can you prove sin nature?

Could you please explain what David meant when he said he was "shapen in iniquity"? Psalm 51:5.

He says this as something different from his conception.

Furthermore, your assertation destroys the beatiful contrast between imputed sin from Adam and imputed righteousness from Christ in Romans 5.

Can you show me one toddler that doesn't throw a fit if they don't get what they want?

Also, I say it with respect, can you explain why infants die in light of death being the wages of sin?

[b]A Perspective on Psalm 51:5[/b]
by William P. Murray, Jr.

Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")

David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:

2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”

Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:

1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”
1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”
David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's Mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.

2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”

David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's
half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....

1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”

...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as `true' a son as his half-brother. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected `all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring `his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....

1Sam 16:11 “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.”

....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the `least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21;
Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)

David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because `no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered `defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.

Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17

This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.

Hi Ben,

I have enjoyed reading your posts on SI and believe you are genuine in your love for God. I was amazed to learn from your post, I believe, that you are 28.

You have a heart for God and have grown in wisdom and understanding. I pray that you will stay humble before God and increase in your knowledge and Love for the Lord.

I have follow the thread that you and logic were writing back and forth on. I believe this is a follow up from Logics view. I also don't agree with Logic when He says we didn't inherit a sin nature. He is very strong about his beliefs though and I don't think he can be persuaded easily from scripture.

There are scriptures that prove the obvious in Romans 5:12-21 (KJV) 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:
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 them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.)
18 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.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

It is also obvious because of the blood of Jesus not being contaminated with Adam’s descendants. I will stop for now.

Why would David excuse and justify his sin by saying, "I was born this way, I couldn't help it" if David was truly, actually, and deeply repenting?

True repentance requires that a person stops justifying and making excuses for their actions.

True repentance is when a person blames themselves for their sin, not the way they were born.

Instead of blaming Adam for the nature which they had no choice of recieving, a true repenance would take the full blaim for their willfull, intentional, free will choice.

rbanks wrote:
I also don't agree with Logic when He says we didn't inherit a sin nature. He is very strong about his beliefs though and [b]I don't think he can be persuaded easily from scripture.[/b]

There are scriptures that prove the obvious in Romans 5:12-21 (KJV) 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:
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 them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 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.
16 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.
17 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.)
18 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.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.[b]Romans 5:16[/b] [color=990000]So is the gift not like it was by one that sinned: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.[/color]
Paul is telling us that the two are not comparative.

The gift [of righteousness/justification] (of life) is not like the judgment (to die)
but it is like this:
The judgment was from just one offence of Adam to (die which leads to) condemnation.
but the free gift (of righteousness/justification) is from my life of sin to being right with God.

[b]Romans 5:17[/b] [color=990000]For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)[/color]
Notice the logic:
If, because of Adam's trespass, [physical] death reigned because of him (Adam), [how] much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness [by faith will] reign in [physical] life because of Jesus Christ.

This “reigning in [physical] life” is living a victorious life from sin.

[b]Romans 5:18[/b] [color=990000]Therefore as by the offense 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.[/color]
Lets follow the analogy:
as by
even so by
1.
by the offence
by the righteousness

2.
of one
of one

3.
judgment came
the free gift came

4.
upon all men
upon all men

5.
to condemnation
unto justification of life

Therefore, in whatever way that judgment cam upon all men, so also justification came upon all men.
If Justification is not forced upon all men, then is condemnation not forced upon all men.
However, both have come upon all men: condemnation through Adam, and justification through Jesus.
It is the individuals choices that determine whether they are condemned or justified.
If you live in sin, which all men will choose to do starting with Adam, you will be condemned.
If you live in God, which some men will choose to do by Jesus, you will be justified.

[b]Romans 5:19[/b] [color=990000]Just as through the one mans disobedience,[/color] [in like manner of disobedience] [color=990000]the many were zmade sinners, even so through the obedience of the one,[/color] [in like manner of obedience] [color=990000]so shall the many be made righteous.[/color]
It must be this way, otherwise you get universal salvation.
If the many were made sinners involuntarily without choice, the many must be made righteous involuntarily without choice.
[b]Romans 5:20[/b] [color=990000]Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:[/color]
See Romans 7:13
Moreover the set of commands entered, that the offense would be seen as so very great. so where transgression abounded, grace did much more abound:

because, they saw there offense to be as so very great in contrast of the law

[b]Romans 5:21[/b] [color=990000]That as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.[/color]
That, as offence has dominated in [spiritual] death, even so might grace reign through righteousness to eternal (spiritual) life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Sin dominates in those who are spiritually dead because of the flesh is domineering. Romans 7:14

It is also obvious because of the blood of Jesus not being contaminated with Adam’s descendants. I will stop for now.

We are all born lost and Jesus came to seek and to save the Lost. The bible says there is none that does not sin. The bible says all have sinned. Jesus said I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Paul explains in Romans 7:5-25 (KJV) 5 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.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
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.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
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.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
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.

The Apostle Paul talked about sin that dwelt in him. Everybody born on this earth will sin and needs the atoning blood of Jesus Christ to cover and wash away their sins. The reason they will sin is because they were not born from birth with the spirit of God because they are a product of the fall of Adam. We all must be born of God through Jesus Christ. No matter how righteous Paul tried to live the law only condemn Him because of sin dwelling within Him. He lived as righteously as he could under the Law but when the light of the Law was revealed to Him he found that he was sold to sin. The sin nature that was in Paul revived and came alive because of the Law and the only one who could deliver him from this death is Jesus Christ and His Law of the Spirit of Life.

Also 1 John 1:7-9 (KJV) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The bible says that if we say we have no sin the truth is not in us. This is talking about inbred sin. Logic you are accusing God of giving man a weak flesh that cause Adam to sin and say that is the reason we sin because our flesh was created weak. I don’t accuse God; I accuse Adam of being disobedient and not walking with God to keep from sinning. You say the reason we sin is because our flesh is created weak but I’m saying that the bible says that Adam brought sin into the world and we are tainted with sin from birth because of Adam. God did not create us weak so that we would sin; we became weak because of sin that was brought into this world by Adam. Adam lost the glory and righteousness of God because He sinned. We were in the loins of Adam so therefore we lost the glory and righteousness of God because of sin. We are restored by faith in Christ and His finished work. We must be born again. God created man a free agent for him to love and obey Him. God told Adam that there was only one tree he could not eat of or he would die and he did die spiritually. God has spoken again and told the whole world that there is only one way of Salvation and that is through His Son and the only way we can have eternal life. The sin nature is no excuse because God has shown His Love to us by not sparing His only Son so that he could give us all things. The sin nature affects our ability to live right before God but it does not effect are ability to cry out for help and to believe in his perfect Son who can become our righteousness. A person can live a pretty good moral life with the sin nature but he still must be born of God and cleansed by the blood of Jesus. The sin nature can also lead others to a life of pleasure in sin that can corrupt them so much that they are in deep bondage to gross sin but they can still be convicted by the Holy Spirit and cry out to the Savior in faith and be delivered by Him. Praise God for His wonderful Grace!

I think someone has to give the definition of sin first.

good call, that about sums it up right there. 1 John 3:4 SIN IS LAWLESSNESS

To avoid confusion with Rom 4:15 which says "for the law worketh wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression", I will use KJV:

Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

But while sin is not imputed when there is no law, sin was in the world:

Rom 5:13 for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Sin is not only limited to violation of the decalogue, sin in the broad sense is an act that is in violation of the moral characteristics of God.

Rom 2:14 For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law--to themselves are a law;

Rom 2:15 who do shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also witnessing with them, and between one another the thoughts accusing or else defending,

Rom 2:16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my good news, through Jesus Christ.

A sinful act can be an indulgence of thought:

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery;

Mat 5:28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Paul is hard (not impossible) to understand but what do you think of this? If you can have guilt because of an anscestor's sin then can you also be saved through an anscestor's faith?

Your quote makes it seem like the opposite of sin is faith. I would suggest the opposite of sin and sinfulness is righteousness.

So, yes. As Adam's sin is imputed to his descendants through physical birth, likewise, Christ's righteousness is imputed to his descendants through spiritual birth. That's the gospel, and that's the teaching of Romans 5.

However, since Pelagians deny the gospel of our Lord, they do not accept such a statement, and the god of this world has blinded their minds so that they cannot accept the truth about themselves or about God.

~Taylor

Does anyone believe they can show me directly from scripture and reasoning

You fool. How ignorant and arrogant can you be?

BenJoseph, since you think sin is not in the nature, I would ask why one must be born again? Why can he not simply be persuaded? Why must he be "begotten again"?

The moment before one has faith, he is certainly a natural man. "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." (1 Cor 2:14) The use of the word 'natural' implies that by nature man sinfully rejects the gospel.

There are only two categories, natural and spiritual. Before one becomes a spiritual man he is a natural man, and so long as he is natural he receives none of the things of God as belonging to himself. Not only do the things of God seem foolish to the natural man, but he cannot know them. As Romans 1 says, "their foolish hearts were darkened." This darkness is one of sinfulness, 'darkness' , not mere ignorance.

Again, the moment before one has faith, he is certainly a carnal man. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Romans 8:7-8) It was not just that he thinks the way of God by faith is foolish, but he is at enmity with God. He is fighting to be accepted by his own deeds, or to go on in sin without repentance. According to his relentless internal wickedness he would have gone on forever in enmity against God's way, because he "neither indeed can be" made submissive in his natural frame to God's law of faith.

How is it then that people ever place trust in Christ? Because in a single instant of time, yet understood in logical order, God transforms - regenerates - His elect in such a way that their lively souls are freed from sin to believe that the promises of salvation are not only for others, but to them, and by faith these promises are applied to the elect. Again, this is not successive in time, but logically regeneration proceeds faith.

No one needs proof of such a nature,

even without scripture, our thoughts, our intentions, even if they seem to be endearing or "nice", that in itself reflects the disgusting garbage that we are filled with....

The sin nature is revealed by the condition of man's depravity, man's ability to rebel, man's inability to offer anything either up to God or another human being, it conveys or reveals by itself just how disgusting we are from the womb, even babies....

We are born, even conceived in a condition of wanton-ness, never satisfied, always complaining, easily swayed or convinced by others, it is always easier in nature to be negative, to look at the bad, or to have to ward off evil that it is to be a proprietor of good.

Another piece of evidence that we are born with a sin nature, is that we do not KNOW GOD in any fashion, we are marred when we are conceieved...

Our nature is unlike God...

Think heavily on those things, and until we make time for adequate meditation as to the validity of such things, all of scripture will just seem common and mundane to our earthly and carnal nature.

But here also is what is important, Our conscience is filled with unrest, fear, and loneliness until we bottom out on all of our selfish resources, then we begin to see or discover need for the conscience to be eased or CLEARED, and cleared only through a bright and lovingkind atonement that is forever after Melchizadek's order. A high Priest that had to be priestly in His ability to satisfy our absolute need, of which we ourselves weren't able to ammend.

We have no ability to ammend our conscience or lives, a simple apology WILL NOT SUFFICE here! We have to know that we are Naturally and Fleshly the enemy of God's purpose, will, intents and mind.

Again, nothing needs to to be proven of this sort, I believe that if one meditates enough or spends time alone with God whether conscientiously or not will find out how far from the peaceful shores of God they are.

This is why we are LOST! Because we do not know until it has been revealed, and even then, the conscience must seek out the ultimate provision-maker, the rectifier, the justifier, and His name is none other that Yeshua, Jesus, the Christ, the Great YHWH robed, embodied, and incarnately in human flesh!

Do not stay in that thinking BenJoseph, else your conscience will get hotter and hotter until it shuts down, then it will become cold with savage unbelief ad confusion, of the which , God is not an author of.

With the utmost blessings toward my new family here at SI in Jesus,

The fire

WoooooW NElly,

Go easy Brother Moderator,

based upon what we have been through, I woudn't want you to be upset or agitated later on with how you handled the previous posting.....

Just a little gesture for you bro...
Don't let it get you hot like that.

Take care in Christ

BenJoseph, since you think sin is not in the nature, I would ask why one must be born again? Why can he not simply be persuaded? Why must he be "begotten again"?

Very well observed. I didn't think of this. Praise the Lord for the new birth!

Grace to you,
Taylor

theopenlife wrote:

How is it then that people ever place trust in Christ? Because in a single instant of time, yet understood in logical order, God transforms - regenerates - His elect in such a way that their lively souls are freed from sin to believe that the promises of salvation are not only for others, but to them, and by faith these promises are applied to the elect. Again, this is not successive in time, but logically regeneration proceeds faith.

Although I agree very much with theopenlife as regarding man having a sin nature, however the last paragraph is a belief he has come to believe as others also, but is not stated in the bible as such.

It is the will of God that all men be made partakers of this new life (1Ti 2:4) and, as it is clearly stated that some fall short of it (Joh 5:40), it is plain that the fault thereof lies with man. God requires all men to repent and turn unto Him (Ac 17:30) before He will or can effect regeneration. Conversion, consisting in repentance and faith in Christ, is therefore the human response to the offer of salvation which God makes. This response gives occasion to and is synchronous with the divine act of renewal (regeneration). The Spirit of God enters into union with the believing, accepting spirit of man. This is fellowship with Christ (Ro 8:10; 1Co 6:17; 2Co 5:17; Col 3:3).

theopenlife wrote:
BenJoseph, since you think sin is not in the nature, I would ask why one must be born again? Why can he not simply be persuaded? Why must he be "begotten again"?

Furthermore, the only One who creates our nature is God; and to say that we have a "sin nature" would basically be saying that God, himself created our nature to be of that which He hates.
Or, God has put that which He hates in our nature.
For no one else can do such to mankinds nature.

You blaiming it on Adam is rediculous, for God would need to initiate the concept of turning a nature bo be something else thlan what He first created.

The reason for the need of being born again is that we may call HIM Father.
The term "born again" is a concept of the whole salvation process, it is not just one act of one process in the order of things.

Unless one has Faith, he will not Repent.
Without repentance , no one cannot be Justifide/be made righteous.

Without that, there can be no Reconciliation between God and man.

As these are all taken care of through the obediance of the command for repentance in Acts 17:30 on the man's side, and after God justifis him through Christ which reconciled the two together, the man is now "regenerated", made as a child of God.

This whole process is called the "Regeneration/Adoption" for the purpose of Sanctification and eventual Glorification.

Why can he not simply be persuaded? Why must he be "begotten again"?

We do that by preaching the Word and the Kingdom of God along with His law and grace untill one chooses to put their faith from themselves or the world in/on Christ and what He said & done.

The moment before one has faith, he is certainly a natural man. "The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14) The use of the word 'natural' implies that by nature man sinfully rejects the gospel.

There are only two categories, natural and spiritual. Before one becomes a spiritual man he is a natural man, and so long as he is natural he receives none of the things of God as belonging to himself. Not only do the things of God seem foolish to the natural man, but he cannot know them. As Romans 1 says, "their foolish hearts were darkened." This darkness is one of sinfulness, 'darkness' , not mere ignorance.

Again, the moment before one has faith, he is certainly a carnal man. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Romans 8:7-8) It was not just that he thinks the way of God by faith is foolish, but he is at enmity with God. He is fighting to be accepted by his own deeds, or to go on in sin without repentance.
According to his relentless internal wickedness he would have gone on forever in enmity against God's way, because he "neither indeed can be" made submissive in his natural frame to God's law of faith.

Paul persuaded men?
[b]Acts 4:18[/b] [color=990000]And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.[/color]
Once they were persuaded, they believed.

How is it then that people never place trust in Christ?

You are attempting to build a straw-man.
All of mankind who has ever been saved has put their faith in Christ.

Because in a single instant of time, yet understood in logical order, God transforms - regenerates - His elect in such a way that their lively souls are freed from sin to believe that the promises of salvation are not only for others, but to them, and by faith these promises are applied to the elect. Again, this is not successive in time, but logically regeneration proceeds faith.

GodsFire wrote:
No one needs proof of such a nature,

even without scripture, our thoughts, our intentions, even if they seem to be endearing or "nice", that in itself reflects the disgusting garbage that we are filled with....

The sin nature is revealed by the condition of man's depravity, man's ability to rebel, man's ability to offer anything either up to God or another human being, it conveys or reveals by itself just how disgusting we are from the womb, even babies....

We are born, even conceived in a condition of wanton-ness, never satisfied, always complaining, easily swayed or convinced by others, it is always easier in nature to be negative, to look at the bad, or to have to ward off evil that it is to be a proprietor of good.

Only human nature, man being in self indulgence of the flesh.
This is not "sin nature", but evidence that ones affections are not directed towards the One who can show them how to overcome the flesh.

Another piece of evidence that we are born with a sin nature, is that we do not KNOW GOD in any fashion, we are marred when we are conceived...

God was intimately close to all mankind as He lovingly formed us in the womb.
According to you, God was disgusted as He reluctantly formed man in the womb.

crsschk wrote:

Does anyone believe they can show me directly from scripture and reasoning

You fool. How ignorant and arrogant can you be?

I could say the same for those who claim there is a so called "sin nature"

What? We are created with a nature that the creator hates.

You fool. How ignorant and arrogant can you be?

Logic,

bro, I believe your forum name reveals exactly the manner in which you write

Logic,

it is what it is you wrote, pure and simple rhetorical logic. Not for insult , so please do not proceed in that manner, but you have read entirely too deep into my posted words.

Many of the patriarch didn't have scripture or any documents, the conscience reveals our nature, that is, Our Flesh when and while we are here.

Sure God is lovingly beside us when He creates us, but He knows the trouble of the man's way, He knows our crookedness that is enveloped in our nature, even while at our side in child conception.

GodsFire wrote:
Sure God is lovingly beside us when He creates us, but He knows the trouble of the man's way

He knows our crookedness that is enveloped in our nature,

Was it "sin nature" that caused Adam's sin?
Why must it be ours?
I have proven on other threads that Adam sinned for the same reason as we do today; that is the flesh and the carnal mind.

One can not & must not make a difference between the reason of Adam's sin and our sins.

One can not & must not make a difference between Adam's nature before his sin and our nature.

It is what it is whether you call it flesh or sin nature,

it is and was Adam's sin that placed this curse upon all humanity....

In nature we are no good or crooked..

On this you are saying tomato, I am saying tamato

The enviroment around us doesn't make us evil, sure it may perpetuate evil, but the evil is hidden deep within

Man is deperately and deceitfully wicked above All things, not some things or just because you think that I am postulating crookedness....

We have great need to cast ourselves at Jesus's feet because We Can Never get it right on our own. This also how we should know it is in us, deeply rooted in us!

Blessings All in Jesus

Logic, GodsFire.

You just gave the proof in answer to the original question.

It was a somewhat dangerous proposition to provoke a response but that was my intention. Had hoped Ben would have responded.

Ben, what was your [i]instant[/i], initial reaction to my comment? Honestly?

I was attempting some Paul like 'cunning' if you will to prove out our [u]nature[/u]. How we [i]react[/i], whether or not it is vocalized, just the impulse of that nature even before it has a chance to think ... If someone came up from behind you and cold cocked you in the head ... Similarly as was alluded to earlier, when a baby has something taken away from it ...

Am short on time but wanted to clarify this.

Even the presumptions that I knew were possible (That someone would likely react to my comments as they did) I held somewhat in abeyance and knew this would be tricky. I[i]meant[/i] none of it brother.

This will likely need further clarification later, but for know am thinking along the lines of Jesus giving inference to the 'dogs', a bit of the test and 'provoking' if you will.

Very nice brother moderator,

it took me a minute after i clicked submit to realize, " wait a minute",Bmaybe brother Moderator is up to something, but I wasn't quite sure.

Bless U brothers

Ge 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Ge 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Taking a look at these two verses with an understanding heart, one can easily see that both were naked and were not ashamed. After they sinned they knew that they were naked and sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

However God slew a lamb and made them clothes to completely cover them. There nature had changed after they disobeyed and now they have a nature of shame that resulted from their sin. There nature is not the same as it was before they sinned and our nature came from Adam because we are born of him. The bible speaks much about the blood and life being in the blood. The bible speaks much about the Lamb being innocent and the blood being shed for the remission of sins and without the shedding of the blood their is no forgiveness nor removing of sin.

To say that we came into this world like Adam did, is nonsense. Adam was created from God and formed from the earth. Eve was created from God out of Adam. Adam and Eve were not born period. Everybody else on the planet earth were born from Adam and Eve from their nature after the fall. There is no way we can have the original nature that Adam was created with from God when we are born. We are not created like Adam because we are all born from Adam. Adam and Eve had a fully developed body when they came into the world and was naked and didn't know it because they were covered in the glory of God.

Once they sinned they lost that covering and died spiritually in their relationship with God and eventually died physically because God would not let them eat of the tree of Life. God did not want them to live for ever in sin and separation from Him. Jesus came into the world without a sin nature because His blood did not come from Adam but He came in the likeness of Adam as a man. He was born of God from his birth by the Holy Ghost. God is his Father not Adam. The virgin Mary is his mother but her blood was cut off from mixing with the Father's blood. This is so awesome words can't praise Him enough. All the Lambs that were slain from the days of Adam until Jesus were representing the Lamb of God. Read in the old testament about God's requirements for the Lamb. We must realize God is Holy and will not except our nature, we must be born again with the nature of God.

Look at the Altar, the blood, and the cross all through the bible and you will see that God will have nothing of that old nature. We were born from that first Adam but we must be born of the last Adam (Jesus Christ) in order to have fellowship with God. Jesus is the only man born perfect without a sin nature and he is our only righteousness before God.

crsschk wrote:
Logic, GodsFire.

You just gave the proof in answer to the original question.

It was a somewhat dangerous proposition to provoke a response but that was my intention. Had hoped Ben would have responded.

Ben, what was your [i]instant[/i], initial reaction to my comment? Honestly?

I was attempting some Paul like 'cunning' if you will to prove out our [u]nature[/u]. How we [i]react[/i], whether or not it is vocalized, just the impulse of that nature even before it has a chance to think ... If someone came up from behind you and cold cocked you in the head ... Similarly as was alluded to earlier, when a baby has something taken away from it ...

Am short on time but wanted to clarify this.

Even the presumptions that I knew were possible (That someone would likely react to my comments as they did) I held somewhat in abeyance and knew this would be tricky. I[i]meant[/i] none of it brother.

This will likely need further clarification later, but for know am thinking along the lines of Jesus giving inference to the 'dogs', a bit of the test and 'provoking' if you will.

DeepThinker wrote:

There was nothing sinful about Jesus' body.

Up until the cross I agree with you. However, the purpose of Christ coming was to come into a sin free body that He may become sin for us, thus fulfilling the requirements of the law and all righteousness.

We have used our body for sin and our blood represents a defiled life.
All by choice, not by heredity, inheritance, imputation, or by curse.

[b]made sin for us[/b]: 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Thanks Ben.

Just to reiterate, I knew this was both dangerous and tricky ...

"Ben, what was your instant, initial reaction to my comment? Honestly?"

crsschk, Why do you say "honestly?" as if the initial question was not enough? Is it because you think I will lie like you did? Do you swear oaths? Jesus said let your yes be yes and your no, no

Hope you can bear with me here as I bob and weave in and out of this ... (Not deceitfully just in going back and forth).

Depending on your perspective and my intention a great deal will turn. If you were to take my words in one sense they are not a lie at all;

[i]And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.[/i] 1Co 6:11

Rather than copy over all the preceding verses, the list of past tense accusations (Hopefully they are indeed past tense) but one instance that may be applicable;

[i]Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?[/i]

Just want to leave that hanging in suspension ...

"Arrogant" "Ignorant" ...Surely we all still have these traits and [i]Thou (You) fool[/i] is a very provoking word, one that I hesitated to use. But, as you stated;

If I remember correctly my initial reaction was adrenaline.

Precisely. But it wasn't the rush of adrenaline that you might get from say riding on a roller coaster ... I did mention that this wasn't easy? But wasn't your adrenaline a rush of anger, frankly?

Why?

Now as you go on in the rest of your post there is the other aspect, which is presumption. Why do we [i]instantly[/i] [i]presume[/i] wrong doing- wrong meaning- wrong motives? An intent to injure, all by supposing and presuming that was really the case? Why isn't our [i]reaction[/i] one of curiosity, of questioning? You see this is one of the very focal points of the disputes that often take place here in this very forum; A request that we ask a question or for a clarification but ... What do we normally ... "naturally" do? It is the old adage of 'Shoot first ask questions later' ;-).

Brother this is that nature that is 'built in', built in to us, the sinful nature. [i]However[/i] we got it, [i]we got it[/i];

[i]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.[/i] Rom 7:18

Why? And moreover and even more importantly, [i]why not[/i]?

So coming back to the suspending verse;

[i]Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?[/i]

This is how we ought to be it would be agreed and I would like to think we are far more progressed than those who have no controlling factor, no umpire, no resistance and refrain, in other words, no Holy Spirit.

You should not try to lead people into stumbling and you should not utter deceit (no deceit was found in Jesus' mouth) and justifying deceit by comparing your motives to Paul and the Lord Jesus is teaching other men to use deceit on top of having used it yourself.

But is this what I was really after? [i]Why do ye not rather take wrong?[/i]

No harm intended brother, am just really digging down heard into what makes us tick, something to consider in a real answer to your original question.

And I do apologize.

Hi Logic,

You only proved human nature.

Which is ... [i]inherently[/i], good or evil?

None of us sinned in our response.

Out loud ... ? Can you speak for "all of us" if none of "us" is one and the same?

It is human to react to stimulus.

Then why did Jesus not react the way we do? Because He had a differnt [i]nature[/i]?

You provided the stimulus, I reacted with out sin.

Earlier you stated:

[i]"Come on!!!

I could say the same for those who claim there is a so called "sin nature"

What? We are created with a nature that the creator hates.

You fool. How ignorant and arrogant can you be?[/i]"

Are you sure? Are you re-quoting my earlier statement or turning it back upon me? Serious, honest, questions brother, no malice or 'cunning' and it is quite alright - there is no injury or offendness or presumptions of any kind, no emotions or otherwise. This was really all one experiment to be frank, it wasn't all that much thought out before hand. Back to presumptions again ...

For what it is worth I approach just about everything here as if writing on a mirror and it is always interesting to me to find myself as I go along. What I am thinking and often attempts to get others thinking doesn't mean I have anything really all figured out, quite the opposite!

After observing and participating here for 5 some odd years it is really an education. How much we miss by being somewhat trapped by this form of communication that would otherwise be less - mis-construed (to really butcher the language) if we were face to face, Brethren to Brethren. On the other hand ... If I had attempted this experiment in person ... I could very well be wearing an ice pack right now

:-P

But with just a bit of imagination, what might have a live comment and response have emphasised?This subject matter I thought a different approach, even one completely different than my ... disposition, might put a perspective, an angle on it, something different than we are used to hearing. The usual ways of pitting scripture against scripture, concept against concept. I didn't even have in mind anything that has been attempted in years past or the argument itself, just whether is this really true? Do we indeed have this 'nature'? Or is it the phraseology that gets us a bit up in arms?

