For God's wrath is revealed from Heaven on all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, suppressing[/color](ignoreing) [color=990000]the truth[/color](of God)[color=990000] in unrighteousness,[/color]

Just as Adam, when he ate of that tree, he was suppressing the truth in unrighteousness by hideing himself because he knew that God would not be pleased.

Romans 1:20-22 is a clear picture of the scene at the tree with that "serpent of old"

[b]John 3:19[/b] [color=990000]And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.[/color]
This verse explains why men do not seek God[Isaiah 64:7, Romans 3:11).
It is not because we can not, but we will not.

Shame mixed with pride has men hateing light because theire dees are exposed, for God is light(1John 1:5) and men love darkness and choose to stay in darkness.
[b]John3:19[/b] [color=990000]And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.[/color]

The inclination of our will effects vidual choices that we make. The choice that one makes will naturally follow ones inclination. Consequently, if one loves darkness and his own deeds more than the the Light, one cannot come into the light.
Ones decisions are in bondage to his effections and inclinations so that he only do what he has favor towards.
Love God, hate sin; Love darkness and your own deeds, hate God.

Therefore, it is not our "nature" that is sinful, but what our effection are toward that makes us sinfull.

Jaysaved: The reason God can command an impossibility is that He provides grace to accomplish it.

Which of the Ten Commandments are we [u]not able[/u] to do? Moreover what do you do with:

For the saving grace of God was manifested to [u]all[/u] men, teaching us, that denying the impiety and the worldly desires, soberly and righteously and piously we may live in the present age, (Titus 2:11, 12 YLT)

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to [u]every man[/u] the measure of faith. (Romans 12:3)

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that [u]all[/u] should come to repentance. (II Peter 3:9)

He does not provide this grace to all men and this upsets our modern mindset. Thus the objection occurs 'God cannot elect some and not others because that would be unjust!" Yet scripture clearly teaches God's gracious election in that salvation is by grace through faith, and this is not of yourselves--not by works so that no man may boast. (Eph 2:8-9)

I do not contend that God does not elect some and not others; I contend that God does not elect [i]unconditionally[/i]. It has nothing to do with a 'modern mindset'. It has to do with the revelation of the personality and character of God as revealed from Genesis to Revelation. God has revealed Himself primarily as a loving God who removed all stops and spared no expense to make possible the salvation of men. It is the defining attribute of His character. God is holy, but His love made a way for an unholy people to be reconciled to Himself. His love is the driving force behind His conduct. God is a sovereign God, but He has consistently demonstrated His longsuffering nature (which is an attribute of His Holy Spirit (Gal. 5)) in dealing with a stiffnecked humanity. If God were not a God of love we had all already been plunged into everlasting destruction. It is because of His mercy that we are not consumed.

The simple comprehensive nature of His love is found in John 3:16; 'whosoever' believeth in Him. When the Jews rejected the Lord He wept over Jerusalem. They were real tears. When He calls for repentance it is a sincere call. He commands men everywhere to repent. And when God 'says' we can and we must. No word from God is without power (Luke 1:37). God watches over His word to perform it (Jer. 1:11,12). The Word of God can accomplish that for which it was sent, [i]because it is backed up by all the power of an omnipotent God.[/i] It carries within itself the power to accomplish it. If God says "Thou shalt" then "Thou can" and "Thou must".

You may not hold all of his views but you hold the fast to the doctrine that was condemned as heresy which is:

It is nonsense to suggest that man cannot obey God when He gives a command. This is not the same as saying that man is 'perfect' or 'sinless' and in no need of redemption and regeneration. We must be born again, but let us not get confused here. We are [i]bent[/i] towards sinning at birth in a real and genuine way, but man is not possessed of Sin in such a way that he could not have chosen other than he/she did. Man is oppressed by the Sin nature- not 'possessed' (as if totally demon controlled and possessed). Man could have chosen other than he/she did or the whole Great White throne judgment is a mockery. Any judgment would be a mockery. Moreover, if folk can't help themselves then we need to empty our jails and prisons. The fact is they could have chosen not to do what they did and they are guilty. The fact that they still need to be born again and be rid of their Sin Nature is beside the point.

