Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian Theology?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Scientists once thought there was a physical substance called phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory)that was released when things burned. It was interesting stuff because it had no color, odor, taste, or weight. In other words, it was undetectable. They speculated that the ash was the essence of wood after the phlogiston escaped. Then they discovered that combustion is a chemical process, and discarded the false notion of phlogiston as not corresponding to anything in the real world.

Likewise, scientists once thought there was a physical substance called the ether (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html)that was required to carry light waves. They could not conceive how light could travel through a vacuum. They thought that all waves, like sound waves in the air or waves in the water, needed a medium to undulate. The Michelson-Morley (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html) experiment showed that it, like the phlogiston before it, was undetectable. Apparently, scientists had had enough with "undetectable substances", and so they discarded the false notion of the ether too.

In both of these cases, science advanced by recognizing that the physical substances postulated in their theories did not correspond to anything in the real world. Attempts to formulate theories based on such false notions of reality were doomed to failure.

The same is true for the Christian understanding of the world that God created.

I think the idea of the "sin nature" is the theological equivalent of phlogiston and ether.

It does not correspond to anything in the real world addressed in Scripture.

It seems that theologians have confused the very real and biblical teaching about the flesh with a theological construct called the "sin nature." Most of them speak as if it is some sort of physical contagion transmitted to the next generation only by the father, an idea they use to "explain" why Christ had to be born of a virgin.

Clarification of this issue brings a lot of light to our study of the Bible. For example, most people have been taught that we sin "because we have a sin nature." But that immediately raises the question of why Adam and Eve sinned, since they were created without a "sin nature." Once the "sin nature" is exposed as a false notion, we can easily see the elegant solution to this ancient conundrum. Adam and Eve were created as fleshly creatures, just like you and me. And what does the flesh do when it is not subject to the guidance of God's Spirit?

IT SINS.

It can't help it. How could it? It doesn't know what the mind of the Spirit is! How can it know the will of God? All it knows is its own desires and lusts. The flesh by itself can not please God. It is like a horse without a rider, run wild.

But remember, the flesh is not sinful by nature. True, it is very weak, and prone to sin, but we know it can not be intrinsically sinful because the Word (Christ) became flesh and dwelt amongst us, yet without sin. And again, we have proof from Genesis that the flesh is not intrinsically sinful. Adam and Eve were created as fleshly creatures, but had no sin until they disobeyed God.

So how did Adam and Eve sin without having a sin nature?

Simple! They were fleshly creatures, and the story makes it abundantly clear they were not in conscious communion with God when they sinned! And so, they acted as fleshly creatures not guided by God, and sinned. (Note how this relates to the challenges of our daily walk!) This is further confirmed by the description of what led up to their sin:

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

Sounds like a very fleshly temptation! Compare this with the classic sin passage:

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (make one wise?), is not of the Father, but is of the world.

So there it is. That's the basic idea I was hoping to share in this post. I think it leads to a magnificent harmony between Scripture and Reality that actually makes sense. And it is extremely satisfying to have a full understanding of Scripture without a mystical undetectable substance that has no "color, odor, taste, or weight."

There is much more to say on this matter, but I will wait for a response to what has been written. I am curious if these ideas make sense to other folks, and if not, why not.

I look forward to your comments.

RAM

[sylvius]

So how did Adam and Eve sin without having a sin nature?

wasn't Adam created with both good inclination and evil inclination?

expressed in the double "yud" with which "vayitzer" in Genesis 2:7 is written?

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

the one "yud" standing for "yetzer hatov" and the second "yud" standing for "yetzer hara"?

[shalag]

Gen 2:9 (12) And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:6 (10) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

In the beginning, God created, and pronounced it 'good'. Gen 2:9 (12) is in agreement with that - pleasant to the sight and good for food. It is the 'desire chet, mem, dalet/52) to be wise (shin/kaf/lamed/350 (with yud/360) (pride) that exposed the unbelief of truth.

If it was 'fleshly temptation' would not the man have been just as guilty?

1Ti 2:14 (70/ayin) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Would deception (nun, shin, alef/351), rather than temptation, be key?

Jesus, the Son (52) of God - was not deceived, was truth in flesh, and exposed unbelief.

John 16:8 (67/19th prime) And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 (68) of sin, because they do not believe in Me;

[Richard Amiel McGough]

wasn't Adam created with both good inclination and evil inclination?

expressed in the double "yud" with which "vayitzer" in Genesis 2:7 is written?

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

the one "yud" standing for "yetzer hatov" and the second "yud" standing for "yetzer hara"?
Yes, the Jews have a tradition that says we are created with a "good inclination" (yetzer hatov) and an "evil inclination" (yetzer hara). Here is a description from hebrew4christians.com (http://www.hebrew4christians.net/Blessings/Daily_Blessings/Yetzer/yetzer.html) (which btw is an excellent source to learn the Hebrew letters, including their symbolic meanings):


The yetzer hara represents the inner impulse or tendency within the human heart to gravitate toward selfish gratification (the word yetzer first appears in Genesis 6:5 where the wickedness of man is described as “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”). The yetzer hatov, on the other hand, represents the inner impulse to do good.

Now the question is - does the Bible teach that we were created with two competing wills - one for good and one for bad - or is that teaching only found in the Jewish tradition?

Now if the Bible does teach it, how does it relate to the traditional Christian teaching about the "sin nature" which was acquired after the fall, not built in at creation?

Furthermore, we need to ask: Does the Bible teach that we were originally created as "divided souls"? I don't think so. Did God create us as "double minded" creatures with two competing wills. or as a unity, in the image of God? This also makes me think of James 1:7 "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Did God create us to be "unstable"?

RAM

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Gen 2:9 (12) And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:6 (10) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

In the beginning, God created, and pronounced it 'good'. Gen 2:9 (12) is in agreement with that - pleasant to the sight and good for food. It is the 'desire chet, mem, dalet/52) to be wise (shin/kaf/lamed/350 (with yud/360) (pride) that exposed the unbelief of truth.

If it was 'fleshly temptation' would not the man have been just as guilty?

1Ti 2:14 (70/ayin) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Would deception (nun, shin, alef/351), rather than temptation, be key?

Jesus, the Son (52) of God - was not deceived, was truth in flesh, and exposed unbelief.

John 16:8 (67/19th prime) And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 (68) of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
Good points shalag.

In thinking this through, I knew we needed to ground it in unbelief, since that is the root of sin (whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom 14:23). That's why the idea of "competing internal wills" - like the classic image of a devil on each shoulder fighting to win the person over - does not seem to correspond to reality. It seems like another "phlogiston" theory to me. Like we start with a struggle between the flesh and the spirit (which the Bible teaches) and add to it the idea of an "evil will" that "likes" the flesh and a "good will" that "likes" the spirit. Why add those "things" - why not keep it simple?

So what is it about the flesh that causes it to sin? Is it that fact that the flesh knows nothing of the Spirit, and faith(fulness) is of the Spirit? That seems to be aiming in the right direction.


If it was 'fleshly temptation' would not the man have been just as guilty?
Absolutely. My point was to show that the root of sin was found not in a "sin nature" but in the flesh itself. But its not because the flesh is innately evil, but because the flesh not rule by the human spirit ruled by the Spirit of God can not please God because it does not know the will of God and so will sin. But this is not to say it is sinning because of "ignorance." It may well know the explicit commnands of God like "do not covet" but by its nature, it will covet anyway.

But that's just the flesh ... the SIN comes in when the whole person - the living soul (nephesh chiah = body + spirit, Gen 2:7) ignores God and choose to align itself with the desires of the flesh.

I knew this would take a little while to "flesh out" :rolleyes: (I'm gonna have to make a smilie for a "bad pun groan").

One question: Why did you write the "1Ti 2:14 (70/ayin)"? I understand of course that 70 is the value of ayin, I was just wondering why you chose to put it there? Is it because the verse speaks of the fall in Genesis 3, and that story is saturated with ayin KeyWords (eyes/ayini opened, arum/naked, etc)?

RAM

[sylvius]

My point was to show that the root of sin was found not in a "sin nature" but in the flesh itself.

what then about Genesis 6:6?

וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ
And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

commentary says: it repented the Lord that he had made Adam with an evil inclination = sin nature.

"vayinachem" = and it repented Him
you might also translate "and He found comfort in" -

verb "nacham" can have both meanings.

from this name "Menachem" , Comforter, name of the Messiah.

it is about the mystery of creation

God intended it that way.

if Adam wouldn't have sinned it wouldn't have been good at all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

what then about Genesis 6:6?

וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ
And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

commentary says: it repented the Lord that he had made Adam with an evil inclination = sin nature.

"vayinachem" = and it repented Him
you might also translate "and He found comfort in" -

verb "nacham" can have both meanings.

from this name "Menachem" , Comforter, name of the Messiah.

it is about the mystery of creation

God intended it that way.

if Adam wouldn't have sinned it wouldn't have been good at all.
Yes, it touches the mystery of creation, and that's why its so very interesting! And significant, since its ramifications run through the whole body of Scripture.

But we are still turning around the same pole. It seems like you believe in the tradition that God created Adam with a "sin nature" = "yetzer hara". So before we go further, I need an answer to the question I asked earlier - does the Bible teach that we were created with a dual nature? Or does that idea come only from Jewish tradition?

I agree that "God intended it that way". But that's not question. The question is the origin of sin. Did God have to create Adam with a "sin nature" to enable him to sin, or did he only need to create him as a fleshly creature, and then leave him alone for a while? Note also that the idea of begin created with a sin nature contradicts the Christian tradition that Adam and Eve acquired a sin nature only after the first sin.

That's the fundamental point of my opening post: I discarded the unneeded metaphysical construct called a "sin nature" and found that I could understand everything in the Bible much more clearly. Of course, I could have missed something essential. That's what I'm hoping to find out in this thread. ;)

[sylvius]

- does the Bible teach that we were created with a dual nature?

Paul does so,

1Corinthians 15:44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.



Or does that idea come only from Jewish tradition?
Bible isJewish tradition.

cf Rashi on Genesis 2:7,
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8166&showrashi=true

formed[וַיִּיצֶר, with two “yuds,” hints at] two creations, a creation for this world and a creation for the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, but in connection with the animals, which do not stand in judgment, two“yuds” are not written in [the word וַיִּצֶר describing their creation. — [from Tan. Tazria 1]


Note also that the idea of begin created with a sin nature contradicts the Christian tradition that Adam and Eve acquired a sin nature only after the first sin.
source?


That's the fundamental point of my opening post: I discarded the unneeded metaphysical construct called a "sin nature" and found that I could understand everything in the Bible much more clearly. Of course, I could have missed something essential. That's what I'm hoping to find out in this thread. ;)
maybe the original sin is like denying that you have a sin nature ...

there is nothing wrong about having a sin nature.

without the evil inclination even no hen would lay anymore an egg...

[Richard Amiel McGough]

- does the Bible teach that we were created with a dual nature?
Paul does so,

1Corinthians 15:44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.
That quote says nothing about being created with a sin nature. It actually supports my point, we were created first as a natural = fleshly creature. The battle is between the flesh and the spirit (Gal 5:17) not an imaginary "sin nature" and the spirit.

This seems to be a persistent confusion. You seem to be assuming that the flesh = the sin nature. I'm saying there is no need to invent the idea of "sin nature." You can understand everything much more clearly by not introducing that idea in the first place.


Bible isJewish tradition.
There is definitely "Jewish tradition" in the Bible, but there is a lot of Jewish tradition that is wrong and definitely unbiblical. For example, Jewish tradition denies Jesus is the Messiah! So it is wrong to simply identify the Bible as "Jewish Tradition."



cf Rashi on Genesis 2:7,
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8166&showrashi=true
formed[וַיִּיצֶר, with two “yuds,” hints at] two creations, a creation for this world and a creation for the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, but in connection with the animals, which do not stand in judgment, two“yuds” are not written in [the word וַיִּצֶר describing their creation. — [from Tan. Tazria 1]
That's fine ... but how do we know Rashi is correct? Can you support his assertion with the Bible? Or since Rashi is quoting an earlier tradition, how do we know that tradition is correct? Obviously, we can't just believe all Jewish tradition! Even if we wanted to, we couldn't because it not a logically coherent body of knowledge.




Note also that the idea of begin created with a sin nature contradicts the Christian tradition that Adam and Eve acquired a sin nature only after the first sin.
source?
Glad you asked! Here's one of ten thousand, from the Puritan's Mind (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Tracts%20and%20Writings/TotalDepravityTract.htm)website:


Before the Fall in the garden, Adam was without sin, but had the potential to sin if he chose to do so. Since he chose to sin, he fell from the gracious state he was in and entered into a sinful state. Once the pot is broken it can never be unbroken; it will always have cracks no matter how much glue you use. What exactly did we inherit in this sin nature? Genesis 6:5 says, "And the Lord saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth and every intent and thought of his heart was only evil continually." The heart is the spiritual center of man's being. It is the place where mind, emotions, and spirit all reside in a collective whole--it is the heart of man. The sinful heart is only evil, and anyone who has one of these hearts is evil. Not just that they do evil things, but they are inherently evil. Being "evil" means that they have inherited Adam's sin. In God's eyes that means they are imperfect. Being imperfect is evil.
As far as I know, the idea that Adam was without sin or a sin nature before the fall is universal amongst those who believe in the sin nature (which seems to be almost everybody). The ideas I put in red are important to understand when discussing this question.


maybe the original sin is like denying that you have a sin nature ...
Maybe the original sin was the invention of the idea of a sin nature!

(two can play at that game :p )


there is nothing wrong about having a sin nature.
You must be using a non-standard definition of sin nature. According to most theologians, the sin nature = totally evil as stated in the quote above.


without the evil inclination even no hen would lay anymore an egg...
You don't need an "evil inclination" to sin. You need only be a fleshly creature not in subjugation to the Spirit of God. That was the point of my opening post.

It seems like we have a persistent confusion here. I assert the "evil inclination" and the "sin nature" are inventions, fabrications, fantasies that don't correspond to anything in the real world.

The flesh does not need an "evil inclination" or "sin nature" in order to sin.

RAM

[sylvius]

Before the Fall in the garden, Adam was without sin, but had the potential to sin if he chose to do so.
potential to sin = evil inclination

[Richard Amiel McGough]

potential to sin = evil inclination
Well, that's not what you said earlier .... :cool: ...

Here's is the data I was working from:




My point was to show that the root of sin was found not in a "sin nature" but in the flesh itself.

what then about Genesis 6:6?

וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ
And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

commentary says: it repented the Lord that he had made Adam with an evil inclination = sin nature.

You see, the whole point of this thread is my assertion that there is no such thing as a "sin nature." Theologians have been talking about "sin nature" as if it were some physical contagion transmitted from Adam through the paternal line to you and me. I'm saying Scripture is simpler and our theology is more elegant and more congruent with reality when we discard the notion of a "sin nature" and deal only with the Biblical idea of the flesh versus the spirit.

Does that make sense to you?

[sylvius]

potential to sin = evil inclination = sin nature

[Richard Amiel McGough]

potential to sin = evil inclination = sin nature
That's not what people mean by "sin nature."

I explained this in the previous post. According to the theologians who believe in the "sin nature", Adam had the "potential to sin" before he sinned, but he did not have a "sin nature" until after he sinned.

The "sin nature" is supposed to be actually evil, not merely an "inclination towards evil."

[sylvius]

That's not what people mean by "sin nature."

I explained this in the previous post. According to the theologians who believe in the "sin nature", Adam had the "potential to sin" before he sinned, but he did not have a "sin nature" until after he sinned.

The "sin nature" is supposed to be actually evil, not merely an "inclination towards evil."


like i am a potential murderer.

i can kill someone.

but once i do so I am a killer?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

like i am a potential murderer.

i can kill someone.

but once i do so I am a killer?
Yeah, kinda like that ... only the label "killer" is an abstraction. It doesn't necessarily transform your ontology just because you performed the act itself. And you definitely can't "pass it on to your children" by the mere fact of being their biological father.

The idea of the "sin nature" is an actual factual change in your "nature" that makes it impossible not to sin. And its something that is inherited through the father.

I think that's a false notion.

[sylvius]

Yeah, kinda like that ... only the label "killer" is an abstraction. It doesn't necessarily transform your ontology just because you performed the act itself. And you definitely can't "pass it on to your children" by the mere fact of being their biological father.
The idea of the "sin nature" is an actual factual change in your "nature" that makes it impossible not to sin. And its something that is inherited through the father.

I think that's a false notion.

makes think of John 8:44,

You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

and makes me also think of what I understood from René Girard, viz. that all myth is camouflage of original murder; the murderer(s) created the myth to speak themselves free and blame the victim(s). The cross meaning the definitive end of all mythology...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard

[Brother Bob]

I'll jump in here not because I think I have the answers, but to rethink things and possibly change my views.

I like the idea of thinking of 'the flesh' as opposed to 'sin nature', but I'm not so sure 'the flesh' does not also include the idea of a 'sin nature'.

Even Lucifer was created perfect and sinned. Evidently God has granted the power of free choice to His creatures. Therefore, both Lucifer and Adam, created perfect, are responsible for their sins. I say this for those who indirectly make God responsible for the devil and entrance of sin. Even Jesus, who I believe was born with a perfect sinless nature, could really be tempted "to choose" to 'sin', by choosing to distrust God.

I believe that when Adam and Eve disobeyed it affected their heart and mind thereby corrupting their sinless human nature. They were created to have full dominion over their body and self by the Spirit. When they sinned it turned their human nature upside down. By putting self and bodily desires above the Spirit, they became corrupted. All their thoughts and desires were defiled by the enthronement of selfish and bodily desires. Their spirits became subservient and dominated by self and flesh. They passed on this corrupted human nature onto their children. Like David, we are all, 'born in sin, in sin did my mother conceive me'. Psalm 51

That is why a person MUST be born again. What happens is that thru Christ we are forgiven and given the Holy Spirit to indwell us. He makes our spirits alive and regenerates them with His power to retake dominion over selfish and bodily desires. The heart is desperately wicked. What is this heart? Not a muscle....but the core of our being. That is why God in the New Covenant promises to give us a new heart and mind....or a new nature. What I once loved I hate and what I once hated I now love. That is only possible by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

So, what am I saying? I guess for me it doesn't matter if someone calls it "the flesh" or "sinful nature". To me it is a reference to both the selfish and bodily nature of humans apart from the Spirit of God.

When someone refers to the "flesh", for me, it is a reference to BOTH bodily and selfish desires that proceed from a desperately wicked heart. Since the Bible uses "flesh" to describe the fallen human nature, it is preferred.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'll jump in here not because I think I have the answers, but to rethink things and possibly change my views.
I'm right with you there Bob. I know I don't have "all the answers", that's for sure! And that's why I started this thread ... I wanted to test my idea, and to change my view if it fails to stand the test. Only a fool would knowingly persist in error!


I like the idea of thinking of 'the flesh' as opposed to 'sin nature', but I'm not so sure 'the flesh' does not also include the idea of a 'sin nature'.
That's exactly the point I am trying to clarify. 1) Is there such a thing as a "sin nature" and 2) if so, what is its relation to the flesh?


Even Lucifer was created perfect and sinned. Evidently God has granted the power of free choice to His creatures. Therefore, both Lucifer and Adam, created perfect, are responsible for their sins. I say this for those who indirectly make God responsible for the devil and entrance of sin. Even Jesus, who I believe was born with a perfect sinless nature, could really be tempted "to choose" to 'sin', by choosing to distrust God.
As an aside, the idea that God is ultimately responsible for sin relates to the Calvinist doctrine of "eternal decrees" which I think is false. I don't know any verse that teaches that God ordained each and every thing that ever happened, including each and every sin that has ever been committed. That would make a good thread - someone should start it.

But more to the point, there is a good reason to distinguish "sin nature" from the "flesh". Jesus became flesh, yet without sin. And Adam and Eve were flesh without sin before they sinned. So the two can not be identified as exactly the same. But maybe in all the children of Adam they are effectually the same now, since all have sinned ... but I don't think so.

Most folks say we sin because we have a sin nature. That doesn't make any sense to me because Adam and Eve started the whole world sinning when they themselves had no sin nature. It makes more sense to me to think that we sin because we choose to live for ourselves and put our fleshly desires above our desire to serve God. You addressed that point well.


I believe that when Adam and Eve disobeyed it affected their heart and mind thereby corrupting their sinless human nature. They were created to have full dominion over their body and self by the Spirit. When they sinned it turned their human nature upside down. By putting self and bodily desires above the Spirit, they became corrupted. All their thoughts and desires were defiled by the enthronement of selfish and bodily desires. Their spirits became subservient and dominated by self and flesh. They passed on this corrupted human nature onto their children. Like David, we are all, 'born in sin, in sin did my mother conceive me'. Psalm 51

Yes, sin corrupts our nature, like a rot or a cancer, and makes us more likely to sin more each time we sin - like a physical addiction like smoking or drinking. But I still don't know if there is such a thing as a "sin nature" that "causes us to sin." I don't see how that explains reality - it feels like "plogiston."

The reason I'm trying to work out this language is because it has consequences. For example, if the Christian gets a "new nature" when he or she is born again, does that mean they have no more "sin nature"? Some people teach that, and then get confused about why Christians sin. If we understand that the born again Christians still have flesh, just like Adam and Eve before the fall, then we can understand that there will be a war between the "flesh and the spirit" and we clear up the confusion.

The big thing is that I have a real dislike for undetectable metaphysical "entities" with "properties" that are not actually spoken of in Scripture and that don't actually explain anything. Those kind of things make my mind feel all fuzzy and out of focus. :confused:


That is why a person MUST be born again. What happens is that thru Christ we are forgiven and given the Holy Spirit to indwell us. He makes our spirits alive and regenerates them with His power to retake dominion over selfish and bodily desires. The heart is desperately wicked. What is this heart? Not a muscle....but the core of our being. That is why God in the New Covenant promises to give us a new heart and mind....or a new nature. What I once loved I hate and what I once hated I now love. That is only possible by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Amen! Our spirits are dead before we are born in Christ. We MUST be born again. And yes, fleshly things we once loved are now hated because we have a life in the Spirit and know the Mind and Will of God, and our communion with Him is lost when we look to the flesh, and that causes sorrow.

But still ... I seem to be explaining the whole biblical teaching in terms of flesh (that is not intrinsically evil) and spirit. I don't seem to need the term "sin nature" to explain anything.

So if I have the same explanatory power with one less metaphysical entity, I believe I have come significantly closer to the truth. That's the thing about "phlogiston" and "ether" in the opening post.