A couple of things occurred reading back through the responses.

Job.

[i]Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason?[/i] Job 1:9 (ESV)

What a question in isolation! Of all that he went through and of course, his [i]friends[/i]. To take off on that a bit ... Sometimes I wonder at just what this forum on any given day must really look like to an outside observer. The page loads up and there are ten postings. What do they often have in common? Of late and in a general sense there seems to be a lot of [i]churning[/i], a lot of [i]agitation[/i], something underneath it all. We are drawing things out of each other, but I wonder if we do not even take notice. Something of that [i]nature[/i] about us?

Jobs friends. How similar to us here at times, but what about them? What about all that they had to say to him in his suffering? Job was a righteous man, 'blameless' to that certain extent ...

[i]"Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?"[/i]

In the end ...

[i]Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. [/i] Job 42:1-6

These are some of the most profound statements in all of scripture. But what do they have to do with this 'nature' ...

It seems we have a real trouble being [i]told[/i]. Told that we are sinful. Evil. [i]You, being evil[/i] ... [i]Your father, the devil[/i]. The reactions - [i]We have never been enslaved ... Our father is Abraham[/i].

[i]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:[/i] Rom 5:12

[b]Passed

G1330[/b]
διέρχομαι
dierchomai
[i]dee-er'-khom-ahee[/i]

From G1223 and G2064; to [i]traverse[/i] (literally): - come, depart, go (about, abroad, every where, over, through, throughout), pass (by, over, through, throughout), pierce through, travel, walk through.

[i]Traverse[/i] and [i]through[/i] or [i]throughout[/i].

[i]The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?[/i] Jer 17:9

Through and through seems the implication.

All these things, the churning and agitation, penchants for politics and forecasting, and ten thousand other things that we can be preoccupied with. Our hearts and heads and thoughts. Jobs friends and Job himself. This 'human nature'. The dislike of being told [i]what[/i] we are. Maybe it boils down to just one thing after all,

Who do we think we are? And where do we get off telling God (Or each other for that matter) that we are not what we are deserving. Even if we don't come right out and say it. Death is the end of all argument and the payment for that which we are both 'born into' and yet also responsible for. We are without excuse and without blaming.

[i]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:[/i] Rom 1:20

[i]Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?[/i] Rom 9:20

"O man" -

[i]He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?[/i] Mic 6:8

crsschk wrote:

You only proved human nature.

Which is ... [i]inherently[/i], good or evil?

None of us sinned in our response.

Out loud ... ? Can you speak for "all of us" if none of "us" is one and the same?

It is human to react to stimulus.

Then why did Jesus not react the way we do? Because He had a differnt nature?

Sin has nothing to do with our nature, only our choice of affections.

Our affections usually have an effect on the individual choices that we make. The choice that you make will usually follow your affections, even though they do not have to by necessity.

Consequently, if you love(put your affections on) yourself or the world more than one commanding you, you will not consistently do things that please the commander.
Your decisions are effected by your affections so that you might do what you have favor towards.
However, one is always able to do what is right when the affections are wrong.

benjoseph wrote:
rbanks what do you think about this?
If Jesus was able to be tempted in ALL points as we are then how can the sinful nature be a source of or even a contribution toward temptation or stumbling?

That's why I mentioned gnosticism because of the spirit of antichrist who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Well how successful do you think that spirit will be by saying "Jesus Christ didn't have real human flesh"? Not very successful right? It would be almost laughable because they would have practically [b]quoted[/b] the very warning that condemns them! So how can antichrist get around that? Well what if instead of saying Jesus Christ's flesh was not human...we could say that MAN's flesh is SUB-human. But why would GOD make subhuman flesh? It must have BECOME subhuman because of our own fault. So when Adam sinned, his nature, his FLESH CHANGED and there was something about his flesh from that point on that made it DIFFERENT from the flesh of Jesus Christ who was NOT subhuman. It even sounds HUMBLE! Do you see? Think about it. Could this be the pile of wood shavings that proves the idol was originally just a block of wood? It would be SO OBVIOUS for them to say "Jesus didn't come in the flesh" So what if the sneakiest thing they could come up with was to change the definition of the word flesh. Now they're saying "Jesus didn't come in [b]our[/b] flesh" NO! even that is too noticeable! "Jesus came in OUR flesh....but we don't have that same flesh ANYMORE since Adam"

What do you think? Do you understand?

Ben

I'm not sure if you understood my post or which part you are replying to, but in answering what I think you are saying here is, different than what I was trying to convey.

The bible is clear about Jesus coming in the flesh like our flesh but without sin.

There are places in the bible that says Jesus came in the flesh but He is not now in that same flesh because He has been glorified.

When the bible says in (Romans 8:3 (KJV) 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 :)…he is mentioning the likeness of sinful flesh, for sin, to condemn sin in the flesh. He wants all to know that Jesus has no sin, he is only being a sacrifice for sin.

When the bible says that Jesus was tempted in all points like as we, yet without sinning, he is telling us that he can keep those who are born of God from practicing sin.

The bible is mainly written to Christians on how to grow in grace. Jesus came in our flesh but as I have stated, there was nothing sinful about his flesh. God did not create sinful flesh, everything God created was very good in the beginning.

The apostle Paul said that he was alive without the law but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. The sin nature is dormant within everyone from birth and the more a person tries to keep the law, the stronger sin becomes. The law was holy, just, and good but we are sold unto sin. Jesus came to condemn sin in the flesh so that we can live in the spirit a righteous life before God. There are places in the bible where flesh is referring to the body and other places where it is referring our sinful nature.

When the bible says that Jesus came in the flesh, it is referring to the body. When the bible says in Romans that we are not to walk after the flesh but after the spirit, the word flesh is talking about our sinful nature. Jesus had our fleshly body but not our fleshly nature. Jesus nature was spiritual from birth and he never sinned. Our nature was fleshly from birth and we all sin. We were born separate from a spiritual relationship with God and must be born again in order to have a spiritual relationship with God. Jesus did not need to be born again because he was born from birth with a spiritual relationship with the Father and always does those things that please him.

Jesus was tempted in all points but with out sin because He was born of God from the beginning. He was begotten of God at birth, we were begotten from Adam and spiritually dead to God and that is why we must be born again. When we are born of God through Christ Jesus, the very nature we receive in our new birth is the same spiritual nature that Jesus has and we are able with that nature through our relationship with God to overcome temptation. We cannot overcome without being born of God. The nature we are born with from Adam will lead to sin. The nature we receive from Christ will lead us to holiness of Life. Study the book of Galatians about the Law and how the only way we can be free from sin is through faith in Christ and his finished work to make us new creatures.

I don’t quite understand, why go through extensive work to try and disprove the obvious. The bible says to call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins (the word sins here is plural). The forerunner (John the Baptist) for Jesus said “behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” (the word sin here is singular). This shows that there is sin in principle and there are sins in action.

1 John 1:7-9 (KJV) 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice verse 8, where it says to Christians that if we say we have no sin, meaning that we don’t need to walk in the light and have the blood of Jesus his Son to cleanse us from all sin, we deceive our selves. Only the blood can cleanse us from all sin. He goes on to say that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice the words “all sin” , “sins”, and the word “sin” in these verses and compare them with:
Matthew 1:21 (KJV) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
John 1:29 (KJV) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

There are still many other scriptures that show that Jesus is the only one who can save us from sin and give us a new born again nature. Jesus is the only one ever born on this earth perfect without sin, but thank God, Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save. We are the very reason he came and that was to redeem us back to God.

DeepThinker:
Your not thinking deep enough.

After reading this, I can heartily say, I am glad I am stupid.

[b]Jer 4:22[/b] [color=990000]For my people are foolish, they have not known me; they are stupid children, and they have no understanding: they are wise to do evil, but how to do good they have no knowledge.[/color]

I'm not implying that this vers it to you, I am only showing you the shame of being stupid.
It is regretful that you want to be or glad to be stupid, I would that you have understanding.

Anyway, the subject at hand:
[b]2Corinth 5:21[/b] [color=990000]For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.[/color]
Sin is a verb, no one can be a verb.
Therefore, it does not & can not literally mean what it says.

What is meant by this? What is the exact idea which the apostle intended to convey? I answer, it cannot be:
(1)\tThat he was literally sin in the abstract, or sin as such. No one can pretend this. The expression must be, therefore, in some sense, figurative.
(2)\tIt cannot mean that he was a sinner, for it is said in immediate connection that he “knew no sin,” and it is everywhere said that he was holy, harmless, undefiled.
(3)\tIt cannot mean that he was, in any proper sense of the word, guilty, for no one is truly guilty who is not personally a transgressor of the Law; and if he was, in any proper sense, guilty, then he deserved to die, and his death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if he was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.

But all such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings which he endured, border on blasphemy, and are abhorrent to the whole strain of the Scriptures.
In no form, in no sense possible, is it to be maintained that the Lord Jesus was sinful or guilty or even "sin". It is a corner stone of the whole system of religion, that in all conceivable senses of the expression he was holy, and pure, and the object of the divine approbation. And every view which fairly leads to the statement that he was in any sense guilty, or which implies that he deserved to die, is “prima facie” a false view, and should be at once abandoned.
But,
(4) If the declaration that he was made “sin” (αμαρτίαν hamartian) does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering - an offering or a sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation which is now generally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated him as if he were a sinner.
The former interpretation, that it means that God made him a sin-offering, is adopted by Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and others; the latter, that it means that God treated him as a sinner, is adopted by Vorstius, Schoettgen, Robinson (Lexicon), Dr. Bull, and others. There are many passages in the Old Testament where the word “sin” (ἁμαρτία hamartia) is used in the sense of sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin.
(Barnes Comentary)

Ben,

That is exactly what I am implying. The wages of sin is death and, again, I say it with respect and reverence to all who may have lost a child, the fact is, children die in the womb. Therefore, the reason must be because they are sinful even before making any moral decisions of their own, for that is the only logical and Scriptural conclusion.

Regarding your question on abortion, which I find to be a red
herring argument, I answer thus. When we say abortion is unjust
and undeserved, we are speaking in terms of civil justice. The child has not sinned against fellow man; therefore, it is unjust for man to kill the child. Therefore, abprtion is unjust. However, the fact remains that no man deserves to be born into this world and even see the beauty of God in creation, for it is an extereme mercy that the Lord allows it to be so.

The fact that children die in the womb, when death is the wages of sin (what you receive for being sinful), is manifest proof that man is sinful from birth, even before making any decisions. O let us tremble at the depravity that man has fallen into! Let us not deny with blind eyes so sober a warning that unless we repent we shall all likewise perish.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

[b]The Sin of Presumptuousness[/b]

Psalm 19:13

[i]Keep back Thy servant also from presumptuous sins.[/i]

Such was the prayer of the “man after God’s own heart.” Did holy David need to pray thus? How needful, then, must such a prayer be for us babes in grace! It is as if he said, “Keep me back, or I shall rush headlong over the precipice of sin.” Our evil nature, like an ill-tempered horse, is apt to run away. May the grace of God put the bridle upon it, and hold it in, that it rush not into mischief. What might not the best of us do if it were not for the checks which the Lord sets upon us both in providence and in grace! The psalmist’s prayer is directed against the worst form of sin-that which is done with deliberation and wilfulness. Even the holiest need to be “kept back” from the vilest transgressions. It is a solemn thing to find the apostle Paul warning saints against the most loathsome sins. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” What! do saints want warning against such sins as these? Yes, they do. The whitest robes, unless their purity be preserved by divine grace, will be defiled by the blackest spots. Experienced Christian, boast not in your experience; you will trip yet if you look away from Him who is able to keep you from falling. Ye whose love is fervent, whose faith is constant, whose hopes are bright, say not, “We shall never sin,” but rather cry, “Lead us not into temptation.” There is enough tinder in the heart of the best of men to light a fire that shall burn to the lowest hell, unless God shall quench the sparks as they fall. Who would have dreamed that righteous Lot could be found drunken, and committing uncleanness? Hazael said, “Is Thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?” and we are very apt to use the same self-righteous question. May infinite wisdom cure us of the madness of self-confidence.

Charles Spurgeon

Ben,

All I attempted to do was to give you a Scriptural answer for why death occurs, which I did. Death occurs because of sin, for death is a product of the Fall and would not have occurred had the Fall not occurred. It is not simply "dust returning to dust" as if it had no connection to the fall, for that very quote is in context of the fall. The wages of sin is death.

Now, I wrote with a desire to assist a potential brother. However, was in return told I would be a good evangelist for a wicked idol. This is hurtful, since it implies I must be reprobate, but, I will examine myself in light of your words. However, If this is the
speech that will be used, I cannot participate in this discussion, as many eyes see this forum and our piety or lack thereof is displayed before many, and most importantly, before God, who will judge every idle word.

-Taylor

benjoseph wrote:
rbanks, I'm still working through the romans passages I just wanted to see what you thought about my reasoning. But It doesn't seem like you thought about it at all.

Why do you say I'm trying to disprove the obvious?

remember crsschk's thing about "shoot first, questions later"?

Why didn't you ask me a single question in that response? There was one question but it just said that you didn't understand me and I think you left out the question mark.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much effort have you put into understanding where I'm coming from in that post or even where Logic was coming from in the last thread?

Brother Ben,

I have written several posts and if you will look at my first post I was complementing you and did not come at you for the question of your thread.

I have spent a lot of time trying to explain that we have a sin nature that sins. Although I agree with you and Logic on a lot of scripture except for our nature that is prone to sin because it was born a sinful nature and Jesus was not born with a sin nature because He was born with a spiritual nature of the Father from birth.

My post before this one, I was being honest from the start about not being sure but went on with what I think you were saying. I also spent a lot of time trying to tell you about the flesh that you were talking about concerning Jesus and the anti-christ spirit. I also stated that the word flesh means in some places body and other places the sinful nature.

The statement that you complained about was way down in my post and I had said a lot before it and some more after it. I didn’t just throw it out there and if you read the many passages in the bible concerning sin and the struggles that the people in the bible have had and the many struggles that we all have with sin, then it does seem like trying to prove that man has a sin nature, is like trying to disprove the obvious.

I have stated in all my posts to the glory of God and thank God that I have been patient by his Spirit in all my dealings. I have not once tried to insult you neither do I desire to do that in anyway. I had hoped you would talk about some of those scriptures and comments I had made concerning the flesh as the sin nature and the flesh as our body and what he bible says about sin and sins.

I still do hope you the best in the Lord and consider myself to be a friend to you, and I will comment as long as the Lord will allow me in believing that I may be able to contribute something to this thread.

Furthermore I have only been replying to you and have not commented on anyone else's posts even though there are things stated that I disagree with. I am only writing to the question you stated in this thread.

Grace triumphs over sin.

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Ben,

All I attempted to do was to give you a Scriptural answer for why death occurs, which I did.

Spiritual death is the wage of sin.
Spiritual death is a severed relationship from the Father.
Only one's personal choice to sin can earn the wage, which is spiritual death.

Now, I wrote with a desire to assist a potential brother

However, was in return told I would be a good evangelist for a wicked idol.

This is hurtful, since it implies I must be reprobate,

If this is the speech that will be used, I cannot participate in this discussion, as many eyes see this forum and our piety or lack thereof is displayed before many, and most importantly, before God, who will judge every idle word.

we don't want them to see God as such as you are presenting Him.

Long ...

[b]Rom 5:12-21 -[/b]

Rom_5:12-21 has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament. It is not the design of these notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the Romans. The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man’s sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this, to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown,

(1)\tThat that doctrine produced peace, Rom_5:1.

(2)\tThat it produces joy in the prospect of future glory, Rom_5:2.

(3)\tThat it sustained the soul in
afflictions;

(a)\tby the regular tendency of afflictions under the gospel, Rom_5:3-4; and,

(b)\tby the fact that the Holy Spirit was imparted to the believer.

(4)\tThat this doctrine rendered it certain that we should be saved, because Christ had died for us, Rom_5:6; because this was the highest expression of love, Rom_5:7-8; and because if we had been reconciled when thus alienated, we should be saved now that we are the friends of God, Rom_5:9-10.

(5)\tThat it led us to rejoice in God himself; produced joy in his presence, and in all his attributes.

He now proceeds to show the bearing on that great mass of evil which had been introduced into the world by sin, and to prove that the benefits of the atonement were far greater than the evils which had been introduced by the acknowledged effects of the sin of Adam. “The design is to exalt our views of the work of Christ, and of the plan of justification through him, by comparing them with the evil consequences of the sin of our first father, and by showing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond this, so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded, but superabounded.” (Prof. Stuart.) In doing this, the apostle admits, as an undoubted and well-understood fact:

1. That sin came into the world by one man, and death as the consequence. Rom_5:12.

2. That death had passed on all; even on those who had not the light of revelation, and the express commands of God, Rom_5:13-14.

3. That Adam was the figure, the type of him that was to come; that there was some sort of analogy or resemblance between the results of his act and the results of the work of Christ. That analogy consisted in the fact that the effects of his doings did not terminate on himself, but extended to numberless other persons, and that it was thus with the work of Christ, Rom_5:14. But he shows,

4. That there were very material and important differences in the two cases. There was not a perfect parallelism. The effects of the work of Christ were far more than simply to counteract the evil introduced by the sin of Adam. The differences between the effect of his act and the work of Christ are these.

(1)\tThe sin of Adam led to condemnation. The work of Christ has an opposite tendency, Rom_5:15.

(2)\tThe condemnation which came from the sin of Adam was the result of one offence. The work of Christ was to deliver from many offences, Rom_5:16.

(3)\tThe work of Christ was far more abundant and overflowing in its influence. It extended deeper and further. It was more than a compensation for the evils of the fall, Rom_5:17.

5. As the act of Adam threw its influence over all people to secure their condemnation, so the work of Christ was suited to affect all people, Jews and Gentiles, in bringing them into a state by which they might be delivered from the fall, and restored to the favor of God. It was in itself adapted to produce far more and greater benefits than the crime of Adam had done evil; and was thus a glorious plan, just suited to meet the actual condition of a world of sin; and to repair the evils which apostasy had introduced. It had thus the evidence that it originated in the benevolence of God, and that it was adapted to the human condition, Rom_5:18-21.

(The learned author denies the doctrine of imputed sin, and labors to prove that it is not contained in Rom_5:12, Rom_5:19. The following introductory note is intended to exhibit the orthodox view of the subject, and meet the objections which the reader will find in the Commentary. The very first question that demands our attention is, What character did Adam sustain under the covenant of works, that of a single and independent individual. or that of the representative of the human kind?

This is one of the most important questions in Theology, and according to the answer we may be prepared to give, in the affirmative or negative, will be almost the entire complexion of our religious views. If the question be resolved in the affirmative, then what Adam did must be held as done by us, and the imputation of his guilt would seem to follow as a necessary consequence.

1. That Adam sustained the character of representative of the human race; in other words, that he was the federal as well as natural head of his descendants, is obvious from the circumstances of the history in the book of Genesis. It has been said indeed, that in the record of the threatening no mention is made of the posterity of Adam, and that on this account, all idea of federal headship or representation must be abandoned, as a mere theological figment, having no foundation in Scripture. But if God regarded Adam only in his individual capacity, when be said unto him “in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” then, the other addresses of God to Adam, which form part of the same history, must be construed in the same way. And was it to Adam only, and not to the human kind at large, viewed in him, that God said, “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth?” Was it to Adam in his individual capacity, that God gave the grant of the earth, with all its rich and varied productions? Or was it to mankind at large? Was it to Adam alone that God said, “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground,” etc.? The universal infliction of the penalty shows, that the threatening was addressed to Adam as the federal head of the race. All toil, and sweat, and die. Indeed, the entire history favors the conclusion, that God was dealing with Adam, not in his individual, but representative capacity; nor can its consistency be preserved on any other principle.

2. Moreover, there are certain facts connected with the moral history of mankind, which present insuperable difficulties, if we deny the doctrines of representation and imputed sin. “How shall we on any other principle account for the universality of death, or rather of penal evil?” It can be traced back beyond all personal guilt. Its origin is higher. Antecedent to all actual transgression, man is visited with penal evil. He comes into the world under a necessity of dying. His whole constitution is disordered. His body and his mind bear on them the marks of a blighting curse. It is impossible on any theory to deny this. And why is man thus visited? Can the righteous God punish where there is no guilt? We muss take one side or other of the alternative, that God inflicts punishment without guilt, or that Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity. If we take the latter branch of the alternative, we are furnished with the ground of the divine procedure, and freed from many difficulties that press upon the opposite view.

It may be noticed in this place also, that the death of infants is a striking proof of the infliction of penal evil, prior to personal or actual sin. Their tender bodies are assailed in a multitude of instances by acute and violent diseases, that call for our sympathy the more that the sufferers cannot disclose or communicate the source of their agony. They labor with death and struggle hard in his hands, until they resign the gift of life they had retained for so short a while. It is said, indeed, that the case of infants is not introduced in Scripture in connection with this subject, and our author tells us, that they are not at all referred to in any part of this disputed passage, nor included in the clause, “death reigned, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” On this, some observations will be found in the proper place. Meanwhile, there is the fact itself, and with it we are concerned now. “Why do infants die?” Perhaps it will be said that though they have committed no actual sin, yet they have a depraved nature; but this cedes the whole question, for that depraved nature is just a part of the penal evil, formerly noticed. Why are innocent infants visited with what entails death on them? One answer only can be given, and no ingenuity can evade the conclusion, “in Adam all die.” The wonder is, that this doctrine should ever have been denied. On the human family at large, on man and woman, on infant child, and hoary sire, on earth and sky, are traced the dismal effects of the first sin.

3. The parallelism between Adam and Christ is another branch of evidence on this subject. That they bear a striking resemblance to each other is allowed on all hands. Hence, Christ is styled, in 1 Cor. 15, “the last Adam,” and “the second man,” and in this very passage, Adam is expressly called a type, or “figure of him that was to come.” Now in what does this resemblance consist? Between these two persons there are very many points Of dissimilarity, or contrast. The first man is earthy, the second is the Lord from heaven. From the one come guilt, and condemnation, and death; and from the other. righteousness, justification, and life. Where then is the similarity? “They are alike,” says Beza, “in this, that each of them shares what he has with has.” Both are covenant or representative heads, and communicate their respective influences to those whom they represent. Here then, is one great leading point of similarity, nor is it possible in any other view to preserve the parallel.

For suppose we disturb the parallel as now adjusted, and argue that Adam was not a federal head, that we are therefore neither held guilty of Adam’s sin, nor condemned and punished on account of it; where shall we find the counterpart of this in Christ? Must we also maintain that he does not represent his people, that they are neither esteemed righteous on account of his work, nor justified and saved by it? Such is the legitimate consequence of the opposite views. If we hold that from Adam we receive only a corrupt nature, in consequence of which we sin personally, and then become guilty, and are in consequence condemned; we must also argue that we receive from Christ only a pure or renewed nature, in consequence of which we become personally righteous, and are then and therefore justified and saved. But such a scheme would undermine the whole gospel. Though the derivation of holiness from Christ be a true and valuable doctrine, we are not justified on account of that derived holiness. On the contrary, we are justified on account of something without us - something that has no dependence whatever on our personal holiness, namely, the righteousness of Christ. Nay, according to the doctrine of Paul, justification in order of nature, is before sanctification, and the cause of it.

It is but justice to state, that the commentator maintains that a resemblance between Adam and Christ lies not at all in the mode in which sin and righteousness, life and death have been respectively introduced by them; but is found in the simple fact that “the effect of their doings did not terminate on themselves, but extended to numberless other persons.” pp. 117, 118, 128. Indeed, he repeatedly affirms, that in regard to the introduction of sin by Adam, nothing whatever is said in this passage in regard to the mode of it. The fact alone is announced. If this were true, it is allowed that the arguments we have now employed would be much weakened. But the assertion cannot be substantiated. If the analogy do not lie in the mode, but in the simple fact, that the effects of their doings do not terminate on themselves; what greater resemblance is there between Adam and Christ, than between any two persons that might be named? David and Ahab might be compared in the same way; the good deeds of the one, and the evil deeds of the other, not terminating with themselves. Besides, Paul certainly does state in the previous chapter, the mode in which the righteousness of Christ becomes available for salvation. He states plainly that “God imputeth it without works.” When then in the 5th chapter he looks back upon this subject, and introduces his parallel with “Wherefore as by one man,” etc. are we to believe that he intends no similarity in the mode? Shall we make the apostle explain the manner in which the righteousness becomes available, and say nothing of the way in which its opposite is introduced, at the very time he is professedly comparing the two?

Such is a brief outline of the evidence on which the doctrine of imputed sin is based. The principal arguments are those derived from the universality of penal evil, and the parallel between Adam and Christ. And these are the very topics handled by the apostle in this much vexed passage. Our author, indeed, in his opening remarks maintains, that nothing is said by the apostle of original sin in this place. “The apostle here is not discussing the doctrine of original sin;” and “his design is to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification.” But the design of Paul is to illustrate the doctrine of justification, and not simply to show one of its benefits. For in the former part of this chapter Rom_5:1-11, the apostle had fully enlarged on these benefits, and there is no evidence that Rom_5:12, Rom_5:19, are a continuation of the same theme. On the contrary, there is obviously a break in the discourse at Rom_5:12, where the apostle, recalling the discussion, introduces a new illustration of his principal point, namely, justification through the righteousness of Christ. On this the apostle had discouraged largely in Rom. 3; 4.
And lest any should think it anomalous and irrational to justify people, on account of a work they themselves had no hand in accomplishing, he now appeals to the “great analogous fact in the history of the world. This seems the most natural construction. No wonder,” says President Edwards, “when the apostle is treating so fully and largely of our restoration, righteousness, and life by Christ, that he is led by it to consider our fall, sin, death, and ruin by Adam.” - Orig. Sin. p. 303. The following analysis will assist the reader in understanding the whole passage: “As the point to be illustrated is the justification of sinners, on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, and the source of illustration is the fall of all men in Adam; the passage begins with a statement of this latter truth. ‘As on account of one man death has passed upon all people; so on account of one,’ etc. Rom_5:12. Before, however, carrying out the comparison, the apostle stops to establish his position, that all people are regarded, and treated as sinners on account of Adam. His proof is this. The infliction of a penalty implies the transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there is no law, Rom_5:13. All mankind are subject to death or penal evils, therefore all people are regarded as transgressors of a law, Rom_5:13. The Law or covenant which brings death on all people, is not the Law of Moses, because multitudes died before that Law was given, Rom_5:14.