Adams Nature did not change the day he ate of the tree, but his and Eve's eyes were opend.

Which of the Ten Commandments are we not able to do?

Apart from the grace of God I cannot make it past the first commandment:

Deuteronomy 5

You shall have no other gods before me

Please allow me to provide a high level overview of Original Sin and the effects it has on mankind.

When God created Adam and Eve, He stated that they were good. (Gen. 1:31) God created Adam and Eve in a state of complete innocence. (Gen. 2:25) He created them with two abilities: (Gen. 2:15-17)
- The ability to choose good. (not eat of fruit)
- The ability to choose bad. (eat of fruit)

Adam then ate of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil against the command of God. (Gen. 2:17)
When Adam did this, his nature changed. He no longer was in his state of innocence, but he now understood good and evil. (Gen. 3:7) Sin corrupted Adam's nature and this sin reigned in the world because all men after Adam have sinned. (Romans 5:12)

Fact: Every man since Adam has sinned. (Romans 3:23) This is because we are sinful by nature. (Eph 2:3) We are enemies of God. (Romans 8:7) Even though we do not engage in every sin, we still sin in every action because we do so without faith. (Romans 14:23) This is why it is said that man cannot do good in God's eyes. (Isaiah 64:6)

So, now there is a problem. All men are corrupt and cannot of their own power and will become reconciled to God. God then sent His Son Jesus to reconcile sinful man to God through the death of his Son, Jesus. (Romans 5:10)

Jaysaved: Fact: Every man since Adam has sinned. (Romans 3:23) This is because we are sinful by nature. (Eph 2:3)

I agree with your post mostly. I think where we are differing is in this statement above. We are sinful by nature, but this nature does not force man to commit sins. The sins are the fruit of The Sin, indeed. Yet, we cannot take this too far and suggest that man's nature to Sin is such that he/she cannot help themselves. A.W. Tozer deals with this in "Paths To Power" chapter 5. Man certainly has a nature to commit sins, but that is not the same as saying that man is so constituted that he/she [u]must[/u] disobey God when He commands us. Man is indeed accountable to God for what he has done. Flip Wilson was a comedian before my time, but I seem to recall there were toys dolls that you could by of him that when you pulled the chord it stated his notorious statement, "The Devil Made Me Do It!" We will not be able to say before God that "the Sin nature made me do it." Man will give an account for the deeds done in the body and the buck stops with the individual.

We are sinful by nature, but this nature does not force man to commit sins. The sins are the fruit of The Sin, indeed. Yet, we cannot take this too far and suggest that man's nature to Sin is such that he/she cannot help themselves.

This is good. Thank you for stating your position in this way.

You say,

"We are sinful by nature, but this nature does not force man to commit sins."

This is why man must be regenerated. He must be quickened by God.

Original sin involved early humans adopting the practice of killing and eating animals for food.

philologos wrote:

Adams Nature did not change the day he ate of the tree, but his and Eve's eyes were opend.

This does not do justice to the revelation of scripture. Romans 5:12 speaks of a single event by a single individual which caused Sin to enter. Why did Eve's transgression not cause Sin to enter? What is unique about Adam's transgression which marks it out as the point at which Sin entered the world?

Eve was the first one to eat of the tree, but Adam was the one accountable to God. Eve was accountable to her husband, Adam.
Eve was deceived but Adam must have wanted to eat of it in the first place, otherwise he would have stopped his wife from eating.
They were naked before God and each other, they were not ashamed. When they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they became aware of there nakedness and hid themselves because they knew that they were guilty for braking Gods only law in Gen 2:17

Eve was the first one to eat of the tree, but Adam was the one accountable to God. Eve was accountable to her husband, Adam.

Eve was deceived but Adam must have wanted to eat of it in the first place, otherwise he would have stopped his wife from eating.

The Bible tells us that if something is not done in faith then it is sin. [u]So, in the context of an unbeliever[/u]...everything done--good or bad--is sin. Therefore an unbeliever who does not have faith cannot do anything but sin.To this I respond with Romans 14:23, "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."