So, what am I saying? I guess for me it doesn't matter if someone calls it "the flesh" or "sinful nature". To me it is a reference to both the selfish and bodily nature of humans apart from the Spirit of God.

When someone refers to the "flesh", for me, it is a reference to BOTH bodily and selfish desires that proceed from a desperately wicked heart. Since the Bible uses "flesh" to describe the fallen human nature, it is preferred.

I agree that it doesn't matter much in the ordinary Christian discourse. But if we really want to understand the true Biblical world view, and if we want our understanding to advance towards perfection (Hebrew 6:1), then it seems to make a huge difference, because we are talking about existence, or lack thereof, of something that is simply assumed to exist in almost all discussions about the nature of sin and its solution in Christ.

Thanks for the great post!

RAM

[Richard Amiel McGough]

makes think of John 8:44,
You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.and makes me also think of what I understood from René Girard, viz. that all myth is camouflage of original murder; the murderer(s) created the myth to speak themselves free and blame the victim(s). The cross meaning the definitive end of all mythology...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard
Definitely a strong connection here sylvius. A professor friend of mine (my brother-in-law) was strongly influenced by Girard and "mimetic theory". It has some real value. But does this help answer my question about the non-existence of a "sin nature" and its relation to the "flesh"?

[shalag]

One question: Why did you write the "1Ti 2:14 (70/ayin)"? I understand of course that 70 is the value of ayin, I was just wondering why you chose to put it there? Is it because the verse speaks of the fall in Genesis 3, and that story is saturated with ayin KeyWords (eyes/ayini opened, arum/naked, etc)?

1Timothy 2:14 states the woman is 'deceived' - not so much that she is lusting - but deceived, although both may be present.

First it is interesting to note that the word sin 'chatta'ah' is not stated until Gen 4:7 (12) and then only mentioned a total of four times in Genesis. The next occurences are in Gen 18:20 (39), the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah; Gen 31:36 (68), Jacob querying Laban 'what is my sin?'; Gen 50:17 (68), Joseph's brethren asking forgiveness for their trespass and their sin. In Exodus sin is first mentioned in connection with Pharoah (the evil mouth) requesting his sin be forgiven and then in Ex 29:14 (45) God establishes the 'sin offering'.

The primary root 'chata'/sin is recorded the first time in Gen 20:6 (27) in relation to Abraham's fear saying Sarah was his sister and Abimelech being refrained from 'touching' her because again the penalty is death. And in Gen 20:9 (30/lamed) Abimelech poses the same question to Abraham as God posed to the woman in the garden, "What have you done/ ayin/shin/hei/375)?

In one place is says - first death - then sin.
1Co 15:56 (117=3sq x 13) the sting of deathis sin.

In another it says first sin, then death.
Rom 5:12 (62) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

In the beginning - the issue was 'don't eat, don't touch/strike' because you will die.. Here it appears 'the sting of death was sin'.

In the 1Timothy verse the woman was deceived

1Ti (54) 2:14 (70) says the woman was deceived..

Eph 5:6 (60) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

In "ishshah's" desire to be 'wise' she believed a lie that she would not die.

I'm unclear at this point if the issue is simply 'flesh'. Flesh/basar (beyt/shin/resh/502) from its root means to bear news, bear tidings, publish, preach, show forth

1. (Piel)
1. to gladden with good news
2. to bear news
3. to announce (salvation) as good news, preach
2. (Hithpael) to receive good news

[Brother Bob]

That's exactly the point I am trying to clarify. 1) Is there such a thing as a "sin nature" and 2) if so, what is its relation to the flesh?
RAM, you believe in human nature don't you? I'm sure you do. We all do. How do you define the human nature? Of what does it consist? Volumes have been written on what Paul meant by "flesh". I haven't studied this in some time and to be truthful I haven't heard this question before.

I believe in something called "human nature". I characterize it within categories which work for me: physical, social/emotional, mental/intellectual, and spiritual. When Luke summarizes the first 30 years of Jesus' life in Luke 2, he states that Jesus grew in stature (physical), wisdom (mental), and in favor with man (social/emotional) and God (spiritual). There is a perfect human nature without any predisposition or tendency to sin either hereditary or culturally learned. Examples are Adam and Christ. I believe all other humans are born with an imperfect human nature. That is they have inherited predispositions and tendencies to sin within their genes and also learn from other imperfect humans, habits and patterns of wrong thinking and behavior.

According to Paul in Romans 8, all are born hostile to God and His Laws. I believe Jesus did not need to born again! Everyone else does. Jesus had no predispositions or tendencies to sin. There was nothing in Him. Not so with us. Yes, we can be born again, but the "old man" or 'old nature' will always remain. As long as we walk in the Spirit we will have dominion over human nature that naturally wants to sin. Some call this natural human nature "the sinful nature". I understand it and don't have a problem with it. When Paul uses the term "flesh", I believe he is referring to the human nature we are all born with....within the four categories I outlined above.



But more to the point, there is a good reason to distinguish "sin nature" from the "flesh". Jesus became flesh, yet without sin. And Adam and Eve were flesh without sin before they sinned. So the two can not be identified as exactly the same. But maybe in all the children of Adam they are effectually the same now, since all have sinned ... but I don't think so.
Well here is another issue raised...the human nature of Christ and how it differs from others born of Adam. Some say Christ was born with the same nature as all of Adam's children. Others say He was born with a sinless nature. We can dig into this issue and profitably so, but it feels like thread drift. "Flesh" is highly theologically charged. It is not a simple reference to the bodily desires (physical). I believe it is reference to human nature that has fallen into a sinful state. Jesus was not born into a sinful state needing to be born again.


Most folks say we sin because we have a sin nature. That doesn't make any sense to me because Adam and Eve started the whole world sinning when they themselves had no sin nature. It makes more sense to me to think that we sin because we choose to live for ourselves and put our fleshly desires above our desire to serve God. You addressed that point well.
It's both. A perfect being can sin because they are free to choose to sin and when they do they corrupt their nature. A person born with an imperfect nature really has no choice but to live according to his imperfect nature. The difference seems to be that the perfect being has a choice, the imperfect being has no choice, but both have the ability to sin.

Yes, you and I, before we are born again, choose to live for ourselves, because we are born conditioned to do so. Even when we are born again, we are tempted to please ourselves because the selfish nature is still within us. But once born again, we have a new power to help us choose correctly.


Yes, sin corrupts our nature, like a rot or a cancer, and makes us more likely to sin more each time we sin - like a physical addiction like smoking or drinking. But I still don't know if there is such a thing as a "sin nature" that "causes us to sin." I don't see how that explains reality - it feels like "plogiston." Richard, for me, the 'sin nature' is the human nature we are all born with, that is full of tendencies to sin.


The reason I'm trying to work out this language is because it has consequences. For example, if the Christian gets a "new nature" when he or she is born again, does that mean they have no more "sin nature"? Some people teach that, and then get confused about why Christians sin. If we understand that the born again Christians still have flesh, just like Adam and Eve before the fall, then we can understand that there will be a war between the "flesh and the spirit" and we clear up the confusion.

Scripturally, we are to reckon our sinful human nature as crucified with Christ. Watchman Nee has a good chapter on this in his "The Normal Christian Life."

So what is your understanding of "flesh"? Just what exactly does it consist of?


The big thing is that I have a real dislike for undetectable metaphysical "entities" with "properties" that are not actually spoken of in Scripture and that don't actually explain anything. Those kind of things make my mind feel all fuzzy and out of focus. :confused:


Amen! Our spirits are dead before we are born in Christ. We MUST be born again. And yes, fleshly things we once loved are now hated because we have a life in the Spirit and know the Mind and Will of God, and our communion with Him is lost when we look to the flesh, and that causes sorrow.

But still ... I seem to be explaining the whole biblical teaching in terms of flesh (that is not intrinsically evil) and spirit. I don't seem to need the term "sin nature" to explain anything.
I understand. All I know is that the tendency to sin will always be present, but that there is a Power present within that impowers to dominate it. Flesh equals sinful nature to me. But I see how it is confusing....and I'm not sure we fully understand all the dynamics involved.

Peace

[sylvius]

In the beginning - the issue was 'don't eat, don't touch/strike' because you will die.. Here it appears 'the sting of death was sin'.

this already is kind of deception.

God had said, Genesis 2:17,

But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

He didn't say nothing about touching!

Yet the woman told the snake, Genesis 3:3,

But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"
giving him the opportunity, v.4:

And the serpent said to the woman, "You will surely not die.
Rashi: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8167&showrashi=true

He pushed her until she touched it. He said to her, 'Just as there is no death in touching, so is there no death in eating' (Gen. Rabbah 19:3).

Now the question is: how she came to the conviction that also touching the tree was forbidden?

Jewish tradition says: Adam told her.

(the command was given to Adam even before the woman was made,
Genesis 2,

17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."
18. And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him." )

why did Adam tell her?

out of anxiety to lose her he builded a fence around the tree!
Anxiety for death.
saying: this is forbidden area for you, like kind of red zone district.



this must be also why Jesus was "eating with tax-collectors and sinners"

Mark 2:10,

Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"


Luke 7:39,

When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner."





In the 1Timothy verse the woman was deceived

1Ti (54) 2:14 (70) says the woman was deceived..

Eph 5:6 (60) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

In "ishshah's" desire to be 'wise' she believed a lie that she would not die.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

RAM, you believe in human nature don't you? I'm sure you do. We all do. How do you define the human nature? Of what does it consist? Volumes have been written on what Paul meant by "flesh". I haven't studied this in some time and to be truthful I haven't heard this question before.

Hey Bob ... I understand that I pushed us off into the "deep end" of this theological pool when I brought up this question. You are correct, volumes have been written on what Paul meant by the flesh. So we should be very careful not to rush to any conclusions.

But on the other hand, the thing that got me going was not a problem with "volumes" of theological writings so much as the popular concepts that are tossed around as if they were self-evident truths when in fact they have not been carefully thought out or fully established as biblical truths.

My interest here is to clarify what I (we) really believe the Bible teaches. Its a big topic, so I think we all would want to realize that this thread is not going to be resolved any time soon. I anticipate a long, interesting , adn very fruitful discussion.

One of the things that would be really helpful is for the interested parties to lay a little ground work. We need to do our homework.

What are a few of the long-established and well-accepted definitions of the "sin nature"?

What are the major schools of thought on this issue? Calvinist vs. Arminian vs. Orthodox vs Roman Catholic?

When was the term "sin nature" first used? Is it a biblical term?

And so on ...


I believe in something called "human nature". I characterize it within categories which work for me: physical, social/emotional, mental/intellectual, and spiritual. When Luke summarizes the first 30 years of Jesus' life in Luke 2, he states that Jesus grew in stature (physical), wisdom (mental), and in favor with man (social/emotional) and God (spiritual). There is a perfect human nature without any predisposition or tendency to sin either hereditary or culturally learned. Examples are Adam and Christ. I believe all other humans are born with an imperfect human nature. That is they have inherited predispositions and tendencies to sin within their genes and also learn from other imperfect humans, habits and patterns of wrong thinking and behavior.

Human nature is usually defined as "that set of attributes that all humans have in common." As such, it is a collective abstraction. I don't think of a "substance" called "human nature." We run into really big problems if we try to push the definition of collective abstractions too far. For example, is it part of human nature to have two arms? If so, then are you not a human if you lose an arm? If we push it, we are forced to adopt some sort of genetic definition of "human nature" but even then we would be plagued with endless variations in the genome. And besides, that's not what people normally mean when they talk of human nature anyway. It is just an abstraction for a set of common characteristics. And as such, we make a grave error if we treat it as a "substance" with its own set of "properties."

I think this is why the topic is so difficult for some folks. Most people don't deal well with abstractions, and so they make them into "things" and then they attribute "properties" to those "things" and begin to apply causal laws to them and develop theories about how they are "transmitted." That is what has happened with the theory of "sin nature." People sincerely talk about it like its a substance that can be transmitted through the father to the unfortunate child. A brief refutation of this non-biblical idea is found here (http://www.prpc-stl.org/auto_images/1040663531VirginBirthSermon.htm).

This is why it is hard for me to follow you lead when you say that

There is a perfect human nature without any predisposition or tendency to sin either hereditary or culturally learned.

It seems like you are treating "human nature" as a "thing" that can be "perfected." But this doesn't make sense to me because "human nature" is a collective abstraction. Of course, we have verses like Hebrews 12:23 that speaks of "the spirits of just men made perfect." But that's different because "the spirits of just men" are not abstractions but realities. The just men really exist and can be perfected in relation to God. But "human nature" does not "exist" - it is not a "thing" that can be "perfected." Only things that actually exist can be perfected.


According to Paul in Romans 8, all are born hostile to God and His Laws.
Yes, the Scripture says "the carnal mind [lit. mind of the flesh] is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom 8:7. That is exactly what I said in my opening post. The flesh sins because it CAN NOT be subject to the Law of God. That's the point of this thread. We do not need an abstraction called "sin nature" to understand what the Bible teaches on this point. Note also, that since the flesh is real, it can be perfected. And that's what's going to happen at the resurrection! Praise God!


I believe Jesus did not need to born again!
Amen! I hope I didn't say anything that could be misconstrued to suggest that He had to be born again!


Everyone else does. Jesus had no predispositions or tendencies to sin. There was nothing in Him. Not so with us. Yes, we can be born again, but the "old man" or 'old nature' will always remain.
There has been a lot of debate about this question. Some say the "old man" was crucified with Christ and so really is GONE. Others note passages like Romans 7 that make it seem like the the Old Man is still in power (to a degree).

Alternately, we could understand that the flesh will lust against the spirit whether you are a born again Christian or a heathen. There is no "sin nature" in this view at all. I like this solution because it a simple, clean, elegant understanding that integrates with the whole body of Scripture and doesn't require undetectable metaphysical substance that doesn't explain anything anyway.


As long as we walk in the Spirit we will have dominion over human nature that naturally wants to sin. Some call this natural human nature "the sinful nature". I understand it and don't have a problem with it. When Paul uses the term "flesh", I believe he is referring to the human nature we are all born with....within the four categories I outlined above.
I think it is impossible to identify "sin nature" with "human nature" because Jesus was fully human, yet without sin.

As for the meaning of "flesh" - first, it is the literal stuff humans are made of, and second, it is the aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world, as opposed to God. There are other shades of meaning, but this post is already too big so I'll let it rest there. :rolleyes:

Brother Bob, I want to thank you for wrestling with me over this issue! That was an excellent post!

God bless you with abundant peace, my brother!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I found this interesting and very explicit definition of the Sin Nature from Robert McLaughlin's website (http://www.gbible.org/terms_and_definitions.htm) [emphasis mine]:



THE OLD SIN NATURE [OSN]

Biblical documentation of the sin nature is found in Rom 5:12. "Therefore, just as through one man [Adam], sin [the sin nature] entered into the world, and [spiritual] death through [the] sin [nature], so [spiritual] death spread to the entire human race because all sinned [when Adam sinned]." The old sin nature is Adam's trend after the fall in action. Immediately after Adam sinned, he acquired an old sin nature and became spiritually dead. The sin nature of Adam is passed down through his seed to all his progeny, therefore every OSN originates biologically from the seed of the father, Gen 5:3. Only Jesus Christ was born into this world without an OSN since He did not have a biological father. The OSN exists in the cell structure of the body and each one is unique. It can possess a trend to either lasciviousness or asceticism and it has a strength and a weakness. The OSN will not be eradicated from the body until the moment of physical death, however it has been crucified positionally in every believer, Rom 6:6.

The sin nature exists in our physical cell structure? Wow. Does that mean we will be able to eliminate it with genetic engineering?

[shalag]

this already is kind of deception.

God had said, Genesis 2:17,
But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."He didn't say nothing about touching!

Yet the woman told the snake, Genesis 3:3,
But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"

I learned something critical from Richard’s presentation on the Biblewheel. He presented a gospel passage from Matthew and that same account from Mark and Luke. He pointed out the alphabetic sequence and why one book/spoke would have certain information while another book/spoke with the same account would omit it. I believe this is true with Genesis also. In Genesis 1 (ALEF) God, Elohim, in the beginning, creates the earth and all that is in it. Genesis 2 (BEYT / house/family relationship) reveals Adam placed in his new home Eden and given relationship with a helpmeet. In Genesis 3 (GIMEL/ the camel's head is lifted to see in the distance). GIMEL also speaks of God’s riches, His divine wisdom and allows for reward and punishment.) Genesis 3 introduces the serpent [nachash/358] – (the antithesis being Mashiach/358). The serpent suggests to the woman that there is wisdom equal to the Word of God. Genesis 4 (DALET/door) relates birth and death issues. And so forth

It is true that the Gen 2:17 account does not introduce ‘touching’, but because it is not revealed in Chapter 2/beyt does not negate that God ‘said it’.. In Chapter 3 – and in fact – in verse 3 we are introduced to the word ‘touch’/naga – nun/gimel/ayin. The fact that this word also lends itself to ‘strike, be stricken’ seems the perfect place to reveal this truth.

In the third gospel of Luke we see - Luke 22:64 (128) And having blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face and asked Him, saying, "Prophesy! Who is the one who struck You.

Mark (41/13th prime/mem) 15:25 (40/mem) = 81 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Touching is not only an intimate knowledge but can be a harsh act, such as Cain killing Abel or the scourging and crucifixion of Messiah Jesus Christ.

This word naga is also used in many other passages as beaten, brought down, smite, strike, plagued, cast as well as to join, reach up, touch.

Adam was placed in the garden Gen 2:15 (18) to ‘keep/protect’ it. In Genesis 3 the woman specifically says, GOD SAYS not to touch it. Was this a lie or 'an addition' to God's command to them? I don’t believe so. I believe Adam was commanded, even though this tree’s fruit was poisonous, not to ‘touch - ‘naga – strike, smite’ this tree from the garden. Adam may have thought to remove the tree so it posed no threat. We would like to eradicate evil from the world also, but God in effect says, “Not yet, in due time, let the wheat and the tares grow together.” God obviously placed the tree there for His own purposes.

John 12:31 (86) Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 (87) And I, if I be lifted up (GIMEL) from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33 (88) This he said, signifying what death he should die.

TOUCH the tree and you will die. Jesus Christ naga/was smitten and hung on the tree - he died.

I believe naga/touch is revealed in Chapter 3 - specifically - - as it relates to its prophetic fulfillment in Christ. And after 3days He arose from the dead.

And when they ate of the tree in the garden - Adam did die in that day - both spiritually - -and physically.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I learned something critical from Richard’s presentation on the Biblewheel. He presented a gospel passage from Matthew and that same account from Mark and Luke. He pointed out the alphabetic sequence and why one book/spoke would have certain information while another book/spoke with the same account would omit it. I believe this is true with Genesis also. In Genesis 1 (ALEF) God, Elohim, in the beginning, creates the earth and all that is in it. Genesis 2 (BEYT / house/family relationship) reveals Adam placed in his new home Eden and given relationship with a helpmeet. In Genesis 3 (GIMEL/ the camel's head is lifted to see in the distance). GIMEL also speaks of God’s riches, His divine wisdom and allows for reward and punishment.) Genesis 3 introduces the serpent [nachash/358] – (the antithesis being Mashiach/358). The serpent suggests to the woman that there is wisdom equal to the Word of God. Genesis 4 (DALET/door) relates birth and death issues. And so forth
That's an excellent summary, shalag! The pattern continues through the whole book of Genesis. E.g. The word "Hebrew" and the person of Melchizedek first appear together in Gen 14, which corresponds to Spoke 14 of the Wheel where we find the Book of Hebrews which reveals Melchizedek as a type of Christ. This is all explained in the Inner Wheels > Genesis section of the website. Its an example of the "wheels within wheels" in the Bible.



Mark (41/13th prime/mem) 15:25 (40/mem) = 81 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
For those who may not be following shalag's connections, Mark is book 41, and 41 is the thirteenth prime, and mem is the 13 letter, so you get a chain of associations Mark (41/13th prime/mem). The connection with mem is then reiterated in the sum of the verse and chapter numebrs 15+25 = 40 = the numerical value of mem. The sum of the two number 40 + 41 then gives 81 = 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 (the fourth power of 3, usually written as 3^4) and this then links back to the theme of the Number 3 and the smiting of Christ on the Cross (4) at the third (3) hour.

shalag is practicing an intense form of Scriptural meditation. Her writings are extremely dense, and can easily seem very confusing if we don't slow down and meditate upon every symbol and step of association.

I am thinking we should probably move this thread over to the Hebrew Alphabet forum since it is too advanced for folks who have not mastered their symbolic meanings and alphanumeric values. It also seems that the topic has moved away from the question posed in the original post, namely, does the Bible teach that there is something called a "sin nature"?

[joel]

I am thankful for the opportunity to post on this site. And, to offer my views concerning "the sin nature".

It has been previously stated in the thread, and my paraphrase is......the flesh is inherently weak. In the garden, before the "sin", Adam and Eve were housed in a body that was weak.

During the trial, Eve was deluded in that she sought knowledge through sight. If I am not mistaken (Richard you may be able to check this....), there are differing sources of knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil, not intended to be totally unavailable to humanity, was to be obtained by hearing, and not by sight. This is the basis of the temptation in that she "saw", and chose to respond to what she "saw" rather than on what God had "said" ( which she got wrong, to a degree, and did not respond to the Adversary correctly.......which may be the responsibility of Adam in that he was the one who originally heard God's word and should have relayed it to her correctly...........so a different discussion may be; did she hear correctly and did not respond to the Adversary correctly......or, did he [Adam] fail to pass it to her correctly?).

After the transgression, did they obtain a "sin nature" which they did not previously have?

A study and discussion of Paul's letter to the Romans may help us see the actual truth and, then, enable us to explain and present it to others in a more accurate presentation in that I do not find a verse that identifies a "sin nature". That phrase may be one which we may need to discard in favor of a more accurate description of our true condition as Adam's race. That would be beneficial in obtaining the corresponding truth of what we are now "in Christ".

Thanks, Richard, for opening a forum on your site. I have followed your Bible Wheel presentation for some time, and am now interested in hearing from others who have benefitted from the "light" that you have received.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am thankful for the opportunity to post on this site. And, to offer my views concerning "the sin nature".

It has been previously stated in the thread, and my paraphrase is......the flesh is inherently weak. In the garden, before the "sin", Adam and Eve were housed in a body that was weak.