Nor is it the law of nature, since multitudes die who have never violated even that law, Rom_5:14. Therefore, we must conclude, that people are subject to death on account of Adam; that is, it is for the offence of one that many die, Rom_5:13-14. Adam is, therefore, a type of Christ. Yet the cases are not completely parallel. There are certain points of dissimilarity, Rom_5:15, Rom_5:17. Having thus limited and illustrated the analogy, the apostle resumes, and carries the comparison fully out in Rom_5:18-19. “Therefore as on account of one man.” etc. Prof. Hodge.)

[b]Rom_5:12

Wherefore[/b], - διὰ τοῦτο dia touto. On this account. This is not an inference from what has gone before, but I a continuance of the design of the apostle to show the advantages of the plan of justification by faith; as if he had said, “The advantages of that plan have been seen in our comfort and peace, and in its sustaining power in afflictions. Further, the advantages of the plan are seen in regard to this, that it is applicable to the condition of man in a world where the sin of one man has produced so much wo and death. “On this account” also it is a matter of joy. It meets the ills of a fallen race; and it is therefore a plan adapted to man.” Thus understood, the connection and design of the passage is easily explained. In respect to the state of things into which man is fallen, the benefits of this plan may be seen, as adapted to heal the maladies, and to be commensurate with the evils which the apostasy of one man brought upon the world. This explanation is not what is usually given to this place, but it is what seems to me to be demanded by the strain of the apostle’s reasoning. The passage is elliptical, and there is a necessity of supplying something to make out the sense.

[b]As[/b] - ὥσπερ hōsper. This is the form of a comparison. But the other part of the comparison’s deferred to Rom_5:18. The connection evidently requires us to understand the other part of the comparison of the work of Christ. In the rapid train of ideas in the mind of the apostle, this was deferred to make room for explanations Rom_5:13-17. “As by one man sin entered into the world, etc., so by the work of Christ a remedy has been provided, commensurate with the evils. As the sin of one man had such an influence, so the work of the Redeemer has an influence to meet and to counteract those evils.” The passage in Rom_5:13-17 is therefore to be regarded as a parenthesis thrown in for the purpose of making explanations, and to show how the cases of Adam and of Christ differed from each other.

[b]By one man ...[/b] - By means of one man; by the crime of one man. His act was the occasion of the introduction of all sin into all the world. The apostle here refers to the well known historical fact Gen_3:6-7, without any explanation of the mode or cause, of this. He adduced it as a fact that was well known; and evidently meant to speak of it not for the purpose of explaining the mode, or even of making this the leading or prominent topic in the discussion. His main design is not to speak of the manner of the introduction of sin, but to show that the work of Christ meets and removes well-known and extensive evils. His explanations, therefore, are chiefly confined to the work of Christ. He speaks of the introduction, the spread, and the effects of sin, not as having any theory to defend on that subject, not as designing to enter into a minute description of the case, but as it was manifest on the face of things, as it stood on the historical record, and as it was understood and admitted by mankind.

Great perplexity has been introduced by forgetting the scope of the apostle’s argument here, and by supposing that he was defending a special theory on the subject of the introduction of sin; whereas, nothing is more foreign to his design. He is showing how the plan of justification “meets well understood and acknowledged universal evils.” Those evils he refers to just as they were seen, and admitted to exist. All people see them, and feel them, and practically understand them. The truth is, that the doctrine of the fall of man, and the prevalence of sin and death, do not belong especially to Christianity any more than the introduction and spread of disease does to the science of the healing art. Christianity did not introduce sin; nor is it responsible for it The existence of sin and we belongs to the race; appertains equally to all systems of religion, and is a part of the melancholy history of man, whether Christianity be true or false.

The existence and extent of sin and death are not affected if the infidel could show that Christianity was an imposition. They would still remain. The Christian religion is just “one mode of proposing a remedy for well-known and desolating evils;” just as the science of medicine proposes a remedy for diseases ‘which it did not introduce, and which could not be stayed in their desolations, or modified, if it could be shown that the whole science of healing was pretension and quackery. Keeping this design of the apostle in view, therefore, and remembering that he is not defending or stating a theory about the introduction of sin, but that he is explaining the way in which the work of Christ delivers from a deep-felt universal evil, we shall find the explanation of this passage disencumbered of many of the difficulties with which it has been thought usually to be invested.

[b]By one man[/b] - By Adam; see Rom_5:14. It is true that sin was literally introduced by Eve, who was first in the transgression; Gen_3:6; 1Ti_2:14. But the apostle evidently is not explaining the precise mode in which sin was introduced, or making this his leading point. He therefore speaks of the introduction of sin in a popular sense, as it was generally understood. The following reasons may be suggested why the man is mentioned rather than the woman as the cause of the introduction of sin:

(1) It was the natural and usual way of expressing such an event. We say that man sinned, that man is redeemed, man dies, etc. We do not pause to indicate the sex in such expressions. So in this, he undoubtedly meant to say that it was introduced by the parentage of the human race.

(2) the name Adam in Scripture was given to the created pair, the parents of the human family, a name designating their earthly origin; Gen_5:1-2, “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.” The name Adam, therefore, used in this connection Rom_5:14, would suggest the united parentage of the human family.

(3) in transactions where man and woman are mutually concerned, it is usual to speak of the man first, on account of his being constituted superior in rank and authority.

(4) the comparison on the one side, in the apostle’s argument, is of the man Christ Jesus; and to secure the fitness, the congruity (Stuart) of the comparison, he speaks of the man only in the previous transaction.

(5) the sin of the woman was not complete in its effects without the concurrence of the man. It was their uniting in it which was the cause of the evil. Hence, the man is especially mentioned as having reordered the offence what it was; as having completed it, and entailed its curses on the race. From these remarks it is clear that the apostle does not refer to the man here from any idea that there was any particular covenant transaction with him, but that he means to speak of it in the usual, popular sense; referring to him as being the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the world.
“In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” Gen_2:17. This is an account of the first great covenant transaction between God and man. It carries us back to the origin of mankind, and discloses the source of evil, about which so much has been written and spoken in vain. That God entered into covenant with Adam in innocence, is a doctrine, with which the Shorter Catechism has made us familiar from our infant years. Nor is it without higher authority. It would be improper, indeed, to apply to this transaction everything that may be supposed essential to a human compact or bargain. Whenever divine things are represented by things analogous among men, care must be taken to exclude every idea that is inconsistent with the dignity of the subject. If the analogy be pressed beyond due bounds, the subject is not illustrated, but degraded. For example, in the present case, we must not suppose that because in human covenants, the consent of parties is essential, and both are at full liberty to receive or reject the proposed terms as they shall see fit; the same thing holds true in the case of Adam. He indeed freely gave his consent to the terms of the covenant, as a holy being could not fail to do, but he was not at liberty to withhold that consent. He was a creature entirely at the divine disposal, whose duty from the moment of his being was implicit obedience. He had no power either to dictate or reject terms, The relation of parties in this covenant, renders the idea of power to withhold consent, inadmissible.

But, because the analogy cannot be pressed beyond certain limits, must we therefore entirely abandon it? Proceeding on this principle, we should speedily find it impossible to retain any term or figure, that had ever been employed about religious subjects. The leading essentials of a covenant are found in this great transaction, and no more is necessary to justify the appellation which orthodox divines have applied to it. “A covenant is a contract, or agreement, between two or more parties, on certain terms.” It is commonly supposed to imply the existence of parties, a promise, and a condition. All these constituent parts of a covenant meet in the case under review. The parties are God and man, God and the first parent of the human race; the promise is life, which though not expressly stated, is yet distinctly implied in the penalty; and the condition is obedience to the supreme will of God. In human covenants no greater penalty is incurred than the forfeiture of the promised blessing, and therefore the idea of penalty is not supposed essential to a covenant. In every case of forfeited promise, however, there is the infliction of penalty, to the exact amount of the value of the blessing lost. We cannot think of Adam losing life without the corresponding idea of suffering death. So that, in fact, the loss of the promise, and the infliction of the penalty, are nearly the same thing.

It is no valid objection to this view, that the word “covenant,” as our author tells us, (p. 137,) “is not applied in the transaction in the Bible,” for there are many terms, the accuracy of which is never disputed, that are no more to be found in the Scriptures than this. Where do we find such terms as “the fall,” and “the Trinity,” and many others that might be mentioned? The mere name, in, deed, is not a matter of very great importance, and if we allow that in the transaction itself, there were parties, and a promise, and a condition, (which cannot easily he denied,) it is of less moment whether we call it a covenant, or with our author and others, “a divine constitution.” It is obvious to remark, however, that this latter title is just as little to be found “applied in the transaction in the Bible,” as the former, and besides is more “liable to be misunderstood;” being vague and indefinite, intimating only, that Adam was under a divine law, or constitution; whereas the word “covenant” distinctly expresses the kind or form of law, and gives definite character to the whole transaction.

But although the doctrine of the covenant of works is independent of the occurrence of the name in the Scriptures, even this narrow ground of objection is not so easily maintained as some imagine. In Hos_6:7, it is said (according to the marginal reading, which is in strict accordance with the original Hebrew,) they like Adam: כאדם k'-’Aadam have transgressed the covenant. And in that celebrated passage in the Epistle to the Galatians, Gal_4:24, when Paul speaks of “the two covenants,” he alludes, in the opinion of some of the highest authorities, to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This opinion is espoused, and defended with great ability by the late Mr. Bell of Glasgow, one of the most distinguished theologians of his times, in a learned dissertation on the subject: Bell on the Covenants p. 85. Scripture authority, then, would seem not to be entirely lacking, even for the name.

This doctrine of the covenant is intimately connected with that of imputed sin, for if there were no covenant, there could be no covenant or representative head; and if there were no covenant head, there could be no imputation of sin. Hence, the dislike to the name.)

[b]Sin entered into the world[/b] - He was the first sinner of the race. The word “sin” here evidently means the violation of the Law of God He was the first sinner among people, and in consequence all others became sinners. The apostle does not here refer to Satan, the tempter, though he was the suggester of evil; for his design was to discuss the effect of the plan of salvation in meeting the sins and calamities of our race. This design, therefore, did not require him to introduce the sin of another order of beings. He says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that death was the consequence.

[b]Into the world[/b] - Among mankind; Joh_1:10; Joh_3:16-17. The term “world” is often thus used to denote human beings, the race, the human family. The apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin, but he is stating a simple fact, intelligible to all: “The first man violated the Law of God, and, in this way, sin was introduced among human beings.” In this fact - this general, simple declaration - there is no mystery.

[b]And death by sin[/b] - Death was the consequence of sin; or was introduced because man sinned. This is a simple statement of an obvious and well-known fact. It is repeating simply what is said in Gen_3:19, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return into the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” The threatening was Gen_2:17, “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.” If an inquiry be made here, how Adam would understand this; I reply, that we have no reason to think he would understand it as referring to anything more than the loss of life as an expression of the displeasure of God. Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the nature of laws and penalties; and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed, there is the highest evidence that the case admits of, that this was his understanding of it.

For in the account of the infliction of the penalty after the Law was violated; in God’s own interpretation of it, in Gen_3:19, there is still no reference to anything further. “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Now it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring to what has been called “spiritual death,” and to” eternal death,” when neither in the threatening, nor in the account of the infliction of the sentence, is there the slightest recorded reference to it. People have done great injury in the cause of correct interpretation by carrying their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and phrases in the Old Testament. They have usually described Adam as endowed with all the refinement, and possessed of all the knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical acumen and subtility of a modern theologian.

They have deemed him qualified in the very infancy of the world, to understand and discuss questions, which, under all the light of the Christian revelation, still perplex and embarrass the human mind. After these accounts of the endowments of Adam, which occupy so large a space in books of theology, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this, is the simple statement in Genesis. And the wonder cannot be suppressed that people should describe the obvious infancy of the race as superior to its highest advancement; or that the first man, just looking upon a world of wonders, imperfectly acquainted with law, and moral relations, and the effects of transgression, should be represented as endowed with knowledge which four thousand years afterward it required the advent of the Son of God to communicate!

The account in Moses is simple. Created man was told not to violate a simple law, on pain of death. He did it; and God announced to him that the sentence would be inflicted, and that he should return to the dust whence he was taken. What else this might involve, what other consequences sin might introduce, might be the subject of future developments and revelations. It is absurd to suppose that all the consequences of the violation of a law can be foreseen, or must necessarily be foreseen, in order to make the law and the penalty just. It is sufficient that the law be known; that its violation be forbidden; and what the consequences of that violation will be, must be left in great part to future developments. Even we, yet know not half the results of violating the Law of God. The murderer knows not the results fully of taking a man’s life. He breaks a just law, and exposes himself to the numberless unseen woes which may flow from it.

We may ask, therefore, what light subsequent revelations have east on the character and result of the first sin? and whether the apostle here meant to state that the consequences of sin were in fact as limited as they must have appeared to the mind of Adam? or had subsequent developments and revelations, through four thousand years, greatly extended the right understanding of the penalty of the law? This can be answered only by inquiring in what sense the apostle Paul here uses the word “death.” The passage before us shows in what sense he intended here to use the word. In his argument it stands opposed to “the grace of God, and the gift by grace,” Rom_5:15; to “justification,” by the forgiveness of “many offences,” Rom_5:16; to the reign of the redeemed in eternal life, Rom_5:17; and to” justification of life,” Rom_5:18. To all these, the words “death’ Rom_5:12, Rom_5:17 and “judgment” Rom_5:16, Rom_5:18 stand opposed.

These are the benefits which result from the work of Christ; and these benefits stand opposed to the evils which sin has introduced; and as it cannot be supposed that these benefits relate to temporal life, or solely to the resurrection of the body, so it cannot be that the evils involved in the words “death,” “judgment,” etc., relate simply to temporal death. The evident meaning is, that the word “death,” as used here by the apostle, refers to the train of evils which have been introduced by sin. It does not mean simply temporal death; but that group and collection of woes, including temporal death, condemnation, and exposure to eternal death, which is the consequence of transgression. The apostle often uses the word “death,” and “to die,” in this wide sense, Rom_1:32; Rom_6:16, Rom_6:23; Rom_7:5, Rom_7:10, Rom_7:13, Rom_7:24; Rom_8:2, Rom_8:6,Rom_8:13; 2Co_2:16; 2Co_7:10; Heb_2:14. In the same sense the word is often used elsewhere, Joh_8:51; Joh_11:26; 1Jo_5:16-17; Rev_2:11; Rev_20:6, etc. etc.

In contrasting with this the results of the work of Christ, he describes not the resurrection merely, nor deliverance from temporal death, but eternal life in heaven; and it therefore follows that he here intends by death that gloomy and sad train of woes which sin has introduced into the world. The consequences of sin are, besides, elsewhere specified to be far more than temporal death, Eze_18:4; Rom_2:8-9, Rom_2:12. Though therefore Adam might not have foreseen all the evils which were to come upon the race as the consequence of his sin, yet these evils might nevertheless follow. And the apostle, four thousand years after the reign of sin had commenced, and under the guidance of inspiration, had full opportunity to see and describe that train of woes which he comprehends under the name of death. That train included evidently temporal death, condemnation for sin, remorse of conscience, and exposure to eternal death, as the penalty of transgression.

[b]And so[/b] - Thus. In this way it is to be accounted for that death has passed upon all people, to wit, because all people have sinned. As death followed sin in the first transgression, so it has in all; for all have sinned. There is a connection between death and sin which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin. And as all have sinned, so death has passed upon all people.

[b]Death passed upon[/b] - διῆλθεν diēlthen. Passed through; pervaded; spread over the whole race, as pestilence passes through, or pervades a nation. Thus, death, with its train of woes, with its withering and blighting influence, has passed through the world, laying prostrate all before it.

[b]Upon all men[/b] - Upon the race; all die.

[b]For that[/b] - ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō. This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, “on account of whom.” Doddridge, “unto which all have sinned.” The Latin Vulgate renders it, “in whom (Adam) all have sinned.” The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation in this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations.

(1) if ῳ ō be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense.

(2) if this had been its meaning, the preposition ἐν en would have been used; see the note of Erasmus on the place.

(3) it comports with the apostle’s argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that people sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account or that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.

(4) as his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the Law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation “because all have sinned” meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favors that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

[b]All have sinned[/b] - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact - that all people experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, “All have sinned.” This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that people sin in their own persons, sin themselves - as, indeed, how can they sin in an other way? - and that therefore they die. If people maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

(The following note on Rom_5:12, is intended to exhibit its just connection and force. It is the first member of a comparison between Adam and Christ, which is completed in Rom_5:18-19. “As by one man,” etc. The first point which demands our attention, is the meaning of the words, “By one man sin entered into the world.” Our author has rendered them, “He was the first sinner;” and in this he follows Prof. Stewart and Dr. Taylor; the former of whom gives this explanation of the clause; that Adam “began transgression,” and the latter interprrets it by the word “commence.” It is, however, no great discovery, that sin commenced with one man, or that Adam was the first sinner. If sin commenced at all, it must have commenced with some one. And If Adam sinned at all, while yet he stood alone in the world, he must have been the first sinner of the race! President Edwards, in his reply to Dr. Taylor of Norwich, has the following animadversions on this view: “That the world was full of sin, and full of death, were too great and notorious, deeply affecting the interests of mankind; and they seemed very wonderful facts, drawing the attention of the more thinking part of mankind everywhere, who often asked this question, ‘whence comes this evil,’ moral and natural evil? (the latter chiefly visible in death.) It is manifest the apostle here means to tell us how these came into the world, and prevail in it as they do. But all that is meant, according to Dr Tay or’s interpretation, is ‘he began transgression,’ as if all the apostle meant, was to tell us who happened to sin first, not how such a malady came upon the world, or how anyone in the world, besides Adam himself, came by such a distemper.” - Orig. Sin, p. 270.

The next thing that calls for remark in this verse, is the force of the connecting words “and so” καὶ οὕτως kai houtōs. They are justly rendered “in this way,.”” in this manner,” “in consequence of which.” And therefore, the meaning of the first three clauses of the first verse is, that by one man sin entered into the world. and death by sin, in consequence of which sin of this one man, death passed upon all people.

It will not do to render “and so” by “in like manner,” as Prof. Stewart does, and then explain with our author, “there is a connection between death and sin. which existed in the case of Adam, and which subsists in regard to all who sin.” This is quite contrary to the acknowledged force of καὶ οὕτως kai houtōs, and besides, entirely destroys the connection which the apostle wishes to establish between the sin of the one man, and the penal evil, or death, that is in the world. It, in effect, says there is no connection whatever between those things although the language may seem to imply it and so large a portion of Christian readers in every age have understood it in this way. Adam sinned and he died, other people have sinned and they died! And yet this verse is allowed to be the first member of a comparison between Adam and Christ! Shall we supply then the other branch of the comparison, thus: Christ was righteous and lived, other people are righteous and they live? If we destroy the connection in the one case, how do we maintain it in the other? See the supplementary note.

The last clause “for that all have sinned,” is to be regarded as explanatory of the sentiment, that death passed on all, in consequence of the sin of the one man. Some have translated ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō, in whom; and this, indeed, would assign the only just reason, why all are visited with penal evil on account of Adam’s sin. All die through him, because in him all have sinned. But the translation is objectionable, on account of the distance of the antecedent. However, the common rendering gives precisely the same sense, “for that,” or “because that” all have sinned, that is, according to an explanation in Bloomfield’s Greek Testament, “are considered guilty in the sight of God on account of Adam’s fall. Thus, the expression may be considered equivalent to ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν hamartōloi katestathēsan at Rom_5:19.” There can be no doubt that ἡμαρτον hēmarton does bear this sense, Gen_44:32; Gen_43:9. Moreover, the other rendering “because all have sinned personally,” is inconsistent with fact. Infants have not sinned in this way, therefore, according to this view, their death is left unaccounted for, and so is all that evil comprehended in the term “death,” that comes upon us antecedent to actual sin. See the supplementary note.

Lastly, this interpretation would render the reasoning of the apostle inconclusive. “If,” observes Witsius, “we must understand this of some personal sin of each, the reasoning would not have been just, or worthy of the apostle. For his argument would be thus: that by the one sin of one, all were become guilty of death, because each in particular had besides this one and first sin, his own personal sin, which is inconsequential.” That people are punished for personal or actual transgression is true. But it is not the particular truth Paul seeks here to establish, any more than he seeks to prove in the previous part of his epistle, that people are justified on account of personal holiness, which is clearly no part of his design.)

[b]Rom_5:13

For until the law ...[/b] - This verse, with the following verses to the 17th, is usually regarded as a parenthesis. The Law here evidently means the Law given by Moses. “Until the commencement of that administration, or state of things under the law.” To see the reason why he referred to this period between Adam and the Law, we should recall the design of the apostle, which is, to show the exceeding grace of God in the gospel, abounding, and superabounding, as a complete remedy for all the evils introduced by sin. For this purpose he introduces three leading conditions, or states, where people sinned, and where the effects of sin were seen; in regard to each and all of which the grace of the gospel superabounded. The first was that of Adam, with its attendant train of ills Rom_5:12, which ills were all met by the death of Christ, Rom_5:15-18. The second period or condition was that long interval in which men had only the light of nature, that period occurring between Adam and Moses. This was a fair representation of the condition of the world without revelation, and without law, Rom_5:13-14. Sin then reigned - reigned everywhere where there was no law. But the grace of the gospel abounded over the evils of this state of man. The third was under the Law, Rom_5:20. The Law entered, and sin was increased, and its evils abounded. But the gospel of Christ abounded even over this, and grace triumphantly reigned. So that the plan of justification met all the evils of sin, and was adapted to remove them; sin and its consequences as flowing from Adam; sin and its consequences when there was no written revelation; and sin and its consequences under the light and terrors of the Law.

[b]Sin was in the world[/b] - People sinned. They did what was evil.

[b]But sin is not imputed[/b] - Is not charged against people, or they are not held guilty of it where there is no law. This is a self-evident proposition, for sin is a violation of law; and if there is no law, there can be no wrong. Assuming this as a self-evident proposition, the connection is, that there must have been a law of some kind; a “law written on their hearts,” since sin was in the world, and people could not be charged with sin, or treated as sinners, unless there was some law. The passage here states a great and important principle, that people will not be held to be guilty unless there is a law which binds them of which they are apprized, and which they voluntarily transgress; see the note at Rom_4:15. This verse, therefore, meets an objection that might be started from what had been said in Rom_4:15. The apostle had affirmed that “where no law is there is no transgression.” He here stated that all were sinners. It might be objected, that as during this long period of time they had no law, they could not be stoners. To meet this, he says that people were then in fact sinners, and were treated as such, which showed that there must have been a law.

Albert Barnes

Ben,

I write back only to clear my name of your charges. I never said abortion satisfied Gods justice, which is a heinous proposition. I said that the death of all men and their eternal punishment would have satisfied Gods justice, however, thankfully, Christ has made propotiation for those given him by the father. Death is punishment for the fall, otherwise you would be forced to say that Adam would have died even had he not sinned.

Romans 5 says death came on all men for Adams sin. You don't
believe it's physical. You don't believe it's spiritual (dead in sins).
I think your folly is evident to the judicious reader.

Reprobate is a term found in your Bible (KJV at least). It has
nothing to do with a denomination or set of terms that I came up with.

-Taylor

Ben, I am wondering if your parents never corrected you? Did you always get your own way? My children KNOW they have been born with a sin nature: they have been spanked too many times to leave them in doubt ... and so has their mother and father and grandparents and all the way back to Adam!

ginnyrose

Ben,

Let's follow your own advice and pull the book back some and look at the rest of the passage to see if we can get some clarity for what Paul is saying.

Let's take a look at Romans 5:19:

For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)

Let me highlight a few things:

For as [b]by the one man’s disobedience[/b] [i][u](cause)[/u][/i] [b]the many were made sinners[/b] [i][u](effect)[/u][/i], so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

This verse plainly states that our sin (and being sinners) is directly related to Adam's sin. For it is by his disobedience that we were made sinners (Paul's words - not mine).

Likewise, Paul goes on to state that our righteousness is directly (and solely) related to Christ's obedience - through the substitutionary work upon the cross as a propitiation for his people.

All men by natural birth are imputed with the sin of Adam; all men who are spiritually born again by the Spirit of God are imputed with the righteousness of Christ.

I assume you do not believe Paul must be mistaken at this point in his letter? For he clearly states that because of Adam's disobedience, many were made sinners, which you have on numerous occasions called "unjust".

Longing for the truth to be vindicated,
Taylor

Brother Ben,

I am now going to reply to this part of your post.

“Maybe you think understanding where I'm coming from will mean that "you are a liar and the truth is not in you"? I can't judge how much you've tried to understand because I'm not you. That's why I asked you to judge it. I see that you think you thought about my reasoning, which makes what I said seem out of place, but you thought about your reasoning which I'm already familiar with having believed such with conviction until a couple days ago. Since you don't understand my reasoning then how could you have thought about it? Peace to you. You have been friendly toward me which is nice and I wasn't trying to rebuke you”. – Ben

The word Liar had not recently crossed my mind but now that you mention it I decided to see if I could determine where you may have gotten it from.

Here are three verses of scripture in 1 John where the word liar is mentioned.

1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

I will not try to make God a liar because I know that I have sinned. I’m not trying to make my self out to be a liar by saying that I know Him and not keeping His commandments. I have hid His Word in my Heart that I might not sin against God.

I would also like for you to look at verse 22 where it says “who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is the antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

I have also gone back to your post and decided to look deeper into it.

Quote-Ben
“That's why I mentioned gnosticism because of the spirit of antichrist who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Well how successful do you think that spirit will be by saying "Jesus Christ didn't have real human flesh"? Not very successful right? It would be almost laughable because they would have practically quoted the very warning that condemns them! So how can antichrist get around that? Well what if instead of saying Jesus Christ's flesh was not human...we could say that MAN's flesh is SUB-human. But why would GOD make subhuman flesh? It must have BECOME subhuman because of our own fault. So when Adam sinned, his nature, his FLESH CHANGED and there was something about his flesh from that point on that made it DIFFERENT from the flesh of Jesus Christ who was NOT subhuman. It even sounds HUMBLE! Do you see? Think about it. Could this be the pile of wood shavings that proves the idol was originally just a block of wood? It would be SO OBVIOUS for them to say "Jesus didn't come in the flesh" So what if the sneakiest thing they could come up with was to change the definition of the word flesh. Now they're saying "Jesus didn't come in our flesh" NO! even that is too noticeable! "Jesus came in OUR flesh....but we don't have that same flesh ANYMORE since Adam" –Ben

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

You stated “That's why I mentioned gnosticism because of the spirit of antichrist who denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

You also stated “Well what if instead of saying Jesus Christ's flesh was not human...we could say that MAN's flesh is SUB-human.