I generally understand this passage within the context of Romans 14 dealing with [i]questionable[/i] practices and matters of conscience for [i]believers[/i]. In other words, if a Christian cannot perform the act with a clear conscience then the act is sin [i]to them[/i]. I think this is the clear implication of the verses:

It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which [u]your brother[/u] stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. (NASB)

I don't agree that every act a sinner performs is a sin. I think this is a stretch. I think the clear implication of Romans 1 and 2 is that folk are accountable to God for what they know. By the time we get to Romans 14 Paul is clearly addressing believers at various stages of spiritual growth. To whom much is given much is required. To him that 'knoweth' to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin. The key here is knowledge. Our guilt is based on the light we have. If I don't have faith that what I am about to do is approved of God- then I ought to reconsider and not do it. But even a sinner knows that certain acts of benevolence would be in harmony with God's will if they would do certain things- even though those works are not meritorious. And this is where I think this gets taken too far. It is one thing to say that the works of sinners have no merit- it is quite another thing to suggest that [u]all[/u] their works are sins. I don't think it is necessary or scriptural to take that strong of position.

If I don't have faith that what I am about to do is approved of God- then I ought to reconsider and not do it. But even a sinner knows that certain acts of benevolence would be in harmony with God's will if they would do certain things- even though those works are not meritorious. And this is where I think this gets taken too far. It is one thing to say that the works of sinners have no merit- it is quite another thing to suggest that all their works are sins. I don't think it is necessary or scriptural to take that strong of position.

I think I understand your position. You are saying that:
- Unbelievers cannot please God
- Unbelievers works are without merit before God,
- Unbelievers works are not necessarily sinful unless they violate a clear commandment of God.

Is this correct?

Now, going back to the statements that brought up this particular discussion:

I said:

Fact: Every man since Adam has sinned. (Romans 3:23) This is because we are sinful by nature. (Eph 2:3)

You responded by saying:

We are sinful by nature, but this nature does not force man to commit sins. The sins are the fruit of The Sin, indeed. Yet, we cannot take this too far and suggest that man's nature to Sin is such that he/she cannot help themselves.

We agree that:
- Every man since Adam has sinned.
- We are all sinful by nature.

We disagree on whether our sinful nature forces man to commit sins.

(I hope this is a fair summary of our recent dialogue.)

I quickly want to address this statement:

Yet, we cannot take this too far and suggest that man's nature to Sin is such that he/she cannot help themselves.

Agreed. I am not suggesting that man is sinning against his will. Anything man does, he does because he desires to do so. I also disagree with the bad theology by Mr. Flip Wilson because the devil never makes anyone sin. The devil works as is stated in Genesis 3. He deceives, lies, and tempts but never forces.

Now, does our sinful nature force us to commit sins?
I appeal to:
Romans 7:5, “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.”
Romans 7:18, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.”
Romans 8:5, “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.”
Romans 8:7-8, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

These verses tell us that the flesh bears fruit for death. There is nothing good that dwells in the flesh. Apart from the regenerating work of God, man can not carry out what is right because of the flesh. People who live according to the flesh are hostile to God, they are His enemies because they cannot submit to God’s law. These people cannot please God.

The question is, ‘Why can’t unbelievers please God?’ It is because they do not have faith. This is why I quote Romans 14:23, “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” And I will also add Hebrews 11:6, “And without faith it is impossible to please [God]”

I apologize for the long post but I now want to go back to the original disagreement:
Does the sinful nature force man to sin?
Yes and No.

No, in the sense that man is not forced to do something against his will. Man will do what man desires to do.

Yes, in the sense that what man desires is tainted and corrupted by his sinful nature. Every man sins because he desires to sin because his understanding of God is incorrect and his desires are to please himself.

The unbeliever lacks faith. It is because he lacks faith that all his actions are without merit and sinful in God's sight.

I may be taking this too far as you said, but this is the logical and biblical conclusion I see in scripture.

I think I understand your position. You are saying that:
- Unbelievers cannot please God
- Unbelievers works are without merit before God,
- Unbelievers works are not necessarily sinful unless they violate a clear commandment of God.

Is this correct?

Yes.

Every man sins because he desires to sin because his understanding of God is incorrect and his desires are to please himself.

