The Fall of Adam Commentary (NOT Augustinian!)

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by [u]one man[/u] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If we view sin in this passage with a small 's' (as an act) then we have to deal with a real contradiction. The first [i]act[/i] of sin in the earth was committed by Satan when he lied to Eve and set a trap for her to sin. So if we are talking about sins (in deeds) then sins entered the world through Satan; he was the first to introduce the earth to transgressing.

If we view Sin here as being a dynamic (the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience- governed by the law of sin) then it is clear that Adam opened 'the door' and Sin entered our race- death following. He was cast from the Garden lest he eat of the Tree of Life and live forever as an unregenerate fallen sinner. He sold himself and the human race into slavery to Sin itself. This slavery is broken off at death. At physical death all contracts are broken off; covenants are ended and will and testaments are brought into force.

(Romans 6:4-10) Therefore we [u]are[/u] buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so [u]we also should walk in newness of life.[/u]

Based upon this passage it is evident that Paul intends an experience in the here and now and not at the resurrection only. We are buried, raised up, and walking in newness. This is one of the purposes of Christ's death upon the Cross. He died to Sin and for those that have been baptized into Him- they share in what He has done. "IN Him" we are new creatures and "IN Him" we are dead to Sin. This is Sin as a slavemaster.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 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. For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Jesus came forth in great power from the grave. Likewise, when we are baptized into Jesus Christ by the Spirit we can walk in the newness of life. This is far more than mere repentance. Repentance is the first principal of the doctrine of Christ- what I am referring to is [i]perfection[/i]; genuine Holy Ghost regeneration that transforms a person into a new creature. They have more than the spirit of bondage that leads folk to fear death (i.e. the consequence of sinning); but have received the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry ABBA Father. This is the difference between a servant and a son.

God wants to bring many sons unto glory. To do this He has to give them the Spirit of Adoption so that they serve God from their new Christ like nature rather than out of fear. The servants do not abide in the house forever, but the sons do. God wants sons that do His will from the heart; as natural as a fish breathes under water. Thorn trees must be regenerated into fruit trees. This requires more than a change of mind and direction- it requires a change in the nature of the tree.

Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

We also have to deal with the contradiction of "in the day that you eat of the tree- dying you will die." This is ultimate death- the very worst kind of death. Adam did [i]not[/i] physically die on that day either. Adam died spiritually that day. Death is separation. Adam died later physically. Adam fell from the glory and image of God.

How did Adam make many sinners? Was it by his leading, influence, and example, the same way others in the bible "made" other people sin?

No child needs a bad example to teach them to rebel. [u]Foolishness[/u] is bound in the heart of a [i]child[/i] (Proverbs 22:15). "Foolishness" here is the Hebrew word eviyl (ev-eel). It also means perverse. It is where? It is in the heart. It is in the heart of whom? A child.

The rod of correction is a temporary expedient until the child can be born again. Like a schoolmaster. Spanking and fearful consequences for sinning through the Law and Old Covenant is employing the same Spirit of bondage unto fear in which a person were all their lifetime subject unto bondage to the fear of death (Heb. 2:15). God did not want to have to relate to people in this way if He didn't have to. While they were slaves to Sin He had to to keep them in line. But He always preferred the Spirit of Adoption- a Father and son or daughter type relationship. But in order for one to be a 'son' (or daughter) His seed has to remain in them. This is the evidence that they are born of God that theykeep themselves and the wicked one does not touch them and they do not commit sin as a matter of course. Their nature is to please their Father.

Throughout the New Testament we have the common theme of the New Birth. The whole purpose of the Gospel and the work of Christ upon the cross is summed up in Hebrews 2:10; [i]For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in [u]bringing many sons unto glory[/u], to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.[/i] God created man for the express purpose of having a people made in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). He had set in order in Gen. 1 the pattern of all life on the earth; that each be fruitful and multiply after their own kind. God wanted ‘sons’. He wanted a people that were after His own heart. He wanted a Godly seed (Malachi 2:15). Yet, the seed of Satan, lies that were sown into Adam and Eve’s mind and heart ‘conceived’ and brought forth Sin and Death (James 1:15).

Jesus told the Jews that believed on Him in John 8:44 that they were of their father the devil and the lusts(strong desires) of their father they would do. This is a shocking statement to make to a people that believed on Him already and were probably more moral than 99% of folk on the earth at that time. The nature of Satan himself was sown into the human race in the Garden of Eden (Ephesians 2) and that included the Jews. They and we were of our father the Devil. Man was once a Godly seed- living in harmony with God and living in fellowship and communion with Him, but through Adam Sin entered and man kind was sold under Sin and lived a carnal existence (Romans 7:14). The mind that was once the friend of God was now hostile to Him and was unable to be made subject to God’s laws (Romans 8:7).

All human beings are born ‘in’ Adam and share in this sinful ‘Adamic’ nature. This is why we must be born again (John 3:3). We must get ‘out’ of Adam and ‘into’ Jesus Christ. In Adam all die, but in Christ shall all be made alive (I Cor. 15:22). It is when one is ‘in’ Christ that he/she is a new creature (II Cor. 5:17). This is the new birth that makes one a ‘son’ of God. The Holy Spirit baptizes us in Jesus Christ and we cry out ABBA Father from the heart (I Cor. 12:13). For those that have gone through this process of genuine regeneration, they are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ (Galatians 4:7).

Is Romans 5 talking about spiritual death, since the context makes many references to death reigning over men because of their particular sin?

Spiritual death is the breaking off of man's fellowship with God as Adam knew it. This [i]is[/i] Eternal Life that they might know Thee, the only True God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent (John 17:3). Christ came seeking rconciliation between God and man. The cross made this possible. It is evident that very very few people ever walked with God leading up to the flood. The people fell into severe gross sinfulness in a matter of several hundred years. Evil thoughts do not proceed out of a [i]neutral[/i] heart. The heart is desperately wicked. The heart needs to be swapped out with a new one. The world was filled with violence because they had a murderous spirit within of Satan- the murderer from the beginning. The death penalty was instituted in the Spirit of bondage again unto fear to prevent people from killing each other. This is the Law hemming man and his wickedness in that has no real power to change the nature. The Law was spiritual but we were carnal and sold under Sin. Following the Law does not make a person Spiritual- the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit and fruit unto God makes a person 'spiritual'. Each brings forth after it's kind. This is the great danger of our times in evangilism. Can carnality bring forth spirituality? Can a carnal witness beget a spiritual son?

(1 Corinthians 4:14,15) I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

(Galatians 4:19) My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

The seed is in the Fruit. The seed falls into the ground and dies that it might have the chance of birth. No fruit= no seed. No seed = no sons. Having begun in the Spirit can we now be perfected by the flesh? Can we have any real new births through the flesh?

In Ephesians 5 Paul tells us that marriage is essentially an allegory of our relationship to Christ. The Church is the Bride and Christ is the Bridegroom. You will recall that God’s desire in marriage is that He would seek a Godly seed. In Genesis 1:28 God blessed Adam and his wife and said to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over it. This is a five fold objective. This is likewise God’s objective in the New Testament dispensation through the Church. (G.W. North)

Romans 6:1 tells us that through Christ’s death and our having been baptized into Him, the true Church has died to Sin. In Romans 7:4 we read; [i]Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that [u]we should bring forth fruit unto God[/u].[/i] Here is a delicate allusion to the case of a promising and numerous progeny from a legitimate and happy marriage (A. Clarke).