You also said “It would be SO OBVIOUS for them to say "Jesus didn't come in the flesh" So what if the sneakiest thing they could come up with was to change the definition of the word flesh. Now they're saying "Jesus didn't come in our flesh" NO! even that is too noticeable! "Jesus came in OUR flesh....but we don't have that same flesh ANYMORE since Adam”

I believe I see what you are saying, that you fear that if we were to say that Jesus’ flesh is not the same as ours we would be of the antichrist spirit. This would be wrong to do this, because His flesh is the same as ours, there is no sub-human flesh or different flesh.
Rome, by the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, denies Christ's proper humanity. We are not to do this, because Jesus is the Christ, and that He is come in the flesh ("clothed with flesh": not with a mere seeming humanity, as the Docetæ afterwards taught: He therefore was, previously, something far above flesh).

His flesh implies His death for us, for only by assuming flesh could He die (for as God He could not), Heb 2:9-10,14,16; and His death implies His LOVE for us (Joh 15:13). To deny the reality of His flesh is to deny His love, and so cast away the root which produces all true love on the believer's part (1Jo 4:9-11,19).

Notice Ro 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.
Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Ro 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:
Ro 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Ro 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

The bible says here in verse 3 that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Now we know that Jesus’ flesh is not sinful for He was and is without sin. We have all sinned but Jesus has never sinned. He came in the same human flesh (human body) that we have. When the bible talks about walking after the flesh in verse 5 it is talking about the sinful nature. When the bible talks about walking after the spirit it is talking about the spiritual nature that we receive when we are born again. Remember in 2Cor. 5:17 it says if any man be in Christ he is a new creature (creation).

I am using JFB commentary to help me.

What does it mean “in the likeness of sinful flesh”--literally, "of the flesh of sin"; a very remarkable and pregnant expression. He was made in the reality of our flesh, but only in the likeness of its sinful condition. He took our nature as it is in us, compassed with infirmities, with nothing to distinguish Him as man from sinful men, save that He was without sin. Nor does this mean that He took our nature with all its properties save one; for sin is no property of humanity at all, but only the disordered state of our souls, as the fallen family of Adam; a disorder affecting, indeed, and overspreading our entire nature, but still purely our own.

What does it mean “and for sin”--literally, "and about sin"; that is, "on the business of sin." The expression is purposely a general one, because the design was not to speak of Christ's mission to atone for sin, but in virtue of that atonement to destroy its dominion and extirpate it altogether from believers.

condemned sin--"condemned it to lose its power over men" [BEZA, BENGEL, FRASER, MEYER, THOLUCK, PHILIPPI, ALFORD]. In this glorious sense our Lord says of His approaching death (Joh 12:31), "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out," and again (see on Cmt. on Joh 16:11), "When He (the Spirit) shall come, He shall convince the world of . . . judgment, because the prince of this world is judged," that is, condemned to let go his hold of men, who, through the Cross, shall be emancipated into the liberty and power to be holy.
in the flesh--that is, in human nature, henceforth set free from the grasp of sin.

I have mentioned in my other posts concerning sin and sins. I have also mention about the flesh meaning the body and in places it is meaning the sinful nature which Christ never had because He has never sinned.

I am definitely not of the opinion of those who believe that infants will go to hell. We will not go to hell because of Adams sin; we will only go to hell because of our own sins. God is not sending anybody to hell because he is born with a sin nature. We are not going to be judged for our sin nature. We will be judged for the sins we committed unless they have been forgiven and washed away by the blood of Jesus. God in Heaven knows that we are of the nature of Adam after he sinned and that is why he has offered us the free gift in Christ. Salvation is a free gift to the believer. God included us all in Christ when he died on the cross. The death of Christ is the death also for the believer. The bible says the soul that sins shall die, well Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

In summary, to say that Jesus had the same flesh (human body) that we have is correct. To say that Jesus had the same sinful nature that we had is not correct because Jesus is born of God (his Father), he is the Christ from birth meaning anointed one. We only are anointed of the Spirit and receive his spiritual nature when we are born again. This is a miracle of the Love of God that He could do the impossible for us Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

I hope you think that I have given it more consideration of what you were trying to say in your earlier post.

In Christ.

If someone thinks flesh itself can be sinful, like gnostics, then this part doesn't require any thought at all.

Rom 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:

Or like Paul?

[b]Flesh

G4561[/b]
σάρξ
sarx
[i]sarx[/i]

Probably from the base of G4563; [i]flesh[/i] (as [i]stripped[/i] of the skin), that is, (strictly) the [i]meat[/i] of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the [i]body[/i] (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) [i]human nature[/i] (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a [i]human being[/i] (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).

Time to turn the question around;

Can you prove that human nature is not sinful?

"The flesh" has far more implications than the body suit we wear in scripture. Or for that matter what Jesus came walking in.

there is no sub-human flesh or different flesh.

YES!

When John says "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" He does not specify which type of flesh because there is only one type of mortal flesh.

[i] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.[/i] 1Co 15:39-50

In these verses alone there is much to refute this proposition that there is no such thing as a nature that is sinful ... Notice the difference just by changing the order of those two words?

"It is sown in dishonor"

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

"As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy:"

Jesus had a different [i]nature[/i] condescended into a sinful, 'earthy' body. There is a lot of playing around with words where the definitions are lacking.

[i]Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption[/i]

A direct correlation of two matters. Flesh and blood. Corruption\\incorruption. What is it that is corrupt?

Temptation. How can one be disposed, to be inclined or 'stimulated' as it was so put to do anything against ones own will if it is all simply a matter of preference? What makes one tempted at all?

[i]But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.[/i] Jas 1:14

His own lust ... from where did it come from?

[i]I want. I will. I must have. I desire. I covet ...[/i]

[i]From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?[/i] Jas 4:1

All throughout the scriptures and this is where I am finding a great deal of problem with this whole construct is a constant revealing of what the flesh [i]is[/i], that there is no good thing [i]in[/i] it, that it is debased and reprobate, the heart desperately wicked so much so that no one can know it, the tongue that no man came tame, the thoughts, imaginations, the constant references to dying to ones-self, to mortifying the [i]body[/i]. The whole of it.

[i]Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.[/i] Isa 1:5

The scriptures not only teach but prove that human nature is not inherently good in any such fashion. There is so much that could be developed that we would soon be through the entirety of the scriptures.

Think about it. What is the point of being redeemed, of being saved in the first place. From what? Your poor decisions? Your wrong reactions to stimulus? Your accidents?

[i] And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.[/i] Luk 13:2,3

Though it was rather long, there is a lot explanation in the commentary provided earlier. Adam, what he brought, what he wrought, what passed unto all men. We have a [i]bent[/i] that is still quite evident even in our discussions and discourses. [i]Wretched man that I am. In my flesh I find no good thing.[/i] We can be disheveled, agitated, mean one thing and say another, say one thing and mean another. Totally depraved? Or just partially? What is the difference if only a little leaven is all that it takes? Paul bemoaned himself for not finding that [i]which for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.[/i].

I do not believe any of this has even scratched the surface; The [i]penalty[/i] of death, what [i]death[/i] is, [i]means[/i];

[i]It is the commonness of death, which deprives it
of its extreme dreadfulness. If death happened in
our world only once in a century, it would be felt
like the shock of an earthquake; and would hush
the inhabitants of earth into a breathless silence,
while the echoes of the knell of the departed soul
were reverberating around the globe![/i]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=14907&forum=45&post_id=&refresh=Go]Death awaits[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=12137&forum=34&post_id=&refresh=Go]Understanding Mortification[/url]

"Disclaimer" While I did read some of the posts I did not take the time to read all of the other posts so I am sorry if I repeat someone else.

First look in Genesis, Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Here it tells us that when God created us we were in His likeness and in His image, but now move on after the fall of man and read Gen 5:3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:. Just by looking at these two verses alone we can see that there was a change from what we were to what we now are. and lest anyone should say that these verse are simply talking about physical likeness, they need only look in Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Two other verses I wan to mention before I move from Genesis. Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. In both of these verses God sates that man is not good by nature but rather evil by nature.
Now look in Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. All three of these verse say that from the very womb we are sinners, and lest someone should say that these verses only apply to certain individuals or certain groups of people compare them to 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. In this verse the all inclusive word "all" is used. Furthermore this verse goes so far as to say that we are by nature the children of wrath. Many more verses could have been cited but to save space I hope that these will suffice to give an answer to your question that YES there is a sin nature.

That unborn babies and infant die is an evidence that all humans sin and are sinful even before they are born. Death is an evidence of having committed a sin or being sinful.

Following this line of thinking, therefore, since the Lord Jesus Christ also died He must also had committed sin___or it could be that He also had a 'sin nature' but did not sin___ or He had no 'sin nature' and He did not sin for He had no ability to sin, but why did He die? Is death really an evidence that someone had sinned or sinful. Do animals also sin because they also die?

What really are being meant by the terms 'sin' and 'sin nature' their extent and limitation.

Passerby, firstly, our Lord said he was going to lay down his life (voluntarily), and that nobody could take it from him. Secondly, as Isaiah says, our iniquities were laid upon him.

Grace to you,
Taylor

It occurred to me that one of own, a Pastor of some 40+ years has given us a great deal of exegesis in the past over this matter. Here is an excerpt:

[i] "Do we inherit the sinfull nature of Adam? or Do we inherit the sin of Adam and therefore his guilt?"

This is the key question but I would like to sharpen it a little. A 'sin' is a transgression of the will of God. It is identifiable and, theoretically, quantifiable. Romans 5:12 tells us that it was as a result of one man's 'sin' ( a transgression of the known will of God) that SIN (the dynamic) entered the world. This is a unique revelation. It occurs nowhere else in the Bible or in the history of man's search for truth. The revelation is that SIN entered the world (kosmos) at a point in time as a result of Adam's action. The important implication is to see that this shows that SIN is older than the human race! This is a staggering revelation but the only thing that makes sense of our world. SIN existed in another person, Satan, as a result of Adam's opened door, SIN entered the world (and in particular, our race) and DEATH followed. This SIN has passed through to the entire race, according to Romans 5:12)

The key thing is to realise that 'a sin' opened the door to SIN. Adam was the federal head of our race and this action changed our race forever. It is not just hereditary, passing to his children, it passed sideways too to Eve. Have you noticed how the Bible never holds Eve accountable for this. Eve committed 'a sin' before Adam but as she was not the federal head of the race her 'sin' only affected herself. Adam, on the other hand, committed a 'sin' which opened a door to an alien spirit that has radically changed the nature of our race. Reidhead accuses Augustine of contradicting God in that God said the human race was 'very good' whereas Augustine describes it as 'very bad'. Augustine, of course, was not contradicting God's description in Genesis 1, but was moving on to the events of Genesis 3. Genesis 6 shows that Adam 'begat'children 'in his own likeness, after his own image'. The problem is that Adam was no longer in the perfect image and likeness of God, and it is that distored and spoiled likeness that has become our inheritance.

Back to your question.. It is not necessary to conclude that having inherited Adam's SIN we therefore inherit his guilt. Guilt is blameworthiness (never a feeling in scripture). Does God hold me accountable for what Adam did? I don't read that in the scripture. I see that the consequences of Adam's action have a continuing effect on the human race, but I don't describe that as 'guilt'. Personally, I distinguish between 'original sin' and 'original guilt'. I believe I inherited the former but not the latter. (SIN here being the nature not the act). It is not the nature (SIN) that is judged 'guilty' but sin. (James 4:17 gives a useful definition of 'sin' as an act)

SIN cannot be forgiven, it needs a far more radical solution... you must be born again!

We need to distinguish between 'sins' and SIN if we are to be true to the biblical revelation.[/i]

Philologos

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=293&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Original Sin[/url]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That unborn babies and infant die is an evidence that all humans sin and are sinful even before they are born. Death is an evidence of having committed a sin or being sinful.

Following this line of thinking, therefore, since the Lord Jesus Christ also died He must also had committed sin___or it could be that He also had a 'sin nature' but did not sin___ or He had no 'sin nature' and He did not sin for He had no ability to sin, but why did He die? Is death really an evidence that someone had sinned or sinful. Do animals also sin because they also die?

What really are being meant by the terms 'sin' and 'sin nature' their extent and limitation.

This may also go a long way in expressing how the Lord was made an offering for sin.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1212&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Propitiation and the red heifer[/url]

And one more if anyone is up to it, it is a series of devotionals if you will;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=2034&forum=45&post_id=&refresh=Go] Abraham, My Friend (weekly devotional archive)[/url]

My recollection tends towards blurring them altogether so it is difficult to pull different aspects from each. Nevertheless ...

Likely in [i]Propitiation and the red heifer[/i] is the explanation of what we come to term the [i]"Scapegoat"[/i] in answer to the question;

since the Lord Jesus Christ also died He must also had committed sin___or it could be that He also had a 'sin nature' but did not sin___ or He had no 'sin nature' and He did not sin for He had no ability to sin, but why did He die? Is death really an evidence that someone had sinned or sinful.

[i]For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.[/i] 2Co 5:21

I will bow out here and leave it in better hands but a thought occurred to me this morning over this whole matter and others like it ...

Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Trinity. Predestination. Original sin or the nature that is sinful. Just to mention a few, these things that always amount to a great deal of controversy. My observation so far is the commonality of prying into or having what might be termed [i]ultimate conclusions[/i] when at length they all have [i]mystery[/i] at the very bottom.

"How can these things be?"

Is what came up in my thoughts. The best of the saints in scripture when coming face to face with the majesty and overwhelming sense of God found themselves in [i]Awe[/i] and their selves as practically guilty by just sheer contrast;

Isaiah,

[i]Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.[/i] Isa 6:5

John,

[i]And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:[/i] Rev 1:17

Moses, Peter, Jeremiah, David and so many others.
That God would condescend, to leave that place of glory, come down to our poor level, [i]be[/i] as one of us, live as one of us, be tempted and tried as one of us, in the [i]likeness[/i] of sinful flesh, yet without sin is very much a great mystery.

Something that Philologos forwarded a long time ago and that has always stuck very profoundly was centered around this thing we call the 'will'. It is often spoken of as if it was something detached, as if it was like unto an organ of the body such as your liver or kidney but the retort was; [i]There is just [u]You[/u][/i]. And that I have found is completely true. Even in this discussion of what our nature is, there is [i]just you[/i], it's the [u]whole[/u] enchilada - Your nature or bent or disposition, however you want to term it, the whole of us has a seedbed of corruption, we are sinful in that way and do sin, it is both. Why else do we flinch greatly in such a Presence as God? Why else did otherwise 'good' men as we might term them, those mentioned above pronounce themselves 'unclean', under a 'woe', even to turning away - '[i]Depart from me, Lord ... [b]I am[/b] _____[/i].

Somewhere along the line or at bottom it seems to me we are left with the only right conclusion, the same that Paul came to when he said;

[i]O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out![/i]

Rom 11:33

What is it about scripture that tends not towards these 'seeming' contradictions, but more towards, "[i]Have you considered[/i]?". Isn't this where the controversy often comes about? If we camp on a subset and craft complete explanatory doctrines out of them sooner or later someone will find those verses that are also applicable. And I forward that this is just how it ought to be, the whole of scripture to bear, all of scripture to be considered. I am speaking towards those things that are 'hard to understand' and if they have confused or confounded greater minds then our own all these years I must wonder what seedbed of thought is ours that thinks it now has a satisfactory conclusion or a new and different revelation to things already put to the greatest of stress testing.

We can get quite bogged down into the technicals of matters while greatly overlooking what is plainly evident.

Physical death is not the wage of sin.
Spitirtual death is.
Sin is only willful disobediance to God.
Therfore, infant's can not be sinners. Just because they die does not prove anything.

Logic wrote:
Physical death is not the wage of sin.
Spitirtual death is.
Sin is only willful disobediance to God.
Therfore, infant's can not be sinners. Just because they die does not prove anything.

Praise God Logic, you have written a post that I can totally agree with.

Mt 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mt 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

When Adam sinned it resulted in spiritual death. Then God kept him from the tree of life so that he would die physically.

Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

rbanks wrote:

Logic wrote:
Physical death is not the wage of sin.
Spitirtual death is.
Sin is only willful disobediance to God.
Therfore, infant's can not be sinners. Just because they die does not prove anything.

Praise God Logic, you have written a post that I can totally agree with.

The very reason that we need to be born again is because we are spiritually dead and are sinners.

crsschk wrote:

{Quoted}
Back to your question.. It is not necessary to conclude that having inherited Adam's SIN we therefore inherit his guilt. Guilt is blameworthiness (never a feeling in scripture). Does God hold me accountable for what Adam did? I don't read that in the scripture. I see that the consequences of Adam's action have a continuing effect on the human race, but I don't describe that as 'guilt'. Personally, I distinguish between 'original sin' and 'original guilt'. I believe I inherited the former but not the latter. (SIN here being the nature not the act). It is not the nature (SIN) that is judged 'guilty' but sin. (James 4:17 gives a useful definition of 'sin' as an act)

SIN cannot be forgiven, it needs a far more radical solution... you must be born again!

We need to distinguish between 'sins' and SIN if we are to be true to the biblical revelation.[/i]

Philologos

This is a very good explanation!

It is our betrayal on God and his love towards us.

rbanks wrote:
The very reason that we need to be born again is because we are spiritually dead and are sinners.

This would imply that Adam would have died physically regardless of his disobedience (sin).

And this is the view of Pelagius who was time and time again written off as a heretic. Look into Church history and you will find this to be true.

I can only say that it is dangerous to not know what has gone on in the past as there is "nothing new under the sun".

How this of all the heresies denounced has continued on can only be accounted to the fact that it makes man feel he is the captain of his own ship and God is at his whim, thus reducing Christianity to "moralistic, therapeutic, deism" and really doesn't need supernatural power or a work accomplished outside of us because "we can do it", we just need to be shown the way.

The danger in all of this is that Christ becomes an example only, one we must imitate [i]in order to be saved[/i] and not [i]because we are saved[/i].

So the one who "does right" is forgiven, while the one who has faith is condemned. But take a moment to really ponder that, is that what Scripture really says about the righteous?

Consider the following verses-
Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 [b]the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.[/b]
Rom 3:23 for [b]all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,[/b]
Rom 3:24 [b]and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,[/b]

Consider these verses as well-
Rom 10:3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
Rom 10:4 For [b]Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.[/b]

Many people follow Christ and try to make a law of imitating Him, but none of this needs supernatural renewal and rebirth. None of this needs a cross either as man can atone for his own sins by "doing" right in the sight of God. But look at Paul's words to the Galatians-
Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for [b]if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.[/b]

Man is one fallen lump, dead in sin, and set on self. He will never be righteous before God apart from the new birth that takes him out of Adam and puts him into Christ. If this is true, then all of our salvation is dependent on Christ alone and faith in what He has done apart from us.

ccrider wrote:
Logic wrote "Physical death is not the wage of sin."

This would imply that Adam would have died physically regardless of his disobedience (sin). There is nothing to support that. Was there physical death before Adam?? And why is it that physical death comes only after sin has entered into the world???

Now, if Jesus had a Body wHich is temporal (made with hands) as HE never sinned and not "totaly depraved", their is no reason to think that our body is temporal because of our sinfulness.

The purpose of the Tree of life was for Adam to live forever(Gen 3:22)

Concerning sin....

Romans 5

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-

13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given,

but sin is not counted where there is no law (not counted but sin just the same). 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of(AA) the one who was to come.

Romans 7

"13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good,

in order that sin might be shown to be sin (ie.. sin was there but it needed to be shown as sin),

and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual,

but I am of the flesh, sold under sin."

Furthermore, I have also proven that the verses you quoted do not prove "original sin" or "sin nature".
If you need me to repost the proof, I will.

I'm not going to quibble between versions, in reading various texts I believe the overall context in each case points to sin nature

At the very least, sin being present without the law.. before the law, can be supported by scripture.

Being that animals cannot sin, the unclassified sin that the law has yet to describe still exists. If sin existed before the law then it had to be manifested in humans. Noah was righteous in God's eyes but he also got stinking drunk which led to the cursing of his son who inappropriately handled the situation. Regardless of whether or not there was a law, there was a consequence of behavior. Whether that's sin nature or a decision to sin can be a matter of debate... but sin was present and there were consequences before the law was given. The law just gave us the parameters and called it what it was.... SIN.

Jesus Christ in us through being born again replaces what entered into the world through Adam.

If we don't have a sin nature and righteousness was exclusively defined by our decision not to choose sin then the righteousness of Christ means little and His righteousness that is Him who is in me doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Christ is the only one righteous:

Second, if you’re talking about sinning, then choosing to never sin again, the righteousness can not be defined by our decision not to choose sin.

However, righteousness is exclusively defined by our decision to receive Christ's righteousness by acknowledging our self defiled filthy rags of unrighteousness.

Our unrighteousness can not be from anybody else’s sin but our own

But [Matthew 6:33 ] seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, [1 Kgs 3:11-14; Mark 10:29, 30; 1 Tim 4:8; 1 Pet 3:9] and all these things will be added to you.

I'm not to seek my own righteousness because without God it will not surpass that of the Pharisees. And from above we know that Christ told us to seek his righteousness.

Therefore I conclude that we cannot be righteous on our own, even through any willful decision to not sin...ever, if that's even possible.

Second, we can be righteous on our own, even through any willful decision to not ever sin, because that is how Jesus was righteous.

It appears to me from specific Scripture and 'the context' of Scripture that we need Christ for our righteousness and outside of this righteousness we are dead physically and spiritually.

That tells me that even if I had the will and strength 'not to sin' that is, without a sin nature, I could not make it to heaven.

Nor could anyone before Christ or before the law which is why He died for all sin. His redemption of sin is not limited to time lest the OT prophet's (like Jonah and his disobedience and Moses in his) die in theirs. 'Who then can be saved??' one disciple asked. Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God."
Elements of 'proof' in any debatable situation are scarcely found with a God who doesn't require conclusive proof of anything to be saved. My sin is my proof that I'm a sinner. I believe that I am just as much a sinner if I holed myself up in a cave and chose nothing but righteous thoughts for one week as I was one week earlier when I may have judged someone unfairly or lost my temper with a co-worker.

I'm not bound by proof, I know there is something in my innermost parts that war against the righteousness of Christ or as Paul put it in Romans 7:3 'the law of sin that DWELLS IN my members".

Here is yet more proof of imputed sin-
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were [b]by nature[/b] children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Did you see that? By nature, we are children of wrath. Our first birth makes us fit for wrath, this is brought as well in the Gospel of John-
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

What is interesting in this verse is the word for "obey". Basically it means "disbelieve". The disbelieving one has the wrath of God abiding on him. Disbelieving the testimony that God Himself has given to His Son fits one for wrath. Could this be why God on the Mount of Transfiguration said, "this is my Son...hear Him" though the Law and Prophets were represented there as well?

How did Adam have a nature? It takes a Father to give the Nature of that Father. If Adam being created, Adam had no nature. Adam had free will, correct? Spiritually, because Spirit is Spirit and flesh is flesh, so spiritually Adam had no Father nature. By Adam's free will, he chose his spiritual nature, when he believed Satan and his wife, and Adam's free will chose his spiritual nature. Jesus said, "you are of your father the devil". Adam birthed in himself, (self), choosing, his own nature, which was the choice of believing that, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, would make him his own god nature and be like God. If Adam by his own choice became a child of the devil, sin natured and a liar from the beginning, Then all Adam's offspring which we all are, would be of that choosing. Would it not be prudent to say, if we want to be different, how can we choose another nature, "believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" and God by His perfect plan in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinated us to be Christ natured and son's of God?

The nature of Christ came from His birth Father, DNA, God The Father's DNA and Nature. All man and all God. The perfect man, the only sacrifice the Father could receive for the sin nature of all mankind chosen by Adam when he sinned in the garden passing his chosen father Satan's nature to all man.

That is why we must be born again of Spirit and the Water of Life, Jesus Christ, the Nature of our Father's Seed, which is the Incorruptable Seed of God Himself. Perfect in Spirit by the Spirit of Christ birthed in us, becoming Perfect in our soul, by the Mind of Christ now in us, by the Holy Spirit teaching, which we are to renew each day to the Mind of Christ. We will be Perfect in Christ when we give up these corn of wheat bodies and put in the ground and resurrected like the body of Christ which we will have. John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

2 Corinthians 1:10 Who delivered (Spirit of Christ in us), us from so great a death, and doth deliver: (The Holy Spirit renewing our minds, to our Spirit, which is Christ)in whom we trust that He will yet deliver us; (our new bodies on resurrection day, which will be like His Glorious Body.

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

Who is the "Word"? John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

This is why God must do the birthing, We cannot call Him Father unless He puts His Seed in us and we are born again son's of God. Now we can call Him Father as Jesus told us, "Our Father".

"if haply they might feel after Him, and find him," (Only by God's Seed birthed in the believer.)

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

What a beautiful word, "OFFSPRING".

Acts 17:23-34 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

In Christ: Phillip

roaringlamb:
Do you actually read what I have to say, or do you only scan through, finding what you think you can debunk?

roaringlamb wrote:
Here is yet more proof of imputed sin-
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were [b]by nature[/b] children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Did you see that? By nature, we are children of wrath. Our first birth makes us fit for wrath,

As for "imputed sin":
For Abraham to have righteousness imputed to him, he first needed to do something, that is believe.
For the guilt of sin to be imputed to anyone, we first need to do something, that is to sin.

You might have wrong definition of some words:
[b]Sin:[/b]
Knowing that sin is a verb. Or when Paul talks about it in an abstract sense, it is the unlwfull affectiuons of the flesh.

[b]Flesh:[/b]
The amoral, nonsencient body which takes plesure in anything which is plesurable.

[b]Guilt:[/b]
fact or state of having committed an offense.
Being at fault.

According to you, mankind is imputed with:
an action or unlwfull affectiuons of the flesh;
And/or
mankind is imputed with:
The fact or state of having committed an offense or being at fault.

Further more.
it was said of Abraham that Righteousness was imputed to him because of faith.
or
Faith was imputed to him as Righteousness-
All because He did something, which is believe.

You must explain what unborn infants or the onse who are yet unaccountable did to be imputed as guilt, or with sin(a verb &/or unlwfull affectiuons of the flesh)

Do you actually read what I have to say, or do you only scan through, finding what you think you can debunk?

To be honest with you, I do not really pay attention to what you post as I know it is nothing but the same old Pelagian heresy being touted as some great truth.

Sorry brother(yes I consider you a brother)I don't need to drink poison to tell someone it is dangerous, but I can point them away from the poison to what is good and healthy.

Please do not take it personally, I only have a problem with your doctrine not you.

Christinyou wrote:
How did Adam have a nature? It takes a Father to give the Nature of that Father. If Adam being created, Adam had no nature.