I would only say here that men sin because they refuse to walk in the light that they have. They [i]could[/i] obey if they would, even though their obedience may have been contrary to what they [i]wanted[/i] to do themselves. This is where I think the new birth changes our nature. In a sense we may want to please God before the new birth (depending on where one comes down on Romans 7:22). If we say that sinners have no desire to please God then we are forced to relegate Romans 7:22 post regeneration for Paul and that creates a host of other problems.

This is where I think the new birth changes our nature. In a sense we may want to please God before the new birth (depending on where one comes down on Romans 7:22).

Romans 7:22, “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,”

If we say that sinners have no desire to please God then we are forced to relegate Romans 7:22 post regeneration for Paul and that creates a host of other problems.

Here is our fundamental disagreement. You believe that the unregenerate person has the ability to ‘delight in the law of God in their inner being.’ I say that it is impossible for an unregenerate person to delight in the law of God because of what is stated in Romans 8:6-8, “To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God. You might respond by saying that the mind set on the inner being is not hostile to God. You might say that it is possible for man not to set his mind on the flesh. I say that it is only possible to have the mind not set on the flesh through the regenerating work of God.

Who are the people who do not have their mind set on the flesh? They are the ones who have the Spirit. This is to say, they have been regenerated. Romans 8:9 says, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”

I maintain that Romans 7:22 is referring to post regeneration and I would care to hear how and why that creates a host of other problems.

I generally understand this passage within the context of Romans 14 dealing with questionable practices and matters of conscience for believers. In other words, if a Christian cannot perform the act with a clear conscience then the act is sin to them. I think this is the clear implication of the verses:

This is why we have to consider so carefully the context of scripture otherwise these verses just become 'loose canons'. (the origin of that phrase is war at sea. If the canons were not fastended down they were capable of doing more damage to the mother ship than to the enemy.)

Does the sinful nature force man to sin?

We can get some clues as to the answer to this question by asking its corollary. Does our new, righteous nature, force us to live righteously?

May I tweak that question by saying:
Does our new, righteous nature, force us to be righteous?

If we are unrighteous before regeneration, then we are righteous after regeneration.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 3:6
just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

Galatians 3:11
Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith."

I maintain that Romans 7:22 is referring to post regeneration and I would care to hear how and why that creates a host of other problems.

We have had this discussion at length in the past on the topic of the 'flesh' and whether or not the regenerate have to deal with the sin nature after regeneration. If we say that Paul is speaking of His experience post regeneration then we have to deal with the immediate context of Romans 7:

Know ye not, brethren, [u](for I speak to them that know the law,)[/u] how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? (Romans 7:1)

I used to hold to the belief that born again Christians still have to deal with the sin nature and have written extensively defending this position. But after a few years of discussions and debates I am not so sure and would tend to come down on the side of our having been freed from Sin. My former model essentially spells mans liberation ultimately from Sin at physical death. But I am more inclined to see this liberation at regeneration since Christ died to Sin for us and we are in Him sharing His experience. Physical death cannot do [i]alone[/i] what only Christ and the cross can do. Maybe I am jumping ahead here, but we have to come to terms at some point with just exactly what the Cross has done for us. If it has freed us from Sin then our experience should be one nature and not two competing natures.

May I tweak that question by saying:
Does our new, righteous nature, force us to be righteous?

If we are unrighteous before regeneration, then we are righteous after regeneration.

Is a righteous man/woman [i]capable[/i] of sinning?

RobertW,

I love this dialogue because it challenges my beliefs. Thank you.

Regenerate men and women are capable of sinning on earth but not in Heaven.

But you are using this to make a point (I like that about you).

You are attempting to prove that if a person can sin against their righteous nature after regeneration then they must be able to do righteous before regeneration against their sinful nature.

Is this a fair assessment?

There are three different stages in an individuals life: (If the person becomes a Christian)
1) Pre-regeneration. In this state the individual has a sinful nature (the Flesh) and has a mortal body that is dying everyday. The person also has to deal with temptation. The person does not commit every sin, but cannot please God since he/she lacks faith. This person is a slave to sin.

2) Regeneration until physical death. In this state the individual has their nature regenerated. The Holy Spirit of God dwells in them and God brings them through sanctification. The regenerated person still has a mortal body that is dying everyday. The person is still tempted and is still capable of sin, but sin does not master the individual. The person is no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to righteousness.