During the trial, Eve was deluded in that she sought knowledge through sight. If I am not mistaken (Richard you may be able to check this....), there are differing sources of knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil, not intended to be totally unavailable to humanity, was to be obtained by hearing, and not by sight.
That's a new idea to me. It sounds like it could be a Jewish tradition. Maybe Silvius knows something about it.


This is the basis of the temptation in that she "saw", and chose to respond to what she "saw" rather than on what God had "said" ( which she got wrong, to a degree, and did not respond to the Adversary correctly.......which may be the responsibility of Adam in that he was the one who originally heard God's word and should have relayed it to her correctly...........so a different discussion may be; did she hear correctly and did not respond to the Adversary correctly......or, did he [Adam] fail to pass it to her correctly?).
That's been debated. Silvius noted in post 22 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=71&postcount=22) that the tradition that says Adam added to the command not even to touch, since he was afraid of her dying. Of course .... I'm not sure how this is going to clarify the question of "sin nature" versus "flesh".


After the transgression, did they obtain a "sin nature" which they did not previously have?
Now THAT'S the $64,000 question (64 = Aletheia/Truth (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_64.asp), and 1000 = Ho Nikon/He who overcomes (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_1000.asp)).


A study and discussion of Paul's letter to the Romans may help us see the actual truth and, then, enable us to explain and present it to others in a more accurate presentation in that I do find a verse that identifies a "sin nature". That phrase may be one which we may need to discard in favor of a more accurate description of our true condition as Adam's race. That would be beneficial in obtaining the corresponding truth of what we are now "in Christ".
That's exactly what I'm hoping to accomplish here.


Thanks, Richard, for opening a forum on your site. I have followed your Bible Wheel presentation for some time, and am now interested in hearing from others who have benefitted from the "light" that you have received.

Joel

Thank you Joel for showing up and contributing to the discussion.

God bless!

[sylvius]

The knowledge of good and evil, not intended to be totally unavailable to humanity, was to be obtained by hearing, and not by sight.

hearing and seeing

the ear has in it the cochlea,like a snail-shell.

the word is to be heard in different windings, on different levels, which again might be expressed with "Pardes", "P" standing for "pshat", plain meaning,
"R" for "remez", symbloic meaning, "D" for "Drush", homeletic meaning, "S" for "sod", mystery = the esoteric meaning.

seeing, sight, seems to be something of the outside.

you just can't look around the corner.

and what you see is just a part of the spectrum.

But strange; Exodus 20:14,

כָל-הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת-הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת-הַלַּפִּידִם, וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר, וְאֶת-הָהָר, עָשֵׁן; וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ, וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק.

And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off.

So there is also another kind of seeing.

There is said that Adam, before sinning, could look from one end of the universe the other and well with the light of the first day
(which is not physical light).

called "ohr haganuz" = hidden light.


Rashi on Genesis 1:4,

And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated
Here too, we need the words of the Aggadah: He saw it that it was not proper for the wicked to use it; so He separated it for the righteous in the future.

hey, that's interesting since on Richards' website is one great article about "badal/hivdil/mavdil", "Dividing the waters of the word"
http://www.biblewheel.com/Collaboration/Darroch2002_07_03.asp

I don't know where that comes from and how he (Mark Darroch) came to that.

but it's astounding for sure.

[joel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by joel
After the transgression, did they obtain a "sin nature" which they did not previously have?

(Richard's response)

Now THAT'S the $64,000 question (64 = Aletheia/Truth, and 1000 = Ho Nikon/He who overcomes).
----------------------------------------------

It appears that the most comprehensive discussion of the matter of sin (as to its cause and its effect on humanity) occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans.

In the introductory chapters (1-4), Paul outlines the effects of sin especially in regards to our broken relationship with God. It is here that he clarifies our universal need of a change, a complete change, and that there is absolutely no way for us to do it through our efforts.

He works his way to the grand truth of "justification by faith". It is here that the first major change is presented. Christ Jesus has shed his precious blood for us all, and by virtue of God's grace, our status is changed from "subject to His wrath" to "Justified by faith in His blood."

Beginning in chapter 5, Paul begins to explain how through Adam both sin and death entered into the "world". Now we begin to see the "cause" of our pitiful state.

The old humanity was made subject to both sin and death. In the discussion that follows, both sin and death are reigning as despots.

It is at this point that the wondrous change that God has accomplished through Christ's sacrificial life, death, and resurrection is expanded to include the victory over both sin, and death. And, as Paul clarifies in his following letters, Christ has created a new humanity in Himself.

In Romans 6:6, Paul explains...."that our old humanity was crucified together with Him, that the body of sin may be nullified...."

The expression, "the body of sin", and the "old humanity" are linked together, and it is His death on the cross that is focus of the victory.

The change that has occurred is the end of the old, and the inauguration of the new.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It appears that the most comprehensive discussion of the matter of sin (as to its cause and its effect on humanity) occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans.
Yep!


In the introductory chapters (1-4), Paul outlines the effects of sin especially in regards to our broken relationship with God. It is here that he clarifies our universal need of a change, a complete change, and that there is absolutely no way for us to do it through our efforts.
I agree. And I feel that the emphasis on relationship is key. It seems that God left Adam and Eve alone in the garden, until their flesh took its course. It had nothing to do with a "sin nature" - its that flesh not subjected to God in right relationship will sin.


He works his way to the grand truth of "justification by faith". It is here that the first major change is presented. Christ Jesus has shed his precious blood for us all, and by virtue of God's grace, our status is changed from "subject to His wrath" to "Justified by faith in His blood."
Yes, a change in the outworking of how God effects salvation through faith. But the idea of salvation (righteousness) through faith originated in Genesis 15:6. As an aside, this links to a common misunderstanding about how people were saved in the OT. Many folks think the Jews were made right with God through the Law. This is false. Salvation was always by grace through faith. This is taught explicitly in Romans 9:31-32

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Getting back to your post ...


Beginning in chapter 5, Paul begins to explain how through Adam both sin and death entered into the "world". Now we begin to see the "cause" of our pitiful state.

The old humanity was made subject to both sin and death. In the discussion that follows, both sin and death are reigning as despots.

It is at this point that the wondrous change that God has accomplished through Christ's sacrificial life, death, and resurrection is expanded to include the victory over both sin, and death. And, as Paul clarifies in his following letters, Christ has created a new humanity in Himself.

In Romans 6:6, Paul explains...."that our old humanity was crucified together with Him, that the body of sin may be nullified...."

The expression, "the body of sin", and the "old humanity" are linked together, and it is His death on the cross that is focus of the victory.

The change that has occurred is the end of the old, and the inauguration of the new.

Joel

Very important points, Joel.

I need to really get a grip on "old man" and "body of sin." I'll get back to you when I get things clarified a little more.

Richard

[joel]

I need to really get a grip on "old man" and "body of sin." I'll get back to you when I get things clarified a little more.

Richard
----------------------------------------

Richard, that would be ideal.

The "old man" , and, the "old humanity" are descriptive of what we all, without exception, are "in Adam".

Your particular calling, as the originator (original receiver) of the Bible Wheel revelation, and, as the administrator of the Bible Wheel forum and site, place you in a very unique position to help us all be "adjusted". I am so thankful for your obedience, and faithfulness. You have been specially equipped to do this task. I am also thankful for your openness, as well as your insistence upon the acquisition of the truth, without compromise. These are special graces, granted from God.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I need to really get a grip on "old man" and "body of sin." I'll get back to you when I get things clarified a little more.

Richard
----------------------------------------

Richard, that would be ideal.

The "old man" , and, the "old humanity" are descriptive of what we all, without exception, are "in Adam".

Yes, the idea of "in Adam" versus "in Christ" is essential to the correct understanding. It is how the Bible talks. But if we apply that to the question at hand, it still doesn't tell us if the phrase "sin nature" has any meaning. It makes me think of 1 Corinthians 15:45-50

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

We have a whole set of contrasts between Adam/Christ, earthly/heavenly, natural/spiritual. So the whole thing still feels like "flesh vs. spirit" as opposed to "sin nature" vs spirit.

I think it will be very good for us all to get this clear. It feels like it will impact our "walk in the Spirit" vs. "walking in the flesh." I have some more results from my study I hope to get posted later tonight.

I trust you understand that though I have been pressing the idea that there may not be such a thing as "sin nature" that does not mean I am convinced on that point. I'm just exploring it, seeing how it holds up in light of the Bible when tested by folks who know and love God's Word.


Your particular calling, as the originator (original receiver) of the Bible Wheel revelation, and, as the administrator of the Bible Wheel forum and site, place you in a very unique position to help us all be "adjusted". I am so thankful for your obedience, and faithfulness. You have been specially equipped to do this task. I am also thankful for your openness, as well as your insistence upon the acquisition of the truth, without compromise. These are special graces, granted from God.

Joel
Thanks for the clear understanding and very encouraging words Joel. All I can say is Praise God from whom all blessings flow! It makes me think of 1 Corinthians 4:7

For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

With much given, there is much responsibility. I am really thankful that you, and all the other brothers and sisters in the Lord, are here to help. If there is one thing I know, I am a very weak man. I can do nothing on my own. Just ask my wife. But I stand in/by God's grace, and in my weakness I will glory with our Brother Paul, if it be that the power of Christ can be rest upon me. (2 Cor 12.9)

The thing I am so happy about is that we have a group of real truth seekers who don't get mad when someone disagrees or questions their ideas. A truth seeker admires people who question and demand biblical answers, because they know that is necessary to correct for error so we can get closer to the truth, since we all fall short in so many ways.

Great blessings on you bro!

Richard

[Brother Bob]

Just getting back to this discussion.



Human nature is usually defined as "that set of attributes that all humans have in common." As such, it is a collective abstraction. I don't think of a "substance" called "human nature." We run into really big problems if we try to push the definition of collective abstractions too far. For example, is it part of human nature to have two arms? If so, then are you not a human if you lose an arm? If we push it, we are forced to adopt some sort of genetic definition of "human nature" but even then we would be plagued with endless variations in the genome. And besides, that's not what people normally mean when they talk of human nature anyway. It is just an abstraction for a set of common characteristics. And as such, we make a grave error if we treat it as a "substance" with its own set of "properties."

Richard, it seems you DO define human nature but in your unique way....it is simply the flesh and if I'm understanding you properly, the flesh refers to the body. The body for you is neutral. It only does what the spirit of a person tells it.

Human nature is what the Bible says it is. In Genesis 2:7 we're told that God took the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life and man became a human 'soul' or being. From this verse we see that man wasn't given a soul, but is a soul. In its simplest terms human nature consists of a body (with one arm, two arms or no arms), and the spirit of life. Together they form a living being or soul or person (a self). So human nature is consists of three parts: body, soul and spirit. We see Paul saying this very thing in 1Thess. 5:23 -"May God preserve you blameless, body, soul and spirit..."




I think this is why the topic is so difficult for some folks. Most people don't deal well with abstractions, and so they make them into "things" and then they attribute "properties" to those "things" and begin to apply causal laws to them and develop theories about how they are "transmitted." That is what has happened with the theory of "sin nature." People sincerely talk about it like its a substance that can be transmitted through the father to the unfortunate child. A brief refutation of this non-biblical idea is found here (http://www.prpc-stl.org/auto_images/1040663531VirginBirthSermon.htm).
I read the link and I didn't find a scientific refutation that a father's nature is transmitted to the child. I read of his opinions of what he thinks happened at Christ's birth, but nothing convincing. I mean I do agree with him that the divine nature of Jesus had to enter into the womb in some mysterious way. More questions are raised then answered in that sermon...at least for me.

I guess I'm still trying to understand where you are coming from. Are you saying that parents do not pass on DNA and genes that determines the body and the self? It seems that we are in some way skirting original sin as this issue is discussed. But is there any doubt we inherit likenesses to our parents including predispositions, mannerisms and similar bodily features? This is indisputable. Why then is it so hard to believe that Cain and Able inheritied the fallen nature of their dad and mom? They were not born perfect, but with a warped human nature as I explained above. When Adam and Eve sinned their spirits were disconnected from God's Spirit. God originally created their spirits to be in union with His Spirit. In this pristine condition they naturally had dominion over ALL of their selfish and bodily desires. When they fell, both self and body asserted their desires over a spirit without God's spirit. That was the nature Cain and Abel were born with. They inherited a nature where self and body were preeminent and their spirits without God were secondary. That is what we call the 'carnal' nature or sin nature and is what Paul refers to in Romans.


This is why it is hard for me to follow you lead when you say that

There is a perfect human nature without any predisposition or tendency to sin either hereditary or culturally learned.

It seems like you are treating "human nature" as a "thing" that can be "perfected." But this doesn't make sense to me because "human nature" is a collective abstraction. Of course, we have verses like Hebrews 12:23 that speaks of "the spirits of just men made perfect." But that's different because "the spirits of just men" are not abstractions but realities. The just men really exist and can be perfected in relation to God. But "human nature" does not "exist" - it is not a "thing" that can be "perfected." Only things that actually exist can be perfected.

If a person is not born perfect like Adam or Jesus, then they are born with a human nature that is predisposed to follow the appetites and desires of both self and body since they are born with a spirit disconnected from God. That is not abstraction...that is a fact. Human nature cannot be perfected but it can be changed.....and it is when person receives Christ and is given the Holy Spirit to indwell their human spirit. At that point God restores the proper way we were made to function... with the spirit dominating the appetites and desires of both body and self (soul). A saved person now walks in the Spirit/spirit and when the body and selfish desires seek to go against God's will and law a justified man makes those thoughts and desires captive to God's Word.


Yes, the Scripture says "the carnal mind [lit. mind of the flesh] is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom 8:7. That is exactly what I said in my opening post. The flesh sins because it CAN NOT be subject to the Law of God. That's the point of this thread. We do not need an abstraction called "sin nature" to understand what the Bible teaches on this point. Note also, that since the flesh is real, it can be perfected. And that's what's going to happen at the resurrection! Praise God!
I would argue that we do need an abstraction called a "sin nature" since the way Paul uses the word "flesh" means exactly that! Paul is not just referring to the body when he uses the word "sarx". He uses "soma" to refer to the body. He is also referring to the self which has a mind of its own since the spirit of flesh is disconnected to God.

May I ask you what you mean by: "...the flesh is real, it can be perfected." ? Do you mean the body???



I think it is impossible to identify "sin nature" with "human nature" because Jesus was fully human, yet without sin.
I personally think this is what is causing the confusion. Briefly, I believe the Scriptures teach that Jesus was born with a human nature like Adam and unlike every other human being ever born. He was conceived without any predispositions or tendencies or DNA to sin. He was born perfectly connected to God, His Father. But this is a matter deserving a thread of its own. See this link for a brief idea of how Jesus was different from all other 'born' humans: the sinlessness of Christ (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/mangod/manch7.htm)


As for the meaning of "flesh" - first, it is the literal stuff humans are made of, and second, it is the aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world, as opposed to God. There are other shades of meaning, but this post is already too big so I'll let it rest there.
:D Couldn't help yourself could you my friend? You know there is more than just a body to our "nature" when you say there "is an aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world", and "there are other shades of meaning".

This is why I avoid forums. It's not that I'm not pushed and sharpened which is excellent and you brother are strong iron....it's the time I must spend to slowly type and think through this deep stuff. :( But I don't see any other way when talking about God and His Word. And I'm wordy as it is.

I just attended a Graham Cooke conference. He has a little book "Towards a powerful Inner Life". Short read and powerful. Check it out: grahamcooke.com He does a good job of a modern way of explaining the inner nature of man.

[joel]

Richard, as you continue to consider the issue of "sin nature", the term, in my opinion, is one that attempts to define our human problem of sin's influence by using a term that cannot be located in scripture.

So, as is your practice, in locating specific scripture to help us along the way, you quoted a section of Paul's I Corinthian letter where Adam and Christ are again compared. That is surely a very good place to search.

In that section, in Chapter 15, Paul is discussing the resurrection of the dead.
The question had been raised in vs. 35...."How are the dead raised?". He uses the examples to explain that when the body is placed into the earth, it is housed in one type of body. When it is raised, it is housed in a different type of body. Additionally, he shows that different types of bodies radiate different degrees of glory; the sun shines, the moon reflects.

Prior to the discussion where Adam and Christ are compared, Paul makes a comparison of the different types of bodies;

I Corinthians 15:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead: The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

In verse 44, that which is interpreted as a "natural body" may be more correctly shown to be a "soulish" body. The Greek word is "psuchikos". The spiritual body is "pneumatikos". The body, before being sown, is a "soulish body" i.e. it is subject primarily to the senses, being governed by the soul.
The body, when raised, is a "spiritual body", i.e. one which is governed by the spirit, rather than by the soul.

45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

Rather than "a living being", it would be more accurate to say, "a living soul." Adam is first, whereas Christ (being implied), is the last. He is the "Omega" of the old humanity.

47 The first man was out of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

The distinction now concerns their place of origin. The first man, Adam (being implied) comes out of the earth. He is made of the earth. The second Man, Christ (being implied) is coming out of heaven. He is the second Man, indicating the "protos" ("Alpha") of a new humanity.

Paul's teaching that follows in Chapter 15 describes that our bodies, being "soulish", will be changed to "spiritual" bodies. This is the great secret of the total change that will occur......our physical bodies, coming from the earth, are "soulish" bodies as long as we remain in them. But, we will not all be put into the earth, and raised. Some of us will be alive when He returns. Whether alive, or, in the grave, we will all be changed from "soulish" (which is also "soilish"), to "spiritual".

There is a very important distinction, however, earlier in the letter, where Paul indicates that we are no longer, while remaining on the earth, to be as if we are "soulish". We are to become "spiritual", in this life, now, awaiting the change that will occur to our "jars of clay".

In Chapter 2, vs. 14, Paul says, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one."

The "natural man" is the "soulish man".

In a few verses following, Paul makes another distinction; Chapter 3, verse 1;
"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ."

The carnal man is "sarkikos", pertaining to the flesh.

I took this long-winding path, Richard, to support what you were asserting; it is a battle between "flesh", and "spirit" that is being waged.

Sin is instrumental in utilizing the flesh, but, we need to be able to make the clear distinction that flesh remains with us as long as we are in these bodies. Sin has been "nullified" on the cross.....but, that is a matter for other discussions, as we learn to no longer walk, according to flesh, but, according to spirit.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Just getting back to this discussion.
Glad you are back. Of course, you haven't really been gone long, and the conversation is not even a week old yet. One of the harder things to realize is that we don't have to answer everything at once. There is no rush. This thread will be on this forum as long as the forum is up, which I hope will be a long time!


Richard, it seems you DO define human nature but in your unique way....it is simply the flesh and if I'm understanding you properly, the flesh refers to the body. The body for you is neutral. It only does what the spirit of a person tells it.
Please don't get frustrated with me Bob. I'm just working out my thoughts on this. My idea about "human nature" as an abstraction probably needs to be corrected in light of the fact that the NT uses the word phusis (nature) in many of its senses, such as human behaviors that are "against nature" (Rom 1.26) and the divine nature that we partake in through Christ (2 Pet 1:4), and most importantly for our present discussion, we were "by nature the children of wrath" "fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind" before we were saved (Eph 2:3).

This is why its really important we don't feel forced to get this all figured at in one fell swoop. We haven't even begun! It would be folly indeed to come to any conclusions before we do a reasonably deep word study on "flesh" and "nature" (phusis) and "sin" and "old man" etc. All of this can be a really wonderful joy if we don't feel pressured to rush to the finish line. This forum is a place for relaxed reflection on the Word of God in hopes of hearing that "still small voice" that will guide us to a correct understanding of the Word of God.


Human nature is what the Bible says it is. In Genesis 2:7 we're told that God took the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life and man became a human 'soul' or being. From this verse we see that man wasn't given a soul, but is a soul.
Amen! That has been my understanding for many years. I am glad you agree.


In its simplest terms human nature consists of a body (with one arm, two arms or no arms), and the spirit of life. Together they form a living being or soul or person (a self). So human nature is consists of three parts: body, soul and spirit. We see Paul saying this very thing in 1Thess. 5:23 -"May God preserve you blameless, body, soul and spirit..."
It is interesting that the "living soul" of Gen 2.7 is nepesh chayah, which is identical to the phrase used to describe the living creatures created on the Fifth Day. Of course, we know that there is a difference, and I suspect it lies in the fact that God breathed the Breath of Life (nishmat chayim) directly into Adam, whereas no such description is found in the creation of the animals. Other verses that speak of nishmat shaddai (Breath of the Almighty) as the giver of man's life:

KJV Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty (nishmat Shaddai) hath given me life.

Nishmat Shaddai is also used in parallel with Ruach (Spirit), which is different that nephesh (soul) in the Hebrew conception:

NKJ Job 32:8 But there is a spirit (ruach) in man, And the breath of the Almighty (nishmat Shaddai) gives him understanding.

So there is some good support from the Hebrew for the trichotomous nature of man - Body (Basar), Soul (nephesh) , Spirit (Ruach), but this idea is disputed, with some teaching a dichotomous human nature.


I read the link and I didn't find a scientific refutation that a father's nature is transmitted to the child. I read of his opinions of what he thinks happened at Christ's birth, but nothing convincing. I mean I do agree with him that the divine nature of Jesus had to enter into the womb in some mysterious way. More questions are raised then answered in that sermon...at least for me.
The point was not to refute that the father's "sin nature" is transmitted, but that the "sin nature" is transmitted solely by the father. I think the refutation pointed in the right direction. As far as I know, that idea is not taught in the Bible. Why would we think the mother doesn't transmit her "sin nature"? She's much more intimately connected to the child's flesh than the father. The only Scripture I can think of that might support the "father only " theory is Gen 5:3 because it says that Seth was begotten in the "image" and "likeness" of Adam, not Eve. But that's not much from which to build a doctrine. It seems that some people also use Rom 5:12, but I've never read an explanation of why, just a citation of the verse as if it were self evident.

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific refutation" since I have never heard of any science that could locate the "sin nature" in the structure of the cells or in DNA. I think the burden of proof is on those who would suggest it could be found there.


I guess I'm still trying to understand where you are coming from.
Me too! :p


Are you saying that parents do not pass on DNA and genes that determines the body and the self?
Absolutely not! Of course I believe we inherit traits from our parents, both physically in DNA and habitually in life style. But that is not determinative of who we are. Just look at identical twins. There is a third factor beyond Nature/Nurture that I call Moral Agency. The choices we make are strongly influenced, but determined by only nature and nurture.