Spiritually, because Spirit is Spirit and flesh is flesh, so spiritually Adam had no Father nature.

By Adam's free will, he chose his spiritual nature, when he believed Satan and his wife, and Adam's free will chose his spiritual nature.

Jesus said, "you are of your father the devil".

Adam birthed in himself, (self), choosing, his own nature, which was the choice of believing that, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, would make him his own god nature and be like God.

This whole post is not even worth reading all the way through.

You can not say that this is inspired by the Holy spirit.
Can not say that this is christian doctrine.
Can not defend this with scripture.

It is all rubbish!!!!!!!

Because they chose to hate Jesus. If they chose to love Him, the would be a child of Abraham.

I just thought I'd throw a little more light into this.

Look at what Christ tells these men later in John 10-
John 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,
John 10:26 [b]but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.[/b]

Also look at these from John 8-
John 8:37 [b]I know that you are offspring of Abraham[/b]; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you.
John 8:38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and [b]you do what you have heard from your father[/b]."

This comes before the text in question between the two of you. Yet it goes on-
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
John 8:43 [b]Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.[/b]

The word for "cannot" here is the same as the word for "cannot" in John 6:44 and it is the word "dunamis" and means ability. So literally, they were unable to hear the words Christ spoke.

Now look at the next verse-
John 8:44 [b]You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.[/b] He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

These were unable to hear Christ's words because their will was to do Satan's desires, or in light of the discussion here, they were dead in sin and unable to respond to Christ in a saving way.

Nature is not to sin, that is my choice. None of us could have done any better than Adam did, no not one.

Matthew 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Who of us is righteousness? The only One that has made us righteous, by His Nature that is birthed in us.

1 Corinthians 1:29-31 That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Mark 7:14-16 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Mark 7:23

All these evil things come from within,… All evil thoughts, words, and actions, take their rise from the inward parts of man; from his heart; which is sadly corrupted, and is the fountain from whence all these impure streams flow. And if these come from within, then not from without; they are not by imitation or are the mere effects of example in others: example may indeed, and often does, draw out the evil that is within; but it does not produce it there; if it was not there before, it could not draw it out from thence: and if all these evils come from within, then the inward part of man must be sinful and polluted, previous to the commission of these evil things; and from whence springs then that inward pollution? It is the fruit of original sin, of Adam's transgression; the consequence of which is, a corrupt nature, which is derived to all his posterity: for his nature being corrupted by sinning, and he having all human nature in him, the individuals of it could not be propagated by ordinary generation, without the pollution of sin cleaving to them; "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one", Job 14:4. Nor has there ever been any instance to the contrary, but the man Christ Jesus; whose human nature was holy, it not descending from Adam by ordinary generation; otherwise, all men, as David was, are "shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin", Ps 51:5, and this is the source and spring of all sinful action, internal and external.

If Nature is not proceeding from man, then how did Jesus Christ have a God nature and not a sin nature as Adam? Different fathers.

Adam has and we have a sin nature of our father the devil, in whom our father Adam chose to believe.

1 Corinthians 15:45-56 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

The nature of sin is of the devil who was our father before God rebirthed His Son in us.

In Christ: Phillip

1) if inherited sin means our natural ability to be tempted then it is no cause for guilt. Jesus was able to be tempted.

Jesus was tempted in every point like we are yet without sin. Our trouble is that we sin, and one sin is enough to damn us. Thus proving we are "children of wrath".

2) if inherited sin means wanting to sin then we don't have free will, aren't guilty, nullify the cross, and make an image of the beast and worship it.

Well, we don't have free will. Left to our own heart's desires, we would sin and have no desire for Christ. We are born slaves to our sin and must be redeemed or ransomed. This in no way nullifies the cross, it magnifies it by showing the great grace of our God in reconciling us to Him through the wrath atoning sacrifice of Christ the perfect sin bearer.

3) if inherited sin means something about our nature that makes temptation more difficult to resist. Then Jesus had it and overcame. Otherwise antichrist is true.

We are not Jesus and will never resist sin perfectly and that is why we need a perfect obedience to be put to our account. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us by faith.

So to do away with imputed guilt through Adam, you by default do away with imputed righteousness in Christ.

Paul's point from Romans 1:16 on to chapter 5 is the unpacking of justification by faith apart from works of the Law. Don't overlook this in reading Romans.

CCrider, I have really enjoyed your posts and you have explained it very well. I can tell that you have received this wisdom from the Lord. I thank you for your contribution.

The bible says that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. This is talking about sin within us. It also says following vs. 8 in vs. 10 that if we say we have not sinned we make Him a liar and his word is not in us. This is talking about the act of sinning.

Quote: ccrider
________________________________________
But [Matthew 6:33 ] seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, [1 Kgs 3:11-14; Mark 10:29, 30; 1 Tim 4:8; 1 Pet 3:9] and all these things will be added to you.

I'm not to seek my own righteousness because without God it will not surpass that of the Pharisees. And from above we know that Christ told us to seek his righteousness.

Therefore I conclude that we cannot be righteous on our own, even through any willful decision to not sin...ever, if that's even possible.
________________________________________
Quote: Logic
First of all, it is possible, Jesus proved your conclusion to be wrong.

Second, we can be righteous on our own, even through any willful decision to not ever sin, because that is how Jesus was righteous. –Quote

Logic you are making up your own bible as you go along and all for what purpose. You are promoting heresy when you say it is possible to be righteous on our own. You also are promoting heresy when you say that Jesus proved that we could be righteous on our own because this is how He was righteous. Jesus made it clear that He could do nothing without the Father dwelling in Him. Jesus never acted independent of His Father.

You are promoting a self righteousness like the pharisee's. If man could have a righteousness acceptable to God on His own then Christ would not have died the death of the cross to make atonement for the sins of the whole world. Brother do you understand that we are righteous only through Christ and never of ourselves. God said there is none righteous on their own, no not one because all have corrupted themselves apart from Him.

Brothers,

I believe that a lot of confusion that is taking place in these posts is a result of a lack of understanding as to what the sin nature really is, and the new nature that is given to all that are born of the spirit. I hope that this excerpt from the writings of Watchman Nee will help give you more light on the subject.

Mike

"Before we speak of our present condition, we should first understand the kind of person we were before we believed in the Lord. After that, we will speak of our condition after we believed in the Lord. We know that we are persons made up of three parts—the spirit, the soul, and the body. The spirit is the organ with which we fellowship with God. Animals have no spirit. Hence, they can never worship God. The soul is the seat of our personality. Our will, mind, emotion, and sentiments are all functions of the soul. The body is our outward shell. Although man has become fallen, he still possesses these three parts. After man is regenerated, he still has the same three parts. When God created man, He created him with a self-consciousness; man was a living creature with consciousness. He had a spirit. Hence, he was different from other lower kinds of creatures. He had a soul. Hence, he was different from the angels of light, who are purely spirits. The center of man was his spirit; it controlled his whole being. It controlled his soul and his body. Man was living totally for God; the emotions of his soul and the demands of his body were all headed up by his spirit, and they were for glorifying God and worshipping God.

But alas, man fell! This fall did not annul any of the three elements in man. However, the order of these three elements has been upset. The condition in the garden of Eden shows us clearly that mankind rebelled against God; his love for God ceased, and he declared his independence from God. Genesis 3:6 says, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food [this was the lust of the body, which comes first] and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired [this was the love of the emotion in the soul, which comes next] to make one wise [this was Satan's suggestion, `And ye shall be as gods, knowing' (3:5); this was the spirit rejecting God, and man satisfying the cravings of the soul and the body; this comes last]." In this way, man fell, and his spirit, soul, and body were all affected. The spirit became subject to the soul, and the soul was controlled by its many senses. The body developed many abnormal cravings and lusts, which enticed the soul. Originally the spirit took the lead. Now the body takes the lead to satisfy its lusts. In the Bible, this lust of the body is called the flesh. From this time on, man became flesh (Gen. 6:3). This flesh is now man's nature after he sinned; it is now his natural constitution. Our nature is the life principle or constitution that directs our whole being. Since the time of Adam, everyone born of woman bears this sinful nature; all of them are of the flesh. After understanding the origin of the flesh and how the flesh is just our sinful nature, we can now consider the character of this flesh. We cannot expect this flesh to improve. Human nature is hard to change. In fact, it will not change. The Lord Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." We should focus on the word "is." That which is born of the flesh is flesh. No matter how much a person reforms, improves, and cultivates himself, the flesh is still the flesh. No matter how much a person tries to perform charitable, benevolent acts, send relief aid, love others, or serve, he is still the flesh. Even if he can do all these things, he is still the flesh. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Since it is the flesh that is born, it will be the flesh that will result. No man on earth can change his flesh. Neither can God in heaven change man's flesh, that is, man's nature.

Since God saw that it was impossible to mend, improve, or change man's sinful nature, He brought in the present wonderful way of redemption. We know that the Lord Jesus died for us on the cross at Golgotha. We also know that when we believe in Him and receive Him as our Savior, we are saved. But why does God deliver us from death to life once we believe in His Son's name? If this believing does not involve an exchange in our life, which is different from a mere change, will not God be delivering a man who is still full of sin into heaven? There must surely be a profound message here.

After we have believed in the Lord Jesus, God does not leave us to walk according to the old sinful nature, that is, the flesh. He sentenced the Lord Jesus to death because He intended, on the one hand, that the Lord become sin for us, and on the other hand, that the old Adamic creation be crucified with Him, so that He could give us a new life. When we believed in the Lord Jesus as our Savior, God gave us this new life with its new nature. "Through these you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption which is in the world by lust" (2 Pet. 1:4). At the time we believed, He dispensed into us His own life, the life of God, with the nature of God. This nature is entirely new; it is totally different from our old sinful nature. This nature does not come from an improvement of our old nature. This mysterious transaction took place at the instant we believed in the Lord Jesus as our Savior. This is regeneration, which is to be born from above and to receive God's life and nature. This regeneration is not something that man feels. Rather, it is the work of God's Holy Spirit in our spirit, recovering our spirit's lost position and installing God's life in our spirit. "The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from and where it goes; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). All those who have genuinely believed in the Lord Jesus have the Holy Spirit working in them in this way. Those who believe only with their mouth or their head are not regenerated. All those who have believed with their heart are saved (Rom. 10:9) and are surely regenerated."

"Now, two natures emerge in a believer. One is the sinful nature, the flesh, which is the nature of old Adam. The other is the spiritual life, the "new spirit," which bears God's nature. Brothers, you have believed in the Lord Jesus, and you know that you are saved. For this reason, you are regenerated already. You should now know that there are two natures within you. These two natures are the cause of your numerous conflicts. The reason you fluctuate up and down and alternate between victory and defeat is that two natures are exercising their influence over you. These two natures are the key to the riddle of your life of struggling.

For a young believer to have such experiences of inward conflict and condemnation proves that he is regenerated. An unregenerated person is still dead in sin. Although he may at times be condemned in his conscience, such feeling is very ill-defined. Without the new nature, it is obvious that a person will not experience the conflict between the new nature and the old.

The Bible clearly describes this conflict between the new nature and the old. In Romans 7, Paul vividly portrayed this kind of life of conflict through his own experience. He said, "For what I work out, I do not acknowledge; for what I will, this I do not practice; but what I hate, this I do" (v. 15). This is the conflict of the new and the old natures. The description here is that of the experience of a newborn believer. At such times, he is still a babe in Christ. He is in the infancy of his spiritual life, and he is still childish and powerless. The "I" in the "what I will" and "what I hate" refers to the new nature. Although the new nature desires God's will and hates sin, the other nature, the old nature, is too strong. This, together with the weakness of a person's will, compels that one to sin. However, the new nature does not sin. "Now then it is no longer I that work it out, but sin that dwells in me" (v. 17). The first "I" is the "I" of the new nature. "Sin" is another name for the sinful nature. Therefore, this verse means that the one who sins is not the new "I," but the sinful nature. Of course, this does not remove man's responsibility. Paul went on to describe the positive contradiction between the old and the new natures, that is, the contradiction between the sinful nature and the spiritual life.

"For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but to work out the good is not. For I do not do the good which I will; but the evil which I do not will, this I practice...I find then the law with me who wills to do the good, that is, the evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man, but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and making me a captive to the law of sin which is in my members" (Rom. 7:18-23). This is indeed the common experience of all believers: to will to do good, yet be unable to do it, and to will to oppose evil, yet be unable to reject it. When temptation comes, a power (the "law") suppresses our desire for holiness. As a result, we speak what we ought not speak and do what we ought not do. Despite many resolutions and vows, we are unable to stop this power from working.

In Galatians Paul described again the conflict between these two natures. "For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these oppose each other that you would not do the things that you desire" (5:17). The old nature and the new nature are enemies of each other. Both strive to gain absolute supremacy over us. The old nature has its desires and its power, and the new nature has its also. The two natures exist in us simultaneously. Hence, there is the constant conflict. They are like Esau and Jacob in the womb of Rebekah; the two were diametrically opposed to each other, and at times they fought with each other in the womb. When the Son of God was on earth, all the powers on earth plotted to kill Him. In the same way, while the Son of God lives in our heart as our new life, all the lusts in our flesh strive to remove Him.

Before we go on, we should first understand the characteristics of the two natures. The old nature was born of our flesh. In it, "nothing good dwells" (Rom. 7:18). The new nature is from God. It "cannot sin" (1 John 3:9). The new and the old natures are completely different. Not only do they come from different sources; even their functions are different. However, both exist in the believers. The old nature is the flesh. "And those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8). The new nature is the new spirit. "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and reality." Without comparison with the new nature, the old nature, humanly speaking, is not too bad, despite some self-excusing inclinations and lusts. Yet, when a person is regenerated, the new nature comes in with the new life. When both the new and the old natures are put side by side, the true characteristics of the old nature are exposed."

With the new nature as a contrast, the old nature is exposed to be evil, worldly, and devilish. The new nature is holy, heavenly, and divine. Because the old nature, with the passing of time, has become so deeply intertwined with the person himself, it takes quite a period of time to remove this old nature in experience. The new nature has just come into being. Since man's flesh and sinful nature have become too strong, the growth and function of the new nature are suppressed. Of course, we are only speaking from man's point of view. This is like the thorns choking the growth of the seed of the word. Because the two natures are opposite one to another, when temptation comes, a person experiences fierce conflicts. Since the old nature is strong and the new nature weak, a person often ends up doing what he does not desire to do and not doing what he does desire to do. Since the new nature is holy, when a person fails, he feels repentant and condemns himself, and he pleads for the sin-cleansing blood. Brothers, by now, you should understand the reason for your conflicting experiences. This kind of conflict shows most assuredly that you are regenerated.

The most crucial question now is: how can we overcome? In other words, how can we reject the power and work of the old nature, and walk according to the aspirations of the new nature, and thus please the Lord? Let us read three verses:

"But they who are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and its lusts" (Gal. 5:24).

"If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit"; "But I say, Walk by the Spirit and you shall by no means fulfill the lust of the flesh" (vv. 25, 16).

These three verses tell us two ways to overcome the flesh, that is, the sinful nature, the old nature, and the old Adamic nature. Actually, the two ways are merely two aspects, or two phases, of one way. The cross and the Holy Spirit are the unique way to overcome the sinful nature. Other than this way, any human resolutions, determinations, or vows to charity are destined for failure.

We have seen that all our failures are caused by the tenaciousness of the sinful nature; we sink to such a low condition because of it. Hence, whether or not we will overcome depends on whether or not we are able to deal with this sinful nature, which is the flesh. Thank God that though we are helpless, He has the way. He has prepared a way for us on the cross. When the Lord Jesus was crucified on the cross, not only did He die for us, but He crucified our flesh with Him on the cross. Hence, all those who belong to Christ Jesus and are regenerated have their flesh crucified. When He died on the cross, our flesh was crucified there as well. Both the substitutional death and the identifying death have been accomplished by the Lord Jesus. Both are fully accomplished. Formerly, we believed in His substitutional death and were regenerated. Now, in the same way, we believe that our flesh is crucified with Him, and we are brought into the experience of the death of the flesh.

We know that the flesh is always the flesh. This is why God gave us a new life and a new nature. But what shall we do with the flesh? Since God considered it hopeless and impossible, He decided to terminate it, that is, to put it to death. There is no better way than to cause the flesh to die. Hence, "they who are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and its lusts." This puts the flesh to death. This is what the Lord Jesus has accomplished; He has accomplished it already. By crucifying our flesh with Him, it becomes possible now for us to put to death the sinful nature. This has been accomplished without any effort of our own.

How can this co-crucifixion become our experience? We have said that the way is by faith. Romans 6:11 says, "So also you, reckon yourselves to be dead to sin." Sin here refers to the sinful nature which is the flesh. By ourselves, we cannot cause the flesh to die. The only way is by reckoning. Reckoning is an exercise of our will and our faith. This means that in our daily life, we should adopt the attitude that we are dead to the flesh, that we believe in God's word, and that we consider all God's words to be true. God says that our flesh has been crucified with the Lord Jesus; I believe that my flesh is indeed crucified. On the one hand, we believe that we are dead. On the other hand, we adopt the attitude that we are truly dead. If we do this, we will have the genuine experience of dying to sin.

If we reckon this way, we will see the cross freeing us, and the flesh will become powerless. It is true that once we reckon ourselves dead, we will experience instant victory. However, many people experience a gradual deliverance from the power of the flesh. This is either due to their own foolishness or to the lingering of evil spirits. If we persist in faith and if we take the proper attitude in our will, we will eventually overcome. However, this does not mean that henceforth there is no more sinful nature in us and that only the new nature remains. If we say this, we fall into heresy. Not only does this obscure the teaching of the Bible, but it betrays the experience of the saints. Until we are delivered from this body of sin, we will never be free from the "flesh"—the sinful nature—which comes from the body of sin. Even though we have accepted the work of the cross, the fact that the flesh still exists means that we must continually "walk by the Spirit." Only by doing this, will we "by no means fulfill the lust of the flesh."

The cross is the instrument by which we crucify the flesh. The Holy Spirit is the power by which we keep the flesh from resurrecting. On the negative side, we should believe in the co-crucifixion of the cross for the elimination of a life in the flesh. On the positive side, we should walk according to the Spirit so that the flesh will have no chance to be rekindled. Many believers experience the resurrection of their flesh because they fail in this one point. Every time we walk contrary to the Holy Spirit, we give opportunity to the flesh to reign. If in everything we walk according to the Spirit, the flesh will not have any opportunity.

A person can read about this way of overcoming the flesh, the sinful nature, from the Bible; he can hear about it from others. But only when he encounters it in his experience will he realize that it is real. I often tell others that they can experience such a matter the minute they believe. Yet for myself, it took me a long time before I experienced it! What does this mean? Many times we merely strive. Although we say that we trust in the cross, thirty percent of the time we trust in ourselves and in our own "reckoning." Many times God allows us to be defeated so that in the end we would realize that nothing is trustworthy in our experience. Even our own "reckoning" with which we "reckon" ourselves dead is of no merit. This is why it is true to say that as soon as we truly reckon, we have the experience of victory, and it is equally true to say that we enter such experience only through a gradual understanding.

Brothers, by now you can understand our two natures and the way to overcome the flesh. While you are reading, you can exercise your faith to reckon yourself dead to sin, and you can pray that the Holy Spirit of the Lord will apply the cross of the Lord Jesus deeply in you, so that you can overcome sin in your experience. After this, you should resolve to walk by the Holy Spirit. Previously, you have failed in your resolution. Now, you should ask the Holy Spirit to strengthen your will, so that it will be able to incline itself to the new nature. The will is like a rudder; it can turn the whole ship. However, a rudder that does not work is useless. After the Holy Spirit has strengthened you, you should exercise this will to walk according to the Holy Spirit. Remember that the flesh never disappears; it is always there. If you walk by the Holy Spirit, you will be able to crucify the flesh on the cross continually. Otherwise, the flesh will cause suffering to you. The meaning of walking by the Spirit is to trust in the Holy Spirit in a calm way in everything, so that you will bear the nine-in-one fruit of the Holy Spirit. The Lord will lead you experientially step by step into the mystery of this matter. However, on your part, you should be faithful."

we can be righteous on our own, even through any willful decision to not ever sin, because that is how Jesus was righteous.

Even though I am only about half-way through all these posts, I need to comment on this one.

You are promoting heresy when you say it is possible to be righteous on our own. You also are promoting heresy when you say that Jesus proved that we could be righteous on our own because this is how He was righteous. Jesus made it clear that He could do nothing without the Father dwelling in Him. Jesus never acted independent of His Father.

You are promoting a self righteousness like the pharisee's. If man could have a righteousness acceptable to God on His own then Christ would not have died the death of the cross to make atonement for the sins of the whole world. Brother do you understand that we are righteous only through Christ and never of ourselves. God said there is none righteous on their own, no not one because all have corrupted themselves apart from Him.

And that is truth. With man, righteousness and peace with God is impossible but when man is WITH God (or God with man) all things are possible. And that is the whole point -- man was never made with the intention to be apart from the Presence of God or to seek "his own will" apart from the Father's will. Jesus said, "my meat is to do the will of my Father," and that is the example of the Perfect Man. It is perfect obedience to Him and proves what is well-pleasing in His sight. And of course, without faith it is impossible to please Him.

To put it simply, man does not have it in himself to be righteous or justified before God; he was never made to do so by himself. It is only through Christ, the Eternal Son, that man has ever had provision of righteousness and eternal life to the joy of the Father, that is, God working with man. If we should ever attempt to seperate the virtue of man from the Spirit of Life then we make void the cross of Christ.

Amen everybody,

Is this not exactly what scripture says:

2 Corinthians 5:14-21 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ , he is a new creature : (a brand new original creation in Christ Jesus) old things (original or primeval) are passed away ; behold , all things are become (including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:--all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.) new . including the comparative neoteros neh-o'-ter-os; a primary word; "new", i.e. (of persons) youthful, or (of things) fresh; figuratively, regenerate:--new, young.

Born Again.

In Christ: Phillip

Oops again, sorry.
Darn PDA :-x

[quotu]1) if inherited sin means our natural ability to be tempted then it is no cause for guilt. Jesus was able to be tempted.

Jesus was tempted in every point like we are yet without sin. Our trouble is that we sin, and one sin is enough to damn us. Thus proving we are "children of wrath".
[/quoute]
Yes, we chose to sin, stop blaiming your nature, it's your own fault, not God's fault for giving you that nature, nor is it Adam's fault.

Your only justifying yourself.

if inherited sin means wanting to sin then we don't have free will, aren't guilty, nullify the cross, and make an image of the beast and worship it.

Well, we don't have free will. Left to our own heart's desires, we would sin and have no desire for Christ.

This in no way nullifies the cross, it magnifies it by showing the great grace of our God in reconciling us to Him through the wrath atoning sacrifice of Christ the perfect sin bearer.

3) if inherited sin means something about our nature that makes temptation more difficult to resist. Then Jesus had it and overcame. Otherwise antichrist is true.

We are not Jesus and will never resist sin perfectly and that is why we need a perfect obedience to be put to our account.

If Jesus was not like His brethren in every way, then He can't be a perfect high priest.
do you know that He took on the nature of Abraham(a man)?

Christ's righteousness is imputed to us by faith.

So to do away with imputed guilt through Adam, you by default do away with imputed righteousness in Christ.

oops!

rbanks rote:

: Logic
First of all, it is possible, Jesus proved your conclusion to be wrong.

Second, we can be righteous on our own, even through any willful decision to not ever sin, because that is how Jesus was righteous.

Logic you are making up your own bible as you go along and all for what purpose. You are promoting heresy when you say it is possible to be righteous on our own.

This concludes that all mankind kan. The problem is that nobody else but jesus has done it.

You also are promoting heresy when you say that Jesus proved that we could be righteous on our own because this is how He was righteous. Jesus made it clear that He could do nothing without the Father dwelling in Him. Jesus never acted independent of His Father.

You are promoting a self righteousness like the Pharisee's. If man could have a righteousness acceptable to God on His own then Christ would not have died the death of the cross to make atonement for the sins of the whole world.

Brother do you understand that we are righteous only through Christ and never of ourselves. God said there is none righteous on their own, no not one because all have corrupted themselves apart from Him.

Do you know that I'm promoting man's responsibility for his own sin, for his own unrighteousness?
You promote man's responsibility for Adam's sin & Adam's unrighteousness, which makes no sense at all.

Furthermore, if Jesus never sinned just because He was God, He could not be a perfect priest:
[b]Hebrews 2:16[/b] [color=990000]For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the nature of Abraham.
[b]17:[/b] Therefore in all things he had to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
[b]18:[/b] For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help them that are tempted.[/color]
Notice that it say He took n the nature of Abraham ( a man)?

benjoseph quotes, 1) "You'll never be able to obey without knowing how obeying works."

2) "I know there are passages in the bible that talk about God's foreknowledge and predestination but that doesn't mean God wants to punish you and you can't turn to him by your own free choice and seek him."

In your post where the above quotes are found you mention free-will.

The term (free-will) implies that the will is free from something.

Are you saying the will of the creature is free from the will of the Creator? If no, then what is the will free from? And what causes the will to choose?

J.I. Packer (from Concise Theology)
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5)

Scripture diagnoses sin as a universal deformity of human nature, found at every point in every person (1 Kings 8:46; Rom. 3:9-23; 7:18; 1 John 1:8-10). Both Testaments have names for it that display its ethical character as rebellion against God's rule, missing the mark God set us to aim at, transgressing God's law, disobeying God's directives, offending God's purity by defiling oneself, and incurring guilt before God the Judge. This moral deformity is dynamic: sin stands revealed as an energy of irrational, negative, and rebellious reaction to God's call and command, a spirit of fighting God in order to play God. The root of sin is pride and enmity against God, the spirit seen in Adam's first transgression; and sinful acts always have behind them thoughts, motives, and desires that one way or another express the willful opposition of the fallen heart to God's claims on our lives.

Sin may be comprehensively defined as lack of conformity to the law of God in act, habit, attitude, outlook, disposition, motivation, and mode of existence. Scriptures that illustrate different aspects of sin include Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 12:30-37; Mark 7:20-23; Romans 1:18-3:20; 7:7-25; 8:5-8; 14:23 (Luther said that Paul wrote Romans to "magnify sin"); Galatians 5:16-21; Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19; Hebrews 3:12; James 2:10-11; 1 John 3:4; 5:17. Flesh in Paul usually means a human being driven by sinful desire; the niv renders these instances of the word as "sinful nature." The particular faults and vices (i.e., forms and expression of sin) that Scripture detects and denounces are too numerous to list here.