For those that have gone through the genuine born again experience, having been married unto Christ, they are enabled to bring forth fruit unto God. NOT in their own human strength, but through the preaching of the Gospel and the operation of the Holy Spirit. God’s design in marriage is fruit and multiplication. In fact, in the Old Testament it was considered essential that married folk have children. If a married couple did not have children something was seriously amiss. It was a reproach among men that barren women suffered (Luke 1:25). There are no less than 4 different stories in the Old Testament of women that could not have children being vexed and taking up their cause with God.

This is a picture of the heart of God. God wants sons- many sons (Heb. 2:10). Not in some passive way; but even as Rachel cried to Jacob, “Give me children, or else I die”. Leonard Ravenhill alluded to this and so have others. Christ did die. He died that He [i]might bring many sons unto glory[/i] (Heb. 2:10). He want’s fruitfulness. He wants multiplication. He expects that our relationship with Christ produce offspring into the Church. This is a great portion of the ‘great mystery’ Paul speaks of In Ephesians 5.

So there has to be a REAL death to Sin and the Law or we cannot truly bring forth fruit unto God.

What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, says the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:2-4).

It was not the [i]use[/i] of this proverb that God was rebuking- it was the [i]abuse[/i] of it. Everyone is accountable for their own actions. No excuses! However, there are certainly traits within families that create tendencies towards certain sins. God wanted to bring many sons unto glory. God needed to change the peoples nature as mentioned before. For emphasis sake, the below passages imply a contrast between those born of God and those that are not.

1 Jn 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is [u]born of him[/u].

1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is [u]born of God[/u] doth not commit sin; for [u]his seed remaineth in him:[/u] and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and [u]every one that loveth is born of God[/u], and knoweth God.

1Jn 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is [u]born of God[/u]: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is [u]born of God overcometh the world[/u]: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

To be born of God is to have the nature of Christ; [i]not my will but Thine be done.[/i]

It is interesting to note that in verse 12, the word for "death" is "thanatos", and is used as a noun. Thus describing "death" as a thing. The verb "passed" is in the 3rd person(meaning it is speaking of the object, which is death), and is in the aorist, active, meaning that the event happened and continues to happen to this present moment.

So we could say that death has passed through, and continues to pass through all men, because all men have sinned, and continue to sin(the verb for sin is in the same tense, and person).

But when we move to verse 15, where it says that many are dead, Paul uses the word "apothnesko" which is a verb, and it is in the same tense as before, meaning that through the offense of one man many are dead, and continue to die even to this present day.

I am no Greek wiz by any means, but if we are going to tread into the "what ifs", and "maybes", we had better be prepared to see what is really being said.

Now as for the death passing upon men that had not committed the same sin as Adam, we see this in Cain. Who taught Cain to murder? Did he need to learn how to, or was it sin within him that simply poured out as vengeance?

Also Jesse, if you are going to say that infants are born innocent, then you need to explain why they suffer from the wages of sin.

Infants die, suffer pain, and illness which are all symptoms of the fall of man, which points to th fact that they are not innocent. If they were innocent, and still died and suffered, then we could say that God was unjust in His ways, as He would be imputing guilt and its consequences where there was no sin.

Children do not need to be taught how to sin, it is within them. The idea that a child is a victim of his or her surroundings, and learns sin from the examples set before them is nothing more than the modern day psychological view that society makes a man a criminal, or that the outward influences in a persons' life cause them to be "bad", but if we remove those influences, they will be "good".

Finney, and the Arminian revivalists who cast out original sin have(unfortunately) helped shape much of today's thinking both Church-wise, and society.

After all if a man is born "good", then all he needs is instruction in how to stay "good", and thus he can live by the law,because the law says , "do this and thou shalt live."

But even here, one would see that the majority of the "commands" that are propped up to support man's ability are subjunctive in nature ans state a possibility, but not an actuality.

It is the same if I tell you that if you were to flap your arms and fly west, you could get to California. It is true, but you are not able, and thus it is a statement and not a command that implies ability.

Matthew Henry is very insightful here-

III. The parallel that the apostle runs between the communication of sin and death by the first Adam and of righteousness and life by the second Adam Ro 5:12-21, which not only illustrates the truth he is discoursing of, but tends very much to the commending of the love of God and the comforting of the hearts of true believers, in showing a correspondence between our fall and our recovery, and not only a like, but a much greater power in the second Adam to make us happy, than there was in the first to make us miserable. Now, for the opening of this, observe,

1. A general truth laid down as the foundation of his discourse--that Adam was a type of Christ Ro 5:14: Who is the figure of him that was to come. Christ is therefore called the last Adam, 1Co 15:45. Compare Ro 5:21. In this Adam was a type of Christ, that in the covenant-transactions that were between God and him, and in the consequent events of those transactions, Adam was a public person. God dealt with Adam and Adam acted as such a one, as a common father and factor, root and representative, of and for all his posterity; so that what he did in that station, as agent for us, we may be said to have done in him, and what was done to him may be said to have been done to us in him. Thus Jesus Christ, the Mediator, acted as a public person, the head of all the elect, dealt with God for them, as their father, factor, root, and representative--died for them, rose for them, entered within the veil for them, did all for them. When Adam failed, we failed with him; when Christ performed, he performed for us. Thus was Adam tupov tou mellontov--the figure of him that was to come, to come to repair that breach which Adam had made.

2. A more particular explication of the parallel, in which observe,

(1.) How Adam, as a public person, communicated sin and death to all his posterity Ro 5:12: By one man sin entered. We see the world under a deluge of sin and death, full of iniquities and full of calamities. Now, it is worth while to enquire what is the spring that feeds it, and you will find it to be the general corruption of nature; and at what gap it entered, and you will find it to have been Adam's first sin. It was by one man, and he the first man (for if any had been before him they would have been free), that one man from whom, as from the root, we all spring.

[1.] By him sin entered. When God pronounced all very good Ge 1:31 there was no sin in the world; it was when Adam ate forbidden fruit that sin made its entry. Sin had before entered into the world of angels, when many of them revolted from their allegiance and left their first estate; but it never entered into the world of mankind till Adam sinned. Then it entered as an enemy, to kill and destroy, as a thief, to rob and despoil; and a dismal entry it was. Then entered the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to posterity, and a general corruption and depravedness of nature. ef' w --for that (so we read it), rather in whom, all have sinned. Sin entered into the world by Adam, for in him we all sinned. As, 1Co 15:22, in Adam all die; so here, in him all have sinned; for it is agreeable to the law of all nations that the acts of a public person be accounted theirs whom they represent; and what a whole body does every member of the same body may be said to do. Now Adam acted thus as a public person, by the sovereign ordination and appointment of God, and yet that founded upon a natural necessity; for God, as the author of nature, had made this the law of nature, that man should beget in his own likeness, and so the other creatures. In Adam therefore, as in a common receptacle, the whole nature of man was reposited, from him to flow down in a channel to his posterity; for all mankind are made of one blood Ac 17:26, so that according as this nature proves through his standing or falling, before he puts it out of his hands, accordingly it is propagated from him. Adam therefore sinning and falling, the nature became guilty and corrupt, and is so derived. Thus in him all have sinned.

[2.] Death by sin, for death is the wages of sin. Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. When sin came, of course death came with it. Death is here put for all that misery which is the due desert of sin, temporal, spiritual, eternal death. If Adam had not sinned, he had not died; the threatening was, In the day thou eatest thou shall surely die, Ge 2:17.