It seems that we are in some way skirting original sin as this issue is discussed.
My original idea was to explore the possibility that "Sin Nature" has no explanatory power, and does not correspond to anything in the real world. Most people say we sin because we have a sin nature. This seems to be false because Adam and Eve sinned without a sin nature. Also, it feels like saying "the devil made me do it" rather recognizing our personal responsibility. I am looking for an understanding of the Bible that feels true and integrated with reality in a deep organic way. It may be that "sin nature" is taught in the Bible, but if it is, it seems obvious that its not obvious, or someone would have just pointed me to chapter and verse. Correct?


But is there any doubt we inherit likenesses to our parents including predispositions, mannerisms and similar bodily features? This is indisputable.
Agreed, as stated above.


Why then is it so hard to believe that Cain and Able inheritied the fallen nature of their dad and mom?
Because when you say "fallen nature" you mean "sin nature" and I have not determined if there is such a thing as "sin nature." Just changing the words doesn't help.

As for "fallen nature" - that is a phrase I can use if we understand it properly. Obviously we are fallen from communion with God. And so we sin because we are born of the flesh, and the flesh can not be subject to the law of God (Rom 8.7). So the fact that we are flesh out of communion with God explains everything, including the first sin in the Garden. What do we need the phrase "sin nature" for? Does it not mislead us to believe that something has been "added to the system"? If we can explain everything in terms of flesh vs spirit, then why do we need to introduce a third "entity" called "sin nature"?

An excellent help would be if you could show me that "flesh vs. spirit" is insufficient to properly understand the problem of sin.


They were not born perfect, but with a warped human nature as I explained above. When Adam and Eve sinned their spirits were disconnected from God's Spirit. God originally created their spirits to be in union with His Spirit. In this pristine condition they naturally had dominion over ALL of their selfish and bodily desires.
This is a perfect explanation in terms of flesh vs. spirit. I notice you did not need to mention "sin nature".


When they fell, both self and body asserted their desires over a spirit without God's spirit. That was the nature Cain and Abel were born with. They inherited a nature where self and body were preeminent and their spirits without God were secondary. That is what we call the 'carnal' nature or sin nature and is what Paul refers to in Romans.
Why not say "That was the condition Cain and Abel were born in." That seems to have a different spin. We then don't have a magical/mystical transformation that created a new substance called "sin nature."


If a person is not born perfect like Adam or Jesus, then they are born with a human nature that is predisposed to follow the appetites and desires of both self and body since they are born with a spirit disconnected from God.
Again, a perfect explanation of everything in terms of flesh vs. spirit. The flesh without the spirit connected to God is "predisposed to follow the appetites and desires". No need to say they were "born with a human nature that..." because the human nature, before the first sin, was such that it was predisposed to follow its own appetites. Eve saw that the fruit was desirable ... she acted in her flesh, obviously out of communion with God, since otherwise she could not have sinned.


That is not abstraction...that is a fact. Human nature cannot be perfected but it can be changed.....and it is when person receives Christ and is given the Holy Spirit to indwell their human spirit. At that point God restores the proper way we were made to function... with the spirit dominating the appetites and desires of both body and self (soul). A saved person now walks in the Spirit/spirit and when the body and selfish desires seek to go against God's will and law a justified man makes those thoughts and desires captive to God's Word.
That's what I believe - its all explained by flesh vs spirit.


I would argue that we do need an abstraction called a "sin nature" since the way Paul uses the word "flesh" means exactly that! Paul is not just referring to the body when he uses the word "sarx". He uses "soma" to refer to the body. He is also referring to the self which has a mind of its own since the spirit of flesh is disconnected to God.
This would be a good point to camp on for a while. A deep word study of the various meanings of flesh. Of course, we will need to derive the meanings from Scripture (exegesis). We are not allowed to import the concept of "sin nature" and then say "there it is!" (eisogesis).


May I ask you what you mean by: "...the flesh is real, it can be perfected." ? Do you mean the body???
Yes, the resurrected body will be perfect! Praise God! I can hardly wait ... Jesus had a body described as "flesh and bone" after his resurrection.


I personally think this is what is causing the confusion. Briefly, I believe the Scriptures teach that Jesus was born with a human nature like Adam and unlike every other human being ever born. He was conceived without any predispositions or tendencies or DNA to sin. He was born perfectly connected to God, His Father. But this is a matter deserving a thread of its own. See this link for a brief idea of how Jesus was different from all other 'born' humans: the sinlessness of Christ (http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/mangod/manch7.htm)

I agree with everything you just said (if we let arguments about the meaning of "human nature" slide for now). When you say "He was born perfectly connected to God, His Father" I say YES! That's what I've been saying is the true explanation of the whole sin problem. Adam and Eve fell out of communion with God when they sinned, and we are born now as fleshly creatures with a "dead spirit" like a "dead electrical circuit" that can not carry the "current" of God's Life because it has been severed.



As for the meaning of "flesh" - first, it is the literal stuff humans are made of, and second, it is the aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world, as opposed to God. There are other shades of meaning, but this post is already too big so I'll let it rest there. :D Couldn't help yourself could you my friend? You know there is more than just a body to our "nature" when you say there "is an aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world", and "there are other shades of meaning".
MY BAD! My only excuse is that I was really tired after writing so much, and didn't feel like explaining myself further at that moment. Sorry!


This is why I avoid forums. It's not that I'm not pushed and sharpened which is excellent and you brother are strong iron....it's the time I must spend to slowly type and think through this deep stuff. :( But I don't see any other way when talking about God and His Word. And I'm wordy as it is.
Wordy? Naahhh. :rolleyes:


I just attended a Graham Cooke conference. He has a little book "Towards a powerful Inner Life". Short read and powerful. Check it out: grahamcooke.com He does a good job of a modern way of explaining the inner nature of man.
Thanks for the tip.

God bless you Brother Bob! Excellent help in sorting this all out.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, as you continue to consider the issue of "sin nature", the term, in my opinion, is one that attempts to define our human problem of sin's influence by using a term that cannot be located in scripture.

So, as is your practice, in locating specific scripture to help us along the way, you quoted a section of Paul's I Corinthian letter where Adam and Christ are again compared. That is surely a very good place to search.

Hi Joel,

Thanks for digging into the Greek. Its really important for any true understanding of what God intended in Scripture. You made very helpful observations. It is interesting that they link to Bob's last post where he talked about the creation of Adam in Gen 2.7 and said "man wasn't given a soul, he is a soul." I expanded on his observation, and talked about the nephesh chayah (living soul). Now when that was translated into Greek in the LXX, that phrase became "psuche zosa" which is the exact term used to describe Adam in 1 Cor 15:45, which you quoted above.

So ... since we are talking about "human nature" I think perhaps we are supposed to be comparing the "natural nature" - psuchikos - verses the spiritual nature - pneumatikos.

And suddenly, 1 Cor 15 comes into focus. Though the technical term "phusis" (nature) is not used there, the whole latter part of the chapter is a comparison of the various "natures" of things:

1 Corinthians 15:39-40 39 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. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another ..

I think this chapter will be a key to the understanding ..

Now I have a new question: What is the range of relations between sarx and psuche?

Psuche is quite rare in Scripture relative to sarx. But it does carry a bit of the "sarx" overtone, as in James 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual (psuchike), devilish.

One thing I'm trying to understand is the way sin is talked about, almost as if it is a conscious entity with a will of its own, as in Romans 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Any ideas on thes would be helpful.

[Rose]

Desires of the flesh verses Sin Nature

I've been following this thread since it started and find the discussion fascinating, so I guess I'll jump in and add a few thoughts that seem to fit.

Adam was created with a spiritual connection to God, called communion. When Adam fell, that communion was cut off and consequentially all of mankind was cut off from communion with God, till Jesus came, having perfect communion with God, His Father so through Jesus we are justified and restored to right standing with God.

Romans 5:9 ' Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.'

Now our communion with God is through Christ, and even though we can still fall into sin, thus temporally breaking our communion with God, we are not cast away.

John 6:37 ' All that the father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.'

What is helpful for me is to define just exactly what changed in the human makeup of Adam and Eve after they were banned from the garden. If I break things down into their simplest parts I can grasp their meaning much easier. So I took the common elements pertaining to Adam ( the first man ) Mankind ( all of us ) and Jesus ( the Word made flesh ). I find we all have God given desires in our flesh which can be tempted. That is the tendency we all have to act upon our desires outside of communion with God, that is sin, that is why we can be tempted by Satan. Adam and Eve were created by God with the same desires that we have.

Gen 3: 6 ' So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise….'

The desire we have for food can be abused when we become gluttons, and the desires we have for things that feel good can be bad for us if its used in the wrong way, without God guiding us.

Galatians 6:1 ' Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.'

If Adam couldn’t have been tempted, Satan would not have tried and Adam would never have eaten of the forbidden fruit and lost communion with God. And if Jesus could not have been tempted, then His 40 days in the wilderness, being tempted by Satan would have been meaningless.

Matt 4:1 ' Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.'

The one thing that changed after the fall, is communion with God, and the only way that could be restored was through Jesus who was born having perfect communion with God. Not marred by the fall of Adam, which has affected all our lives and caused a permanent break in our communion with God, except through the atoning blood of Christ restoring us to communion with God.

Which I think is the ultimate reason and purpose of our lives, communion with God.

[Abigail]

What is the significance of the virgin birth then if you reject the notion of 'sin nature'?

Are you making a distinction between something definite being there (a sin nature which causes us to sin) and something being missing (flesh and blood on its own) ie
Eve was made out of a piece of Adam so she had something of his in her It says in Genesis that God breathed life into Adam but it doesnt say this about Eve so I assume she got her God-breath from being taken out of Adam. There has to surely be something we get from our fathers that Jesus couldnt get either because he had already got that something (the breath of God maybe ...being pre -exixtent and God) or else what we get from our fathers is already 'dead' and Jesus needed to be 'alive' to demonstrate that Adam was capable of not sinning if he'd wanted to.

I notice in the Bible somewhere it says Eve became the mother of all the living ...is this perhaps a reference to our flesh. The Bible says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ...this implies to me there has to be something more ie flesh/blood plus something more. So then if all we really get to work with is flesh from our mothers and something broken from our fathers then we only really have the flesh portion which is neutral in and of itself though easily fails us because we need something more (the part we ideally shouldve got from our fathers if Adam hadnt sinned). So perhaps you are right that it is not sin nature(since this speaks of something active) that is impeeding us but that flesh and blood on its own is not enough for us in that it is weak

[Brother Bob]

Excellent post Rose. Thank you. It is amazing that Adam and Eve could and DID sin. I guess the same is true of Satan. Communion with God was and still is our destiny. Got prayer?:thumb:

Joel, thanks for your thoughts. You don't seem to be in a hurry with this subject like I am.

Richard, I know we will have to go to the exegesis of words. But a highly theological word like TRINITY isn't in the Bible either but it's used as a way to explain 'the nature' of God. I see that NIV has 'sin nature' in the place of 'flesh' in its translation. I have problems with NIV translations, but I believe that in this case they have captured the 'idea' of how Paul was using 'flesh'. However, they are wrong to inject theology. They should just use "flesh".

Btw, I'm not frustrated with you Richard, as much as I am with my power of persuasion. :lol:

Should I post a thread on the human nature of Jesus? Rereading Richard's first post I see that is relevant to this idea of flesh vs. sin nature. I mean if we call the flesh ...'sin nature'....then we are in some way attributing sin to Christ. So forgetting using 'sin nature' for the moment...was Jesus born in 'the flesh' like all the children of Adam??? Did He inherit the fallen nature/flesh of Mary?

I have never heard any indepth discussion of the nature of Christ in church or on religious forums. Why?

God bless everyone as we all sort out these things. God is with us. Have a great day one and all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Excellent post Rose. Thank you. It is amazing that Adam and Eve could and DID sin. I guess the same is true of Satan. Communion with God was and still is our destiny. Got prayer?:thumb:

I second that! :thumb::thumb:


Richard, I know we will have to go to the exegesis of words. But a highly theological word like TRINITY isn't in the Bible either but it's used as a way to explain 'the nature' of God.
I never meant to imply that the "sin nature" doesn't have a substantial existence merely because the word doesn't occur in Scripture. That would be very poor reasoning indeed. I question whether or not we are correct when we think of "sin nature" as "substance" or even as a necessary biblical category (such as the Trinity, which most definitely is a necessary biblical category). That's why I keep harping on the question of whether or not "sin nature" has any explanatory value. And that's why I started the thread with a comparison to phlogiston. Science (understanding) only progressed when they tossed out the "substance" that didn't actually exist.

We have reason to question the "substance" theory of "sin nature" (its stored in the DNA, passed on specifically by the father, etc) because it looks like the typical carry-over from the adolescent stage of human thought where abstract nouns were reified (made into things).

The main point is that I think most of us - including myself till just last year when I encountered the idea that there is no such thing as "sin nature" - have received the idea of sin nature uncritically.


I see that NIV has 'sin nature' in the place of 'flesh' in its translation. I have problems with NIV translations, but I believe that in this case they have captured the 'idea' of how Paul was using 'flesh'. However, they are wrong to inject theology. They should just use "flesh".
Glad we agree on that. What do you think of the use of "sin nature" in this verse of the NIV:

NIV 1 Corinthians 5:5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

So Satan is gonna "destroy" the sinner's "sin nature" - now there's a new doctrine for ya! Gotta love that NIV!


Btw, I'm not frustrated with you Richard, as much as I am with my power of persuasion. :lol:
Ha! Well put ....


Should I post a thread on the human nature of Jesus? Rereading Richard's first post I see that is relevant to this idea of flesh vs. sin nature. I mean if we call the flesh ...'sin nature'....then we are in some way attributing sin to Christ. So forgetting using 'sin nature' for the moment...was Jesus born in 'the flesh' like all the children of Adam??? Did He inherit the fallen nature/flesh of Mary?
I think that would be an excellent idea! I've been thinking a thread on the divine nature would be very valuable too, since God has promised that we may be partakers of it!

KJV 2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Note the contrast with "corruption that is in the world through lust" - that links back to our current discourse.


I have never heard any indepth discussion of the nature of Christ in church or on religious forums. Why?

Probably because these questions a can be very disturbing for folks whose faith is not well grounded. If we start questioning the "received tradition" then what's next, rejection of the faith itself? Of course, that fear is not entirely unfounded, since excessive skepticism is corrosive to faith. This exposes one the sweet fruits of the Bible Wheel for me. The fact that I know beyond all doubt that God designed the Bible (since I can see the design with my own eyes), it is easy for me to loosen my grip on it without fearing it will all be blown away in the wind. It much easier for me to look at "Bible difficulties" and apparent contradictions and all that since I have no fear that it will all fall apart if I look to closely at it. It opens much more beautifully when you hold God's Book of Infinite Wisdom gently in your hands. Many apologists seem to have a death grip on the Bible which causes them - ironically enough - to act as if they are sworn enemies of all truth when they try to "defend" the Bible through deception, distraction, mockery, abuse, and ad hoc arguments they would never accept from the other side.

And another likely reason is that too many pastors think the "babes" they have been pastoring for the last 20 - 30 years aren't ready for "strong meat." Its a tragedy that many "church goers" are in diapers and on milk from the cradle to the grave. The whole "church thing" is a tragedy. After 20 years of sermons and Bible studies, the average church goer should have the equivalent to two or three PhDs in Theology. And what has he learned in those twenty years? Could he even tell you the number of books in the Bible? Or list the Ten Commandments?


God bless everyone as we all sort out these things. God is with us. Have a great day one and all.

Amen! :pray:

Emmanuel is here with us!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What is the significance of the virgin birth then if you reject the notion of 'sin nature'?
That is a very interesting question indeed. Can you think of any verse suggesting the Virgin Birth was necessary to avoid "transmission" of the "sin nature"?

To me, it looks like the reason for the Virgin Birth was because Jesus had to be both fully human and fully divine. This is coheres with the explanation Gabriel gave to Mary:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Scripture seems to suggest a causal connection between the Virgin Birth and the nature of Christ as the Son of God. Makes sense to me.

This also seems to show that a persons nature is inherited from both parents, which we know to be true in natural generation. It seems to me the only reason people came up with the idea that "sin nature" is transmitted through the paternal line is because they began with the invalid idea of "sin nature" and then through logic had to assert that it couldn't come from Mary since that would imply Jesus had a "sin nature".

In thinking about this, it is important to note that "sin nature" is an idea prominent in Western (Latin) theology. It was promoted strongly by Augustine. As far as I know, the idea never got any traction in Eastern Orthodox theology, which, BTW, has a very attractive theory of the atonement (how many folks here know that the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is a theory invented during the 16th century reformation, not a biblical fact?).


Are you making a distinction between something definite being there (a sin nature which causes us to sin) and something being missing (flesh and blood on its own)
Yes, that's pretty much it. The idea is that flesh not under the direction of a spirit that is in communion with God will sin. That seems to explain the whole shebang. I am not ignoring the corruption associated with flesh, I'm just saying it is not to be thought of as a new "nature" that has a "substantial existence." For example, if you fell and broke a bone, you don't think of the bone as having a "new nature" called "brokeness." Its essential nature as "bone" remains unchanged. Its condition changed, not its nature.


ie
Eve was made out of a piece of Adam so she had something of his in her It says in Genesis that God breathed life into Adam but it doesnt say this about Eve so I assume she got her God-breath from being taken out of Adam.
Yes, it is possible that since God was working with a living piece of Adam, there was no need to breath new life into her. But on the other hand, I wouldn't feel comfortable assuming that based on the silence of the record itself. Lots of things happened that are not recorded in the Bible.


There has to surely be something we get from our fathers that Jesus couldnt get either because he had already got that something (the breath of God maybe ...being pre -exixtent and God) or else what we get from our fathers is already 'dead' and Jesus needed to be 'alive' to demonstrate that Adam was capable of not sinning if he'd wanted to.
Yes, I suppose in this context we could say that Jesus "got" His Divine Nature from God the Father. But that is in contrast to the "human nature" He got from His mother, I don't see that it necessarily has anything to do with a "sin nature."


I notice in the Bible somewhere it says Eve became the mother of all the living ...is this perhaps a reference to our flesh.
I think so. For those who study gematria, this idea is reflected in fact that Eve = 19 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_19.asp) and Flesh (sarx) = 19 x 19 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/quph_lamb.asp), and sarx is maximized on the Inner Wheel of Revelation in Rev 19, where also we find the marriage of the Lamb to the Church (New Eve), etc.


The Bible says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ...this implies to me there has to be something more ie flesh/blood plus something more. So then if all we really get to work with is flesh from our mothers and something broken from our fathers then we only really have the flesh portion which is neutral in and of itself though easily fails us because we need something more (the part we ideally shouldve got from our fathers if Adam hadnt sinned). So perhaps you are right that it is not sin nature(since this speaks of something active) that is impeeding us but that flesh and blood on its own is not enough for us in that it is weak
Yeah, I think we're tracking pretty well on that las paragraph.

Thanks Abigail! Great to have you here :thumb:

[joel]

As we work through a process, with a view towards obtaining some understanding concerning "the sin nature", Brother Bob made reference to a verse that clarifies the three parts of the human;

I Thessalonians 5:23

Now may the God of peace Himself be hallowing you wholly; and may your unimpaired spirit, and soul and body be kept blameless in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ!

To be "hallowing" is to set apart and dedicate to God, cleansing and purifying.
"Wholly" is "complete in every respect, brought to a conclusion of purpose.
"unimpaired" is "complete in every part". It comes from a root word suggesting a "die", or "lot", referring to inheritance. It also suggests the "breaking of bread".

Here, we find that humans are comprised of these three, distinct "parts"; spirit (pneuma), soul (psuche), and body (soma).

Adam, and Eve, and all humans have these three parts.

It is God's goal for every person to be "completed to the end", and "completed in every part".

The body (soma), comprised of its component parts, is covered in flesh (sarx). The life that is associated with the body is "bios", the physical realm.

The is another kind of life, very significant in scripture, which has to with the spirit. It is that life (zoe) which directly linked with God....the life of God.

Obviously, all life comes from God. He is the source of all life. However, there are different types of life.

Joel

[sylvius]

Eve was made out of a piece of Adam so she had something of his in her It says in Genesis that God breathed life into Adam but it doesnt say this about Eve so I assume she got her God-breath from being taken out of Adam.

Genesis 2:21

וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.

here for the first time is mentioning of "basar"= flesh.

"vayisgor"= and he closed.

"sagar" = to close, lock up.

which is the opposite of "patach" = to open.

for which you need a key, "mafteach".

so Genesis 2:21 is kind of key-verse.

"tsela", translated with rib, means also side, also in geometrical sense.

which makes immediately think of John 1:14, "and the word became flesh".

for what was John talking about, what was he referring to?

I bet to Genesis 1:1 as being "2701".

note also that LXX translates "tsela" with "pleura", same word used in John 19:34
but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out.

and "basar" of course, root of "besorah" = good tidings, Gospel.

the "2701" came to speech, could be brought under words.

that's why:

Genesis 2:24,

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

i.e., break with all idolatry.

[joel]

Sylvius said;

"tsela", translated with rib, means also side, also in geometrical sense.
---------------------------------------------------

Sylvius, I have also heard that it may be translated, "angular organ". Have you heard anything similar?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I think we all needed a bit of a break from this thread. The issues are deep, and have a history of debate that goes back to the early church. It requires a lot of study to do it justice. While looking for some other info, I ran across this blog entry that has some helpful discussion on the issue of "sin nature" and "original sin" and such things. It might be a good place from which to restart the conversation.

http://allthings2all.blogspot.com/search/label/Examining%20Teaching

RAM

[joel]

Thanks, Richard, for continuing to keep an open minded attitude concerning these matters.
Also, thanks for giving so much of your time to study and answering of posts, and doing so in a spirit of peace.
I certainly only speak for myself, but, from the responses of others, it is evident that much fruit is coming from this orchard, if I may use such a symbol.

I have started to read the blog to which you referred, and will follow your lead as to the continued discussion.

In our mutual endeavors in seeking truth, as we seek to build up, and not tear down, there are matters which do arise which can become the basis of division.

Love is the cord that holds us together, and one of ways by which it is expressed through you is your respect for what others have to say. That is a gift from God that magnifies the other gifts which He has given to you, which include, but are not limited to; knowledge associated with languages, and mathematics.

Joel, a fellow servant

[Brother Bob]

Hi Richard,

I like the blog entry. I agree with it.