Original sin, meaning sin derived from our origin, is not a biblical phrase (Augustine coined it), but it is one that brings into fruitful focus the reality of sin in our spiritual system. The assertion of original sin means not that sin belongs to human nature as God made it (God made mankind upright, Eccles. 7:29), nor that sin is involved in the processes of reproduction and birth (the uncleanness connected with menstruation, semen, and childbirth in Leviticus 12 and 15 was typical and ceremonial only, not moral and real), but that (a) sinfulness marks everyone from birth, and is there in the form of a motivationally twisted heart, prior to any actual sins; (b) this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins; (c) it derives to us in a real though mysterious way from Adam, our first representative before God. The assertion of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but rather we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin.

The phrase total depravity is commonly used to make explicit the implications of original sin. It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total not in degree (for no one is as bad as he or she might be) but in extent. It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin, and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God's eyes. We cannot earn God's favor, no matter what we do; unless grace saves us, we are lost.

Total depravity entails total inability, that is, the state of not having it in oneself to respond to God and his Word in a sincere and wholehearted way (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8). Paul calls this unresponsiveness of the fallen heart a state of death (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13), and the Westminster Confession says: "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (IX. 3).

In light of Romans 5, which teaches us that Adam was the Federal Head over all his physical children, just as Christ is the Federal Head over all His spiritual children, R. C. Sproul gives this helpful analogy:

----

One final illustration may be helpful here. We bristle at the idea that God calls us to be righteous when we are hampered by original sin. We say, “But God, we can’t be righteous. We are fallen creatures. How can you hold us accountable when you know very well we were born with original sin?”

The illustration is as follows. Suppose God said to a man, “I want you to trim these bushes by three o’clock this afternoon. But be careful. There is a large open pit at the edge of the garden. If you fall into that pit, you will ‘not be able to get yourself out. So whatever you do, stay away from that pit.”

Suppose that as soon as God leaves the garden the man runs over and jumps into the pit. At three o’clock God returns and finds the bushes untrimmed. He calls for the gardener and hears a faint cry from the edge of the garden. He walks to the edge of the pit and sees the gardener helplessly flailing around on the bottom. He says to the gardener, “Why haven’t you trimmed the bushes I told you to trim?” The gardener responds in anger, “How do you expect me to trim these bushes when I am trapped in this pit? If you hadn’t left this empty pit here, I would not be in this predicament.”

Adam jumped into the pit. In Adam we all jumped into the pit. God did not throw us into the pit. Adam was clearly warned about the pit. God told him to stay away. The consequences Adam experienced from being in the pit were a direct punishment for jumping into it.

So it is with original sin. Original sin is both the consequence of Adam’s sin and the punishment for Adam’s sin. We are born sinners because in Adam all fell. Even the word fall is a bit of a euphemism. It is a rose-colored view of the matter. The word fall suggests an accident of sorts. Adam’s sin was not an accident. He was not Humpty Dumpty. Adam didn’t simply slip into sin; he jumped into it with both feet. We jumped headlong with him. God didn’t push us. He didn’t trick us. He gave us adequate and fair warning. The fault is ours and only ours.

It is not that Adam ate sour grapes and our teeth are set on edge. The biblical teaching is that in Adam we all ate the sour grapes. That is why our teeth are set on edge.

Calvinism, along with other views of predestination, teaches that God’s decree was made both before the Fall, and in light of the Fall. Why is this important? Because the Calvinistic view of predestination always accents the gracious character of God’s redemption. When God predestines people to salvation he is predestinating people to be saved whom he knows really need to be saved. They need to be saved because they are sinners in Adam, not because he forced them to be sinners. Calvinism sees Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coercion.

To be sure, God knew before the Fall that there would most certainly be a Fall and he took action to redeem some. He ordained the Fall in the sense that he chose to allow it, but not in the sense that he chose to coerce it. His predestinating grace is gracious precisely because he chooses to save people whom he knows in advance will be spiritually dead.

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary

AU'THOR, n. [L. auctor. The Latin word is from the root of augeo, to increase, or cause to enlarge. The primary sense is one who brings or causes to come forth.]

1. One who produces, creates, or brings into being; as, God is the author of the Universe.

2. The beginner, former, or first mover of any thing; hence, the efficient cause of a thing. It is appropriately applied to one who composes or writes a book, or original work, and in a more general sense, to one whose occupation is to compose and write books; opposed to compiler or translator.

AU'THOR, v.t. To occasion; to effect.

AU'THORSHIP, n. [author and ship.] The quality or state of being an author.

AUTHOR'ITY, n. [L. auctoritas.]

1. Legal power, or a right to command or to act; as the authority of a prince over subjects, and of parents over children. Power; rule; sway.

2. The power derived from opinion, respect or esteem; influence of character or office; credit; as the authority of age or example, which is submitted to or respected, in some measure, as a law, or rule of action. That which is claimed in justification or support of opinions and measures.

3. Testimony; witness; or the person who testifies; as, the Gospels or the evangelists are our authorities for the miracles of Christ.

4. Weight of testimony; credibility; as a historian of no authority.

5. Weight of character; respectability; dignity; as a magistrate of great authority in the city.

6. Warrant; order; permission.

By what authority dost thou these things. Mat 21. Acts 9.

7. Precedents, decisions of a court, official declarations, respectable opinions and says, also the books that contain them, are called authorities, as they influence the opinions of others; and in law, the decisions of supreme courts have a binding force upon inferior courts, and are called authorities.

Right it is to acknowledge God as The Author,posessing Authorship,and as being The Authority.

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me: I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together: I the Lord have created it. Isa. 45:5-8, KJV

Remember the former things of old, For I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,’ Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. Isa. 46:9-11

Yet he is in one minde, & who can turne him? yea, he doeth what his minde desireth. For he will performe that, which is decreed of me, and many such things are with him. Therefore I am troubled at his presence, & in considering it, I am afraid of him. For God hath softened mine heart, & the Almightie hath troubled me. Job 23:13-16(Geneva Bible)

But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as it is this day. Deut. 2:30

But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. 1 Sam. 16:14,15 KJV

As streams of waters, the king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah; He turns it wherever He desires.
Prov. 21:1

Then you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord: "Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land—even the kings who sit on David’s throne, the priests, the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem—with drunkenness! And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together," says the LORD. "I will not pity nor spare nor have mercy, but will destroy them."’" Jer. 13:13,14

Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lam. 3:38 KJV

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Col. 1:16; Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. Col. 2:15

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, Rom. 9:22,23

But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable, And He said to them,"To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’" Mark 4:10-12

When he is judged, let him be found guilty. And let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg; Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places. Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy to him, Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off, And in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD, and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be continually before the LORD, That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth. Ps. 109:7-15

But You, O GOD the Lord, Deal with me for Your name’s sake; Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. Ps. 109:21

Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God! Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men. For they speak against You wickedly; Your enemies take Your name in vain. Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies. Ps. 139:19-22

Since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 2 Thess. 1:6,7

But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. Gen. 50:20

Shall the trumpet be blown in a city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? Amos 3:6 KJV

It is the philosophy of Plato that God cannot create evil, not the teaching of scripture.

The Platonic assumption that God cannot create evil is one reason why men have come up with alternate systems of doctrine from the Bible.

When God says,"Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it", it is an act of commission(whether through secondary causes or directly)and not of mere permission.

Those who advocate a mere permission on God's part and at the same time attempt to hold to God's absolute sovereignty cannot do so.

Would to God that He'd reveal the incongruousness of such a position. That many would stop trying to defend Him, and as children let the Scriptures themselves answer this theodicy.

He does not hide Himself but Has plainly spoken and shown Himself to "do all these things".

savannah wrote:
The term (free-will) implies that the will is free from something.

Are you saying the will of the creature is free from the will of the Creator?

And what causes the will to choose?

As some say that we can not choose what we will not do, however, we may be persuaded to t it.

[i] For the good that I would I do not:
but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Now if I do that I would not,
it is no more I that do it,

but sin
that dwelleth in me.

I find then a law, that,
when I would do good,
evil is present
with me.

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

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]
Rom 7:19-24

Y'all have a monster in yoy theology. Bringing guilt to unborn infants who are not guilty.
If you want to keep portraying God as an unrighteous beast, go right ahead.

I promote man's fault & responsibility to his own choice to sin which brings guilt on himself.
You promote a monster who claim unborn infant to be guilty of a distantbrelitves sin.

You claim that we sin becase of our nature which we have no control of.
I claim thatbwe sin by our own choice which we do have clntrol of.

You claim that we sin because we are alresdy wicked.
I claim that we are wicked be cause we choose to be by sinning.

Now who has the doctrine which makes man more accountable & responcible for his own actions?

Who has the doctrine which makes God to be just in calling them who are guilty, who by choice sin instead of beng guilty by default.

Logic, Here are the exact words that Jesus said.

Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, 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.

Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

I have told you that I believe God gives man a choice to obey Him and this was given to Adam in the Garden of Eden. God wanted Adam to walk in fellowship with Him in total obedience. God never wanted man to be independent of Him but wanted man to walk in His presence and glory.

Logic you have stated that man could be righteous on his own because Jesus did.

Logic you have also accused God of giving man a weak flesh that caused Adam to sin and say that is the reason we sin because our flesh was created weak.

I don’t accuse God; I accuse Adam of being disobedient and not walking with God to keep from sinning. You say the reason we sin is because our flesh is created weak but I’m saying that the bible says that Adam brought sin into the world and we are tainted with sin from birth because of Adam. God did not create us weak so that we would sin; we became weak because of sin that was brought into this world by Adam. Adam lost the glory and righteousness of God because He sinned. We were in the loins of Adam so therefore we lost the glory and righteousness of God because of sin. We are restored by faith in Christ and His finished work. We must be born again. God created man a free agent for him to love and obey Him. God told Adam that there was only one tree he could not eat of or he would die and he did die spiritually and this resulted into physical death also.

God has spoken again and told the whole world that there is only one way of Salvation and that is through His Son and the only way we can have eternal life. The sin nature is no excuse because God has shown His Love to us by not sparing His only Son so that he could give us all things.

God will hold all men accountable for their own sins just like He held Adam accountable for his sins. A born again relationship with God is the only thing that can keep us from sinning.

Jesus even said we were evil but we would dare say that he was evil and he had a human body just like us.

Mt 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Ge 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Ge 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Notice that the bible says that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. God is grieved over this and has made atonement for this. It all started in the garden after man fell by disobedience. God slew Lambs and made clothing for Adam and Eve. The first sacrifice of blood was by Able born of Adam. God made the promise right their in the Garden through the seed of a woman. Adam was created a fully developed man with outstanding intelligence in a world without sin. Everyone born after Adam were born a baby into a world of Sin. They are not born in the womb with a born of God nature. They must be born again of God. They will all sin because they come into a world of sin. I believe babies are born in a state of innocence and therefore are not held accountable for sins, because they don’t even know what it means yet. Jesus loves the little children and has already made atonement for them on the cross. The only people who will be in hell are those who sin willfully and did not repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation from sin through his shed blood on the cross

The Law revived sin within us.
God gave the Law not to make us righteous but to show us our sins and our need of His grace and promise through the sacrifice of His Son.

Ga 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Ga 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

I am now going to bed but I love you in the Lord even if you are stubborn and evil like the bible says, because you have sinned, we all have, because God don’t lie.

And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.

And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?

But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.

Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.

2Sa 12:13-24

To tell you the truth Ben I think a great deal of this is becoming quite pointless and unfruitful.

My point in posting it was just an attempt to show that God rules over His creation and does as he sees fit. There are so many things in scripture that ought to bring us to a stand still in soberness and consideration.

Beyond that, I really do not have anything else further to contribute, I am left wondering if there really is a search for the truth of the matter over just so much conjecture and a great deal of obstinate, angst ridden response.

Quote:

"""You are promoting yourself as misquoting Scripture.
No where does it say that He could do nothing without the Father dwelling in Him.
It only said the Godhead dwells in Him, but not that He "could do nothing without the Father dwelling in Him"""

Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, 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.
Joh 5:30 (((((I can of mine own self do nothing:))))) as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that (((((I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me,))))) I speak these things.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

The same as Jesus, so are we, He does nothing without the Fathers telling Him and we can do nothing without Christ unto the fruit of righteousness, by Him that is in us.

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Christ has been made your righteousness, for God knows we have no righteousness in ourselves. This is the Wisdom of God, which He has also given us and made Jesus Christ to be our wisdom. Also, sanctified, and redeemed of the Fathers making it so in Christ, that is born again in us.
When we believe, God places a New Person in us and our minds are having a rough time learning the New Life that is now our life. God Killed my old life, though it still tries to hang on, God then buried it in the tomb with Christ and now all things are new, the old is being passed away and our minds cleansed to the perfect mind of Christ, "recon yourselves to be dead to sin", by faith, this takes time and we will still be learning Christ throughout all eternity.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Our old life was crucified, buried, and resurrected to new life in Christ.

Most of us believe we died on the Cross with Christ, but we leave the buried part out, and are walking around as stinking corpses holding on to the to old and not being resurrected into the all things become new life in Christ.

We just keep chipping away and trying to make ourselves righteous before God by us in our own power becoming righteous enough to enter the kingdom of God on our own. But, "flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of God", so give up and allow Christ to do His Work in us, which He says will be greater works the "these" of His alone.

Without Him we can do nothing anyhow. Seek His Face and His life and all that God has in Christ Jesus will be given to us.

In Christ: Phillip

I was not sure if this question was directed at me,

Mike, Do you think the child was punished?

If you mean, was David's child punished for David's sin, then I would reply no. The scripture is very clear that David was punished by the death of the child. As well, David seems very confident of the well being of the child after it dies, saying "I shall go to him." I tend to think the child was forgiven, comparing David's reaction to Absolom's death.

However, this does not alter the fact that though the child's premature death was because of David's sin, yet the fact that it should die at all was consistent with its own sin. I believe enough sin exists in an infant to reproduce Satan, if it were not restrained by grace and lack of intelligence.

The question to me is not 'was the child punished?', but 'would God be just in punishing a child?' I believe the answer is yes, but also that God may show mercy to children as freely as he does to adults, even to regenerate John in the womb. If God does not punish an infant it is because of mercy, not justice. The child is guilty.

I had a question come to mind, and I just wanted to see what Ben or Logic's answer would be. It is slightly off topic, but I'm just curious.

During the plagues of the Passover, when the Lord was going to strike down the first-born children of those who did not put the blood of the lamb of their door, whose guilt was it if the lamb's blood was not put on the door, and were the first-born infants punished for the sin of those people?

Grace to you,
Taylor

TaylorOtwell wrote:
During the plagues of the Passover, when the Lord was going to strike down the first-born children of those who did not put the blood of the lamb of their door, whose guilt was it if the lamb's blood was not put on the door, and were the first-born infants punished for the sin of those people?

The fistborns of the Egyptions physicaly died because of the consequence of Pharaoh, However all mankind will eventualy die physicaly from the consequence of Adam being cut off from the Tree of Life.

All Egyption and Israel were guilty of sin, not just Pharaoh.

The judgment of the firstborn is either eternal d@mnation after they physicaly die, or eternal life for those who are of the age of innocentce.
[b]Same goes for all mankind[/b].

Surly, if an Egyption put blood of the lamb on their door, they would also be saved, for
God is not a respecter of persons.
Moreover, if one of Israel's houses did not put the blood on their door, their firstborn would die as an egyption.

Did I miss any part of the question?
if so, re-state it and I will answer.

Logic,

I'm having a hard time correlating two things you have said:

They are:

Physical death is not punishment, it is only a consecuence of not being able to eat from the Tree of Life.

and something you wrote from the first pages of this discussion:

Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Notice the logic: [b]If, because of Adam's trespass, [physical] death reigned because of him (Adam)[/b], [how] much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness [by faith will] reign in [physical] life because of Jesus Christ.

Could you explain how these statements are not contradictory?

-Taylor

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Logic,

I'm having a hard time correlating two things you have said:

They are:

Physical death is not punishment, it is only a consecuence of not being able to eat from the Tree of Life.

and something you wrote from the first pages of this discussion:

Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Notice the logic: [b]If, because of Adam's trespass, [physical] death reigned because of him (Adam)[/b], [how] much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness [by faith will] reign in [physical] life because of Jesus Christ.

Could you explain how these statements are not contradictory?

All it says is that death reigned.
Why?
Because Adam was cut off from the Tree of Life.
Now no one can get to it as a consequence.

Quick reply to Ben:

"Cooperating" doesn't mean agreeing with you, or never questioning your position with Scriptural exegesis.

As this thread has over 100 replies, it's safe to say we have all "cooperated".

***edit***

Furthermore, by your own testimony, you came to your conclusions "a couple of days ago", when it "occurred to you" that, supposedly, the concept of imputed sin didn't make any sense. I think I would be more cautious in storming onto this site and propagating views contradictory to the vast majority of godly Christians throughout history, and then have the nerve to tell people that question you they have the "dragon's doctrine".

Logic,

If you don't mind - I'd like to get back to the topic at hand - "can you prove sin nature?".

Frankly, I feel that most of the verses dealing with this issue have been brought up. However, I would like to return to Ephesians 2:3 and deal with some issues from the Greek, because I don't these have been properly dealt with here or in another thread where you and I were discussing these things.

[i]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.[/i] (Ephesians 2:3)

Now, from what I remember, you believe that this verse speaks of men defiling their nature by their sins, and you do not believe it speaks about an inherent sinful inclination that is present in men from birth (since the Fall). If I am misrepresenting your position, please let me know.

[b]Furthermore, if we became children of wrath by after-birth decisions to sin - what were we before?[/b] If you respond "children of God" - could you please explain how that would not contradict John 1:12-13, which states that nobody is the "children of God" from natural birth? If you state that we were in some kind of neutral position, could you explain what the Lord meant in Matthew 12:30 - [i]"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[/i]

Another contention is that I don't think the Greek text supports your view here, which you have suggested it does elsewhere.

φύσει (Strongs 5449) is translated as "nature".

[i]"We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles."[/i] (Galatians 2:13)

[b]Here it is spoken of in terms of a nature connected with the natural birth. I think it would be safe to say that nature, in this verse, is basically synonymous with birth.[/b]

[i]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)[/i] (Romans 2:14-15)

Here, Paul uses the word "nature" in terms of the God-given conscience that convicts of right and wrong. It is not something they have done to their nature, because verse 15 states that this "nature" is because God has (in some fashion differently than those regenerated in Ezekiel 36) written his laws upon their hearts. Again, the word is not used here in terms of bettering or defiling your nature by your own actions.

-Taylor

Ben,

Hi Taylor, in Romans 3: it's not physical death moral, spiritual, eternal death, second death it is contrasted with moral, spiritual, eternal life in Christ in verse 23

I guess I'm not seeing how, if you truly believed this, there would be no point for this thread, because you would already believe that men have an inclination to sin from birth.

If it is spiritual death, then you agree that men are "dead in sins", and "by nature children of wrath" (as Paul says) from birth?

I'm assuming you would say that they sin by Adam's example, which I think is a pretty odd argument. It implies that, when men sin, they are thinking to themselves "I really want to be like Adam". But, perhaps this is not your position, if not, please let me know.

- Taylor

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Logic,

If you don't mind - I'd like to get back to the topic at hand - "can you prove sin nature?".

Frankly, I feel that most of the verses dealing with this issue have been brought up. However, I would like to return to Ephesians 2:3 and deal with some issues from the Greek, because I don't these have been properly dealt with here or in another thread where you and I were discussing these things.

[b]Ephesians 2:3[/b] [color=990000]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.[/color]
Question:
Are you responsible for being a male?
Is it your fault for being male
are you accountable to God for being male?
If not, then why do you think the children of wrath are at fault for being born as such?

The use of the word "nature" here is as if one is thirsty, he will [b]naturally[/b] drink.

So it is with those who fulfill the desires of the flesh and of the (carnal) mind, are [b]by nature of doing these things[/b], they are children of wrath.
Not by nature of being a child of wrath, one will "live their lives in the lusts of their flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the (carnal) mind.

Since these passage is written by the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, I think it would be helpful to look at how Paul uses this word in other contexts.

"We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." (Galatians 2:15)

Paul is comparing who people are; gentiles are sinners because they live as sinners; and those being a Jew, live after the manner of a Jew(from the context of verse 14).

By [b]nature[/b] of being born of a Jew, he is a Jew, it is [b]who[/b] one is.

Not γένεσις (Strongs #G1078) genesis, ghen'-es-is; which implies lineage, heredity, constitution, genetics, and [b]what[/b]= one is.

[b]Romans 2:14-15[/b] [color=990000]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)[/color]
Notice, that if they [b]don't do[/b] the thing which are a law unto themselves in their heart, their conscience will bear witness, and their thoughts will [b]accuse[/b] them.

But if they [b]do[/b] thing which are a law unto themselves in their heart, their conscience will bear witness, and their thoughts will [b]excuse[/b] them.

Just as one has a law written in their heart, he will naturally do (or not do) the things contained in the law of this heart.

All of Egypt carried out Pharaoh's order to kill all the male infants of Israel, actively or passively. Pharaoh claimed his own 10th plague for all of Egypt and all the people participated in it and were guilty before God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Exodus 11:5
Two points are to be noticed:

1. The extent of the visitation: the whole land suffers in the persons of its firstborn, not merely for the guilt of the sovereign, but for the actual participation of the people in the crime of infanticide Ex 1:22.

2. The limitation: Pharaoh's command had been to slay ALL the male children of the Israelites, but only one child in each Egyptian family was to die. If Tothmosis II was the Pharaoh, the visitation fell with special severity on his family. He left no son, but was succeeded by his widow.

Firstborn of beasts - This visitation has a special force in reference to the worship of beasts, which was universal in Egypt; each district having its own sacred animal, adored as a manifestation or representative of the local tutelary deity.

All guilty before God, including Israel, Only the blood saves anyone.

In Christ: Phillip

benjoseph wrote:

I don't think physical death is a punishment. Adam caused his own spiritual death and we "followed his example" and so spiritual death passed to all men because all sinned. Physical death doesn't pass to all men because all sinned. The evidence is that we can't sin until we're old enough. - Ben

Brother Ben,

Are you saying that spiritual death passed to all because all sinned by following Adam's example?

So you are not saying that we all were born spiritually dead, but that we all sinned and became spiritually dead like Adam.

If this is truly what you are saying, then are you saying, that we were born with spiritual life of God but when we sinned we became spiritually dead?

I don’t see how this is the correct interpretation that you have given that we follow his example because of what is stated in verse 14.

Ro 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:
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ro 5:14 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.

It says clearly from Adam to Moses that death reigned over all them who didn’t follow Adam’s example.

It looks like from scripture that death was passed down to all men and it was not because we followed Adam’s example.

The question to me is not 'was the child punished?', but 'would God be just in punishing a child?' I believe the answer is yes, but also that God may show mercy to children as freely as he does to adults, even to regenerate John in the womb. If God does not punish an infant it is because of mercy, not justice. The child is guilty.

I question this. You will recall that God calls the sacrificing of children "the murder of the innocent"
[b]Psalm 106
36.[/b] And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.
[b]37.[/b] Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
[b]38.[/b] And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.
[b]39.[/b] Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.
[b]40.[/b] Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

And, again,
[b]Deuteronomy 24
16.[/b] "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."

"If God does not punish an infant it is because of mercy, not justice. The child is guilty."
Find me a scripture which says "you were guilty from the womb." I see verses which emphasize that we are sinners from the womb but even Paul makes the distinction that there was a time when he was alive without the law. Personally, in my opinion, I do not believe God allows infants to die because He is righteously pouring out His vengeance upon the ungodly fetuses ... please. If anything they die because of the curse of sin&death in the world or the murderous intent of men.

I think there needs to be a clear demarcation between the curse of sin&death that has entered the world through Adam's sin and the wages of sin upon the workers of lawlessness. Consider the man who was born blind, obviously blindness is a result of sin in the world; but who committed such sin that caused him to be born blind? Jesus replied, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

So then, if blindness, and other birth defects (including stillborn), entered the world through sin by the curse of death&decay, who committed such sin that these children today should be born as they are?

Here is a strange conclusion: God in His justice puts an infant to death, if we conclude this to be because the child in the womb is a worker of lawlessness then it is such that these children are being put to death for their sins. That would mean they are dying for and in their sins. This line of reasoning can only give us the impression that the wrath of God was casting these children into hell. Yet, what shall we say then is God likewise guilty of shedding "innocent blood"?

Again, we ought to be very careful in this line of reasoning to see that we do not blame God for the work of satan, the iniquity of men, and the curse of a dying world.

rbanks wrote:

benjoseph wrote:

I don't think physical death is a punishment. Adam caused his own spiritual death and we "followed his example" and so spiritual death passed to all men because all sinned. Physical death doesn't pass to all men because all sinned. The evidence is that we can't sin until we're old enough. - Ben

Brother Ben,

Are you saying that spiritual death passed to all because all sinned by following Adam's example?

So you are not saying that we all were born spiritually dead, but that we all sinned and became spiritually dead like Adam.

If this is truly what you are saying, then are you saying, that we were born with spiritual life of God but when we sinned we became spiritually dead?

[b]Romans 5:12[/b] [color=990000]Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, on which all sinned[/color]
Just as the first transgression was introduced into the world by Adam...
...so [physical] death came into the world through [that] sin...
...and so [physical] death spread to all men because all sinned (so far, and mankind will continue to sin from then on)

Let's break it down:
[b]as by one man, sin entered into the world[/b] Just that, the first transgression was introduced into the world by Adam.

[b]and through sin, death[/b]
through that particular sin, physical death came by being severed from the Tree of Life

[b]so also [physical] death passed to all men[/b]
physical death passed to all because the way to the tree of life was cut off and also because we are all subject to temporariness and are under the bondage of corruption.(Rom 8:20-23)

God subjected creation to these in hope for the glorious liberation of the children of God waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body(Rom 8:20-23)
Flesh was never supposed to be eternal.
Even if Adam had never sinned, he would not have lived forever, even if he would not have eaten from the Tree of Life.

[b]upon all whom have sinned[/b]
but not to the extent that in the future all sinned already.

[b]Romans 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]
Offence was in the world before Law (see note on Romans 3:31), but sin is not accounted to where there is no law;
See - Acts 17:30

[b]Romans 5:14[/b] [color=990000]Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.[/color]
See - Romans 8:21 & 1Corinthians 15:21-22 & :45

Adam had a Law (Thou shall not eat of the tree...), but, from him to Moses didn't except for the law written on their heart.
Ignorance is not an excuse.

Physical Death reigned because the way to the tree of life was cut off.
This was more of a mercy, so man would not live forever in the weakness of flesh and so he may be resurrected in glory.

It says clearly from Adam to Moses that death reigned over all them who didn’t follow Adam’s example.

It looks like from scripture that death was passed down to all men and it was not because we followed Adam’s example.