[3.] So death passed, that is, a sentence of death was passed, as upon a criminal, dihlyhn--passed through all men, as an infectious disease passes through a town, so that none escape it. It is the universal fate, without exception: death passes upon all. There are common calamities incident to human life which do abundantly prove this. Death reigned, Ro 5:14. He speaks of death as a mighty prince, and his monarchy the most absolute, universal, and lasting monarchy. None are exempted from its sceptre; it is a monarchy that will survive all other earthly rule, authority, and power, for it is the last enemy, 1Co 15:26. Those sons of Belial that will be subject to no other rule cannot avoid being subject to this. Now all this we may thank Adam for; from him sin and death descend. Well may we say, as that good man, observing the change that a fit of sickness had made in his countenance, O Adam! what hast thou done?

Further, to clear this, he shows that sin did not commence with the law of Moses, but was in the world until, or before, that law; therefore that law of Moses is not the only rule of life, for there was a rule, and that rule was transgressed, before the law was given. It likewise intimates that we cannot be justified by our obedience to the law of Moses, any more than we were condemned by and for our disobedience to it. Sin was in the world before the law; witness Cain's murder, the apostasy of the old world, the wickedness of Sodom. His inference hence is, Therefore there was a law; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God: therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from Adam to Moses, Ro 5:14. It is certain that death could not have reigned if sin had not set up the throne for him. This proves that sin was in the world before the law, and original sin, for death reigned over those that had not sinned any actual sin, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, never sinned in their own persons as Adam did--which is to be understood of infants, that were never guilty of actual sin, and yet died, because Adam's sin was imputed to them. This reign of death seems especially to refer to those violent and extraordinary judgments which were long before Moses, as the deluge and the destruction of Sodom, which involved infants. It is a great proof of original sin that little children, who were never guilty of any actual transgression, are yet liable to very terrible diseases, casualties, and deaths, which could by no means be reconciled with the justice and righteousness of God if they were not chargeable with guilt.

(2.) How, in correspondence to this, Christ, as a public person, communicates righteousness and life to all true believers, who are his spiritual seed. And in this he shows not only wherein the resemblance holds, but, ex abundanti, wherein the communication of grace and love by Christ goes beyond the communication of guilt and wrath by Adam. Observe,

[1.] Wherein the resemblance holds. This is laid down most fully, Ro 5:18-19.

First, By the offence and disobedience of one many were made sinners, and judgment came upon all men to condemnation. Here observe,

1. That Adam's sin was disobedience, disobedience to a plain and express command: and it was a command of trial. The thing he did was therefore evil because it was forbidden, and not otherwise; but this opened the door to other sins, though itself seemingly small.

2. That the malignity and poison of sin are very strong and spreading, else the guilt of Adam's sin would not have reached so far, nor have been so deep and long a stream. Who would think there should be so much evil in sin?

3. That by Adam's sin many are made sinners: many, that is, all his posterity; said to be many, in opposition to the one that offended, Made sinners, katestayhsav. It denotes the making of us such by a judicial act: we were cast as sinners by due course of law.

4. That judgment is come to condemnation upon all those that by Adam's disobedience were made sinners. Being convicted, we are condemned. All the race of mankind lie under a sentence, like an attainder upon a family. There is judgment given and recorded against us in the court of heaven; and, if the judgment be not reversed, we are likely to sink under it to eternity.

Secondly, In like manner, by the righteousness and obedience of one (and that one is Jesus Christ, the second Adam), are many made righteous, and so the free gift comes upon all. It is observable how the apostle inculcates this truth, and repeats it again and again, as a truth of very great consequence. Here observe,

1. The nature of Christ's righteousness, how it is brought in; it is by his obedience. The disobedience of the first Adam ruined us, the obedience of the second Adam saves us,--his obedience to the law of mediation, which was that he should fulfill all righteousness, and then make his soul an offering for sin. By his obedience to this law he wrought out a righteousness for us, satisfied God's justice, and so made way for us into his favour.

Jesse something else I'd like to understand about your(Finney's) views is what do you gain?

Do you really gain justification by faith, or do you have to work to maintain justification? If so, how is that any different than Roman Catholicism or Judaism? Why would Christ need to die to justify you or anyone else, if you could and must justify yourself by your keeping God's commands?

Where is grace in all of this? If God only make salvation possible to those who "earn" it, it is not really grace any more, for it would be based upon your works.

Also, how can tell people to believe the "good news" of Christ and His work, but then throw them back upon themselves and their ability to keep God's Law? Could any of us do it before becoming Christians? Can any of us now that we are?

And if you can keep it perfectly, then you are like a second coming of Christ, for only He can keep perfectly His Father's commands.

All I am saying is that if you make Christ into another Moses, you are preaching another Christ, and another Gospel as the true Gospel is what God has done for sinners on their behalf by His Son, and is not what we do to earn God's favor.

Grace and peace to you and yours, and happy thanksgiving.

To be justified, simply keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus Christ. Commandment keeping was emphasized by Joshua, and yet afterwards the children of Israel chosen the strange gods, instead of the Lord. The same is today, the veneration of the saints is a perfect example, such pictures as well as prayers are robbing God of his honour and will make his wrath come upon us shortly.
I used to believe blindly following Spurgeon and his sweet preachings and now I use Luther and Tyndale with the O.T and N.T from their era of the reformation to prove that your worship of God is in vain, and that you need to turn from idols unto Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3 (1526 W.Tyndale N.T) 2 For the men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, cursed speakers, disobedient to father and mother, unthankful, unholy,
3 churlish, stubborn, false accusers, rioters, fierce, despisers of them which are good,
4 traitors, heady, high minded, greedy upon voluptuousness more than the lovers of God,
5 having a similitude of godly living, but have denied the power there of. Such abhor.

Try comparin this to your K.J, which if you have, you are a step away from reformation, when you realize bible corrupters are present in the text. If you are a geneva believer, you still need to get past the notes and simply put it, turn away from the men's doctrine therin (calvinism to which I was coverted, until I later learned of the trueth and reformed)

And the fact that little children sin only proves that little children face temptation, and not that little children have a "sin" inside of them which is behind their will, which "sin" [u]forces[/u] them to commit "actual sin".

Two things here:

First, it is an overstatement and a stone of stumbling to say that indwelling Sin 'forces' anyone to do anything. I do not believe that at all. The Sin that entered gives the person a nature to rebel against God. They are of their father the Devil and the Devil's lusts or desires- they do.

What [u]I[/u] am also saying is, the indwelling Sin is the [u]source[/u] of the temptation. Satan does not appear to children to tempt them to act foolishly. They are tempted from [i]within[/i].

And no sinner is saved by earning or meriting eternal life by keeping the law! Both Finney and Pelagius said explicitly that we are saved "by faith alone", as anyone who has actually read their writings would know.

God has grace and mercy for those who repent of their sins and put their trust in Jesus Christ. God will forgive the sins of those who turn from their sin and turn to Jesus.

The problem I have with Finney (I do not group him with Pelagius as I view his doctrine as heritical) is that he did not appreciate the effect that the fall had on humanity. I do not believe anyone goes to hell for Adam's sin. I do believe that his willfull sinning opened the door for Sin and Death to enter.

A carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be made subject to His laws. the law gives the sinful nature something to rebel against. Indwelling sin takes advantage of the Law to bring forth fruit unto death. The law is spiritual but we were carnal and sold under sin. Man kind needs more than a bunch of laws to hemm them in. They need to be born of God and become God's progeny.

Finney did not believe this. His views ring shockingly close to Paul's rebuke to the Galatians- though I think he did not mean what it appears that he is saying. He spends so much time overthrowing Calvinistic views that he comes off as Pelagian. He spent too much time explaining things using his own terms which greatly confuses everything. if he would have taken a more bible based, biblically termed approach we may have had a better idea what he was saying.

Moreover, Sin did not originate in Adam in of himself. He never is said to have as much as eyed the Tree before the Serpent came. Sin came when the Serpent came. Satan stood at the door and knocked. Adam heard his voice and opened the door. Sin and Death entered in to sup together with Adam. Consider this:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (I Peter 1:23)

This is the process of undoing what Adam did in the Garden. This is the process that gives birth to sons.

Have you read any of Pelagius' actual writings? I've read His Commentary on the Romans, His "Life and Letters" by Rees, and "A Historical Account of Augustinianism and Pelagianism".

I have not read Pelagius's actual writings other than as they are quoted by others. Perhaps as time permits I will take up the matter.

What you mean (as far as I understand) is what Finney taught that we inherit temptation or lust. Because we inherit a fallen body we have internal temptations called "the lusts of the flesh" and theses lusts, passions, desires, cravings, tempt us to sin.

I think a distinction needs to be made between good and natural desires and the lusts of the flesh. Natural desires coupled or corrupted with Sin = "the Flesh". Natural desires after death to Sin in Christ = "the flesh." The one is natural as God designed- the other is unnatural and lends to all sorts of excess. We will always have to deal with natural desires. It is the Sin corrupted element that I believe the New Birth deals with.

I would argue that we are born with fleshly (physical) desires for gratification. Sin is only chosen as a means towards self-gratification, and sin is never chosen as an end in and of itself.

I would say this may be true for the regenerate. But Paul's language seems to lend to the notion that when the law came sin revived and he died. Sin was powerless without a commandment. I do not believe this is a conscious thing for the unregenerate- but I believe it is how the law of sin works. The only thing that brings gratification to the sinner is the rebellion itself. I do not think that a person in the flesh cares how they get their rebellion- so long as they get it. I do not believe this is true for the born again. This is why I always thought Finney tried to understand original Sin through regenerate eyes rather than through the scripture.

So we are not born with "cravings for sin" (rape, murder, molestation, etc) , but we are born with desires for gratification which can be gratified by sin.

I think it is more serious than that. I believe that the unregenerate are of their father the Devil and that the lusts of their father they do. these are unnatural lusts that are an exagerated version- a perversion of the natural. Satan corrupted the good things of God. Unnatural lust I think is a desire to sin for the sake of sinning. It is a desire to assert our will over God's will even if God's will would have been in our best interest. It is a spiteful lust that would cut it's nose off to spite it's own face. This is self assertion at any cost.

This is why I think David told Nathan that he had sinned against the LORD. He understood that the gratification was his desire to be like God and rule his own way- To take what he saw regardless of God's counsel. I think this is different than simply choosing to gratify our desires and in turn end up sinning. It is a desire to be like God and to rule in His stead over our own lives. Many sins make no sense at all without this understanding.

So in summary, I think it is likely that sin is a means to an end for the regenerate caught up in the throes of a temptation to fulfill a good desire in a bad way. They have a good natural desire and the enemy tempts them with an illicit means of fulfilling that desire. This was Reidhead's basic position, as I understand him, of why we are tempted (see tragedy of third generation religion). For the unregenerate I believe they sin for the gratification of rebellion itself much of the time. They are of their father the devil and rebel against the Spirit of God (edited). This, to me, is more than a conflict of means to fulfilling a good desire. It is a gratification of a sinful nature that is fulfilled by rebellion itself. I believe Christ dealt with this 'Sin' at the Cross.

RobertW wrote:Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by [u]one man[/u] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:If we view sin in this passage with a small 's' (as an act) then we have to deal with a real contradiction. The first [i]act[/i] of sin in the earth was committed by Satan when he lied to Eve and set a trap for her to sin. So if we are talking about sins (in deeds) then sins entered the world through Satan; he was the first to introduce the earth to transgressing.

If we view Sin here as being a dynamic (the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience- governed by the law of sin) then it is clear that Adam opened 'the door' and Sin entered our race- death following. He was cast from the Garden lest he eat of the Tree of Life and live forever as an unregenerate fallen sinner. He sold himself and the human race into slavery to Sin itself. This slavery is broken off at death. At physical death all contracts are broken off; covenants are ended and will and testaments are brought into force.

RobertW wrote:
All human beings are born ‘in’ Adam and share in this sinful ‘Adamic’ nature.

There is no inplication about sin nature, fallen nature, or even "sinful ‘Adamic’ nature".

We must get ‘out’ of Adam and ‘into’ Jesus Christ.

In Adam all die, but in Christ shall all be made alive (I Cor. 15:22).

It is when one is ‘in’ Christ that he/she is a new creature (II Cor. 5:17).

roaringlamb wrote:
Also Jesse, if you are going to say that infants are born innocent, then you need to explain why they suffer from the wages of sin.

If they were innocent, and still died and suffered, then we could say that God was unjust in His ways, as He would be imputing guilt and its consequences where there was no sin.

Babies are born innocent and sinless and voluntarily choose to corrupt themselves at the age of accountability(Psalms 139:14, Isaiah 7:16a).

After all if a man is born "good", then all he needs is instruction in how to stay "good", and thus he can live by the law,because the law says , "do this and thou shalt live."

It is the same if I tell you that if you were to flap your arms and fly west, you could get to California. It is true, but you are not able, and thus it is a statement and not a command that implies ability.

Do you really gain justification by faith, or do you have to work to maintain justification?

Why would Christ need to die to justify you or anyone else, if you could and must justify yourself by your keeping God's commands?

Where is grace in all of this?

If God only make salvation possible to those who "earn" it, it is not really grace any more, for it would be based upon your works

Also, how can tell people to believe the "good news" of Christ and His work, but then throw them back upon themselves and their ability to keep God's Law?

Could any of us do it before becoming Christians? Can any of us now that we are?

They do not suffer from the wages of sin because physical death is not the wage.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Since the free gift is spiritual, then the death is spiritual.

Brother you need to make up your mind, one minute you say that the death is not spiritual, but physical. You told Robert this-
"All are dying in Adam. However this is not a spiritual dying that Pual is talking about since he is talking about a physical resurrection of the dead, it is talking about a physical death."

It seems that you are going round and round the subject and are unwilling to admit that the death is both spiritual and physical, and that is why Adam and Eve needed skins from slain animals to cover them. Something had to die in order for them to live and be reconciled to God.

But the physical death remained, and that is one of the reasons why God banished them from the Garden, so they would not live forever in the decaying state of sickness, pain, emotional hurt etc.

Babies are born innocent and sinless and voluntarily choose to corrupt themselves at the age of accountability(Psalms 139:14, Isaiah 7:16a).

Brother neither of those Scriptures speak of what you are trying to make them say.

The fact of the matter is that infants die. Thus they are counted as being infected with sin. But they themselves have committed no sin, and this only further proves that Adam's sin has been imputed to man, all men everywhere.