I don't believe we inherit Adam's sin when we are born. Adam and Eve's sin are their own and they must answer for it. But their sin caused the fulness of God's loving Presence and Light to leave them and they had to live in spiritual darkness. They passed this condition to their descendents. The nature of all humans born of Adam is predisposed to sin and is born hostile to God and His laws. That is all that I mean by a sinful nature. It is a human nature that needs conversion and transformation. Let's call it faulty human nature, broken human nature, defective human nature if you want. But since we are born separated from God, there exists within this "inherited" nature sinful tendencies inherited from our numerous ancestors.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I like the blog entry. I agree with it.

I don't believe we inherit Adam's sin when we are born. Adam and Eve's sin are their own and they must answer for it. But their sin caused the fulness of God's loving Presence and Light to leave them and they had to live in spiritual darkness. They passed this condition to their descendents. The nature of all humans born of Adam is predisposed to sin and is born hostile to God and His laws. That is all that I mean by a sinful nature. It is a human nature that needs conversion and transformation. Let's call it faulty human nature, broken human nature, defective human nature if you want. But since we are born separated from God, there exists within this "inherited" nature sinful tendencies inherited from our numerous ancestors.

OK - let me try to follow your lead. You offer the following options:
sinful nature
faulty human nature
broken human nature
defective human natureA rose is still a rose no matter what we call it. Just changing the name is not going to settle the issue at hand. Every option includes the word "nature". This begs the question that I posed when I opened this thread. Your position seems ambivalent to me. On the one hand, your comments are consistent with the idea that we don't have a "sin nature" but are simply fleshly creatures who can not obey God because our connection with Him was severed at the fall. You stated this explicitly when you wrote "we are born separated from God" but then you mixed it with the idea of "sin nature" by suggesting that "there exists within this 'inherited' nature sinful tendencies inherited from our numerous ancestors." I think we all will agree that the sins of our ancestors influences all of us towards sin, but is it correct to refer to it as something that we "inherited" in our "nature"? Its one thing to inherit a tendency to drink from an abusive and drunken father, but its quite another to claim I inherited an "alcoholic nature" from the DNA he passed on to me. Do you see the difference?

I think I can clarify my point by looking at the blog entry you said you agreed with. I assume your agreement extends to the definition of "original sin" posted therein, since it is fundamental to all that followed after:


This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).The problem here is that the use of the word "nature" in conjunction with "inheritance" and "passed down from parent to child" carries the idea of a physically transmittable substance or contagion like an STD, or a genetic deformation like a cleft lip or hemophilia. This has led some rigidly literalistic teachers to assert, without any support whatsoever from either Scripture or science, that the sin nature "exists in the cell structure of the body and each one is unique" (see post #80 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=80&highlight=cell+structure#post80)).

This exemplifies why I opened this thread. What if there is no such thing as "sin nature"? What if that idea is a holdover from an ancient and invalid world view, like angels copulating with humans perhaps, and that it is not actually taught in Scripture? Would that mean that our understanding of Scripture is warped by an imaginary "substance" that does not exist? Do we need to eliminate it before real progress is made in our Integrated Theology™ just as phlogiston and ether had to be eliminated from science?
Its one thing to acknowledge that we are all born into a sinful world, and that since we are fleshly creatures born cut off from God, we will sin. And the sins of our ancestors add to that wicked stew. But I still don't see that the technical theological term "sin nature" either necessary or useful in the discussion of any of those biblical truths.

Richard

[joel]

I agree with Mr. Pearl's observation that the "sin nature" concept is not appropriate. The suggestion that we look more closely at Romans 5 is apppropriate.

However, I do not agree with his view that our problem is associated with not having access to the "tree of life". I suggest that our problem is more fundamental, and that we were cut off from the tree of life so that we would not remain in that condition indefinitely.

The act of the disobedience resulted in an immediate change when Adam ate of the fruit of tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

I find it extraordinarily interesting that their eyes were opened. This is a similar thing to what happened to Jonathan when he ate of the honey in oppossition to the command of Saul, even though Johathan did not directly hear the order. In both cases, the perception of the eyes changed. Also, other changes occured in the way they (Adam and Eve) acted, and reacted.

I submit that the basis of the change that occured was that they became mortal, and corruptible. They began to die. Mortality is the process of dying. As that occurs, corruption results. This is what we inherit from Adam. We are dying.

Our mortal condition would be prolonged indefinitely if we were allowed access to the "tree of life". What we needed was that the reign of sin and death be ended.

Christ, when He came, clothed in the likeness of sinful flesh, was made to be sin on the cross, and in so doing, consented to be consigned to death. But, death could not hold Him.

Paul's teachings in the chapters that follow Romans 5 focus on Christ's victory over both sin and death, and our inclusion in His victory.

Joel

[Brother Bob]

Richard,

Do you agree with semi-pelagianism as stated below:

"Semi-Pelagianism represented human nature as itself unimpaired by the fall, though not free from creaturely weakness and in need of divine assistance. The original sin was held to have brought about the loss of original righteousness, which was regarded as a supernatural gift added to man's nature, with the result that the loss left man in a purely natural state - that is to say in a state in which his nature was invitiated, a state of neutrality as it were, poised between good and evil, and not therefore a state of incapacitation."
- Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, The True Image (a great out-of-print book btw)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

Do you agree with semi-pelagianism as stated below:

"Semi-Pelagianism represented human nature as itself unimpaired by the fall, though not free from creaturely weakness and in need of divine assistance. The original sin was held to have brought about the loss of original righteousness, which was regarded as a supernatural gift added to man's nature, with the result that the loss left man in a purely natural state - that is to say in a state in which his nature was invitiated, a state of neutrality as it were, poised between good and evil, and not therefore a state of incapacitation."
- Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, The True Image (a great out-of-print book btw)

Glad you asked that! I actually had begun discussing that quote in my previous post, but decided the post was just to big and so I deleted it. I am finding it rather difficult to answer long posts with lots of points. I'm glad to break them up into more bite-sized pieces.

So in answer to your question: As far as I know, it is a correct definition of "semi-pelagiansim," but I am not satisfied with that as a "category" in this discussion.

The whole problem is that the tradition-bound theologians have made a category error. They write as if "human nature" changed with the fall. This is an error common to both sides of the debate; Semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism (aka Calvinism) alike.

They are both wrong, because they are not using the biblical categories of Flesh vs. Spirit. They invent a "substance" called "human nature" and then proceed to apply this idea in the complex algebra of their philosophic theology.

They got it wrong from the get go. Beware of the phlogiston of the philosophical theologians.

RAM

[Brother Bob]

Richard,
I am neither semi-pelagian or Augustinian, but you will have to convince me that human nature did not change at the fall. Is that your opinion or can you point me/us to others that believe as you do.

Since you prefer to use flesh vs. spirit categories that is fine with me, since they are biblical categories. I guess that leads us to define how Paul understood the term he used to describe human nature ...."flesh".

[Brother Bob]

And I'm not sure why you posted that blog entry. Do you agree with it or just posting it for discusssion's sake?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree with Mr. Pearl's observation that the "sin nature" concept is not appropriate. The suggestion that we look more closely at Romans 5 is apppropriate.
Agree on both counts. I particularly dislike his use of the term "legal" in his explanation of our estrangement from God:



"In the eating of the tree, the willful and direct disobedience to God resulted in legal estrangement from God and precipitated the curse of death on Adam and all his descendants. All men are born under the curse and totally estranged from God."
Legal? YUCK! There is nothing in me that responds to that kind of language. It feels entirely made up ... and worst, it makes me feel like God is a lawyer! Which is about the worst idea I could imagine.


However, I do not agree with his view that our problem is associated with not having access to the "tree of life". I suggest that our problem is more fundamental, and that we were cut off from the tree of life so that we would not remain in that condition indefinitely.
Amen! I agree completely.


The act of the disobedience resulted in an immediate change when Adam ate of the fruit of tree of Knowledge of good and evil.
Yes, there was a change, but the change was not "in his nature." If you shoot a man, and mortally wound him, have you "changed his nature"? The thing that changed was the RELATIONSHIP between God and Man.


I find it extraordinarily interesting that their eyes were opened. This is a similar thing to what happened to Jonathan when he ate of the honey in oppossition to the command of Saul, even though Johathan did not directly hear the order. In both cases, the perception of the eyes changed. Also, other changes occured in the way they (Adam and Eve) acted, and reacted.
Yes, I think there is a LOT to find by comparing Gen 2-3 with 1 Sam 14. Note that both the phrases "freely eat" and "mot tamut" occur in both passages. And eyes opened. Very deep stuff.


I submit that the basis of the change that occured was that they became mortal, and corruptible. They began to die. Mortality is the process of dying. As that occurs, corruption results. This is what we inherit from Adam. We are dying.
Yes, because the relationship with God - the source of Life - was changed.


Our mortal condition would be prolonged indefinitely if we were allowed access to the "tree of life". What we needed was that the reign of sin and death be ended.
Exactly.


Christ, when He came, clothed in the likeness of sinful flesh, was made to be sin on the cross, and in so doing, consented to be consigned to death. But, death could not hold Him.

Paul's teachings in the chapters that follow Romans 5 focus on Christ's victory over both sin and death, and our inclusion in His victory.

Joel

Amen!

Thanks Joel!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And I'm not sure why you posted that blog entry. Do you agree with it or just posting it for discusssion's sake?
It introduced certain definitions and historical data that show how our discussion goes back to the early church. I thought it would help us understand the depth of the questions we are tackling.

I also wanted a chance to show that the usually categories generated by Pegias vs. Augustine are inadequate, since they both use the term "human nature" uncritically.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
I am neither semi-pelagian or Augustinian, but you will have to convince me that human nature did not change at the fall. Is that your opinion or can you point me/us to others that believe as you do.

Since you prefer to use flesh vs. spirit categories that is fine with me, since they are biblical categories. I guess that leads us to define how Paul understood the term he used to describe human nature ...."flesh".
When you say that I need to convince you "that human nature did not change at the fall" you are assuming that the category "human nature" is meaningful in this discussion. We have not established that (to my satisfaction, anyway).

Your second statement helps. You believe that Paul's use of the term "flesh" is identical to the meaning of "human nature."

OK.

So does that mean that you believe the "nature" of the "flesh" changed when Adam sinned?

[Brother Bob]

So does that mean that you believe the "nature" of the "flesh" changed when Adam sinned?

Yes, I do...since "flesh", for me, means more than body (soma). It denotes how the body, soul and spirit work together. Before the fall, the spirit dominated the soul (self) and body. This was because God's Spirit filled Adam's spirit and empowered him to be a 'spiritual' being.

When Adam sinned we see a drastic change in their thinking and their behavior. Their soul and body dominated their spirit. The way God created them to 'work' (nature) changed.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, I do...since "flesh", for me, means more than body (soma). It denotes how the body, soul and spirit work together. Before the fall, the spirit dominated the soul (self) and body. This was because God's Spirit filled Adam's spirit and empowered him to be a 'spiritual' being.

When Adam sinned we see a drastic change in their thinking and their behavior. Their soul and body dominated their spirit. The way God created them to 'work' (nature) changed.
Very good! This is exactly what I have been hoping for. A clarification of definitions so we know what we are talking about.

Now you said that "God's Spirit filled Adam's spirit and empowered him to be a 'spiritual being'". Can you support that with Scripture? It sounds suspicious to me for two reasons. First because the Bible says "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (1 Cor 15:45). So Scripture speaks of Adam as "natural" (psuchikos) vs. Christ as spiritual. Second, it seems obvious that God's Spirit did not "fill" Adams' spirit, since otherwise Adam could not have committed the first sin.

You also said "Their soul and body dominated their spirit. The way God created them to 'work' (nature) changed." I don't see that as a change in "nature." Its a change in functional relationships. If that's all people meant when they said that we "inherited Adam's sin nature" they never would have invented ideas about transmission through the paternal line, a change in cell structure, etc.

I still don't see any place for the idea that Adam acquired a "sin nature" when he first sinned. Have you noticed that he sinned before he ate the fruit? We know that because he had to intend to eat it before he actually did eat it, and the intention to sin is itself a sin. So how did Adam sin without a "sin nature"? The answer is simple, he was NOT in communion with God at the time, and the nature of the flesh not subject to a spirit in communion with God is to satisfy its own desires, hence sin.

That's the whole explanation of the whole existentiallada (to borrow a neologism from the One Cosmos (http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/) guy) with not a single reference to, or even hint or suggestion of, a "changed nature."

Richard

[joel]

Yes, I do...since "flesh", for me, means more than body (soma). It denotes how the body, soul and spirit work together. Before the fall, the spirit dominated the soul (self) and body. This was because God's Spirit filled Adam's spirit and empowered him to be a 'spiritual' being.

When Adam sinned we see a drastic change in their thinking and their behavior. Their soul and body dominated their spirit. The way God created them to 'work' (nature) changed.

That was "very good", Brother Bob. I am in unity with Richard when he said that what you offered was "Very good!".

Adam was spiritually empowered when he named all the animals. I have often been in wonder of that fact......his mind, dominated by the spirit, naming the animals.....and he didn't learn a language....he "knew" a language!

So, in the absence of any scriptural references of proof, can we say together that the naming of the animals was truly evidence that Adam was dominated by the spririt?..........spirit, and language, and the mind, working together without the interference of the flesh? I think so.

Richard observes that Adam was not "full of spirit", with which we can also agree. It is a matter of degrees. He was not "full", and that is part of the reason that he needed a "complement, pleroma, that which fills). That is why we need each other. I'm not "full", you're not "full", but we are to be "being filled with the spirit".

Joel

[Brother Bob]

Very good! This is exactly what I have been hoping for. A clarification of definitions so we know what we are talking about.

Now you said that "God's Spirit filled Adam's spirit and empowered him to be a 'spiritual being'". Can you support that with Scripture? It sounds suspicious to me for two reasons. First because the Bible says "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (1 Cor 15:45). So Scripture speaks of Adam as "natural" (psuchikos) vs. Christ as spiritual. Second, it seems obvious that God's Spirit did not "fill" Adams' spirit, since otherwise Adam could not have committed the first sin.

I believe Adam and Eve were made in God's Image and were created perfect. This is evidenced by their perfect communion with God and not knowing they were naked. When they sinned, they ran from God and their eyes were opened signifying that a change had taken place 'within' them of some kind.

I'll have to take a closer look at 1Cor. 15:45, but I think you are reaching to conclude that Adam was not filled because he sinned. Sinless beings CAN sin and did. See Lucifer and the angels.


You also said "Their soul and body dominated their spirit. The way God created them to 'work' (nature) changed." I don't see that as a change in "nature." Its a change in functional relationships. If that's all people meant when they said that we "inherited Adam's sin nature" they never would have invented ideas about transmission through the paternal line, a change in cell structure, etc.
Your statment that "Its a change in functional relationships" seems esoteric to me. I don't know what that means.




I still don't see any place for the idea that Adam acquired a "sin nature" when he first sinned. Have you noticed that he sinned before he ate the fruit? We know that because he had to intend to eat it before he actually did eat it, and the intention to sin is itself a sin. So how did Adam sin without a "sin nature"? The answer is simple, he was NOT in communion with God at the time, and the nature of the flesh not subject to a spirit in communion with God is to satisfy its own desires, hence sin.

That's the whole explanation of the whole existentiallada (to borrow a neologism from the One Cosmos (http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/) guy) with not a single reference to, or even hint or suggestion of, a "changed nature."

Whatever is not of faith is sin. Yes, when Adam and Eve decided to sin they decided not to trust God. Eating the fruit was just the result of failing to trust their Creator. That is what happened to the angels. When a being (whether sinless or not) decides not to trust God they grieve the Spirit.

So what is "flesh" for you Richard? You haven't defined that yet. That in itself is incontrovertable proof that you have a sinful nature. :p

BB

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Bob!

Great to see you found some time for a visit. Sorry to hear that you had a funeral to visit. I guess it only goes to prove the seriousness of the topic of this conversation.


I believe Adam and Eve were made in God's Image and were created perfect. This is evidenced by their perfect communion with God and not knowing they were naked. When they sinned, they ran from God and their eyes were opened signifying that a change had taken place 'within' them of some kind.
I never suggested anything about Adam and Eve not being created perfect. I think there has been a persistent misunderstanding on this point. As far as I know, I have consistently stated that they were indeed created perfect fleshly creatures. The change that happened is that the relationship with God was broken when they sinned. I don't see any reason to imagine that their "nature" changed when they sinned.


I'll have to take a closer look at 1Cor. 15:45, but I think you are reaching to conclude that Adam was not filled because he sinned. Sinless beings CAN sin and did. See Lucifer and the angels.
This seems to be the same persistent misunderstanding. I thought I was clear that Adam and Eve were created sinless. My point was that in order for them to sin, they could not be in conscious communion with God, and empowered by God's Spirit at the moment they chose to sin. That is because sin is a work of the flesh, not a fruit of the Spirit.

It's all Flesh vs. Spirit (Galatians 5:22ff)



You also said "Their soul and body dominated their spirit. The way God created them to 'work' (nature) changed." I don't see that as a change in "nature." Its a change in functional relationships. If that's all people meant when they said that we "inherited Adam's sin nature" they never would have invented ideas about transmission through the paternal line, a change in cell structure, etc. Your statment that "Its a change in functional relationships" seems esoteric to me. I don't know what that means.
The phrase "change in functional relationship" was certainly not intended as anything esoteric. I thought I was just rewording your idea that there was a change in the relationship between soul, body, and spirit. You asserted that the change in relationship between those parts should be understood as a change in "nature." I was just trying to say that the "nature" remained the same. It was the way the parts related that changed. For example, suppose one day I am tempted by lust, but I resist and pray and am victorious or the sin. Then another day I give in to lust and sin. Does my "nature" change day by day depending on whether I sin or not?


So what is "flesh" for you Richard? You haven't defined that yet. That in itself is incontrovertable proof that you have a sinful nature. :p

BB

Ha! Now I'm gonna have to really prove you wrong! :lol: But a proper mistreatment of your question deserves a post of its own, so I'll get back to you with it asap.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So what is "flesh" for you Richard? You haven't defined that yet. That in itself is incontrovertable proof that you have a sinful nature. :p

BB

Haha .... you asked for it Brother Bob. So here it is. In Post 23 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=75&postcount=23) I briefly explained what I think the Bible means by "flesh":


As for the meaning of "flesh" - first, it is the literal stuff humans are made of, and second, it is the aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world, as opposed to God. There are other shades of meaning, but this post is already too big so I'll let it rest there. :rolleyes:

You found this less than satisfying:


:D Couldn't help yourself could you my friend? You know there is more than just a body to our "nature" when you say there "is an aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world", and "there are other shades of meaning".

Actually, I don't think my initial "off-the-cuff" definition was really that inadequate. Lets compare it with Thayer's detailed definition:

G4561 sarx {sarx}
probably from the base of 4563; TDNT - 7:98,1000; n f
AV - flesh 147, carnal 2, carnally minded + 5427 1, fleshly 1; 151
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2) the body
2a) the body of a man 2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 2b1) born of natural generation

2c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature" 2c1) without any suggestion of depravity 2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
It seems to me that everything Thayer wrote is subsumed (more or less) under the two categories I initially offered. The only thing I left out were the details. But we don't need to argue this point since I agree with Thayer's definition, which answers your question, and should be sufficient for our discussion.

But given your obvious displeasure with my initial definition, I suspect that you will find Thayer's inadequate also. So now the ball has bounced back into your court, my friend. :playball: Could you please define what you think "flesh" means in the Bible? And if possible, could you cite an authoritative dictionary?

Thanks!

Richard

[Rose]

Hope you guys don't mind my jumping in and adding a very simple way of looking at the fall...at least for me :yo:

The clearest way for me to think about what happened to us because of Adam's fall, is to imagine that Adam and Eve, lived in a house "the garden" that contained everything they needed to live, plus a direct phone line to God, to talk with Him whenever they chose to, called "communion".

When they gave in to Satan's temptation and God kicked them out of the house "the garden" the door was locked and the phone line to God was no longer assessable. Now their eves were opened to the whole world outside the house.

They still had the same fleshly bodies without the protection of the house, and God's preserving life force, so their bodies began to age and die, as they were exposed to the harsh life outside the house "garden".

My main point is that when Adam and Eve were banned from the garden they still had the same fleshly bodies that God created for them in the garden, but they no longer had the spiritual communion with God, to keep them spiritually healthy.

Sort of like a battery operated device, that gets unplugged from the source of current to keep it charged, it eventually runs down and dies. The device "flesh" doesn't change, the lack of a power source is what changes.

It might seem to simplistic, but it works for me. ;)

Rose

[shalag]

:thumb:
Hope you guys don't mind my jumping in and adding a very simple way of looking at the fall...at least for me :yo:

The clearest way for me to think about what happened to us because of Adam's fall, is to imagine that Adam and Eve, lived in a house "the garden" that contained everything they needed to live, plus a direct phone line to God, to talk with Him whenever they chose to, called "communion".

It might seem to simplistic, but it works for me. ;)

Rose

I'm thinking about what you said in relation to 'church' - "the called out'. And what are we called out of? The way the world thinks! Why? To return to the Word of God - totally. Jesus said, "take this bread' -lechem - L learn Ch consummate (pregnant) life M the wisdom of the Word of God - and when you do, think of ME, Jesus. Until we do that as our 'own' daily life - we have no 'communion' - we are still outside the garden - G riches N(of the) kingdom.

I say this in regard to 'rapture' also. We all would like to be 'raptured' - when He comes back. What about now. To be enraptured with Jesus is to be totally passionate and in communion with Him now. Speak only his Word - now. Refute all other wisdom with the word of God- now.


When they gave in to Satan's temptation and God kicked them out of the house "the garden" the door was locked and the phone line to God was no longer assessable. Now their eves were opened to the whole world outside the house.

They still had the same fleshly bodies without the protection of the house, and God's preserving life force, so their bodies began to age and die, as they were exposed to the harsh life outside the house "garden".

My main point is that when Adam and Eve were banned from the garden they still had the same fleshly bodies that God created for them in the garden, but they no longer had the spiritual communion with God, to keep them spiritually healthy.

Sort of like a battery operated device, that gets unplugged from the source of current to keep it charged, it eventually runs down and dies. The device "flesh" doesn't change, the lack of a power source is what changes.

This really 'opens my eyes' to why we as church are succumbing to physical attacks. When we are unplugged from the Word of God - we are outside the house, out of communion - unplugged from the source of current to keep us physically and spiritually healthy - so our bodies begin to age and die, as we are exposed to the harsh life outside the house "garden". God is no respecter of persons - he chooses them who truly choose him - without doubt. I don't know about anyone else - but as for me - I am fighting a battle to overcome all doubt. And I'm not talking about 'name it claim it' - I'm taking about trusting Him with my life no matter what.