3) Post Physical Death and new body. In this state the individual has died and they have received a new body. They enter into the presence of Heaven and are no longer subject to temptation or the tempter. They have a regenerated spirit and a new non-corruptible body. They do not sin in this state.

Does this answer your question?

Old nature;

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

New nature;

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Old nature in Satan. New nature in Christ.
Before Adam chose to believe Satan instead of God, Adam was innocent. After sin, "we new that we were naked," they hid.

In Christ: Phillip

Does this answer your question?

In part it does, but it still leaves open the issue of whether or not the Sin Nature [i]coexists[/i] alongside the New regenerated nature. If Paul is speaking of a struggle within himself post-regeneration, what are we to make of that?

Is this a fair assessment?

Just trying to be consistent in our beliefs. Sort of like doing an algebra equation. We need to make sure that everything adds up and that the 'problem' can be worked in reverse without doing damage to the variables.

Also we need to still determind if Romans 7:23 is Paul 'pre' or 'post' regeneration. The passage clearly says that the law of sin is in his members. Is that now that he is born again or was that before he received the Holy Spirit?

philologos wrote:

Eve was the first one to eat of the tree, but Adam was the one accountable to God. Eve was accountable to her husband, Adam.

This still doesn't explain why Sin entered 'through' Adam's action and it doesn't explain why Sin did not enter through Eve's. Neither does it explain why Death did not follow Eve's transgression but did follow Adam's. There is something generically different about Adam's transgression and your view it not taking account of it.

Eve was deceived but Adam must have wanted to eat of it in the first place, otherwise he would have stopped his wife from eating.

Sheer speculation!

If Adam was not deceived, why else would he have eaten of the tree, if it wasn't because he wanted to?

JaySaved wrote:
Now, does our sinful nature force us to commit sins?
I appeal to:
Romans 7:5, “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.”
Romans 7:18, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.”

I will appeal to Dr. John Gill to describe Romans 7. I apologize for its length but it is a very good read and very important to this discussion.