This is the only logical conclusion, for if not, then God is unjust to allow an "innocent" person to suffer the symptoms of sin while they have never committed sin themselves.

As for your Scriptures, I could easily throw up Scriptures such as-
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Of course all men are born wicked, as they are enemies of God, so this would actually apply to our discussion.

Then there is also this verse-
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Again this works within our discussion as well.

After all Adam was born good, He corupted himself, just as all men do.

But Adam had a choice, to sin, or not to sin, he was not bound to his sinful heart, as he and he only had a "free will" to either serve God, or serve self.

Men born after the fall can only serve sin, Satan, and self until they are set free. Then they have a choice to serve God, or serve self etc.

As children of God, in one sense we are restored to the ability that Adam had to choose if we obey God, or ourself.

How is it true if you were to flap your arms and fly west, you could get to California?

Perhaps from North Carolina he would have to fly in a southwestern direction, either way, it can't be done in "natural" ability.

The Law is used to show us that we will not consistently uphold the law. We will not fulfill the law without changing our affection from ourselves and the world and onto Christ in order to accomplish the Law. The Law not only shows us that we sin, it also shows us that we need a whole different motivation and intent of our hearts.

You will never be able to keep the Law perfectly, and you would be lying to say you could, which would be only proving the point. Even James states that to break one point is break all of the Law.

So if you have not this very moment loved the Lord with all your heart, mind, souls, and strength, you have broken the Law. Paul is very harsh to those who would boast in their law keeping, and asks them if they truly hear what the Law is saying to them. In essence he is telling them that the Law requires Perfection that cannot be attained through human effort. Thus someone else must fulfill, and maintain that perfection before God, or none could be saved. That is why salvation is by God's grace through faith for the sake of Christ.

Christ only needed to die in order that we would be forgiven of our sins, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself(Colos 1:20)
We that were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight(Col 1:21-22)
This is only if we continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached...(Col 1:23)

Who then appeases God for the Law we break every day?

Who continues to keep the slate clean, do we have to maintain perfection to be saved once we have the plate cleaned?

We do not claim that one must "earn it"

Sure you do. You reduce Christianity down to "ethics", and "behaviors" and then say, "you must do this to be saved!"

Sure the initial entry into salvation may be free, but now you've got to uphold your end of the bargain.

But that is the whole point of grace brother. We cannot ever in a million years earn salvation. Even as Christians, our works do nothing to add to our justified state before God, they help prove it, but not attain it.

Like I told Jesse, you are making Christ into another Moses, but what does John say of this comparison? The law came through Moses, BUT grace and peace came through Jesus Christ!!

Why are you allways thinking that we preach Law? answer me, please?

Because you base your idea of salvation on man's ability to keep God's commands, and throw people back upon their working to earn from God.

Sadly, you really do not need Christ in your view. Oh I know you give lip service to your need of Him, but you must not really believe this, or perhaps you do not fully grasp how much we receive when we are adopted into God's family.

But be honest here for a moment, if man can without any help from God fulfill the Law, and make himself savable, or deserving of salvation by his own works, how is that any different than OT Judaism, or any other false religion which requires work upon work?

These do not need Christ to live a perfect life for His people, or die in their place for their sins, or need Him to rise again to justify them, because they(those within these systems) can do it on their own.

No.
and yes, That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit(Romans 8:4).

Yes, and anyone who has been born again does walk according to the Spirit because they are now a spiritual person who has been given new desires, and new principles, or if you like, a "new nature".

But who made this possible-
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Christ has done away with the need for His people to keep the Law as a means of justification, that is why Paul could say that Christ is the end of the law for all who believe in Him-
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Hope your thanksgiving was blessed, and you are found well and in Christ.

Satan's sin was not in the Earth not in this world.[Rom 5:12 just as by one man sin entered into the world
Satans sin wa the fist to happen, but in was not the sin that entered this world. Our world is not in the heavenlies.
Romans 5 is talkingstrictly about man's sin.

It is my view, that Satan corrupted the human race with the Sin that originated in him. Satan is a sinner- that is what he is. It is his nature. That nature was transferred into the human race when Adam hearkened to the voice of his wife rather than the voice of God. Through one man The Sin entered the world and The Death by Sin.

My point is simply that Satan was the first being to sin on the earth. That is indisputable based upon his tempting of Eve. that is, unless we are somehow prepared to suggest that Satan did not sin in tempting eve?

This verse says nothing about the "sinful ‘Adamic’ nature" All it is telling us is that all who are still in the liniage of Adam will not be made alive in the resurrection of the dead (1Corinth 15:20)

I disagree. [u]The[/u] Sin entered the world and The Death by The Sin. Sin plays out on multiple levels. The resurrection is simply the final faze of the restoration of man to the glory of God. It is my view that God deals very much with Sin in the here and now. He dealt with Adam on the cross and he dealt with my bondage to Sin on the cross. We were quickened together with Christ at regeneration. This took care of spiritual death. Our mortal bodies will be changed at the resurrection.

All are dying in Adam. However this is not a spiritual dying that Pual is talking about since he is talking about a physical resurrection of the dead, it is talking about a physical death.

Ephesians 2 tells us clearly that we were in times past 'dead' in trespasses and sins. Why? Because we lived according to the spirit of disobedience. Regeneration replaces the spirit of disobedience and the Spirit of bondage again unto fear with the Spirit of adoption. We go from being children of the Devil by nature; to Children of God that cry ABBA Father.

Babies are born innocent and sinless and voluntarily choose to corrupt themselves at the age of accountability(Psalms 139:14, Isaiah 7:16a).

It is my view that children are born in rebellion. Some worse than others. Children transgress the conscience from the age of 2 or earlier. This is why they look over their shoulder when they were told not to do something- but decide to do it anyway. Their conscience pricks them and they look. Spanking, in one way, teaches a child not to disregard their conscience.

I think it is more accurate to say that the child's sins are imputed to them at the age of accoutability. The rod of correction has long since been employed.

roaringlamb wrote:

They do not suffer from the wages of sin because physical death is not the wage.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Since the free gift is spiritual, then the death is spiritual.

Brother you need to make up your mind, one minute you say that the death is not spiritual, but physical. You told Robert this-
"All are dying in Adam. However this is not a spiritual dying that Pual is talking about since he is talking about a physical resurrection of the dead, it is talking about a physical death."

It seems that you are going round and round the subject and are unwilling to admit that the death is both spiritual and physical, and that is why Adam and Eve needed skins from slain animals to cover them. Something had to die in order for them to live and be reconciled to God.

Babies are born innocent and sinless and voluntarily choose to corrupt themselves at the age of accountability(Psalms 139:14, Isaiah 7:16a).

Brother neither of those Scriptures speak of what you are trying to make them say.
The fact of the matter is that infants die. Thus they are counted as being infected with sin. But they themselves have committed no sin, and this only further proves that Adam's sin has been imputed to man, all men everywhere.

This is the only logical conclusion, for if not, then God is unjust to allow an "innocent" person to suffer the symptoms of sin while they have never committed sin themselves.

After all Adam was born good, He corupted himself, just as all men do.

But Adam had a choice, to sin, or not to sin, he was not bound to his sinful heart, as he and he only had a "free will" to either serve God, or serve self.

The Law is used to show us that we will not consistently uphold the law. We will not fulfill the law without changing our affection from ourselves and the world and onto Christ in order to accomplish the Law. The Law not only shows us that we sin, it also shows us that we need a whole different motivation and intent of our hearts.