Moses lived to 120 - and was healthy. He died yes - only because God took him - not because He was weak and unhealthy.

Thank you Rose - this is very edifying that the Word of God is living and powerful, full of mercy and compassion.

Don't mean to deviate from the 'theme' - -but I liked what you said!:bounce:

[TheForgiven]

Joe,....this is another example of a phrase that cannot be supported by scripture. What is the "sinful nature"? Is the human nature sinful? What verse supports this?

We are inclined to use phrases which cannot be directly supported by chapter, and verse. Why do we continue to use them?

Be specific, Joe. Where do you find such a statement?

Joel

Is the "Sinful Nature" a term used to define the flesh? Or is it as it says; a nature that follows the path of sinning? Notice the text:

Romans 7:5
5 For when we were in the flesh (sinful nature), the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death

Galatians 5:17
For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Although Paul uses the Phrase to describe the sinful nature as the flesh, he is not speaking directly of flesh. He's referring to those who live according to the desires of the flesh. Thus, it is not flesh itself that is evil, but the bad habits we learn which developed into a sinning nature.

Is there an opposite of the sinful nature? Yes, there is:

2 Peter 1:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

The Divine Nature is the Holy Spirit. Now brother Richard correctly points out that the battle is between flesh and spirit. Where I differ is that the Spirit is not trying to tell us to fight the flesh itself, but rather the temptations aroused by the flesh (as developed by bad habits) in order to train ourselves to live righteously and holy lives, never giving in to the desires of the flesh.

Now the Gnostics taught that all mass is evil and therefore worthless. If our flesh was worthless, then Jesus Himself would have been born into a world of sinful flesh. I do not believe the flesh itself is evil. Rather, the bad habits we learned in our youth caused our flesh to become sinful.

Here's the best way to explain it. You and I do not know what it's like to be a drug addict (at least I hope anyways). :lol: Only those who developed bad habits with drug abuse have a nature within themselves that must be killed. When someone seeks help, others are there to help them resist the temptation to give into their desires to use drugs. It is not their flesh itself that made them drug addicts. It was the habitual use of drugs that caused their flesh to adjust to it, hence, they get used to it, and desire it. Over time, when drug use has fully matured, they become addicted. Thus, the flesh learned a bad habit that has to be reversed.

The same with sinners. Sinners are sinners because that is all the know without God. The Divine Nature is God Himself, in the Holy Spirit, who abides in us to act as our Counselor, and our rehabilitation to free ourselves from drug abuse (sinning).

In conclusion, the sinful nature is not the flesh itself, but the habits learned while in the flesh. Paul clearly shows to the Romans that we as sinners lived according to the desires of the flesh afforded by the knowledge of the commandments. The commandments (law) created temptation in us who had problems with certain aspects of the Law. A person who habitually commits adultery has to learn to say no to his passion, and listen to what the Divine Nature is trying to tell you. The Divine Nature is our goal, which teaches us to break free from the abuses of the flesh.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In conclusion, the sinful nature is not the flesh itself, but the habits learned while in the flesh. Paul clearly shows to the Romans that we as sinners lived according to the desires of the flesh afforded by the knowledge of the commandments. The commandments (law) created temptation in us who had problems with certain aspects of the Law. A person who habitually commits adultery has to learn to say no to his passion, and listen to what the Divine Nature is trying to tell you. The Divine Nature is our goal, which teaches us to break free from the abuses of the flesh.

Joe
Hey ho bro Joe, :yo:

We should probably move this discussion over to the sin nature thread if we want to pursue it, but for now we can continue here (though it is rather off-topic).

Where did you get the idea that "sin nature" = "the bad habits learned while in the flesh?" Is this your own analysis, or did you learn it somewhere? The reason I ask is because it is quite distinct from the traditional definition of "sin nature" as used throughout the history of this discussion, which goes back at least to Augustine (5th century).

Are you aware of the origin of this concept? Folks believed that we inherit our "sin nature" from Adam through the process of procreation. Some believe our DNA was corrupted so that our actual physical "nature" was corrupted. A bad habit can be broken, but a leopard can not change its spots. That's the difference between "sin nature" and "bad habits."

I would be very interested in digging into this in the other thread if you so desire. I find this particular doctrine quite intriguing because it is so far removed from what the Bible actually teaches and yet is believed by the vast majority of Christians.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hey ho bro Joe,

We should probably move this discussion over to the sin nature thread if we want to pursue it, but for now we can continue here (though it is rather off-topic).

I agree. Let's move this discussion to another thread. I've never actually debated this before. So this will be a first time for me. :D


Where did you get the idea that "sin nature" = "the bad habits learned while in the flesh?" Is this your own analysis, or did you learn it somewhere? The reason I ask is because it is quite distinct from the traditional definition of "sin nature" as used throughout the history of this discussion, which goes back at least to Augustine (5th century).

I suppose you could say it was something I learned on my own as I don't recall this ever being taught. Many years ago, I discussed this topic during one of our Wed. Night Bible studies. Some agreed with me, and others did not, but it never became an issue. The phrase, "Bad Habits" was something I used to explain the sinful nature in our own language. Paul's language was "sinful nature", as the NIV Bible puts it, while other bibles simply read "flesh".

If someone grows angry, is it their body causing the anger, or the habit of losing one’s control that results in anger? If anger can be controlled, then this is proof that the body is not the cause of anger, but rather a means for angers reaction. Drug addiction is another example. The body isn't born addicted to drugs; it's taught drug addiction through substance abuse. What about Lusting? Is it the body that causes lust? Or the habit that is formed from having too much intercourse? If somenoe is accustomed to practicing sinful habits (lusting, lying, eating too much, anger, lack of self control), then it becomes habitual in their daily lives. Jesus came to reverse that, and teach us the Divine life style which we all call holy living.

You'll find that nearly every sin is caused by poor habits we've learned from our youth, be it friends, television, etc. The primary objective of Christ is to train us into living Holy lives. That's why Paul explains that physical fitness is a good thing, but practicing righteousness is much more better. Practice, practice, practice! That's the only way.

Now one cannot practice holiness if he doesn't know what holiness is. This would be compariable to a person sitting in a dark room; the darkness blinds him from seeing what's inside the room. But turn on the lights and everything is exposed. This is the same with sinners who are born again into righteousness, through the grace of Christ Jesus. His Spirit (Light) fills our house (body) and exposes all the falsehood we've grown accustomed to.

I remember doing things as a child that I never would have thought to be wrong. Join a Church, be born again, and before you know it, you realize that all the while, nothing good resided inside your life. Only through God's word and His Spirit abiding in our hearts can we truly understand adultery, lust, love for your neighbor as yourself, and putting the Lord as your #1 priority in our daily lives. An unborn person will never understand these truths; he can't because his room is dark, and his eyes are blinded. That's where we come in....we preach with our lives, and not just our words. But I wonder these days just how shiny our lives really are.


Are you aware of the origin of this concept? Folks believed that we inherit our "sin nature" from Adam through the process of procreation. Some believe our DNA was corrupted so that our actual physical "nature" was corrupted. A bad habit can be broken, but a leopard can not change its spots. That's the difference between "sin nature" and "bad habits."

I for one do not believe that sin is passed down genetically. Hence your statement, "a bad habit can be broken, but a leopard cannot change its spots" is a very good analogy. I don't believe our sins represent the spots on the leopard.


I would be very interested in digging into this in the other thread if you so desire. I find this particular doctrine quite intriguing because it is so far removed from what the Bible actually teaches and yet is believed by the vast majority of Christians.

Richard

Sure, let's do that. Let me know when you've moved this discussion.

God bless.

Joe

[Silence]

Hello Richard and Joe,
I don't get time to visit much anymore but thought I would comment on this thread a little. There are so many ways to define some of the terms being used that it gets a little tiring trying to figure out which definition is meant by one person in a post, and how the next person responding uses the same word. An example is the word "sin". Many times it is used in reference to actions or thoughts. But sin can also be used to describe a state of being. The basic definition of sin in both Hebrew and Greek is to "miss the mark" on a target. In that sense, we are all born sinners. Jesus was in unbroken fellowship and harmony with His Father. His nature was to have His Father first in everything. Our nature is to put ourselves first. I wonder if Jesus came out of Mary kicking and screaming like most babies do? Did He cry to be nursed? I doubt it. When you are in fellowship with God you tend to be distracted from what is happening with yourself.

The question of this thread seems to be - Did something happen to Adam and Eve that caused their children to have a "sinful nature" and was this nature passed on to their offspring through "the flesh"? The bible doesn't spell it out for us in so many words. Since humans are incredibly complex beings, and the bible talks of spirit, soul, and body in reference to us, I don't know if we can lay the blame squarely on the "flesh" as being the source of the problem. But just because Adam and Eve had bodies of flesh before they fell, I don't think we can rule out the physical body as one avenue for their children to be affected. It's funny that I just read an article a few days ago about "epi-genetics" that might have some bearing here. It turns out that the decisions that a person makes about what to put in their body (food, drugs, etc.) can affect the way their reproductive cells activate or de-activate sections of DNA, and this can affect their offspring for several generations by causing certain genes to be switched "on" or "off". Could that have any reference to "visiting the iniquity of the father's on the children to the third and fourth generation..."? I don't know. But given the huge number of "epigenetic switches" they haven't identified yet and the number of things that can "flip the switch" (everything from how much you eat, to how much affection you recieve, to chemicals that can interfere, one of which is glycol, a very common component listed on food labels) I don't know how we can rule out the physical body as an integral part of a "sin nature".

A long time ago I read an article on the way our brains work and it described how our brains take note of things that make us feel good and kind of "work backwards" from the release of the feel-good hormones, going backwards along the neueral pathway for a certain length to create a predisposition to do the same thing in the future. Sounds kind of like what Paul was talking about when he said the evil that he willed not to do, that he found himself doing. He also spoke in Romans 7:23 of the "law of sin which is in my members". Then in 7:24, "this body of death" and in v. 25 he talks of serving the law of sin with his flesh.

I think maybe the one thing that trumps everything else is the Holy Spirit. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty". Conversely, where the Spirit of the Lord is not, there is not liberty. Liberty from what? According to 2 Cor 3:7 it appears to be death that the Holy Spirit frees us from. Adam and Eve could not pass on to their children something that they did not have. They could only pass on what they did have. And at this point I am also reminded of a kind of "flip side" to this fact that was brought up earlier - If Adam and Eve fell and their bodies or "flesh" was the vehicle for passing that fall to their children, then in addition to not being able to pass anything good on to their children, how could Eve avoid passing that sinful taint to the "Promised Seed" in the same way, since her body was infected with sin? The answer is found in Genesis 2:22 when God "built" Eve. Women are born with all of the eggs they will ever have already formed within them. The "Seed" was already in Eve before she was tested and fell. And before there was an actual need for it, God provided a way for that Seed to be passed down to Eve's daughters undefiled, even though the daughters themselves were defiled by sin. The process is described by Arthur Custance in his book "The Seed of the Woman". Basically, when a woman's egg is fertilized by a female sperm (x), the part of that egg's dna that will form her future daughter's eggs remains seperate from the dna that will make up the rest of her daughter's body. That is how the Seed could come from a fallen woman and still be sinless and perfect as a sacrifice and Kinsmen-Redeemer. It is sanctified and set apart. If an egg is fertilized by a male sperm (y) then all of the dna in both the egg and sperm is mixed together. The male child's future reproductive contribution is not within him at birth. It is formed and put together by his body throughout his life from puberty to old age.

It could also be that, at the outset of a person's life, the flesh itself is not the root of the problem, but the mind in us that is set on the flesh is. But in what sense can our "minds" be separated from our "flesh"? What happens to the body affects the mind and vice-versa. Once Adam and Eve sinned "their eyes were opened" and all they knew was that they were naked. Subsequently to this they heard the Lord walking in the garden but had to hide from Him in shame. Did this trait of "open eyes" and hiding from God get passed down to their children? It seems to be the case.

So to make a long (and often confusing) story short, I do not see how Adam and Eve could have done anything other than pass on to their children a "sin nature", either in an active or a de-facto sense. They lost something in the fall that precluded them from having it to pass on to their children, hence all of their children "missed the mark" that would have been theirs if their parents hadn't fallen.

[joel]

They lost something in the fall that precluded them from having it to pass on to their children, hence all of their children "missed the mark" that would have been theirs if their parents hadn't fallen.


Could it be.......that initially they "acquired" something that they didn't have before which caused a change within them?

God had placed within the garden trees which we pleasant to the eyes and good for food. In the command to Adam which limited the grace of the freedom to eat of any tree.......He told Adam that in the day that he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil......in dying he would die.

Adam began to die. The process of death was now a part of his inward being which affected his body.

It was the serpent's subtle question that suggested to Eve that God had withheld something from them, that when they did eat of the tree, they would be "like God"...knowing good and evil. That was a lie.

When they ate, profound changes occurred within them........so......I ask the question......are we now sinners because we sin....or......are we sinners because we are dying?

The dying process is what we have from Adam which prohibits our ability to hit the target (sin). Each of us are born dying. And, we call it "life".

Joel

[Silence]

Hi Joel,
I have read a few commentaries that say Romans 5:12 should be translated "Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because of which (death) all sinned -" This would seem to indicate that we sin because we are dead, not that we are dead as a result of sinning. In this veiw Adam sinned and brought death into the world, but from then on death reigned over him and his descendants, leaving them no option but to be sinners. 1 Cor.15:56 seems to follow a similar line of thought. "The sting of death is sin." If death were the result of sin, you would think that it would read "The sting of sin is death".

Romans 5:19 also seems to point to a "sin nature" or "sin problem" in mankind being something laid at one man's feet, Adam. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made (passive) sinners....". 5:6 also says "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

But at the same time there is James 1:15 that speaks of sin becoming full grown and then bringing forth death, implying that the reverse can also the case. I wonder if it could be that some scriptures are speaking of death as a process of a principle in action, and other scriptures speaking of death as the state of being without physical life which is the result of the forgoing process. Could this be why Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree, "dying you shall die"? Why did God give the leeway of one day as the time frame for the sentence to be carried out? Why not say, as soon as you eat from the tree you will die?

In reference to your opening question about whether Adam and Eve "lost" something in the fall that resulted in their children being considered short of the mark (sinners) as a result of that loss, or whether they "acquired" something that was passed on to their descendants that results in the same thing, I don't know. When sin entered something else left. (sinlessness)

It is interesting how the first mention in scripture of an emotional state relative to humans is a negative statement. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed". The absence of something is noted, not the presence of something.

Also interesting is how the results of Adam and Eve's disobedience are described. The first thing is that their eyes are opened. But instead of saying they knew good and evil like the nachash had told Eve they would, it says when their eyes were opened all they knew was that they were naked. They then made coverings for themselves from fig leaves. (We had a fig tree in our back yard at my parent's house and I can tell you fig leaves are covered with tiny fibers that are very irritating to skin. Makes you wonder why they chose them as a clothing material.) They could no longer bear to be in the presence of the Lord when He came near and hid from Him. Once the Lord had questioned Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and pronounced the judgement of each Genesis 3:21 says the Lord made tunics of skin and clothed them. It doesn't say what had happened to the fig leaves, whether the Lord removed them, Adam and/or Eve did it, or whether the coats of skins went on over the top of the fig leaves. It also doesn't say how the Lord appeared to them when He clothed them. They had hid from Him in fear before, maybe they had to face their fear. That is one of the things about the bible sometimes. There is a lot that is not spelled out. I guess there is a good reason for that though.

[joel]

Hi Joel,
I have read a few commentaries that say Romans 5:12 should be translated "Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because of which (death) all sinned -" This would seem to indicate that we sin because we are dead, not that we are dead as a result of sinning. In this veiw Adam sinned and brought death into the world, but from then on death reigned over him and his descendants, leaving them no option but to be sinners. 1 Cor.15:56 seems to follow a similar line of thought. "The sting of death is sin." If death were the result of sin, you would think that it would read "The sting of sin is death".

Romans 5:19 also seems to point to a "sin nature" or "sin problem" in mankind being something laid at one man's feet, Adam. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made (passive) sinners....". 5:6 also says "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

But at the same time there is James 1:15 that speaks of sin becoming full grown and then bringing forth death, implying that the reverse can also the case. I wonder if it could be that some scriptures are speaking of death as a process of a principle in action, and other scriptures speaking of death as the state of being without physical life which is the result of the forgoing process. Could this be why Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree, "dying you shall die"? Why did God give the leeway of one day as the time frame for the sentence to be carried out? Why not say, as soon as you eat from the tree you will die?

In reference to your opening question about whether Adam and Eve "lost" something in the fall that resulted in their children being considered short of the mark (sinners) as a result of that loss, or whether they "acquired" something that was passed on to their descendants that results in the same thing, I don't know. When sin entered something else left. (sinlessness)

It is interesting how the first mention in scripture of an emotional state relative to humans is a negative statement. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed". The absence of something is noted, not the presence of something.

Also interesting is how the results of Adam and Eve's disobedience are described. The first thing is that their eyes are opened. But instead of saying they knew good and evil like the nachash had told Eve they would, it says when their eyes were opened all they knew was that they were naked. They then made coverings for themselves from fig leaves. (We had a fig tree in our back yard at my parent's house and I can tell you fig leaves are covered with tiny fibers that are very irritating to skin. Makes you wonder why they chose them as a clothing material.) They could no longer bear to be in the presence of the Lord when He came near and hid from Him. Once the Lord had questioned Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and pronounced the judgement of each Genesis 3:21 says the Lord made tunics of skin and clothed them. It doesn't say what had happened to the fig leaves, whether the Lord removed them, Adam and/or Eve did it, or whether the coats of skins went on over the top of the fig leaves. It also doesn't say how the Lord appeared to them when He clothed them. They had hid from Him in fear before, maybe they had to face their fear. That is one of the things about the bible sometimes. There is a lot that is not spelled out. I guess there is a good reason for that though.

Silence.....your observations are very profound.

I would ask you to look at the word, disobedience, in Romans 5:19.

What does it say?

Does it have anything to do with "hearing right" vs. "hearing wrong"?

Is disobedience "acting wrong".....or.....first "hearing wrong"?

What do you think?

Joel

[Silence]

Hi Joel,
I noticed that the word "disobedience" in Romans 5:19 meant to "hear wrong" as I was writing my last post and studying different scripture verses that might have bearing on the subject. I was looking at the verse from the standpoint of "many being made sinners" and didn't take much time to think backwards from that point to the cause that Paul attributed that event to. Thanks for pointing it out, as it prompted me to ask a few questions and notice things that I have always read right over. Adam "heard wrong" and as a result "many were made sinners". The eating followed with all of it's consequences, but in this verse the primary focus of blame is traced to Adam listening to Eve over God.

In the biblical account Eve's "sales pitch" to Adam was left out, and it is probably better that way. I wonder if a "hearing problem" is what was passed on to Adam's descendants, that results in them being sinners? Of course "hearing" in this context is much wider in scope than the vibrating of an eardrum transferring vibrations to an anvil to the cochlea and so on. Faith comes by hearing and whatever is not of faith is sin. So maybe we are born unable to hear God, and were helpless to not sin, so God's Son humbled Himself far enough down to our level to get through to us in a way that we could hear?

[jce]

Well... after reading through this thread about the "Problem Nature", "Troublesome Nature", "Deficient Nature" "Short Coming Nature", or if you will... "Sinful Nature" of man I have come to the conclusion that, as creatures made in the Image of God we have been endowed with the capability of making some assessments of this experience. Of course, without the Word & the Spirit, we are left pretty much in darkness on this topic.

So, in light of the Scriptures, when I look for a reason as to why my young grandchildren (11 so far) are prone to committing acts of evil (even after they have been warned) and some even before they understand what they are doing, I must conclude in light of the bible that they are "under the curse". My grandchildren range in age from 3 weeks to 15 years.

Now, from what I have witnessed, I would never leave the 3 week old alone with the 2 year old. He would do away with her :bawl::sSW_emperor:.

I don't believe he knows what murder is (on the other hand, if he does, his condition is even worse than I thought), but he would be relentlessly cruel to her. I assume this would be out of envy since the newborn is getting most of the attention he recently received... but is now directed to his little sister. He may think in his deceitful and desperately wicked little heart that this would restore what has been taken from him. Whatever his motive, it not only appears to be unlearned behavior, but also beyond his ability to correct.

Our family jokingly refers to this inherent behavior issue as evidence of "The Sin Nature". Now, whatever you want to call it, there is a problem in that little mind (and the mature mind for that matter) and it is beyond human repair apart from regeneration.

John

[joel]

Dear John,

I have found no evidence that there is a "sin nature". It seems to be another fabrication of man who is trying to understand God and His revelation concerning man and his condition.

Our nature, as humans, is human. It is not "sinful".

We should discard those expressions that do not accord with scripture. And, embrace those which do accord with what He says.

Do you have a scripture which speaks of a "sinful nature"?

Joel

[jce]

I have found no evidence that there is a "sin nature". It seems to be another fabrication of man who is trying to understand God and His revelation concerning man and his condition.

Hi Joel. Thank-you for your response.

Agreed that man's words are not God's Word. However, we do fabricate (or create) terms which build a vocabulary to describe how things appear to us. Someone earlier in this thread used the term "Trinity" as an example of a word not found in scripture but a term fabricated by man in an effort to describe an attribute of God which man doesn't understand.

My observations of children (and some grown men) indicate that they have a problem in their character (being) from birth. Something that cannot be fixed but must be replaced ("Except a man be born again"). The old man? Whatever it is, it sins. So, if it is human in nature, and that human sins, does it not make sense to say "The nature of that human is to sin"? Is there another expression which better describes the condition? "Sinful human" perhaps?

In answer to your question, I have listed a few scriptures below which simply references the old man. Perhaps you could render a comment on each. I'm here, open to learn... and make some effort to contribute to the dialogue.


Our nature, as humans, is human. It is not "sinful". Do you have a scripture which speaks of a "sinful nature"?

2nd Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

Thanks again Joel!

John

[joel]

2nd Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

Thanks again Joel!


My blessing to discuss this with you;
--------------------------------------------------------
2 Corinthians 5:16-17 (Young's Literal Translation)

16So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more;

17so that if any one [is] in Christ -- [he is] a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things.