Romans 7 - INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 7

The Apostle, in this chapter, discourses concerning the freedom of justified and regenerated persons from the law, and concerning the nature, use, and excellency of it; in which he removes several objections to it, and gives an account from his own experience of the struggle and combat there is between flesh and spirit in a regenerate person; and which shows, that though believers are justified from sin, yet still sin remains in them, and is the complaint of their souls. Whereas he had in Rom_6:14, of the preceding chapter, asserted that believers are not under the law, but under grace: he knew that this would be matter of offence to the believing Jews, who still retained an high opinion of the law; wherefore he takes it up in the beginning of this chapter, and explains his meaning, and shows in what sense justified ones are delivered from it; and first observes a known maxim, which everyone, especially such as know anything of the nature of laws, must allow of; that the law has power over a man as long as he lives, and no longer, Rom_7:1, and then particularly instances in the law of marriage, Rom_7:2, which is in force as long as both parties live and no longer: during the husband's life the wife is bound, but when dead she is loosed, and which is further explained, Rom_7:3, that should she marry another while her husband is alive, she would be an adulteress; but he being dead, should she marry, she is liable to no such imputation: this the apostle accommodates, Rom_7:4, to the case of the law, and the saints' deliverance from it, in which he asserts that they are dead to the law, and that to them, as in Rom_7:6, by the body of Christ; and therefore the law could have no dominion over them, as is the case of all laws when men are dead; and so they might be lawfully married to another, to bring forth fruit to God, according to the particular law of marriage. This is illustrated by the different state and condition of God's elect, before and after conversion; whilst in an unconverted state the law irritates indwelling sin, and the lusts of it, and by the members of the body operates to the bringing forth the deadly fruit of sin, Rom_7:5, but when delivered from the irritating power of the law, that being dead in consequence of the sufferings and death of Christ, they are both in a capacity, and under an obligation to serve the Lord, in a new and spiritual manner, Rom_7:6, and whereas he had said that the motions of sin are stirred up by the law, Rom_7:5, he saw that an objection might be raised against the law, as if that was sinful; this he removes by expressing his abhorrence of such a thought, by pointing out the law as that which makes known sin, and by the experience he himself had of it, making known indwelling sin to him, Rom_7:7, when he goes on to give an account of the workings of corrupt nature in him, under the prohibition of the law; how it was with him before it entered into his conscience, and how it was with him afterwards; that before he thought himself alive, and in a fair way to eternal life; but afterwards, as sin appeared to him more vigorous than ever, he found himself a dead man, and dead to all hope of life by the law, being killed by it, or rather by sin which worked by it, Rom_7:8, and therefore he vindicates the law as holy, just, and good, Rom_7:12, and answers an objection that might be formed from what he had said concerning the effect the law had upon him, as if it was made death unto him; whereas the office it did was to show him the exceeding sinfulness of sin, which, and not the law, was the cause of death, Rom_7:13, for to it with other saints he bears this testimony, that it is spiritual, though in comparison of it he was carnal and sold under sin, Rom_7:14, and from henceforward to the end of the chapter, he gives an account of the force and power of indwelling sin in him, and the conflict there was in him between grace and corruption: he had knowledge of that which is good, approved of it, and yet did it not, hated sin and yet committed it, Rom_7:15, but however, his desire after that which was good, and his approbation of it, showed that he agreed to this, that the law was good, Rom_7:16, nor was his commission of sin to be imputed to his renewed self, but to indwelling corruption, Rom_7:17, the fleshly part in him, in which was no good thing, Rom_7:18, he found he had a will to that which is good, but not power to perform it; which was abundantly evident by his practice, seeing what he would he did not, and what he would not he did. Rom_7:19, from whence he concludes again, Rom_7:20, as in Rom_7:17, that the evil he did was to be reckoned not to his spiritual, or renewed self, but to his corrupt nature; which he found, as a law that had power to command and to cause to obey, always at hand, close by him when he was desirous of doing good, Rom_7:21, and yet amidst all these workings of sin in him, he found a real delight and pleasure in the holy law of God, as he was renewed in the spirit of his mind, Rom_7:22, upon the whole he perceived there were two contrary principles in him, which militated one against the other, and sometimes so it was, that through the strength of corrupt nature in him, he was made a captive to the law of sin and death, Rom_7:23, which fetched from him a doleful lamentation and complaint, as if his case was desperate, and there was no deliverance for him, Rom_7:24, and yet upon a view of his great Redeemer and Saviour, Jesus Christ, he takes heart, and thanks God that there was, and would be a deliverance for him through Christ, Rom_7:25, and then closes the account which stood thus in his experience, and does in the experience of every regenerate man; that with his renewed mind he served the holy law of God from a principle of grace, and with his fleshly and carnal part the law of sin.

Romans 7:23-25 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

There is a law of sin, which is the breaking the Law of God. With this Law we are wretched men and dead. In Christ the mind is now the mind of Christ being renewed to that intent. The mind of Christ only operates in the Law of God. The mind of man works in the law of sin and operates in the Law of God by the Mind of Christ by the Holy Spirit through regeneration and the new nature the Born Again have, by the new Creature he has been made in Christ Jesus the Hope of Glory. The mind is what we are told to renew to the Mind of Christ. The flesh is not what we are told to renew. It has been Quickened by the Holy Spirit that we might now control it by the soul mind of Christ in us.

Also Quickened to contain the seed when it is planted, to be able to bring forth the fruit of Spirit of Christ that is in us. If a sin seed is planted in the ground the only thing it can produce is sin fruit. If a Quickened Seed is planted in the ground, it will produce the fruit of the Quickening. That is Christ in you the hope of Glory. The Spirit is saved the soul is being saved and the flesh body will be saved, "it must die"and be planted in the ground or changed in the "twinkling of an eye".

Paul is separating the Body, Soul and Spirit by his statements; Romans 7:22-25 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: (SPIRIT) But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, (SOUL) and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. (body parts or flesh parts) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (FLESH) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. By this separation we see the mind is the Soul being renewed, the Spirit already renewed and the "body of this death", which will be renewed in the rapture. Also a proof of this separation is: Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

This is why we cannot loose our salvation, the Spirit is not the Spirit of Christ, This is all done at the moment of New Birth, regeneration and post generation, The New Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ taught by our soul Teacher the Holy Spirit and the body quickened to be able to attain the same body as Christ is.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Again; Spirit, Soul and Body.