You will never be able to keep the Law perfectly, and you would be lying to say you could, which would be only proving the point. Even James states that to break one point is break all of the Law.

Paul is very harsh to those who would boast in their law keeping, and asks them if they truly hear what the Law is saying to them.

Who then appeases God for the Law we break every day?

Who continues to keep the slate clean, do we have to maintain perfection to be saved once we have the plate cleaned?

Sure you do. You reduce Christianity down to "ethics", and "behaviors" and then say, "you must do this to be saved!"

Sure the initial entry into salvation may be free, but now you've got to uphold your end of the bargain.

We cannot ever in a million years earn salvation.

Why are you allways thinking that we preach Law? answer me, please?

Because you base your idea of salvation on man's ability to keep God's commands, and throw people back upon their working to earn from God.

Sadly, you really do not need Christ in your view.

Oh I know you give lip service to your need of Him, but you must not really believe this,

or perhaps you do not fully grasp how much we receive when we are adopted into God's family

But be honest here for a moment, if man can without any help from God fulfill the Law,

Yopu know, I think you are only arguing because you WILL not understand, not because you can not understand.

Perhaps we should start from the beginning and work through. The starting point is the most important point. It is here that the trajectory of the doctrine is determined.

Adam brought physical death upon all of his posterity when he was removed from the Garden of Eden where the tree of life was. Man needed to eat from the tree of life to live, which is why the tree was in the garden in the first place. But without it, the body was subjected to death, and would inevitably die. So, when Adam was removed from the garden on account of his sin, all those who were seminally in his loins (so to speak) were removed as well.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take [u]also[/u] of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

It happens that Adam had taken of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and might [u]also[/u] take of the Tree of Life. The word 'also' implies he had never taken from it. He partook of the other trees that were good for food and served to nurish his physical needs. The Tree of Life was one that would cause one to live 'forever'. Surely this would have been the next great temptation the Devil would have set before man. Sin and Death having entered; man had lived perpetually unable to die to the slavery to The Sin that entered along with Death. Jesus became Sin for us that knew no sin and died to that Sin once and for all and lives unto God. This is the reality of the picture of the Brazen Serpent.

Man had lived perpetually without eating of the Tree of Life because God designed the creation to maintance itself indefinitely. When God cursed the ground He put things into a state of inutility. The AV uses the word 'vanity'. This means that the Earth is not functioning properly. Death entered after Sin entered. Physical death came later. Certainly it is at physical death that covenants end. This is why the sacrifice was made enjoining the parties of a covenant. It is the Hebrew berith and the animal was split into two parts and the parties passed between them (Gen 15; Jer. 34:18, etc.). The parties are swearing that they should be as is the dead sacrifice if they break the covenant. Jesus taught on covenant breakers also:

Luke 12:46: The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall [u]cut him asunder[/u], and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.

Either way death is the [i]instrument[/i] that breaks the covenant. At death testaments are brought into force (Hebrews 9:17). This is the wonder of the New Testament. Had we just died to the Old Covenant we had only been freed from Sin and the Law. But we have a better testament and inheriting better promises.

Lazarus1719 wrote:
And why is the tree of life in heaven? Who is it there for? Who is to eat it? Who will it give life to?

Why was the tree of life in the garden? Who was it there for? Who was to eat it? Who was it to give life to?

You will know that ALL human beings are ultimately immortal wether they eat of the Tree of Life or not (Tree here being in the plural; 'trees' a particular genre of trees). Adam never lost conscious existence. No one ceases to exist. We may lay aside our earthly tent (as did Adam), but we are ever conscious besides. The rich man in Hell was conscious and so was Abraham and Lazarus. So we know that what the Tree of Life is [u]NOT[/u] the "Tree of Immortality".

So in what way does the Tree of Life give 'Life' (as it were). What kind of Life did God [i]not[/i] want Adam to have after the fall? It seems to me that the Tree was in place for man to partake of at some point when it was safe. It seems to me also that the Tree had some quality that would not allow the soul and body to separate again. We find this phenomena in Revelation 9:6 when men shall seek death and shall not find it. Jesus has the keys of Hell and of death. He has the authority to say when a person will experience physical death no matter what the person does to themselves to hasten their death.

What is 'Life'? There are a few definitions I wish to focus on from the Hebrew word [i]chay[/i](chai: chet+yod). To the Hebrews it is a word that means 'stomach' or 'appetite'. Another meaning is that of community. The other definition is that of a flowing river. I think it is interesting that fellowship is often used in the New Testament along with the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42). Paul said he did not want the people to knowingly eat food as if it were sacrificed to idols in such a way as to have fellowship with devils (I Cor. 10:20).

In any case I think that one must have an appetite for God. Perhaps this is why Adam never ate of that tree and experienced it's full binding effect? It seems evident that the Tree is reserved for those that have a heart for God. It is reserved for those that have been born again of the Spirit and are part of the first resurrection. They have been resurrected from the dead having received their 'spiritual' body.

I think that in this way a person's willful choosing of God and Christ (as He also has chosen us in Christ Eph. 1)and the eternality of the bond between their glorified body and soul are linked inseperably. If a person Love God expressed i the keeping of His commandmets they will have right or [i]authority[/i] to the Tree of Life (plural). Adam lost that authority because he demonstrated his willingness to hearken to his wife, that was of his flesh. This also, I think, is an allegory. Galatians 5 tell of those that are after the flesh, as was Adam. If we 'hearken' to the voice of our flesh we will die; but if we by the Spirit to mortify the deeds of the flesh we will live. Why? Because we will receive that 'authority' to partake of the Tree of Life.

Stripped away from man at this juncture, through the finished work of the Cross and the first resurrection are any traces of The Sin. We cry ABBA Father and from that 'spirit' are ready to partake of the Tree of Life; we have an appetite for it. We have a hunger and thirst for it.

Hi everyone,

Brother Robert wrote,

"All human beings are born ‘in’ Adam and share in this sinful ‘Adamic’ nature."

Do you see this in this passage also

"This [i]is[/i] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot [i]a son[/i] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:"

Genesis chapter 5 verses 1-3(KJV)

Adam was made in the likeness of God. But Seth was begotten in the likeness of Adam, [b]in his own likeness[/b].

Hi Lazarus,

You said

"There is nothing sinful in and of itself in the human body,"

But is that what is in view here? the mere body? I would think it is the whole man, spirit, soul and body:

"And the LORD God formed man [i]of[/i] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

- Genesis chapter 2 and verse 7(KJV)

And so in Romans it says

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

- Romans chapter 7 verse 5

For motions, Robertson's Word Pictures has it as

Sinful passions (ta pathēmata tōn hamartiōn). “Passions of sins” or marked by sins.

So, did Adam beget a son with sinfull passions?

Hi again Lazarus,

I think we are way off from each other here:

You said,

"Passions, lusts, emotions, desires, feelings, are temptations, not sin."

Why then does the Law say, thou shalt not covet?

and Paul says "I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet"

If a man is jealous over his wife that has cheated upon him, and his heart is filled with rage and hatred, is it not sin, and is he not in danger of murder, whether or not he yeilds to do it?

Is not hatred a sinfull passion, whether the will yeilds to it to do murder or not?

Wherefore the Lord Jesus says [b][color=990000]whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment[/color][/b]

- Matthew chapter 5 verse 22(KJV)

Or jealousy? Or envy? Is envy not a sinfull passion, regardless of whether the will yeilds to it?