IN ADAM VS. IN CHRIST - Tom Finley

Introduction

The Christian life is a life of faith. Faith is based upon and lays hold of spiritual truths (Rom. 10:17). No one can live the victorious Christian life without the word of God and its truths being central in his walk. Therefore, it is important that we see certain key truths and meditate upon them. We will talk about our experience, but proper Christian experience must flow out of faith, which is the act of trusting in God’s Word and God Himself. To help our experience, we must begin with learning key spiritual facts.

Our relationship to two men

"In Adam" or "in Christ" are terms which show the "position" of people relative to these two men. In other words, every person is located either "in Adam" or "in Christ." Adam and Christ were representative men, representing all those people that are included within them. They are federal heads of two "races" of men, if you will. Romans chapter five shows that the actions of each of these two men were done in a representative way so that the one person’s actions (Adam or Christ) affected all of those persons either "in Adam" or "in Christ."

Adam’s disobedience brought in sin and God’s judicial condemnation of death to all persons in Adam. We were all affected when he sinned. We are sinners because we were in him when he sinned. (Just as Levi was "in Abraham" when Abraham gave his tithe to Melchizadek. Heb. 7:4-10) Watchman Nee makes these comments in the classic book, The Normal Christian Life:

Do you see the oneness of human life? Our life comes from Adam. If your great-grandfather had died at the age of three, where would you be? You would have died in him! Your experience would be bound up in his. And in just the same way, the experience of every one of us is bound up with that of Adam. None can say, "I have not been in Eden," for potentially we all were there when Adam yielded to the serpent’s words. So we are all involved in Adam’s sin, and by being born "in Adam" we receive from him all that he became as a result of his sin – that is to say, the Adam-nature which is the nature of a sinner. We derive our existence from him, and because his life became a sinful life, a sinful nature, therefore the nature which we derive from him is also sinful.1

Man’s constitution is that of a sinner, one who acts in rebellion against God. "For by one man’s disobedience many were made [constituted] sinners . . ." (Rom. 5:19) No matter how refined, nice or good some men may seem to be, all men are sinners. So, man’s problem is not just that he has sinned in disobedience to God, and thus has a record of sins against God. The problem is deeper. Men in Adam are sinners, and thus they themselves, not just their actions, are condemned by God. But, in Christ, (as seen in the accompanying chart) we have justification, righteousness, and life! We are made righteous, just as we were made sinners!

Meditate on the verses in the chart comparing "in Adam" to "in Christ." Which man do you like? With which one do you wish to be joined? Which one do you wish to live in and experience? Today man has two sources from which to live – Adam or Christ (these are also reflected in the terms "the flesh" or "the spirit"). In our next lesson we will see how God transfers us out of Adam and into Christ. Then, we will begin to see how to live our lives in Christ.

IN ADAM

IN CHRIST
"the first man Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45, KJV)
"the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45, KJV)

"in Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22, KJV)
"in Christ shall all be made alive"

(1 Cor. 15:22, KJV)

"by the one man’s offense the many died" (Rom. 5:15, NKJV)
"much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many"

(Rom. 5:15, NKJV)

"the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation"

(Rom. 5:16, NKJV)
"but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification"

(Rom. 5:16, NKJV)

"For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one"

(Rom. 5:17, NKJV)
"much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17, NKJV)

"Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation" (Rom. 5:18, NKJV)
"even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life" (Rom. 5:18, NKJV)

"For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (Rom. 5:19, KJV)
"so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19, KJV)

HOW GOD TRANSFERRED US FROM ADAM INTO CHRIST - Tom Finley

From one perspective, we have very little to do with our transfer from Adam into Christ. Yet, we derive all of the benefits. Now we begin to see the identification truths.

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption." (1 Cor. 1:30, NASB)

"For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:13, NASB)

God delivered us from the fallen Adamic race through Christ. The first step of this deliverance was for Christ to become a man, to be united with mankind. "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us . . ." (Jn. 1:14, KJV) Christ joined the human race as the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), the final federal head of man. He did this so that He could more than undo the damage done to man through the fall.

We should note that when Christ became flesh, He was not identified with man in man’s sinful condition. Christ knew no sin in His human living (Heb.4:15). As we shall see, it was only on the cross that Christ became identified with man’s sinfulness.

In His death on the cross, Christ dealt with a number of man’s problems, but for our study purposes here, we will speak of only two of the these problems. Firstly, He dealt with man’s sins, man’s record of unrighteous actions before God.

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . . . He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God." (Heb. 10:10-12, NASB)

But, as we have seen, we have a deeper problem than our sins. We ourselves are sinners. Our very constitution is wrong! So, Christ also came to deal a death blow to the sin principle that reigns within man.

"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." (Rom. 8:3, KJV)

In this verse we see the mind and intention of God. Christ was identified with the fallen Adamic race by being "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (not the reality of sinful flesh) in order to deal with sin itself (the sin principle and nature within man). God judged the sin within man at the cross. He condemned it to the death it deserved in the eyes of a holy and righteous God. On the cross, Christ not only took upon Himself the sins of the world (1 Pet. 2:24), but He also became sin itself in the eyes of God, so that God could fully judge sinful man.

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:21, NASB)

Thus, at the cross, in Christ, God judged not only what we have done, but also who we were – sinners.

For God’s method was to set forth a Second Man, a Last Adam, - Christ; (with whom indeed all God’s eternal plans were connected), whom God would not only set forth to make expiation of guilt, but would make to become sin itself; thus to get at what we were, as well as what we had done. Our old man would thus be crucified with Christ, so that all the evil of the old man, and all his responsibilities also, would be completely annulled before God for all believers. For they must righteously be released from Adam, before they are created in Christ, another Adam!1

Praise the Lord that we did not have to bear this punishment! Christ bore it for us!

This matter is also reflected in another verse – Romans 6:6. Romans 6:6 is a key verse in experiencing the victorious Christian life. Here we bring into focus our transfer from Adam into Christ.

"Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be made powerless, that we should no longer be slaves of sin." (Rom. 6:6, NASB, marginal rendering)

In the Amplified Version this important verse reads:

"We know that our old (unrenewed) self was nailed to the cross with Him in order that [our] body, [which is the instrument] of sin, might be made ineffective and inactive for evil, that we might no longer be the slaves of sin" (Rom. 6:6, AMP)

What exactly is the "old man" that was crucified with Christ?

Our old man – This is our old selves, as we were in and from Adam. . . . The word our indicates that what is said, is said of and to all those who are in Christ. The expression "our old man", of course is a federal one, as also is "the new man." . . . the old man represents all we naturally were, - desires, lusts, ambitions, hopes, judgments: looked at as a whole federally . . ."2

Christ, as the Last Adam, took all that we were to the cross and we were crucified with Him there. William Newell, in his classic commentary on Romans, describes the significance of this act in God’s eyes: "The old man was crucified with Christ, and all that belonged to ‘man in the flesh’ was ended before God there on Christ’s cross."3 As the rest of the verse (Romans 6:6) and context state, the practical result in our experience of our being crucified with Christ is not that indwelling sin is eliminated (the presence of the sin nature of the old man is not taken away), but its power and dominion can now be broken in our lives, if we truly live by faith. More will be said about this in a future lesson.

Christ’s first step to deliver fallen mankind was to become flesh. His second step was to be a sacrifice for sins, and to condemn sin in the flesh, thus putting to death what we were in Adam. His third step was to raise us up as a new creation in Christ.

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus . . ." (Eph. 2:4-6, NASB)

The secret of the transfer

We were there in Christ at the cross, and we were there being made alive with Christ (as a new creation) and being raised with Him. The secret of our transfer from Adam to Christ is that we, as believers, are joined with Christ in His death and His resurrection. He ended His relationship with the fallen race and sin at the cross. He died to His identification with sin after He was judged at the cross in our place. "For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all." (Rom. 6:10, NASB). Then, "Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father" (Rom. 6:4, NASB), in order to live in resurrection to God (Rom. 6:10)

His experience can be our experience because we were there with Him. We too can now be dead to sin and alive to God. In this resurrection we have a new life, not like the old life in Adam. Thus, the result of the transfer is this: "Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Cor. 5:17, NASB)

Here is an illustration. Let’s say that I buy an airplane ticket to go from Charlotte to Seattle. Once I get on board, I do nothing to get to Seattle. I just sit in the plane. The powerful jet does all the work as it revs up, takes off and climbs into the sky. Then it flies 600 mile per hour into head winds and lands in Seattle. How did I get to Seattle? I just was there in the plane. Wherever it went, I went. It did all of the work. Once we receive Christ it is like boarding the plane. He has done all of the work to transfer us from our old place in Adam to our new place in Christ. Even when we receive Him now, in the 21st century, we receive His history of almost 2,000 years ago when He was crucified and resurrected.

The transfer we have talked about relates to our position, where we are in God’s eyes. From His eternal perspective, we have been transferred from our place, or position, in Adam to our new position in Christ. Yet, we must go on to see that our experience is a different matter than our position. According to our position, we have died to sin and we are living in resurrection to God, but according to our experience this surely is not always the case! We must have great confidence that Christ has done all of the work to get us out of Adam into Christ, yet a life of faith is needed in order to have this fact become evident in our living. We will explore this matter of faith in future lessons. In our Christian life, we will see again and again that the theme of our having been crucified with Him and raised with Him is essential to our being able to actually live in Christ. Therefore, it is very important that we meditate on these verses and their spiritual truths.

Ben or Logic,

I have a few questions for you regarding John 6:65:

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man [b]can[/b] come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Greek word for "can" here: δύναται

Lexicon's definition: "to be able or possible"

Same Greek word used in John 3:3 where the Lord states that a man "cannot" enter the Kingdom of God without being born again by the Spirit of God.

Could you offer an explanation as to why man can't come to Jesus unless it is given to him by the Father?

I understand that John 3:16 says that whosoever will believe may have eternal life; however, that verse speaks nothing of ability. It simply states that whoever believes will have eternal life.

I'm wondering why, if man has the moral ability and virtue that you and Logic propose he does, he can't simply come to Jesus on his own?

Thanks,
Taylor

Ben,

So what exactly is granted to men by the Father.

It may also be helpful to consider John 10:26 and the reason the Pharisees did not believe. It was because they were not part of the Lord's flock.

Taylor

TaylorOtwell wrote:
Ben or Logic,

I have a few questions for you regarding John 6:65:

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man [b]can[/b] come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Greek word for "can" here: δύναται

Lexicon's definition: "to be able or possible"

Same Greek word used in John 3:3 where the Lord states that a man "cannot" enter the Kingdom of God without being born again by the Spirit of God.

Could you offer an explanation as to why man can't come to Jesus unless it is given to him by the Father?

I understand that John 3:16 says that whosoever will believe may have eternal life; however, that verse speaks nothing of ability. It simply states that whoever believes will have eternal life.

I'm wondering why, if man has the moral ability and virtue that you and Logic propose he does, he can't simply come to Jesus on his own?

Thanks,
Taylor

Ben,

But the Lord is saying it has to be granted a man to even be able to come to Christ and receive eternal life, so why does that have to be granted to a man?

The Lord said in John 17:6 that he had manifested the Father's name to those the Father had given him. This giving must have occurrd before they decide to come to Christ, because Christ states in John 6 that those whom the Father has given him will come to him - not necessarily have all come to him yet.

-Taylor

Ben,

Yes, and I preach to all to repent and trust in Christ as well. But this thread isn't about evangelism. We're talking about the sinfulness of man.

To command someone to do something doesn't imply ability. In fact, even from a "those whom God foresaw would believe are the elect" perspective, the Lord still would have commanded men to believe whom he knew never would believe nor could
believe (else his foreknowledge would have been incorrect).

I simply presented you with something the Lord said that states man has to be granted the ability to even be able to come to Christ. Since you believe man has the ability to choose God without God changing them, I'm interested to know what you think about this teaching of the Lord.

Taylor

Ben,

I'll answer in a general way. However the Lord changes men, it is such that where before they could not come to Christ, they afterwards can and desire to.

Since men must be changed in such a way, it is obvious the Lord has seen fit not to change all men in this fashion.

So, I'm still wondering what you think the Lord meant when be said this to those around him.

Even the disciples said it was a "hard saying" and some even quit following him afterwards, so I think it was a more controversial statement than you make it out to be.

Taylor

I'm saying all men naturally would rather murder God than submit to him.

Do you have any answer for the verse from John?

Taylor

Yes, all of the Lord's flock are given new hearts and have the love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the Spirit.

Please feel free to respond to the verse from John, you have replied 4 times without an answer.

Thanks,
Taylor

Brother Ben,

Read these scriptures before you and see what God is saying. Now I believe like you, concerning freewill, and babies not suffering judgment, because they don’t even know what sin is as of yet.

Hag 2:11 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying,
Hag 2:12 If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No.
Hag 2:13 Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean.
Hag 2:14 Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.

I just don’t see how that you can’t see that all mankind was born from Adam after Adam had sinned and became an all together different being than he was in his original creation.

God would not let him eat of the tree of Life after he had sinned. He died spiritually and became fleshly and not spiritual. Cain was the first murderer in the bible. The second son (Abel) to be born brought a sacrifice of faith to God. It seems obvious concerning what God says about the shedding of the blood for remission of sin that he offered a sacrifice of innocent blood.

Brother, God is so Holy that it does not take much to be unholy in God’s sight. There is no way you can make any reasonable person believe that Adam was the same after he sinned as he was before he sinned. God would not accept Him or anybody after him without a sacrifice. We know that Jesus became the sacrifice for all mankind. We also know that none of the babies born after Adam are fully developed. We know that they have to grow to adulthood. We know that all of them will sin in some way or another before they reach adulthood. We know that they were not born of God at birth because they must be born again. Everything is begotten after its own kind. We were begotten from Adam and received from his nature and this was after he had sinned. Jesus was begotten in the likeness of Adam with a human body but He was also begotten of God. The bible says that he is the only begotten Son of God. The only way we can be begotten of God is through the only begotten Son.

Jesus came in a human body like ours but the difference is that He was begotten of God as well as of man. We are begotten of Adam. Our nature came from Adam but His nature came from God and he was not tainted with a sin nature and nothing unholy touch his birth. Jesus is the only one who can claim to be the only begotten of God from birth as a human without sin.

Dear brother benjoseph,

Forgive me for being ignorant of the first 17 pages of this forum. I was going to read through the posts, but I have homework to do tonight. Therefore, I am sorry if I am repeating anyone.

I think the original question should be changed for a moment. The original question: "(is there proof of) INHERITED SINFUL NATURE from Adam?" How about, "How was body, soul, and spirit effected by the fall?"

For example, meditate on this verse:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
- John 3:6

Now the purpose of the virgin birth seems somewhat foolish if this verse is not true.

I just found a random Christian website where the chapter from, "The Spiritual Man", by Nee called, "The Fall of Man", is. Here is the link:

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/nee/sprtmnv1/1968v1c3.htm

I think this spiritual knowledge is essential before returning to the original question.

Hopefully my jutting into this forum is not overly offensive.

benjoseph & logic,

You both answered my question with the same answer only worded differently.

benjoseph says the big secret is "YOU".

O.K., To put it another way then, a man's choices are self-determined.

This also agrees with 'logic' who says the will acts upon desires.

Therefore, the issue of the heart is the root of the issue of the will.

Pro 4:23 Keepe thy heart with all diligence: for out of it are the issues of life.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitfull aboue all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?

Pro 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

True freedom is to be freed from the heart of self and totally controlled by God. Only in our glorified state will we experience this fully.

John 8:28-47 Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM; and from Myself I do nothing; but as My Father taught Me, these things I speak. And the One who sent Me is with Me. The Father did not leave Me alone, for I do the things pleasing to Him always. As He spoke these things, many believed into Him. Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in Him, If you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
They answered Him, We are Abraham's seed, and we have been in slavery to no one, never! How do You say, You will become free? Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Everyone practicing sin is a slave of sin. But the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains to the age. Therefore, if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed. I know that you are Abraham's seed, but you seek to kill Me, because My Word is not given room in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father. And you therefore do what you have seen with your father. They answered and said to Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me, a man who has spoken the truth to you, which I heard alongside of God. Abraham did not do this. You do the works of your father. They said to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one father, God. Then Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I went forth and have come from God. For I have not come from Myself, but that One sent Me. Why do you not know My speech? It is because you are not able to hear My Word. You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.
And because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Who of you reproves Me concerning sin? But if I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? The one who is of God hears the Words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God.

Two seeds there are. The seed of the righteous and the seed of the wicked.

Matt 13:9-16 The one having ears to hear, let him hear. And coming near, the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables? And answering, He said to them, Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but it has not been given to those.
For whoever has, to him will be given, and he will have overabundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
Because of this, I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled on them, which says, "In hearing you will hear and in no way understand, and seeing you will see yet in no way perceive. For the heart of this people has grown fat, and they heard heavily with the ears, and they have closed their eyes, that they not see with the eyes, or hear with the ears, and understand with the heart, and be converted, and I heal them." Isa. 6:9, 10 But your eyes are blessed because they see; and your ears because they hear.

Matt 13:24-26 Another similitude he proposed to them, and said: The kingdom of heaven is like to a man who sowed good seed in his field. And while people were asleep, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. And when the plant shot up and bore fruits, then appeared also the tares.

Matt 13:41-43 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears, let him hear.

Pro 20:12 The hearing ear and the seeing eye, Jehovah has even made both of them.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies. (ESV)

Psa 58:3 The wicked go astray from the womb; they err as soon as they are born, speaking lies. (DARBY)

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the wombe, they goe astray as soone as they be borne, speaking lies. (KJV-1611)

“The wicked are estranged from the womb.” It is small wonder that some men persecute the righteous seed of the woman, since all of them are of the serpent's brood, an enmity is set between them. No sooner born than alienated from God - what a condition to be found in! Do we so early leave the right track? Do we at the same moment begin to be men and commence to be sinners? “They go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” Every observer may see how very soon infants act lies. Before they can speak they practise little deceptive arts. This is especially the case in those who grow up to be adepts in slander, they begin their evil trade early, and there is no marvel that they become adepts in it. He who starts early in the morning will go far before night. To be untruthful is one of the surest proofs of a fallen state, and since falsehood is universal, so also is human depravity." (Spurgeon)

"In such passages Scripture bears witness to the fact, which is borne out by experience, that there are men in whom evil from childhood onwards has a truly diabolical character, i.e., a selfish character altogether incapable of love. For although hereditary sinfulness and hereditary sin (guilt) are common to all men, yet the former takes the most manifold combinations and forms; and, in fact, the inheriting of sin and the complex influence of the power of evil and of the power of grace on the propagation of the human race require that it should be so.The Gospel of John more particularly teaches such a dualism of the natures of men." (Keil & Delitzsch)

My trust is in God alone, "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began" (2 Tim. 1:9)

2 Tim. 2:19 Yet God's solid foundation stands unmoved, bearing this inscription, "THE LORD KNOWS THOSE WHO REALLY BELONG TO HIM."[see Num.16:5,7] And this also, "LET EVERY ONE WHO NAMES THE NAME OF THE LORD RENOUNCE ALL WICKEDNESS."

rbanks you've got your mind on earthly things instead of spiritual things.

On the contrary it is very much these sort of sentiments that are the ruin of this post start to finish.

What you have started here is a [i]mandate[/i], in essence [i]prove me wrong[/i];

Does anyone believe they can show me directly from scripture and reasoning from the scripture that we

INHERITED a SINFUL [b]NATURE[/b] from Adam

or any kind of [b]INABILITY[/b] to be SINLESS (from birth OR youth to death) that results from our NATURE?

I am concerned it is from gnosticism and that it is blasphemy.

Ben

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the original [i]threat[/i] and the posit that it couldn't be done, a dare to suggest otherwise. And being the case from there on you and Logic have set yourselves up as the great kings of this notion attempting to slay anyone who suggests any scripture or reasoning to be considered. That which 'fit's' to your positing and can be attempted to be thwarted is met with a counter but that which puts a challenge to your notions it met with silence.

But that is not as bad as those things you attempt to [i]force[/i] into meaning that are quite far from the majority's thoughts, the amount of presumption here is quite alarming and it is making this whole matter one great muddle.

I would also forewarn anyone happening upon this to be on their guard. When there is a mandate that will not [i]pause[/i] for consideration, slow down long enough to think through legitimate questions, read through others postings with an unbiased mind but has a ready answer ... Beware.

There is also a very unsettling blending of poorly defined and poorly understood attributes of just what constitutes [i]gnosticism[/i] - In fact there is much that is being posited here that would find shades of [url=http://www.answers.com/topic/manichaeism]Manichaeism[/url] woven through, even if unintentionally.

Unfortunately by trying to pour meaning and intentions into what others are saying this has become a great muddle of confusion. There is much angst and arrogance, pride and lack of humility. There is a lot of emoting but a failure to recognize the complexity of human creatures, what we are made up of. That we are [i]prone[/i] to many things, that we are spiritual as well as actual, physical beings. That we have a bent as well as a disease, a responsibility and a culpability. It is not so simple as these two would make it seem.

It is highly ironic that they are more so presenting the case opposite by their response and proving more of the latter than the former.

Ben and Logic,

A sinner sins because he is a sinner by nature. Many scriptures have been given by our brothers on this subject.

No man can even come to Jesus unless the Holy Spirit is drawing him. A sinner has a will, but it is not free, it is a fallen will. "True and perfect salvation saves man's will." (Nee) It is important to understand the difference between the will of a sinner and that of a born again Christian.

"In salvation, we are saved not because we want to be saved but because God wants to save us; and so is it to be throughout our lives. We need to see that aside from what God does through us, all other activities, however commendable they may be, are utterly non-efficacious. If we fail to learn this life principle at the initial stage of salvation, we shall encounter endless defeats thereafter." (Nee)

"Hence when the Holy Spirit convicts a man of sin, that conviction is such that the man would not have a word to say even should God condemn him to hell. Then when that man is shown by God His definite plan in the cross of Christ he will gladly accept it and express his readiness to receive the salvation of God." (Nee)

Only the Holy Spirit can teach us these truths, but if we are close minded and are holding on to our own opinions about the Word, then we will be resisting the truth. One of the characteristics of receiving the truth is having a teachable spirit. You need to face the possibility that maybe these other brothers and sisters just might have more light on this subject than you do.

This excerpt from "The Spiritual Man" sheds much light on the subject.

Mike

THE ANALYSIS OF THE SOUL--THE WILL

A BELIEVER'S WILL -- Watchman Nee

A man's will is his organ for decision making. To want or not to want, to choose or not to choose are the typical operations of the will. It is his "helm" by which he sails upon the sea of life. The will of a man can be taken as his real self, for it truthfully represents him. Its action is the action of the man. When we declare "I will," it is actually our volition which wills. When we say "I want, I decide," again it is our volition which wants and decides. Our volition acts for the entire man. Our emotion merely expresses bow we feel; our mind simply tells us what we think; but our will communicates what we want. Hence, it is the most influential component of our entire person. It is deeper than emotion and mind. So in seeking spiritual growth the believer must not neglect the volitional element in him.

Many commit the error of treating "religion" as a matter of emotion; they believe that it merely soothes and gladdens men's emotions. Others insist that "religion" ought to be compatible with reason and not overly emotional; only a kind of rational religion is acceptable to these. What both these groups do not know is that true religion per se does not aim at emotion or reason but aims to impart life to man's spirit and to lead his will to be completely yielded to God's will. Unless our "religious" experience produces in us a willing acceptance of the whole counsel of God, it is very superficial. What can it profit a man if along his spiritual pathway the will exhibits no proper sign of grace? Or if the will is not touched? True and perfect salvation saves man's will. Whatever is not sufficiently thorough to embrace the salvation of man's volition is but vanity. All pleasant feelings and all lucid thoughts belong exclusively to the external realm. Man may experience joy, comfort and peace in believing God, he may understand His majesty and amass much wonderful knowledge; but does he possess any genuine union with Him if his will is not united with God's? The joining of wills forms the only true union. Consequently, upon receiving life the believer should be attentive not only to his intuition but likewise to his volition.

A FREE WILL

In discussing man and his will we particularly should bear in mind that he exercises a free will. This means that man is sovereign, that he has a sovereign will. What be disapproves of should not be forced on him, what he opposes should not be coerced. Free will signifies that man can choose what he wants. He is not a mechanical toy to be run by others. He is responsible for all. his actions; the will within controls all matters both inside and outside him. He is not governed automatically by an external force; rather, he houses a principle within him which determines his acts.

This was the state of man when created by God. The man the Creator fashioned was not something mechanical; for it will be recalled that God said to him: "You may freely 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 die" (Gen. 2.16-17). How did God command him? God persuaded, prohibited, yet never coerced. If Adam were disposed to listen and not eat the forbidden fruit, it would be Adam who so willed. But if he would not listen and would eat, even God would not restrain him. That is free will. God put this responsibility of eating or not eating upon man for him to choose according to his untrammeled will. God did not create an Adam who was incapable of sinning, rebelling or stealing, since to have done so would have been to make man into a piece of machinery. God could advise, prohibit and command; however, the responsibility of bearing or Dot lay with man. Out of love, God gave the command beforehand; out of righteousness, he would not force man to do what the latter did not wish to do. For man to obey God, it requires a willingness on his part, because God never compels him. He could verily employ sundry means to make man willing, nevertheless, until he gives his consent God will not make His way into the man. This is an exceedingly vital principle. We shall see later how the Creator never works against this principle, whereas the evil spirits consistently do. By this can we distinguish what is of God and what is not.

THE FALL AND SALVATION

Unfortunately, mankind has fallen. By this plunge man's unfettered volition suffered prodigious damage. We may say that there are two massive contradictory wills throughout the universe. On the one side stands the holy and perfect will of God; on the other is arrayed the defiled, defiling and opposing will of Satan. In between subsists the sovereign, independent, free will of man. When man listens to the devil and rebels against God he seems to render an eternal "no" to God's will and an abiding "yes" to Satan's. Since man employs his volition to choose the will of the devil, his volition falls captive to the devil. Therefore all his acts are governed by Satan's will. Until he overturns his early subjection, man's will remains unquestionably oppressed by the enemy power.

In this fallen position and condition man is fleshly. This flesh-by which his will, together with his other organs, is ruled-is thoroughly corrupted. How can anything pleasing to God ever result from such a darkened will? Even his questing after God springs from the realm of the flesh and therefore lacks any spiritual value. He may invent many ways of worshipping God at this time, yet all are his own ideas, all are "will-worship" (Col. 2.23 ASV), totally unacceptable to Him. Let us realise, then, that except a man receive God's new life and serve Him therein, every bit of service for God is but the work of the flesh. His intention to serve and even to suffer for Him is vain. Before he is regenerated, his will, even though it may be inclined towards good and God, is futile. For it is not what fallen man intends to do for God but how He Himself wishes man to do for Him that really counts in God's eyes. Man may devise and initiate countless notable works for God; nonetheless, if they do not originate with God they are nothing more than will-worship.