We are perfect in Spirit, being made perfect in soul (mind) and will be made perfect in flesh.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Both the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit, plus God the Father.

Jhn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make OUR abode with him.

Regenerated, Spirit exchanged, being Regenerated, The Mind of Christ being exchanged to the renewing of our mind and the body will be Regenerated and changed.

In Christ: Phillip

May I tweak that question by saying:
Does our new, righteous nature, force us to be righteous?
by JaySaved on 2007/1/16 16:50:17

If Adam was not deceived, why else would he have eaten of the tree, if it wasn't because he wanted to?
[i]by Logic on 2007/1/17 0:29:53[/i]

1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has come to be in transgression;

I will appeal to Dr. John Gill to describe Romans 7.
[i]by JaySaved on 2007/1/17 0:49:39[/i]

The trouble is that Dr Gill doesn't always 'appeal' to me! and my own exposition of Romans 7 would be even longer and would come to very different conclusions.

This is a look back at what he was, not his current state.

I am going out on a limb here and putting my cards on the table (as it were). Personally I think Paul is describing any person apart from the [u]fulness[/u] of the Holy Spirit. I may need to get my helmet here, but it seems to me that when a person is FULL of the Holy Ghost then there is a full-on empowerment of the believer to experience all Christ has done through the cross. I appeal to the emphasis in Acts of folk such as Stephen being 'FULL' of the Holy Ghost and how he behaved much differently than others that may have been simply filled in that he had a boldness that was extraordinary. Maybe it is a false distinction? I submit it for destructive testing. When we cease to be continually filled with the Spirit then trouble arises. When we neglect our devotions and the drawing of the Spirit, when we cease to surrender to Christ for ongoing fillings, then it seems to me that trouble arises. Perhaps this is a supression theory? Maybe it is a misinterpretation of my own personal experience? Obviously if a person is full of the Holy Ghost then they are going to be more suited to overcome the world. Perhaps that is the answer? Either way, it seems to me that if a person apostates and the Holy Spirit did in fact depart then all that was accomplished in Christ leaves with Him.

philologos wrote:

1Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has come to be in transgression;

This verse plainly calls Eve a transgressor. I ask again, why did Eve's transgression not have the universal effect of Adam's? Why did Sin enter through Adam's transgression and not Eve's?

Adam only confessed, "The woman .. gave me of the tree, and I did eat." It is to this confession that God responds. If Adam had sought to make himself like God, perhaps he could not bring himself to admit it (I would find it hard to stand before Almighty God and say I wanted your throne!), but it explains the severity of the result and God's actions. Had Adam partnered with the serpent in trying to oust God from His rightful place? Eve, on the other hand, had been deceived into thinking things would be good for her. Perhaps love covers a multitude of sins, and for God to fully expose Adam at this point would have created a situation that was impossible to redeem.

Mike

Had Adam partnered with the serpent in trying to oust God from His rightful place? Eve, on the other hand, had been deceived into thinking things would be good for her.
by MikeH on 2007/1/17 15:12:54

Gen. 2:17 (KJVS) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, [b]thou[/b] shalt not eat of it: for in the day that [b]thou[/b] eatest thereof [b]thou[/b] shalt surely die.

Gen. 3:9 (KJVS) And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art [b]thou[/b]?

Gen. 3:11 (KJVS) And he said, Who told [b]thee[/b] that [b]thou[/b] wast naked? Hast [b]thou[/b] eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded [b]thee[/b] that [b]thou[/b] shouldest not eat?

Gen. 3:17 (KJVS) And unto Adam he said, Because [b]thou[/b] hast hearkened unto the voice of [b]thy[/b] wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded [b]thee[/b], saying, [b]thou[/b] shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for [b]thy[/b] sake; in sorrow shalt [b]thou[/b] eat of it all the days of [b]thy[/b] life;

Gen. 3:18 (KJVS) Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to [b]thee[/b]; and [b]thou[/b] shalt eat the herb of the field;