Or what of pride? Is not the heart lifted up with pride regardless of the will?

Or why then does the scripture warn us against [i]inordinate affection[/i]?

Must the will yeild to drink from a corrupt spring for its water to be tainted? And if it is tainted, then it is not pure, but says the Psalmist:

"Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart..."

A pure heart.

And so says the prophet

"The heart [i]is[/i] deceitful above all [i]things[/i], and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

- Jeremiah chapter 17 verse 9(KJV)

And if it is decietfull, is that not sinfull? regardless of the will, how opposed to it, it may be?

Else why does the Apostle cry out

Who shall deliever me from this body of death?

Or else why does the proverb ask

"Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?"

- Proverbs chapter 20 verse 9(KJV)

Also, Lazarus said

"...Christ had the same lusts that we have"

the Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself

[b][color=990000]...the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. [/color][/b]

John the Apostle says,

"...all that [i]is[/i] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

[b]but is of the world[/b]

- 1John chapter 2 verse 16(KJV)

The [b]Prince[/b] of this [b]world[/b] had nothing in Him.

Lazarus said

"Jesus said that all sin belongs to the heart (the will). It is temptation that belongs to the flesh (the emotions)."

[b]I think those are your definitions.[/b]

Could you use the scriptures to define those things in the terms you have set forth here?

Where does the scripture say that emotion belongs to the flesh not the heart?

You also said,

'The bible says "be angry and sin not"'

Becuase there is a differnce between righteous and unrighteous anger. That is why Jesus said 'without cause'. It is nevertheless an emotion.

Also, you said

"Emotional envy is temptation."

Where does the Scipture classify and define emotional envy?

"But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth."

- James chapter 3 verse 14(KJV)

Also,

"Envy, as a sin, is also of the Will. When a person wants to have the possessions of another."

Want is a desire. It's there whether you will it to be or not.

And I think you left out pride.

Lazarus wrote,

"Heb 2:14-17 says Christ was made of the same stuff we are made of, in every point."

No, it doesn't, It says He was without sin.

You also said,

"Matthew 4:1-11 says that Christ's own flesh tempted him. That is why the devil tempted Jesus to make stones into bread, because Jesus was made with a lust for food."

No it doesn't. Jesus hungered. It doesn't say He lusted, you did though.

Lazarus wrote,

"Hunger is physical desire. Lust is physical desire. Hunger is physical lust for food. Just as sexual desire is physical lust. But sin is when the will submits to these physical lusts and desires."

The word translated hungry in Matthew 4:2, according to Strong's is

G3983
πεινάω
peinaō
pi-nah'-o
From the same as G3993 (through the idea of pinching toil; “pine”); to famish (absolutely or comparatively); figuratively to crave: - be an hungered.

The word translated lust, in Matthew 5:28, according to Strong's is

G1937
ἐπιθυμέω
epithumeō
ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o
From G1909 and G2372; to set the heart upon, that is, long for (rightfully or otherwise): - covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).

The Lord Jesus Christ had not eaten food for 40 days, and do you say that was lust? Do you say that the Lord Jesus Christ coveted after foodwhen His body was starving?

There is a difference between physical cravings to fulfill the natural requirements of the body, and longing for something.

I'm done here for now.

Lazarus you said,

"But you never commented on Heb 2:14-17. It says Christ partook of the same flesh and blood that we partake of, and that Christ was made just like us."

The body has no desires of it's own. Without the spirit, it is dead(James 2:26)

As I understand it, when spirit joins a physical body, a soul is created.

"And the LORD God formed man [i]of[/i] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

- Genesis chapter 2 verse 7(KJV)

And so as I understand it, it is this soul, in connection with the body, that lusts. See for instance Deut 12:15 and 1Peter 2:11.

The Lord Jesus Christ was unlike any man that had ever lived. He was not a human spirit come down from Heaven. [b]He was the Lord from Heaven[/b].

"The first man [i]is[/i] of the earth, earthy: the second man [i]is[/i] the Lord from heaven."

- 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 47(KJV)

He was God, Who is Spirit, manifested in the flesh.

And God cannot be tempted with evil.

Again the Lord Jesus said

[b][color=660000]...the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. [/color][/b]

What would the [b]Prince[/b] of this [b]World[/b] have in men?

John says,

"...all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

- 1John chapter 2 verse 16(KJV)

What is in this world is listed here:

the lust of the flesh

the lust of the eyes

and the pride of life

To say that these things were in the Lord Jesus seems to me to say that He was of this world.

He said

[b][color=660000]Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. [/color][/b]

- John chapter 8 verse 23

Again He said

[b][color=660000]...the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. [/color][/b]

What do you think?

However, sin belongs to the will and not to the emotions. Involuntary physical emotions, lusts, cravings, desires, inclinations, can be temptation but not sin.

So you will admit of a sinful inclination? If a man have an inward inclination to rebel against God and assert his/her own will- would we not say this is a sinful nature? It seems to me that the difference, if not, would be a mere technicality.

It is temptation that belongs to the flesh (the emotions).

The flesh (sarx) is one of the most difficult words in the bible to define. Bro. Ron and I have been discussing it for about 3 years now off and on and still don't have a good definition. ;-)

Sin is never physical or involuntary. So sin is never of the emotions. Temptations are physical, involuntary, and belong to the emotions. But sin belongs entirely and totally to the Will.

Paul makes a distinction between his own will and desires and the Sin that dwelled inside of him.

(Romans 7:14) For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

(Romans 7:15) For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

(Romans 7:16) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

(Romans 7:17) [u]Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.[/u]

(Romans 7:18) For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

(Romans 7:19) For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

(Romans 7:20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, [u]but sin that dwelleth in me.[/u]

(Romans 7:21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

(Romans 7:22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

(Romans 7:23) 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.

(Romans 7:24) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

(Romans 7:25) 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.

What is Paul talking about here if there be no such thing as a sinful nature?

But Finney taught that we inherit physical depravity from Adam which gives us an inclination, proneness, or bias towards self-gratification (sin). These serve as temptation, while sin itself is when the will submits to these temptations.

Romans 7 seems to state the case a bit more severe than this- though I would not say to the extent some take it. Moreover, [u]physical[/u] depravity leads us into the realm of dualism. This was one of the great debates I had with the Messianics. It was my contention that circumcision of the flesh was a 'type' of circumcision of the heart- being a figure of God having divided the heart from the Flesh. When I said flesh, I meant a sinful body. I had seen the problem as our physical body and the full rememdy lay in the future at the resurrection. Who shall deliver me from the body of this death, etc.. This is what gives rise to the whole "Is death the Savior" concept.

The challenge is to determine what is meant by the various words within their context such as flesh, body, sin, etc. Flesh can mean more than one thing. Body could mean physical, spiritual, or the mystical Body of Christ brought about by the commonality of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. So then the phrase [i]who shall deliver me from the body of this death[/i] could well be the anthesis of the Body of Christ; hence the Body of this Death (i.e. the corporate body of all that are in Adam). Who shall deliver me from THAT Body? The answer is "I thank Jesus Christ."

So there is a sense in which we have our body as individuals and then there is the concept of a corporate body. This plays out also as we consider [i]what[/i] the Temple of the Holy Spirit is. Are we as individuals The Temple? We know from John 2:21 that when Christ walked the earth HE was the Temple of the Holy Spirit. When He ascended into Heaven individuals that were baptized into Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit at and since Pentecost became both individually (I Cor. 6:19) and corporately (I Cor. 3:17) the Temple.