I'm not trying to be picky, as if demanding that we must all talk alike, but, I encourage you to use expressions that are as close to the original words that English will allow.

Rather than referring to our "nature", if we use this section of scripture to describe our new "condition", we are part of the new humanity (kainos athropos). Paul differentiates between "the flesh" of which we are all a part, and knowing others no longer from that perspective........and, actually looking at all things from the new perspective, or paradigm.

Paul describes this new view in Romans 8.....he refers to it as "phronema pneuma"....or mindset of the spirit. He contrasts this with "phronema sarx" which is a mindset of the old humanity....looking at things through the flesh which is of the old humanity.
-------------------------------------
And your next verses;

4we were buried together, then, with him through the baptism to the death, that even as Christ was raised up out of the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life might walk.

5For, if we have become planted together to the likeness of his death, [so] also we shall be of the rising again;

6this knowing, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;

Paul describes how the total change (katallage, Romans 5:12) came about.

There is a three-fold set of "unity", i.e...."together" words employed describing what happened to the "old humanity";
1.) buried together;
2.) planted together;
3.) crucifed together with Him.

Here, the body comes into view. Our bodies, as originating from the old, are the "bodies of sin". Sin has dominion over the "old man".

But, thanks be unto God, Jesus took the "old man" to the cross.....and upon death, the "old man" was prepared for burial with Him as He was prepared,.....and, placed within the tomb as a seed is placed within the soil of the earth.

From that perspective, our "old humanity" received the finality of the words of God to Adam in the garden.......dust returning to dust.

So that.....we could be born anew.

Sin's dominion over the "old" ends at the cross.
---------------------------------------
Here, Paul focuses on the "where" this revelation of the gospel is to first bear fruit.....in the mind of us;

Ephesians 4:22-24 (Young's Literal Translation)

22ye are to put off concerning the former behaviour the old man, that is corrupt according to the desires of the deceit,

23and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind,

24and to put on the new man, which, according to God, was created in righteousness and kindness of the truth.

The "old man" lives in a realm of lies and deceit. He is corrupt, and corrupts all he touches. His behavior is a reproach to God, and if he does not have developed within him the "phronema pneuma", he will demonstrate that he still has within him the "phronma sarx" and he cannot please God no matter how religious he may appear on the outside. It is the inside that now matters.

The spirit of God renews the the spirit within us which renews the mind.

Righteousness and truth (as opposed to unrighteousness and lies) are the behavior that describes the "new man". We are to "take off" the former humanity, and "put on" the "now.....new man".
-------------------------------------
And now, Christ Who is in us, is He Who lives His life in us and through us;

Colossians 3:9-11 (Young's Literal Translation)

9Lie not one to another, having put off the old man with his practices,

10and having put on the new, which is renewed in regard to knowledge, after the image of Him who did create him;

11where there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, servant, freeman -- but the all and in all -- Christ.
----------------------------------------

This is an "undescribable" gift of God.

He, Christ Jesus, our Master, is the fullness of God, and we are to be the fullness of God in Him.

He does only those things which please the Father. Therefore, as Christ in us by His Spirit, renews and refreshes us within, our behavior will conform to His will....and thus, the Father will be pleased with us as well.

Joel

[alec cotton]

You all have me beaten. Adam could not have a 'sin nature' Neither he nor Eve could sin. They did not know good from evil . They were unaware that good and evil existed. They did not have a conscience. A conscience is the awareness of right and wrong. Fruit , in the Bible invariably means
result, outcome or consequence . Now the result of acquiring knowledge of good and evil is a conscience. As soon as they got one they were exposed. They felt shame for the first time Now the question arises :What is sin? What is right ?. What is wrong?. Without the law there is no sin . I had not known sin except by the law. Sin must be disobedience . Breaking the law. Transgressing the commandment. I suppose that will open another can of worms.
Alec :eek:

[joel]

You all have me beaten. Adam could not have a 'sin nature' Neither he nor Eve could sin. They did not know good from evil . They were unaware that good and evil existed. They did not have a conscience. A conscience is the awareness of right and wrong. Fruit , in the Bible invariably means
result, outcome or consequence . Now the result of acquiring knowledge of good and evil is a conscience. As soon as they got one they were exposed. They felt shame for the first time Now the question arises :What is sin? What is right ?. What is wrong?. Without the law there is no sin . I had not known sin except by the law. Sin must be disobedience . Breaking the law. Transgressing the commandment. I suppose that will open another can of worms.
Alec :eek:

Let us set aside for the time being the term, "sin nature".

What he (Adam) had was a conscience. And, he had the law written in his heart. Not only was the commandment....."thou shall not eat"...provided to him verbally by God, but, he, as well as all humans, have the law written in the heart.

This inner law.....witnesses with the thoughts......and the conscience acts as a decision maker which leads to an action that is reached..........this is "good"...or,......this is "evil".

This is true of all humans as expressed by Paul in Romans 2:15.

We, as believers, have an advantage as we have the Spirit of God in us.......which bears witness with our spirits........we have an additional witness within us....the Spirit of God residing within. This is what Adam did not have.....but....we now have within us.

The shame came when they (Adam and Eve) acted upon what the flesh said, and not the spirit.......they did not remain under the command of God, but, came out from under it......and acted upon their fleshly inclinations.....as opposed to what the spirit would say......we........however,.......are in a completely different realm. We have our consciences. We have the law written in our hearts......but.....we also have the Spirit of God residing within us to bear witness to the truth.

Sin is "missing". They missed.......

And in missing......sin entered into the kosmos.....and death through sin.

Christ.....by the sacrifice of Himself.......un-places the sin. That is what He is currently doing in the kosmos.

Joel

[jce]

Let us set aside for the time being the term, "sin nature".


What he (Adam) had was a conscience. [B]And, he had the law written in his heart. Not only was the commandment....."thou shall not eat"...provided to him verbally by God, but, he, as well as all humans, have the law written in the heart.

Joel

Hi Joel

Is your quote based on Romans 2? If so, how do you reconcile that with the Jeremiah 31: 31-33 prophecy as quoted in Hebrews 8 & 10?

Hebrews 8 KJV

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

I can find no reference stating that God wrote His Law in the heart of Adam. That does not imply that he didn't, just no affirmative support for it other than assuming that Romans 2 covers it, which begs the question... Are you certain that Romans 2 applies to Adam? If so, how?

It does seem safe to assume that God created Adam with a conscience and that his act of disobedience simply awakened it, however, I find no scripture to support this either, only an assumption.

I am unable to resolve the apparent dilemma between Romans & Hebrews. Perhaps you could shed some light on it for us.

Thanks Joel. It is good to work together with you!

John

PS: I forgot to say "Thank-you" for your very detailed explanation of my prior questions. I am satisfied.

[joel]

Is your quote based on Romans 2?

Yes.

It is helpful to look at the two connected verses;

Romans 2:14-15 (Young's Literal Translation)

14For, 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;

15who 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,
-----------------------------------

Whenever a person outwardly does what the written law says to do......this is a result of the law written on their heart being expressed outwardly in what they do.

The conscience "sees" what the inner law written on the heart "says".

In that way, the conscience is guiding the actions of the person to accord with the inner written law....which accords with the outer law but the outer law in this case is not guiding such a person who does not consult its guidance.

The inner working of such a law is applicable to all humans.....guiding towards behavior that is "good".....and not "evil".

When the flesh over-rides the inner working of the conscience, the person "misses", or "sins".

Because of the transgression of Adam, the presence of sin is now working in the flesh to produce "fruit" that accords with that which is pleasing to the flesh which has within it "sin".

Man's nature has not been altered. The inner workings of the conscience continues......but....if over-ridden by the sin working in the flesh, the conscience may become ineffective over time.

When we are "saved" we are given the Spirit of God to reside within us so as to lead us, help us, and walk in the newness of this new life, one in which we are advancing towards behavior that accords with the law, and is empowered by a new law within us......the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. This law over-rides the law of sin and death......and as we learn to walk in the light of it.....we are enabled to "serve in newness of spirit.....and not in oldness of letter".

We are not obeying the outward law to become "righteous". We are righteous, through belief, and now the righteous requirements of the law may be fulfilled (filled) in us.

Joel

[Rose]

It's interesting to list out all the fleshly desires Adam probably had and then look to see what, if anything changed.

1. Adam would have desired good tasting food to eat, and a beautiful place to live (that's why God put them in a beautiful garden).
2. We know that Adam desired companionship (that's why God made Eve), so he would have felt loneliness.
3. Adam would have desired knowledge (that's why God told them NOT to eat of the Tree); that is why he could be tempted.

The list above looks pretty much like a list of the desires everyone has, Food, Companionship, and Knowledge.....so what changed in them?

We know from the Bible that personal communion with God was cut off, and Adam and Eve experienced shame in regards to their bodies, but it doesn't say much else. Also, we know the curses that God inflicted upon Adam and Eve because of their disobedience.....which leads to my second question. Why did God inflict those curses upon Adam and Eve? Why wasn't being banished from the Garden and being cut off from personal communion with God enough punishment for their disobedience?


Rose

[joel]

It's interesting to list out all the fleshly desires Adam probably had and then look to see what, if anything changed.

1. Adam would have desired good tasting food to eat, and a beautiful place to live (that's why God put them in a beautiful garden).
2. We know that Adam desired companionship (that's why God made Eve), so he would have felt loneliness.
3. Adam would have desired knowledge (that's why God told them NOT to eat of the Tree); that is why he could be tempted.

The list above looks pretty much like a list of the desires everyone has, Food, Companionship, and Knowledge.....so what changed in them?

We know from the Bible that personal communion with God was cut off, and Adam and Eve experienced shame in regards to their bodies, but it doesn't say much else. Also, we know the curses that God inflicted upon Adam and Eve because of their disobedience.....which leads to my second question. Why did God inflict those curses upon Adam and Eve? Why wasn't being banished from the Garden and being cut off from personal communion with God enough punishment for their disobedience?


Rose

Rose, can we seek an understanding on this;

The serpent was cursed, and the ground was cursed.

Adam was sent from the garden to serve the ground from which he came, and, upon death he would return to the earth.

This would indicate that the cursed earth, and the material of the earth of which Adam was made was cursed. Which would also result in the herbage of the earth which he was to eat was cursed as well.

Adam and Eve were unable to return to the garden where the tree of life was in the midst. If they were to gain access to that tree, then, they would continue on in that state in which they now "lived".

Joel

[CWH]

Rose, can we seek an understanding on this;

The serpent was cursed, and the ground was cursed.

Adam was sent from the garden to serve the ground from which he came, and, upon death he would return to the earth.

This would indicate that the cursed earth, and the material of the earth of which Adam was made was cursed. Which would also result in the herbage of the earth which he was to eat was cursed as well.

Adam and Eve were unable to return to the garden where the tree of life was in the midst. If they were to gain access to that tree, then, they would continue on in that state in which they now "lived".

Joel

Excellent point joel! :thumb:

I would like to add that because of sin, Adam would toil in the fields and Eve would suffer pain in childbirth:

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

That means that prior to their sin in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve:
1) Did not need to toil for the food they ate; God supplied food abundantly
2) there was little pain in childbirth
3) Eve need not be subjected to Adam or be "ruled" by him
4) there were no thorns and thistle in the Garden of Eden
5) they need not eat from the plants of the field
6) they need not return to dust which they came from i.e ddi not die and decay

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Rose, can we seek an understanding on this;

The serpent was cursed, and the ground was cursed.

Adam was sent from the garden to serve the ground from which he came, and, upon death he would return to the earth.

This would indicate that the cursed earth, and the material of the earth of which Adam was made was cursed. Which would also result in the herbage of the earth which he was to eat was cursed as well.

Adam and Eve were unable to return to the garden where the tree of life was in the midst. If they were to gain access to that tree, then, they would continue on in that state in which they now "lived".

Joel

Hi Joel,

The text specifically says that God will multiply the sorrow of the woman in conception, and will curse the ground for the sake of the man. The ground was not naturally cursed, but was cursed by God because of man. The woman's sorrow in childbirth was going to be multiplied, although there is no mention of her having children in the Garden.

Gen.3:16-17 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

It is understood that once Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were barred from the Garden so they couldn't eat of the Tree of Life, but the question still remains why did God heap upon them more sorrow.

It could be compared to a parent warning their 18 year old child that if he broke the rules, he was out of the house, but after the child was kicked out of the house, the parent then goes and tries to make the child's life as difficult as possible.


Rose

[Silence]

Hello Everyone,
I still visit every few days and read as much of the posts as I can keep up with. I was reading Genesis 3 in Hebrew the other day and noticed something that I'll mention later. First I wanted to comment on something I noticed when I read your last post, Rose. Your question about why God added further suffering to the punishment of being driven out of the garden made me stop to ask why God didn't mention ALL of the consequences of eating from the tree right from the start when He first commanded Adam not to do it? God told him that in the day he ate of it, dying he would die. He didn't warn Adam about having to toil in sweat for food and eat it in sorrow all his days until he died and returned to dust. But God is merciful and just, so the additional suffering must have a purpose. Maybe to keep us from being content on our way to the grave or to remind us of what started all of the suffering?

God also told Adam that he was dust, with no mention of anything else. Could this imply a loss of the breath of life that God had blown into his nostrils?

I also noticed in reading the judgments imposed on the three involved in this episode that God only says "I will" in the judgments on the nachash and on Eve. God does not say to Adam "I will curse the ground because of you...". He just says "Cursed is the ground because of you...".

One last thing - I mentioned at the top of this post that I noticed something in Genesis 3. I haven't had time to think about whether it has anything to do with this thread, but since it involves Eve and her part in the fall, I thought I would mention it anyway. Genesis 2:9 says that God made trees that were ''nekh-em-awd'' (pleasant) to the eyes, but when Eve is tempted she saw the tree as "ta-avah" to the eyes and "nekh-em-awd" for making one wise. This seems like a slight twisting of the effect God had created the trees for. It introduces the idea of 'craving' or 'longing' in place of 'pleasant' or 'delight'. I know that Genesis 2:9 gives some seperation or distinction between the trees mentioned in the first part of the verse (which are spoken of as nekh-em-awd to the eyes), the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so I may be reading something into this. I just found it strange that the word which describes what God intended the trees to be to our sight is the word that describes Eve's perception of the tree as a way to get wisdom.

[Rose]

Hello Everyone,
I still visit every few days and read as much of the posts as I can keep up with. I was reading Genesis 3 in Hebrew the other day and noticed something that I'll mention later. First I wanted to comment on something I noticed when I read your last post, Rose. Your question about why God added further suffering to the punishment of being driven out of the garden made me stop to ask why God didn't mention ALL of the consequences of eating from the tree right from the start when He first commanded Adam not to do it? God told him that in the day he ate of it, dying he would die. He didn't warn Adam about having to toil in sweat for food and eat it in sorrow all his days until he died and returned to dust. But God is merciful and just, so the additional suffering must have a purpose. Maybe to keep us from being content on our way to the grave or to remind us of what started all of the suffering?

God also told Adam that he was dust, with no mention of anything else. Could this imply a loss of the breath of life that God had blown into his nostrils?

I also noticed in reading the judgments imposed on the three involved in this episode that God only says "I will" in the judgments on the nachash and on Eve. God does not say to Adam "I will curse the ground because of you...". He just says "Cursed is the ground because of you...".

One last thing - I mentioned at the top of this post that I noticed something in Genesis 3. I haven't had time to think about whether it has anything to do with this thread, but since it involves Eve and her part in the fall, I thought I would mention it anyway. Genesis 2:9 says that God made trees that were ''nekh-em-awd'' (pleasant) to the eyes, but when Eve is tempted she saw the tree as "ta-avah" to the eyes and "nekh-em-awd" for making one wise. This seems like a slight twisting of the effect God had created the trees for. It introduces the idea of 'craving' or 'longing' in place of 'pleasant' or 'delight'. I know that Genesis 2:9 gives some seperation or distinction between the trees mentioned in the first part of the verse (which are spoken of as nekh-em-awd to the eyes), the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so I may be reading something into this. I just found it strange that the word which describes what God intended the trees to be to our sight is the word that describes Eve's perception of the tree as a way to get wisdom.

Hi Silence,

I wonder if maybe the Garden of Eden story has been interpreted on a second dimensional level, when perhaps our sights should be set on the third or fourth dimensional level. Let me explain. First let’s start with the idea of God creating man with desires and then putting in front of him that which he desires most…wisdom, and says: don’t eat! Well, from my 21st century mind I think desiring wisdom is a good thing (the Bible also promotes the idea of desiring wisdom), and that’s exactly what the story seems to be saying: Eve desired to have wisdom in knowing good from evil. Now, I know that some will say the main point was their disobedience, but it seems to me that they got punished for a lot more than disobedience. For one thing why would God create people with desires and then allow the fulfillment of those desires to be taunted in front of them knowing that they had no willpower to resist?

We as parents know that when we tell our children not to do something they don’t understand, but have a natural desire to do….we have to watch them to make sure our commands are carried out. We do not leave it up to the children to know enough to make those decisions without supervision, and we surely don’t temp them.

Then the story only goes from bad to worse, because we also have the matter of the Serpent; apparently he has free access to this tree that God has told Adam and Eve not to eat from, and not only that, but he has free access to temp them with his cunning ways. So, if the story is to be interpreted on what the plain text says it seems like they have 3 strikes against them from the beginning.

These are just a few of the reasons I feel that there has to be a lot more to the Garden story then meets the eye. Not only does God put this tree in the Garden and make it good to eat, and very pleasing to look at, but to top things off He gives man a desire for knowledge! Obviously, if Eve had been a little wiser in being able to discern good from evil she would not have been deceived by the Serpent.



The tree was good for food
It was desirable to the eyes
It was desired to make you wise


Gen.2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen.3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
With that being said: What is the deeper meaning contained in the Garden story. That is something I would like to explore....:pop2:


Rose

[Silence]

Hi Silence,

I wonder if maybe the Garden of Eden story has been interpreted on a second dimensional level, when perhaps our sights should be set on the third or fourth dimensional level. Let me explain. First let’s start with the idea of God creating man with desires and then putting in front of him that which he desires most…wisdom, and says: don’t eat! Well, from my 21st century mind I think desiring wisdom is a good thing (the Bible also promotes the idea of desiring wisdom), and that’s exactly what the story seems to be saying: Eve desired to have wisdom in knowing good from evil. Now, I know that some will say the main point was their disobedience, but it seems to me that they got punished for a lot more than disobedience. For one thing why would God create people with desires and then allow the fulfillment of those desires to be taunted in front of them knowing that they had no willpower to resist?

We as parents know that when we tell our children not to do something they don’t understand, but have a natural desire to do….we have to watch them to make sure our commands are carried out. We do not leave it up to the children to know enough to make those decisions without supervision, and we surely don’t temp them.

Then the story only goes from bad to worse, because we also have the matter of the Serpent; apparently he has free access to this tree that God has told Adam and Eve not to eat from, and not only that, but he has free access to temp them with his cunning ways. So, if the story is to be interpreted on what the plain text says it seems like they have 3 strikes against them from the beginning.

These are just a few of the reasons I feel that there has to be a lot more to the Garden story then meets the eye. Not only does God put this tree in the Garden and make it good to eat, and very pleasing to look at, but to top things off He gives man a desire for knowledge! Obviously, if Eve had been a little wiser in being able to discern good from evil she would not have been deceived by the Serpent.



The tree was good for food
It was desirable to the eyes
It was desired to make you wise


Gen.2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen.3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
With that being said: What is the deeper meaning contained in the Garden story. That is something I would like to explore....:pop2:


Rose


Hello Rose,
I agree with you that there is a lot more going on in the account of Genesis 3 than is plain on the surface. I used to find it ironic that in Genesis 2 God sets out to make a "helper" for Adam and in Genesis 3 the first thing this helper does is get him in trouble. But then I heard a teaching once on Romans 5:14 that might explain how Eve may have "helped" Adam.

"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."

The sermon I heard said that Adam was a type of Christ, in that he did not just tell Eve "Tough luck kid, you're on your own". He was not deceived and knew what he was doing when he joined Eve in sin, aware of what it cost him. As a type this seems to fit what Jesus did for us. In this sense, I suppose Eve did "help" Adam to learn about sacrificial love.

The only other way to see Adam's transgression as a type is in a negative sense, with Adam typifying a person or a mindset that is deliberately willing to transgress his Creator's word in order to remain with another created being. There are scriptures that talk about man's willingness to do this, (serve the creature rather than the Creator) so I guess it is possible that Adam could be a type in that sense. I don't know Greek, so I am not sure if Romans 5:14 is talking about Adam as a type, or if it is Adam's transgression that is held out as a type. In looking at several translations it seems that it is Adam who is the type and not his transgression, so if these translations are correct, and Adam is being held out as a negative type, who is "he who was to come"? I tend to think that Romans 5:14 is holding Adam out as a type of Christ.

There are so many things in Genesis that are not explained in detail, we could go on and on trying to reason out all the dynamics of what happened and why. The text doesn't say that God gave Adam and Eve a desire for wisdom, but as you point out, there are scriptures that encourage us to seek wisdom. But then on the other hand, the bible also clearly says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and that the fear of the Lord would include obedience to His commands, the first of which was not to eat of that tree.

I have always had a sense that maybe the focus behind man's creation and fall in Genesis is similar to the book of Job. The focus is not on what man does or doesn't do or why. Maybe the focus is on whether God has the right to use man for His purposes. In other words, maybe just like in the book of Job, there is already a conflict going on before Adam and Eve were tested, and they are put in the middle of that conflict to be used by God for His purposes. One of the clearest passages about God's will and purpose is found in Ephesians 1:9 -12.

"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."

Gathering together all things in one is the main purpose of God. The focus of this gathering is on things in heaven and things on earth. Man is not the focus of this purpose, but he does play a part in it's accomplishment. We also obtain an inheritance, but that is not the primary focus.

There are clues in Genesis 3 that seem to suggest that there is a pre-existing conflict between the nachash and God. For one thing, 3:1 singles him out as different from all the other creatures God had made. God also doesn't ask the nachash any questions before judging him. Maybe that is because God already knows he is a liar and questioning him will not change that or do any good. I don't know. But it does seem to me that man and what happens to him is not the ultimate focus of God's plan, which is bigger than that.