This is true with respect to salvation. When man lives carnally even his desire to be saved is not acceptable to God. We read in the Gospel of John that "to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (1.12-13). Man is not regenerated because he wills it so. He must be born of God. Nowadays Christians entertain the incorrect concept that if anyone wishes to be saved and seeks the way of life he undoubtedly will be a good disciple of Christ, for nothing can be better than this desire. God nonetheless affirms that in this matter of regeneration as well as in all other matters related to Him, the will of man is totally non-efficacious. Many children of God cannot understand why John I asserts the will of man to be non-effective whereas Revelation concludes by saying, "Let him who desires take the waiter of life without price" (22.17), as though man himself is entirely responsible for his salvation. And does not the Lord Jesus Himself give as explanation for the Jews not being saved the following declaration: "You refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5.40)? Here again, the responsibility for perdition apparently rests on man's will. Can the Bible be contradicting itself? Is there any special meaning behind these apparent inconsistencies? A comprehension of this matter will help us to appreciate what God requires, of us in our Christian life.

We will recall that God wishes no one to "perish but that all should reach repentance" because He "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Peter 3.9; 1 Tim. 2.4). No problem arises concerning whom God wants to save or whom He will let perish. The problem before us is, rather, what is the sinner's attitude towards God's will? If he decides to be a Christian because be is naturally inclined towards "religion," naturally contemptuous of the world or naturally influenced by his heredity, environment or family, he is as far from God and His life as are other sinners. If the sinner chooses to be a Christian at the moment of excitement or enthusiasm, he may not fare better than the rest. It all reduces itself to this: what is his attitude towards Gods will? God loves him, but will he accept this love? Christ calls him, but will he come? The Holy Spirit wants to give him life, but is he willing to be born? His will is useful only in choosing God's will. The question now is, and solely is, how does his volition react towards God's will?

Have we noticed the difference here? If man himself commences the search for salvation, he is yet perishing. Various founders of religions belong to this category. But if man, upon hearing the gospel, is willing to accept what God offers to him, he shall be saved. In the one case, man originates; in the other, he receives. The one does the willing himself while the other accepts God's will. John I speaks of man himself willing, whereas John 5 and Revelation 22 refer to man's accepting God's will. Hence no contradiction exists between these two; rather is there a very crucial lesson for us to learn. God is instructing us that in such a paramount and excellent matter as salvation anything which proceeds from self cannot be accepted but is rejected by Him. Indeed if we wish to advance in our spiritual development we must understand and bear in mind every vital principle God used in dealing with us at the time of regeneration. These initial principles betoken how we ought to continue in our spiritual life. What we have just now discussed constitutes one of the greatest of these principles. Anything which issues from us, that is from our flesh, is utterly unacceptable to God. Even should we seek such an indispensable and sublime a matter as salvation, our pursuit is nonetheless rejected. What we need unceasingly to remember is that God looks not at the appearance of a thing-whether good or bad, big or small but looks instead to see whence it originates, from Him or not. In salvation, we are saved not because we want to be saved but because God wants to save us; and so is it to be throughout our lives. We need to see that aside from what God does through us, all other activities, however commendable they may be, are utterly non-efficacious. If we fail to learn this life principle at the initial stage of salvation, we shall encounter endless defeats thereafter.

Moreover, according to the actual condition of man, while he is a sinner his will is rebellious against God. Therefore God must bring men to Himself as well as grant him new life. Now just as the will of man represents the man-for it is the essence of his being, so the divine will personifies God -it being His very life. To say that God will bring man to Himself is to say that He will bring man to His will. No doubt this takes a lifetime to fulfil, but even at the outset of salvation God commences working towards that end. Hence when the Holy Spirit convicts a man of sin, that conviction is such that the man would not have a word to say even should God condemn him to hell. Then when that man is shown by God His definite plan in the cross of Christ he will gladly accept it and express his readiness to receive the salvation of God. Thus do we observe that the first stage of salvation is essentially a salvation of the will. A sinner's faith and acceptance is but his desire to take the water of life and be saved. Similarly his opposition and resistance are his unwillingness to come to the Lord for life, and accordingly he perishes. The battle whether to be saved or to perish is fought out in the will of man. Man's original fall was due to the rebellion of his will against God's; and so his present salvation is effected by having his volition brought into obedience to God.

Although at the moment of new birth man's will is not yet fully united with God, his fallen will nonetheless is uplifted through his acceptance of the Lord Jesus and his denial of Satan, self, and the world. By believing God's Word and receiving His Spirit, his will is also renewed. After a man is born anew he obtains a new spirit, a new heart, and a new life; his will receives a new master and is henceforth under new management. If his will is obedient it becomes a part of the new life; if it resists, it turns out to be a formidable enemy to the new life. This renewed will is much more vital than the other parts of the soul. A mind may be misled and emotion can be inordinate, but the will can ill-afford to be wrong. For it to be wrong brings in serious consequences, since it is man's very self and controls all other organs of man. If it is wrong, God's will cannot be realized.

Ben,

I'm sorry to keep beating this horse, but...

Why did Jesus say it had to be granted to a man to even be able to come to him?

Could you please exegete this verse (John 6:65) for us?

You said your "answer" was:

A father loves his son and wants to find a suitable bride for him. Only a willing bride will be a suitable gift for his son.

If you are implying that the Father must make men willing to come to Christ, and that is what John 6:65 means, could you please expound on why they were not willing in the first place, and, secondly, why the Father must actively draw them, rather than waiting for them to choose on their own?

Thanks,
Taylor

Ben,

What if you took a pig and decided that you are going to make a clean animal out of him. You bathed him, dressed him up in a white suit, and taught him all the proper manners of how to stay out of the mud. But what would happen when you turn your back on the pig? He would head for the mud pit. Why? Because he is a pig by nature.

A sinner can be educated on proper morals. He can decide that he is going to do only good works. He can will to do only that which is good and keep away from the bad, but he will not be able to do what he desires, because he is a sinner by nature, and sooner or later his true colors are going to come out.

If a man that is not a Christian could outwardly choose to do that which is right, and outwardly not sin, he would not be acceptable to God, because inwardly he is still full of sin and all kinds of uncleaness. Your choosing to do right will only get you so far. Sooner or later you will have to face the fact that the things that I want to do, I don't do, and the things I know not to do, those are the things that I continually do. (Romans 7).

Only that which is born of God can overcome the world. We don't only need to have our sins forgiven, but we must have a new birth to enter into the kingdom of God. We must be born from above, given a new nature that is created in righteousness and true holiness.

We are only good, because He that is holy dwells within us. Just willing to be good is not going to do it. Our choices are important and we would should choose that which we know to be the will of God. Without Him we can do nothing. We can only live the Christian life in victory by our faith and dependence in Christ. It is by grace that we stand. True Christianity is not your will power overcoming sin. It is not mind over matter. Only by faith in Christ can we overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Mike

How do we explain the will of God for Paul and God reaching to him and revealing Jesus Christ God's Son in Paul, God choosing Paul even in his mothers' womb, to fullfill the Word of God, a dispensation that we might have the same revelation. "The fulfillment of the Word of God for youward". All those that believe must come to God by His choice not ours.

This is the clencher: The will of God for Paul and Timothy and all who believe, "Christ in you the Hope of Glory". This is the only preaching that will make a man perfect, that is, perfect in Christ.

Of course this is tooooooo much scripture to read and ask for bread, but if you will read and ask for bread you won't get a stone, but the bread of life Himself.

Colossians 1:1-29 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ; Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit. For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

It is His working in us, not our working to present ourselves perfect before God. We never could, will not and never will be able to present ourselves to God by our own works.

It is by The Faith of Jesus Christ in us, given by God that we believe.

Galatians 2:14-21 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Who's faith came that we might be made the righteous of God in Christ Jesus?

Galatians 3:21-28 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Is righteousness by the Law? Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

No man can choose God on his own, and did not from the beginning of the world and has not since and never will.

It is by Gods Grace we are saved through the Faith of Jesus Christ given to us by the Father, those that are given to Christ, He will not loose One, except the son of perdition, Judas to fulfil the Word of God.

Ephesians 2:4-22 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Who's workmanship are we, by Grace through Faith which is not our own? We are His workmanship in Christ Jesus our Lord. I can not be my own workmanship before God, for it is dirty rags and a pile of dung.

Only Christ birthed and made in us makes us wise, righteous, sanctified, and redeemed.

1 Corinthians 1:27-31 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

I am the foolish things of the world, despised, I am the thing that is not, lost and condemned. But of Him am I in Christ Jesus, whom God has made to be in me, as it is written, He is my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. He is our glory, and I glory in nothing else.

In Christ: Phillip

rbanks wrote:

I just don’t see how that you can’t see that all mankind was born from Adam after Adam had sinned and became an all together different being than he was in his original creation.

God would not let him eat of the tree of Life after he had sinned. He died spiritually and became fleshly and not spiritual.

Brother, God is so Holy that it does not take much to be unholy in God's sight. There is no way you can make any reasonable person believe that Adam was the same after he sinned as he was before he sinned.

God would not accept Him or anybody after him without a sacrifice.

Tell me why woukd God create mankind with a nature that He hates?

Why would God allow a nature to be passed through humanity which would be contrary to His?

In order for sin nature to be real, God has to be fully responcible for it.
Who else is the creator of natures?

Who is the One to make it so that sin can chang one's nature?

Who is the One to make it so that sin nature is passed down to offspring?

We know that Jesus became the sacrifice for all mankind. We also know that none of the babies born after Adam are fully developed. We know that they have to grow to adulthood. We know that all of them will sin in some way or another before they reach adulthood.

Stop blaming your nature for your sin and live up to your own responsibility. Admit that every sin that you committed was avoidable.

Stop blaming your choices to sin on your nature, admit that every choice to sin was because you had your affections on the wrong thing & you could still, willingly do the right thing.

Sin nature is a scapegoat!

We know that they were not born of God at birth because they must be born again.

Everything is begotten after its own kind. We were begotten from Adam and received from his nature and this was after he had sinned.

Jesus was begotten in the likeness of Adam with a human body but He was also begotten of God. The bible says that he is the only begotten Son of God. The only way we can be begotten of God is through the only begotten Son.

Jesus came in a human body like ours but the difference is that He was begotten of God as well as of man. We are begotten of Adam. Our nature came from Adam but His nature came from God and he was not tainted with a sin nature and nothing unholy touch his birth. Jesus is the only one who can claim to be the only begotten of God from birth as a human without sin

Friedrick wrote:
I think the original question should be changed for a moment. The original question: "(is there proof of) INHERITED SINFUL NATURE from Adam?" How about, "How was body, soul, and spirit affected by the fall?"

For example, meditate on this verse:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
- John 3:6

Now the purpose of the virgin birth seems somewhat foolish if this verse is not true.

I just found a random Christian website where the chapter from, "The Spiritual Man", by Nee called, "The Fall of Man", is. Here is the link:
[url=http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/nee/sprtmnv1/1968v1c3.htm]Watchman Nee[/url]

I think this spiritual knowledge is essential before returning to the original question.

Hopefully my jutting into this forum is not overly offensive.

TaylorOtwell wrote:But the Lord is saying it has to be granted a man to even be able to come to Christ and receive eternal life, so why does that have to be granted to a man?

To command someone to do something doesn't imply ability.

If what you say is true, & you want to be a godly father, you must start commanding your children the impossible & punish them for disobedience.
Or even a godly employer.
you must start commanding your employees the impossible & demerit them for disobedience.

In fact, even from a "those whom God foresaw would believe are the elect" perspective, [b]the Lord still would have commanded men to believe[/b] whom he knew never would believe nor could
believe (else his foreknowledge would have been incorrect).

I simply presented you with something the Lord said that states man has to be granted the ability to even be able to come to Christ. Since you believe man has the ability to choose God without God changing them, I'm interested to know what you think about this teaching of the Lord.

These are ridiculous!

I'll answer in a general way. However the Lord changes men, it is such that where before they could not come to Christ, they afterwards can and desire to.

Christinyou wrote:

Of course this is tooooooo much scripture to read and ask for bread, but if you will read and ask for bread you won't get a stone, but the bread of life Himself.

AbideinHim wrote:
Ben,

What if you took a pig and decided that you are going to make a clean animal out of him. You bathed him, dressed him up in a white suit, and taught him all the proper manners of how to stay out of the mud. But what would happen when you turn your back on the pig? He would head for the mud pit. Why? Because he is a pig by nature.

A sinner can be educated on proper morals. He can decide that he is going to do only good works. He can will to do only that which is good and keep away from the bad, but he will not be able to do what he desires, because he is a sinner by nature, and sooner or later his true colors are going to come out.

If a man that is not a Christian could outwardly choose to do that which is right, and outwardly not sin, he would not be acceptable to God, because inwardly he is still full of sin and all kinds of uncleaness. Your choosing to do right will only get you so far. Sooner or later you will have to face the fact that the things that I want to do, I don't do, and the things I know not to do, those are the things that I continually do. (Romans 7).

Only that which is born of God can overcome the world. We don't only need to have our sins forgiven, but we must have a new birth to enter into the kingdom of God. We must be born from above, given a new nature that is created in righteousness and true holiness.

We are only good, because He that is holy dwells within us. Just willing to be good is not going to do it. Our choices are important and we would should choose that which we know to be the will of God. Without Him we can do nothing. We can only live the Christian life in victory by our faith and dependence in Christ. It is by grace that we stand. True Christianity is not your will power overcoming sin. It is not mind over matter. Only by faith in Christ can we overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Mike

A sinner sins because he is a sinner by nature. Many scriptures have been given by our brothers on this subject.

Just as one can not be called a doctor unless he does something to be a doctor.
One must employ themselves in sin to be called a sinner.

No man can even come to Jesus unless the Holy Spirit is drawing him.

A sinner has a will, but it is not free, it is a fallen will.

A will is a concept of the mind, it can not be fallen.

Ones will is usually effected by it's affections.
The choice that one make will usually follow your affections, even though they do not have to by necessity.
Your decisions are effected by your affections so that you might do what you have favor towards.
However, one is always able to do what is right when the affections are wrong.

True and perfect salvation saves man's will

It is important to understand the difference between the will of a sinner and that of a born again Christian.

"In salvation, we are saved not because we want to be saved but because God wants to save us; and so is it to be throughout our lives.

If it is our nature, we are not at fault.

"Hence when the Holy Spirit convicts a man of sin, that conviction is such that the man would not have a word to say even should God condemn him to hell.

The reason that men are condemned is not becaus Holy Spirit hasn't attempted to convit them, but they denied God's authority of command.

Only the Holy Spirit can teach us these truths, but if we are close minded and are holding on to our own opinions about the Word, then we will be resisting the truth. One of the characteristics of receiving the truth is having a teachable spirit. You need to face the possibility that maybe these other brothers and sisters just might have more light on this subject than you do.

Sin nature is unreasonable.
It puts the blaim on God and frees man of any responcability.
For who can go against their nature which God has given them brom birth.
Adam did not give this so called nature, because God must have made the law to pass on natures of sin.

As for the rest of Nee, be aware and go to the link above.

I have already proven that Adam was the same as all mankind are today.

How in the world do you come to this conclusion?

Prior to his sin, there was no death. Look at what God says to Adam-
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for [b]in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.[/b]"

If Adam was already going to die as you propose, then why did God warn him about an action that would bring death, or as the Hebrew says, "dying you shall die"?

Consider these two verses and tell me what event took place that produced a change in how Adam and Eve were with one another-

Gen 2:25 And [b]the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed[/b].

Gen 3:7 Then [b]the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths[/b].

Why were they suddenly ashamed to be "naked" in front of one another?

Also why is it that not until [i]after[/i] the sin of Adam there is no mention of a curse or any ill effects upon Adam, Eve, and their descendants?

Last of all, how come there are no "perfect" people that we can observe today if all men are born like Adam?

You might want to be careful how you answer that last question. I have a feeling that you will answer it the same way that Pelagius did by saying that there are perfect people, and that my friend would be heresy as Scripture says clearly that "all have sinned" and that use of all means all.

Why wouldn't God grant the ability to perform that which He commands? To not would be tyrannical

Logic,

Again, I have already pointed out to you instances where God commands the impossible and does not grant the ability.

The Lord commanded the Israelites to keep the entire law perfectly; however, Paul states nobody can be justified by the law, which means it must be impossible to keep it perfectly.

The very fact that it was command, yet impossible, and that we do not have the ability to keep it perfectly is the why Paul cites it as our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and not a means of justification, in Galatians.

Thoughts?

-Taylor

It doesn't say that physical death is a punishment.

Actually yes it does, and that is the point the Hebrew brings out.

The phrase "you shall surely die" is the Hebrew word "muth", here is the definition for it-
H4191
מוּת
mûth
BDB Definition:
1) to die, kill, have one executed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to die
1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
1a3) to die, perish (of a nation)
1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
1d) (Hophal)
1d1) to be killed, be put to death
1d1a) to die prematurely

Seems to me that it indeed meant "physical" death, which was not mentioned until the fall. That may also be why man was to be vegetarian prior to the fall, and then omnivorous afterwards.

benjoseph wrote:
rbanks you've got your mind on earthly things instead of spiritual things.

I have posted a lot on this thread that you seem not to care about replying to. I believe your mind was already made up before you started this thread.

There has also been some excellent posts on here explaining the sin nature by godly men that have walk with God more than us.

Watchmen Knee wrote a lot to the church in China and much while He was in prison for 20 years, he suffered much for preaching the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.

I originally started posting in this thread giving you the benefit of humility in seeking understanding concerning the sin nature.

Now that I have seen your replies and no replies to the one's that didn't fit in to your agenda of why you really started the thread I have no desire to continue on in something that is unfruitful.

I believe the scripture says that pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. God does not walk with the proud nor the scornful. God resists the proud but he gives grace to the humble.

I do not believe that the burden of the proof is in "can you prove the sin nature" but can you dare prove that we don't have a sin nature. The bible says that all have sinned. The bible speaks about sin and Jesus coming to save us from sin.

My conclusions now after participating in this thread is that it is arrogance to even suggest to others that we need to prove the sin nature because it is like saying that you have a superior knowledge over us. Although I have tried to see your line of reasoning you desire not to see any of mine. As long as I'm seeing what you want me to see then I'm really trying but you refuse to try to see what I am saying.

It is like saying can you prove that all are sinners when everybody sins. The sinner sins because it is his nature to sin. The bible says that the only nature that does not sin is the born of God nature and Jesus is the only one born on earth with the God nature. We can only receive this nature through Jesus Christ in the new birth.

Brother Ben, I have enjoyed the many contributions to this thread though, and I am not sorry for contributing what little I did, because we can all learn and grow with a mind set on pleasing God. I do hope in the future though when in doubt about something don't readily accept anything that appeals to your senses and also don't close your mind to what others are saying even if it is not going in line with your own reasoning.

There is much for us all to learn but remember knowledge puffeth up but charity edifies. May the grace of God be yours to the riches of His Glory!

Brothers.....

To Logic and Ben,

The only thing that you have proved by your posts is that you are carnally minded and do not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

Matthew Henry said it well:

"The pride of carnal reasoning is really as much opposed to spirituality, as the basest sensuality."

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
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.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
(2Corinthians 2:10-16).

"The natural man, the wise man of the world, receives not the things of the Spirit of God. The pride of carnal reasoning is really as much opposed to spirituality, as the basest sensuality. The sanctified mind discerns the real beauties of holiness, but the power of discerning and judging about common and natural things is not lost. But the carnal man is a stranger to the principles, and pleasures, and actings of the Divine life. The spiritual man only, is the person to whom God gives the knowledge of his will. How little have any known of the mind of God by natural power! And the apostles were enabled by his Spirit to make known his mind. In the Holy Scriptures, the mind of Christ, and the mind of God in Christ, are fully made known to us. It is the great privilege of Christians, that they have the mind of Christ revealed to them by his Spirit. They experience his sanctifying power in their hearts, and bring forth good fruits in their lives." (Matthew Henry)

The irony ...

Recall;

Does anyone believe they can show me directly from scripture and reasoning

"You fool. How ignorant and arrogant can you be?"

My words, then meant as nothing other than an experiment to guage your reaction.

Now I mean them. You are showing yourself incredibly arrogant, smarmy, pompous, haughty and proud. Shall you bury everyone with response, continue to pour your thoughts into others intentions, turn things around so that they say what you want them to say ...

Unbelieveable the audacity. Both you and 'Logic'. [i]If[/i] this whole notion had as much truth as you seem to think it contains it would never need this level of defense. You would be able to walk away knowing that you had something over the great course of Orthodox Christian History, something that somehow evaded everyone. But your actions and attitudes prove otherwise.

You are proving the point exactly just what these 'natures' are made up of ...

[i]From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?[/i] Jas 4:1-5

[i]As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: [/i] Rom 9:13-22

roaringlamb wrote:

I have already proven that Adam was the same as all mankind are today.

How in the world do you come to this conclusion?

Adam sinned the very same reason that we do, because of his flesh.

Gen 2:17 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."

If Adam was already going to die as you propose, then why did God warn him about an action that would bring death, or as the Hebrew says, "dying you shall die"?

Consider these two verses and tell me what event took place that produced a change in how Adam and Eve were with one another-

Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

Why were they suddenly ashamed to be "naked" in front of one another?

Also why is it that not until after the sin of Adam there is no mention of a curse or any ill effects upon Adam, Eve, and their descendants?

Last of all, how come there are no "perfect" people that we can observe today if all men are born like Adam?

It doesn't say that physical death is a punishment.

Actually yes it does, and that is the point the Hebrew brings out.

[b]Eccl 12:7[/b] [color=990000]then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.[/color]
[b]James 2:26[/b] [color=990000]as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.[/color]

Spiritual death - Man from God - [b]Isa 59:2[/b] [color=990000]But your iniquities have [b]separated you between and your God[/b], and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.[/color]

[b]Gen 3:22[/b] [color=990000]Behold, the man was as one of Us,[/color] [he is] [color=990000]knowing good and evil now.[/color]
For fear that he stretch out his hand and take of the tree of life and eat to live forever,
[b]:23[/b] the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Notice that Adam could have lived forever if he ate from the Tree of Life, for that is it's purpose.

Adam was separated from God the Father after he disobeyed; it took Jesus who Adam walked with in the cool of the day to make coats of skin for renewal of the realtionship with the Father.

After that, Ada was restored to spiritual life again, but still no way to the Tree of Life.

AbideinHim wrote:
To Logic and Ben,

The only thing that you have proved by your posts is that you are carnally minded and do not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

Logic wrote:

AbideinHim wrote:
To Logic and Ben,

The only thing that you have proved by your posts is that you are carnally minded and do not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

Back at you.

If we cannot humble ourselves in the way we post, then I suggest this thread be terminated. This has gone far beyond unfruitfulness, but it is bearing rotten, black, smelly fruit.

Friedrick wrote:

Logic wrote:

AbideinHim wrote:
To Logic and Ben,

The only thing that you have proved by your posts is that you are carnally minded and do not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

Back at you.

If we cannot humble ourselves in the way we post, then I suggest this thread be terminated. This has gone far beyond unfruitfulness, but it is bearing rotten, black, smelly fruit.

Since Adam sinned for the same reason that we all do today, why do we need a "sin nature" for the reason that we sin?
Adam was restored back to God, so why would you think that his sin or guilt was passed to anyone?

Sin is not genetic, inheritable, or passed on by birth.

Sin nature is unreasonable.
It puts the blaim on God and frees man of any responcability.
For who can go against their nature which God has given them brom birth.
Adam did not give this so called nature, because God must have made the law to pass on natures of sin.
Tell me why would God create mankind with a nature that He hates?

Why would God allow a nature to be passed through humanity which would be contrary to His?

In order for sin nature to be real, God has to be fully responcible for it.
Who else is the creator of natures?

Who is the One to make it so that sin can chang one's nature?

Who is the One to make it so that sin nature is passed down to offspring?

Why wouldn't God grant the ability to perform that which He commands?
To not would be tyrannical

For God to command something wich He know we can't do;
& you want to be a godly father, you must start commanding your children the impossible & punish them for disobedience.
Or even a godly employer.
you must start commanding your employees the impossible & demerit them for disobedience.

The logical conclusion is that God command the impossible and condemns some for not complying.
This is wicked.
Also:
God would be directly responsible for mankind not obeying because He hasn't given them the ability.
Also:
God would be condemning for which He alone is responsible for.

If you can get around these logicaly and reasonably and show these to be logical conclusions to be true, and the rediculousness to be not rediculous, then I will reconcider.

TaylorOtwell wrote:

Why wouldn't God grant the ability to perform that which He commands? To not would be tyrannical

Logic,

Again, I have already pointed out to you instances where God commands the impossible and does not grant the ability.

The Lord commanded the Israelites to keep the entire law perfectly; however, Paul states nobody can be justified by the law, which means it must be impossible to keep it perfectly.

The very fact that it was command, yet impossible, and that we do not have the ability to keep it perfectly is the why Paul cites it as our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and not a means of justification, in Galatians.

In other words, the Law exists so that our unlawful affections would be evidently more wicked in contrast to the specific commandments(Romans 7:13).

The fact the law revealed our sinns, we should be convicted of the judgment. The jusgment is to bring us to Christ as our advocate to Father.

[b]If we couldn't keep the law, we would be innocent for not complying with it.[/b]

Quote: Logic wrote.

"""The logical conclusion is that God command the impossible and condemns some for not complying.
This is wicked."""

The logical conclusion is that God commands the impossible and then makes the impossible available in Christ, who He has to kill to make the impossible for man possible by The Glory and Goodness of God in Love. Man could, will and and would not be able to, being a created being, attain by his own self, to reach the glory of God which is in Christ Jesus. God proves His plan for man to be God natured and not a creation natured being, who could not attain without Christ in the believer, a being that contained The Father's nature, by giving His Son for and in us that we could be son's of God and attain to heaven and be in the Family of God Himself and live in His House. This was His plan before He created the world as we know it and Adam and Eve also. God proves His plan was perfect and He is justified in making a created son, a birthed son by His only begotted Son birthed in the created beings of His choice. The rest, the created sons', He gives to a created being, Satan, that they might not feel out of place with those that are birthed son's.. They believe satan still and know nothing else they will live with him forever, as we will live with the Father that gives us birth in His Son, Jesus Christ. We are here for one reason, to reconcile those that are birthed by the Father to understand who He is and how much He loves them and what He did to get them birthed in the Son.

Ephesians 1:3-14 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

In Christ: Phillip

Christinyou wrote:

Logic wrote:
The logical conclusion is that God command the impossible and condemns some for not complying.

The logical conclusion is that God commands the impossible and then makes the impossible available in Christ,

You still have a horrable god.

It's enough.

Thread locked. Please give it a rest and do not start another post.