RobertW wrote:
(Romans 7:17) Now then it is no more I that do it, [u]but sin that dwelleth in me.[/u]
(Romans 7:20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, [u]but sin that dwelleth in me.[/u]
What is Paul talking about here if there be no such thing as a sinful nature?

The "law of sin" in Romans 7:23 is the effections of our own fleshly desires that make us inclined to oppose God in order be separated from Him so that we would fullfill the lusts of our flesh with out hinderance.
Therefore, the demands of my own fleshly desires compels us to separate from God, and that is what puts us under the penalty of "the law of sin is death"(Rom 8:2).
Therefore, that which is in our "members" is death.
This next verse proves this point.
[b]Romans 7:24[/b][color=990000]Oh wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?[/color]
This "death" is what is working in us that you all call "sin nature"

This "death" is what is working in us that you all call "sin nature"

So you are saying that the death that works in us is really just a nature to be separated from God. I think that folk with a sinful nature do hate the Light and will not come to it. But it seems to me to be more than that. I see the Law of Sin as the law by which the spirit of disobedience agrees. The Holy Spirit and the law of God agree. The law of sin and the spirit of disobedience agree. To remove the one is to remove the other, I think.

RobertW wrote:

This "death" is what is working in us that you all call "sin nature"

So you are saying that the death that works in us is really just a nature to be separated from God.

I think that folk with a sinful nature do hate the Light and will not come to it.

I see the Law of Sin as the law by which the spirit of disobedience agrees.

What is the "spirit of disobedience"
Where do you find it in the Scripture?

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, [u]the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience[/u]: 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 [u]were by nature the children of wrath[/u], even as others. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

Paul states that we ALL (the 'quickened' that were once dead in trespasses and sins) had this manor of life [i]in times past[/i].

What is your nature? Your nature is your constitution. How can your constitution be sinful in and of itself?

I must have an old fashioned mind when it comes to the word constitution. I usually don't think of it as meaning something physical. Here is what dictionary.com says about it. In my mind, I usually think of it as the definition that is labeled "Archaic."

1.\tthe way in which a thing is composed or made up; makeup; composition: the chemical constitution of the cleanser.
2.\tthe physical character of the body as to strength, health, etc.: He has a strong constitution.
3.\tMedicine/Medical, Psychology. the aggregate of a person's physical and psychological characteristics.
4.\tthe act or process of constituting; establishment.
5.\tthe state of being constituted; formation.
6.\tany established arrangement or custom.
7.\t(initial capital letter) Constitution of the United States.
8.\tthe system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed.
9.\tthe document embodying these principles.
10.\t[b]Archaic. character or condition of mind; [u]disposition[/u]; temperament.[/b]

So when the bible says "by nature children of wrath" that is referencing their habits developed by their choices, since the context is talking about, "children of disobedience".

A new heart also will I give you, [u]and[/u] a [i]new spirit will I put within you[/i]: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. (Ezek. 36:26)

If we have need of a 'new' spirit it is evident that the old spirit was a problem. I view this 'new' spirit that God promised the Born Again to be the Holy Spirit- manifest as the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry ABBA Father and receive the witness of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit was among the OT saints also, but, especially under the Law I believe the Holy Spirit worked differently from a position of fear via conviction. But, for the Born Again the Holy Spirit has been given unto us, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience is replaced. Some spirit is working in all peoples. The spirit of disobedience WORKS disobedience by causing the person to will and to do the lusts of their father the devil. It is the SPIRIT of the enemy that carries the tendency to rebel against the laws of God; this I believe is the law of Sin. The Holy Spirit WORKS obedience in us and causes us to will and to do His good pleasure. We can disobey, but it is not our new nature.

Make sense?

Brother Robert,

"If we have need of a 'new' spirit it is evident that the old spirit was a problem."

Or rather than [i]a problem[/i] I wonder if we could say instead [b]inadaquate[/b].

I say inadaquate in this sense: that it was not sufficient, in and of itself, to live in the body, in this world, as it is after the [i]fall[/i], under all its pressures and so forth, without sin. Because it was not divine, that is our human spirit is not divine.

I think, because God had called everything that He had made very good, that Adam was complete and whole and well suited to live [b]in the environment that he was created to live in[/b].

But, having lost that [i]paradise[/i], where all of his needs were met, and to which he was ideally suited for, that is the life which he had, having lost that, he was now thrust out into an environment of which he was wholly inadaquate to live in, in which was the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

And the result was this: this one who was made in the image of God was now living in a world in which he would fall short of the glory of that image. Romans 3:23 indicates that is what happens when we sin:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

We come short of God's glory, which, being in His image, we ought to and are responsible to bear. Failing this then, seems to me, to be called sin.

I think this is summed up in this phrase which has stuck with me now for some time, which I heard in a message by Major Ian Thomas, where he says to the effect

[b]It takes God to be a man[/b].

And this was most supremely evident in God sending His Son to be the Saviour of the world, Who was, not an image of God, but the very image of God Himself, and the brightness of His glory.

And He, the Son of God, the express image and brightness of God's glory, being manifested in the flesh, He says of Himself

[b][color=660000]Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. [/color][/b]

He could do nothing without the Father. And so it was with Adam, though Adam in transgressing and loosing the paradise, became responsible to live as God, without the divine nature.

And so it is in God bringing salvation to us through His Son, he gives to us His Holy Spirit, through which we are made partakers of that divine nature and given what pertains to life, and godliness.

What do you all think?

I have been thinking of this more and would like to add something for clarification.

"I say inadaquate in this sense: that it was not sufficient, in and of itself, to live in the body, in this world, as it is after the fall, under all its pressures and so forth, without sin. Because it was not divine, that is our human spirit is not divine."

What I would like to add to this is [b]the knowledge of good and evil[/b], so that if I were to rephrase this above, I would add:

...to live in the body, in this world, as it is after the fall, under all its pressures and so forth, [b]with the knowledge of good and evil[/b], [i]yet[/i] without sin.

And so maybe we could add to this...

[b]It takes God to be a man[/b]. That is, to live righteously, in the image of God, [b]with the knowledge of good and evil[/b].

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."

- Genesis chapter 3 verse 22(KJV)

And to connect this with Christ's being the image of God and the brightness of His glory, and of His proving this nescessity of having the divine nature in order to live as God(righteously), if having also the knowledge of good and evil, I see this in the prophet Isaiah

"...by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many..."

- Isaiah chapter 3 verse 11(KJV)

He had this knowledge of good and evil, but never failed of the glory of God.

[b][color=660000]I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. [/color][/b]

- John chapter 17 verse 4(KJV)

And then...

[b][color=660000]And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. [/color][/b]

- John chapter 17 verse 5(KJV)

What do you all think?

Hi Chris,

I need to clarify that my understanding of the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience is not our human spirit (as in [i]spirit[/i], soul, and body), but the literal spirit that is of the Prince of the Power of the Air. I view the human spirit as being in league with the spirit of Antichrist. I don't understand the connection or how this plays out, but I see it as similar to how we are influenced by the Holy Spirit post regeneration. The Holy Spirit 'helpeth' our infirmities. The spirit of disobedience is the opposite. It works in the unregenerate to bring forth fruit unto death. It is a real influence.