Chris

[joel]

I wonder if maybe the Garden of Eden story has been interpreted on a second dimensional level, when perhaps our sights should be set on the third or fourth dimensional level. Let me explain. First let’s start with the idea of God creating man with desires and then putting in front of him that which he desires most…wisdom, and says: don’t eat! Well, from my 21st century mind I think desiring wisdom is a good thing (the Bible also promotes the idea of desiring wisdom), and that’s exactly what the story seems to be saying: Eve desired to have wisdom in knowing good from evil. Now, I know that some will say the main point was their disobedience, but it seems to me that they got punished for a lot more than disobedience. For one thing why would God create people with desires and then allow the fulfillment of those desires to be taunted in front of them knowing that they had no willpower to resist?

We as parents know that when we tell our children not to do something they don’t understand, but have a natural desire to do….we have to watch them to make sure our commands are carried out. We do not leave it up to the children to know enough to make those decisions without supervision, and we surely don’t temp them.

Then the story only goes from bad to worse, because we also have the matter of the Serpent; apparently he has free access to this tree that God has told Adam and Eve not to eat from, and not only that, but he has free access to temp them with his cunning ways. So, if the story is to be interpreted on what the plain text says it seems like they have 3 strikes against them from the beginning.

These are just a few of the reasons I feel that there has to be a lot more to the Garden story then meets the eye. Not only does God put this tree in the Garden and make it good to eat, and very pleasing to look at, but to top things off He gives man a desire for knowledge! Obviously, if Eve had been a little wiser in being able to discern good from evil she would not have been deceived by the Serpent.


The tree was good for food
It was desirable to the eyes
It was desired to make you wise
Gen.2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen.3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

With that being said: What is the deeper meaning contained in the Garden story. That is something I would like to explore....

"the Deeper Meaning".......that is worth pursuing.

What is the deeper meaning?

Joel

[jce]

A few incidental questions to resolve the larger question... "Does man have an "inclination toward evil" or "sinful nature"?

(1) If mankind does not know sin apart from law, how would man behave or conduct himself in an environment free from rules or guidelines?
(2) In a "lawless" society, would "sinful" (or deadly) behavior exist? For example, would (or could) Adam have injured or murdered Eve (or vise-versa) in a "lawless" Garden of Eden?
(3) Would greed, envy, lying, murder, etc still manifest itself without law?

What are your thoughts?

Profiting together,

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well... after reading through this thread about the "Problem Nature", "Troublesome Nature", "Deficient Nature" "Short Coming Nature", or if you will... "Sinful Nature" of man I have come to the conclusion that, as creatures made in the Image of God we have been endowed with the capability of making some assessments of this experience. Of course, without the Word & the Spirit, we are left pretty much in darkness on this topic.

So, in light of the Scriptures, when I look for a reason as to why my young grandchildren (11 so far) are prone to committing acts of evil (even after they have been warned) and some even before they understand what they are doing, I must conclude in light of the bible that they are "under the curse". My grandchildren range in age from 3 weeks to 15 years.

Now, from what I have witnessed, I would never leave the 3 week old alone with the 2 year old. He would do away with her :bawl::sSW_emperor:.

I don't believe he knows what murder is (on the other hand, if he does, his condition is even worse than I thought), but he would be relentlessly cruel to her. I assume this would be out of envy since the newborn is getting most of the attention he recently received... but is now directed to his little sister. He may think in his deceitful and desperately wicked little heart that this would restore what has been taken from him. Whatever his motive, it not only appears to be unlearned behavior, but also beyond his ability to correct.

Our family jokingly refers to this inherent behavior issue as evidence of "The Sin Nature". Now, whatever you want to call it, there is a problem in that little mind (and the mature mind for that matter) and it is beyond human repair apart from regeneration.

John
Hi John,

The reason your young grandchildren are "are prone to committing acts of evil" has nothing to do with a "sin nature" or with anything like a "Problem Nature", "Troublesome Nature", "Deficient Nature" or "Short Coming Nature." According to the view I explained in my OP, the Bible presents the problem as FLESH vs. SPIRIT. That's it. This explicitly explains the specific problem of envy and murder that you see in your two year old grandchild:
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
See that? The Bible says nothing of a "sin nature." The problem is that the flesh not guided by the Spirit of God can not help but sin, as it is written:
Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
I would be very interested to know what you think of this view. It seems that you did not address these questions in your post.

All the best,

Richard

[jce]

Hi John,

The reason your young grandchildren are "are prone to committing acts of evil" has nothing to do with a "sin nature" or with anything like a "Problem Nature", "Troublesome Nature", "Deficient Nature" or "Short Coming Nature." According to the view I explained in my OP, the Bible presents the problem as FLESH vs. SPIRIT. That's it. This explicitly explains the specific problem of envy and murder that you see in your two year old grandchild:[INDENT]Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

I'm familiar with the verses you quoted. Since the word "flesh" has also been rendered "sinful nature" here and in Romans in the NIV more than 20 times, it raises the following questions...

(1) What is the biblical definition of "flesh"?
(2) Are there any biblical synonyms?
(3) Is our flesh redeemed by Christ? If not, why not?

I'm over my head here not being a greek scholar, so it would be helpful to hear your answers to the above questions? I'm not here to debate, only to learn. A wise man seeks to learn the truth, not by walking away, but by examining the evidence.

Thanks Richard.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I'm familiar with the verses you quoted. Since the word "flesh" has also been rendered "sinful nature" here and in Romans in the NIV more than 20 times, it raises the following questions...

(1) What is the biblical definition of "flesh"?
(2) Are there any biblical synonyms?
(3) Is our flesh redeemed by Christ? If not, why not?

I'm over my head here not being a greek scholar, so it would be helpful to hear your answers to the above questions? I'm not here to debate, only to learn. A wise man seeks to learn the truth, not by walking away, but by examining the evidence.

Thanks Richard.

John
I didn't feel we were debating. And even if we were, it would be fine with me!

The NIV is a lousy translation. That is not the only time they have twisted their translation to suit their theology.

You don't need to be a Greek scholar to understand the truth about the flesh.There is nothing complex about its meaning. Here is how Strongs defines it:
Meaning: 1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts 2) the body 2a) the body of a man 2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 2b1) born of natural generation 2c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature" 2c1) without any suggestion of depravity 2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering 3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast 4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
All those definitions seem pretty clear to me, and the final one is exactly what I have been trying to communicate:

the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
See that - therefore prone to sin because it is not under the divine influence that we have through communion with God's Spirit.

There is absolutely nothing to do with a "sin nature" apart from our flesh. The NIV is garbage.

Richard

PS: Hope you don't mind that I speak plainly.

[jce]

I didn't feel we were debating. And even if we were, it would be fine with me!

The NIV is a lousy translation. That is not the only time they have twisted their translation to suit their theology.

There is absolutely nothing to do with a "sin nature" apart from our flesh. The NIV is garbage.

Richard

PS: Hope you don't mind that I speak plainly.

Richard,

Thanks for your "to the point" reply. I have yet to be offended by anyone in this forum and the only debate I would consider participating in could be titled " I once was blind, but now I see". I'm "still growing in the Faith" and have much to learn.

One question that I hoped you would answer is number 3.

Do you have any thoughts or comments on the salvation of the flesh? I ask this question because the Scriptures imply to me that my flesh is corrupted by sin and beyond rehabilitation, thus the need for "a New Creation" in Christ.

Thanks again Richard. I really do appreciate your insights and the time you take to answer "so many questions".

Blessings to you!

John

PS: An after thought... What is the meaning of fleshly circumcision?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

Thanks for your "to the point" reply. I have yet to be offended by anyone in this forum and the only debate I would consider participating in could be titled " I once was blind, but now I see". I'm "still growing in the Faith" and have much to learn.

One question that I hoped you would answer is number 3.

Do you have any thoughts or comments on the salvation of the flesh? I ask this question because the Scriptures imply to me that my flesh is corrupted by sin and beyond rehabilitation, thus the need for "a New Creation" in Christ.

Thanks again Richard. I really do appreciate your insights and the time you take to answer "so many questions".

Blessings to you!

John

PS: An after thought... What is the meaning of fleshly circumcision?
It's quite a pleasure to be discussing things with you my friend! :thumb:

There are a few (not many) verses that might touch upon the idea of "salvation of the flesh" but I'm quite certain that the "New Creation" verse is not one of them. That verse applies to all Christians while they yet were or are living in fleshly bodies:
2 Corinthians 5:16 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. 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 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. 20 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.
This verse begins by saying that we do not know Christ "after the flesh" and then goes on to say that "if any man be in Christ, he IS a new creature." It seems pretty clear that it is not speaking of a present or future "salvation of the flesh."

I'll give your question a little more thought and comment more. I need to review a few verses.

All the best,

Richard

[joel]

John,

I offer to you this view,.........in Paul's letter to the Romans, he contrasts two individuals in Ch. 5, Christ and Adam. We derive our humanness from Adam which, while we remain in these bodies of flesh, the flesh of us is affected by sin and death..........we are dying sinners. We sin, and both sin and death have rule over our flesh.

By the sacrifice of Christ, God causes a profound change. We are to realize the truths by faith.......faith in what Christ has accomplished....He is Christ,....and He is Lord.

The rule, or dominion must change......and this is to occur while we are in the flesh. This is the essence of the gospel.

His blood covers our sins........and we are not subject to God's wrath.

His body is our deliverance from the power of sin.....as we are linked to Romans 6, & 7......these two chapters contain key elements concerning His victory. Ask the Lord to show you, by His Sprit,........so that you can walk and serve Him, no longer dominated by the flesh.

As you move into Chapter 8, you are no longer condemned by the deeds of the flesh, but, you are subject to the new life in the Spirit......even though you remain in the flesh.......you are to live as if your flesh has been cut away........by faith in what His Word declares....and no longer what your dying, corrupt flesh dictates.

in this newness, your service to Him becomes pleasing and acceptable....all to His glory because it is no longer you in the flesh doing it......but Christ by His Spirit causing the righteousness of the law to be filled in you. Then, the deeds of you are in Him. The ultimate goal of this process is.....the love of God permeates your mind, cleans your heart, establishes your faith, and causes your mind to think like Him.

Henceforth, you know no man, including Christ, from the perspective of the flesh, but of the Spirit.

Those who are led by the Spirit......these are the sons of God (Romans 8:14).

Joel

[jce]

Thank-you Joel & Richard. You have both been very generous with your time to help answer my questions.

I do have a concern about the intent of your original post Richard. Let me first state this... I do not have a drug, tobacco or alcohol problem, nor do I have any issues with porn, gambling, temper, foul language, unfaithfulness to my spouse nor the host of other manifest sinful behaviors.

I do however, have a problem fully surrendering to God's Will. I have blamed this weakness and seeming inability on my "sinful nature" which it seems... is always in the way of that perfect walk and total obedience to God's Spirit.

So Richard, when you opened this topic on the fallacy of the sinful nature, I was puzzled, thinking that you were making an indirect statement that we are not really sinful in our nature... just weak in our flesh.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is this... I know before Christ chose me, I had the excuse of "ignorance" of God's Will for my life, however, now after regeneration are all excuses removed for weak fleshly behavior and does God expect perfect obedience from us from here on out?

Soberly awaiting your reply.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank-you Joel & Richard. You have both been very generous with your time to help answer my questions.

I do have a concern about the intent of your original post Richard. Let me first state this... I do not have a drug, tobacco or alcohol problem, nor do I have any issues with porn, gambling, temper, foul language, unfaithfulness to my spouse nor the host of other manifest sinful behaviors.

I do however, have a problem fully surrendering to God's Will. I have blamed this weakness and seeming inability on my "sinful nature" which it seems... is always in the way of that perfect walk and total obedience to God's Spirit.

So Richard, when you opened this topic on the fallacy of the sinful nature, I was puzzled, thinking that you were making an indirect statement that we are not really sinful in our nature... just weak in our flesh.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is this... I know before Christ chose me, I had the excuse of "ignorance" of God's Will for my life, however, now after regeneration are all excuses removed for weak fleshly behavior and does God expect perfect obedience from us from here on out?

Soberly awaiting your reply.

John
Hi John,

I am glad you want to dig into this. Obviously, it needs to be clarified.

I thought I had made my intent clear in the OP. The idea of "sin nature" appears to be a theoretical construct that does not correspond to anything in the real world, just like the theoretical constructs phlogiston and ether in science. My intent was only to understand what the Bible really teaches on this matter.

I do not understand why you make a connection between the idea of "having an excuse" with the idea of a "sin nature." Before you came to faith in Christ, you were living according to the flesh. The Spirit of God was far from you, and you put your mind upon the selfish desires of the flesh. This all changed when you came to faith in Christ and were filled with the Holy Spirit. The connection between you and God was restored. The Spirit of God came to live in your heart so now you could could please God and obey His Law. You now have the "Mind of the Spirit." It seems to me that Paul explained this very clearly:
Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
Scripture seems exceedingly lucid on this point. It's all about Flesh vs. Spirit. I can't find any hint of a "sin nature."

Why do Christians fall into sin? Because they put their mind upon the flesh rather than the Spirit. I find this answer very satisfying.

Of course, this answer may not satisfy your understanding so I very much look forward to digging in deeper with you.

All the best,

Richard

[joel]

John, the precise explanation of our "sin" problem is presented in Paul's letter to the Romans chapters 1 - 8.

A summary is;

1.) The gospel is God's answer to our "problem". The gospel concerns Christ, Who He is, and what He's accomplished.
2.) Those things which have been done by us, "sins", are subject to God's wrath.
3.) When, by faith, we see Christ's sacrifice, the "blood" covers our sins; we are justified. God's righteousness is shared with us as a gift.
--------------------------------------------------
4.) Abraham is presented as a model believer. His faith came in two phases (which mirrors the phases of faith for the believer). a. he was "justified"...his sins were covered over. b. His view of himself was changed as he was enabled to see himself as dead after a long period of his own attempts to bring about the promise of God, the promised son.

This is the area, I believe, where Christians find the greatest challenge. The flesh is where we have lived for so long. We rely on it to carry us through life's experierences. Living in the flesh has been our source of accomplishment. If we fail to see it's impotence as concerning the fulfillment of God's will in our lives, we will wander through this life as an unfruitful tree casting forth its fruit out of season.....or not bearing fruit suitable to God's glory.

When the time is right, God convicts us concerning our unfruitfulness. We cannot continue to bring forth "Ishmael", the son of the bond woman. God is seeking Isaac, the son of promise. Isaac is the son which is connected with spirit, not flesh.
------------------------------------------
5.) Our unfruitfulness is exposed as we are made subject to manifold trials. We have been justified by Christ's blood, our sins are covered over. But what about the power of sin in our bodies which cause us to continually "miss", and fall short of God's glory?
God compares the two men; Adam and Christ in chapter 5. Adam, through his disobedience, opened the door to both sin and death into the kosmos. Rule and authority changed. Sin and death reign in and over the old humanity. Christ's victory changes it all back. But, do we believe it?

6.) In chapter 6, the rule of sin ends by the death of Christ....we are included in His death. The body is a body of sin. It needs a new master.

7.) In chapter 7, we are exempted from the law as to the flesh serving God. We discover, through Paul's instruction, that there is a law working in our flesh, the law of sin. We agree with God's law in our inner man, but find a contrary law working in the members of us. This reveals a wretched condition from which we must be delivered. The body is a body of death.

8.) In chapter 8, the wondrous victory of Christ, is magnified in us. We are not condemned for what we have done, and, the righteous requirements of the law can be fulfilled "in us" by a new law that works within the spirit......the law of life, Jesus' life in us. We can be led by God's Spirit, and can move into the liberty of God's children......sharing in Christ Jesus' life....and experiencing the depths of His love....from which we cannot be separated. Chapter 8 describes the "life" which all believers are to experience.

What stands in the way?......sin,....and death....which both dominate and rule over the flesh of us.....the bodies which we derived from Adam. We are to study, and wrestle with the truths of Paul's Roman's letter....the essence of the gospel. It contains the power of God to save us.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

2.) Those things which have been done by us, "sins", are subject to God's wrath.

I think we have found more phlogiston. The traditional Christian dogma teaches that a "sin" is like a substance that causes God to produce another substance called "wrath" which continues to exist until it is "poured out" on the corresponding "sin substance." It's like the the creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles in Quantum Field Theory. The sin/wrath pair are jointly created, and the only way to destroy one or the other is in the mutual destruction that happens when they meet.

This is the foundation of the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement. We are told that our "sin substance" has been "transferred" to Christ and then eliminated when God poured out his "wrath substance" on Christ when he was crucified.

I don't believe this is valid. It involves the invention of metaphysical substances that have no foundation in Scripture. If a person sins against me and then truly repents, what happens to my wrath? It is gone. Utterly gone. I didn't have to "pour it out" on the "sin."

Consider what the Bible teaches about repentance and the remission of sin:

Ezekiel 18:27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 24:46-47 46 Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 "and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

What happens to the "wrath of God" when a sinner repents? Does God still need to "pour out his wrath" somewhere?

Richard

[jce]

John, the precise explanation of our "sin" problem is presented in Paul's letter to the Romans chapters 1 - 8.

A summary is;

1.) The gospel is God's answer to our "problem". The gospel concerns Christ, Who He is, and what He's accomplished.
2.) Those things which have been done by us, "sins", are subject to God's wrath.
3.) When, by faith, we see Christ's sacrifice, the "blood" covers our sins; we are justified. God's righteousness is shared with us as a gift.
--------------------------------------------------
4.) Abraham is presented as a model believer. His faith came in two phases (which mirrors the phases of faith for the believer). a. he was "justified"...his sins were covered over. b. His view of himself was changed as he was enabled to see himself as dead after a long period of his own attempts to bring about the promise of God, the promised son.

This is the area, I believe, where Christians find the greatest challenge. The flesh is where we have lived for so long. We rely on it to carry us through life's experierences. Living in the flesh has been our source of accomplishment. If we fail to see it's impotence as concerning the fulfillment of God's will in our lives, we will wander through this life as an unfruitful tree casting forth its fruit out of season.....or not bearing fruit suitable to God's glory.

When the time is right, God convicts us concerning our unfruitfulness. We cannot continue to bring forth "Ishmael", the son of the bond woman. God is seeking Isaac, the son of promise. Isaac is the son which is connected with spirit, not flesh.
------------------------------------------
5.) Our unfruitfulness is exposed as we are made subject to manifold trials. We have been justified by Christ's blood, our sins are covered over. But what about the power of sin in our bodies which cause us to continually "miss", and fall short of God's glory?
God compares the two men; Adam and Christ in chapter 5. Adam, through his disobedience, opened the door to both sin and death into the kosmos. Rule and authority changed. Sin and death reign in and over the old humanity. Christ's victory changes it all back. But, do we believe it?

6.) In chapter 6, the rule of sin ends by the death of Christ....we are included in His death. The body is a body of sin. It needs a new master.

7.) In chapter 7, we are exempted from the law as to the flesh serving God. We discover, through Paul's instruction, that there is a law working in our flesh, the law of sin. We agree with God's law in our inner man, but find a contrary law working in the members of us. This reveals a wretched condition from which we must be delivered. The body is a body of death.

8.) In chapter 8, the wondrous victory of Christ, is magnified in us. We are not condemned for what we have done, and, the righteous requirements of the law can be fulfilled "in us" by a new law that works within the spirit......the law of life, Jesus' life in us. We can be led by God's Spirit, and can move into the liberty of God's children......sharing in Christ Jesus' life....and experiencing the depths of His love....from which we cannot be separated. Chapter 8 describes the "life" which all believers are to experience.

What stands in the way?......sin,....and death....which both dominate and rule over the flesh of us.....the bodies which we derived from Adam. We are to study, and wrestle with the truths of Paul's Roman's letter....the essence of the gospel. It contains the power of God to save us.

Joel


Joel.. What a beautiful and elegant summery of the first half of Romans. Thank-you Joel.

John

[jce]

I think we have found more phlogiston. The traditional Christian dogma teaches that a "sin" is like a substance that causes God to produce another substance called "wrath" which continues to exist until it is "poured out" on the corresponding "sin substance." It's like the the creation and annihilation of particles and antiparticles in Quantum Field Theory. The sin/wrath pair are jointly created, and the only way to destroy one or the other is in the mutual destruction that happens when they meet.

What happens to the "wrath of God" when a sinner repents? Does God still need to "pour out his wrath" somewhere?

Richard

In an effort to keep it simple... I was under the impression that the penalty for my sin (past, present and future) was dealt with at the Cross of Christ, and that there is no other sacrifice or future wrath for those in Christ since Christ cannot be crucified again for them. I have heard some say that Christ paid the price for only those who were destined to come to Him and that His Blood was not shed for everyone. This would imply that there is a future wrath to be poured out on those who are disobedient to the call of the Gospel (those who reject Christ).

I'm trying to follow your thought Richard.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In an effort to keep it simple... I was under the impression that the penalty for my sin (past, present and future) was dealt with at the Cross of Christ, and that there is no other sacrifice or future wrath for those in Christ since Christ cannot be crucified again for them. I have heard some say that Christ paid the price for only those who were destined to come to Him and that His Blood was not shed for everyone. This would imply that there is a future wrath to be poured out on those who are disobedient to the call of the Gospel (those who reject Christ).

I'm trying to follow your thought Richard.

John
Hi John,

I know it can seem complicated, but my intent was to simplify the discussion by exposing concepts and metaphysical constructs that are not actually taught in Scripture. For example, the idea that Jesus "paid for our sins" is not taught anywhere in the Bible as far as I know, yet it is taught as doctrine by countless evangelicals as if it were the Gospel truth. Since you used this idea in your post, I would be very interested if you could show me two or three clear and unambiguous Scriptures that teach Jesus "paid for our sins." Basically, I'm asking "Where did you get this idea?" (Hint - it is the Penal Substitution theory developed by the Reformers, see below).

Furthermore, the idea that "sins" are like "things" that have an independent and continued existence and that "wrath" must be "poured out" on each and every one of those "sins" is taught nowhere in Scripture. The Bible teaches that God's wrath is "upon" sinners, not the reified (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reified) "sins" (as if they had some independent ongoing "concrete" existence).

Furthermore, the Bible does not state that God "poured out his wrath" upon Jesus. So where did that idea come from?

As you can see, Christians have been saying words without having any idea whatsoever as to what many of those words (and metaphysical constructs) actually mean.

We now are entering in to the "Theories" of the Atonement. This is different than the "Doctrine" of the Atonement which states that we are reconciled to God through the death and resurrection of Christ. We all agree about that - but the question of HOW the death and resurrection of Christ saves us is answered by different THEORIES, and there have been numerous theories of the atonement developed over the last two thousand years. Here is a short list (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm) of the prominent theories:

Roman Catholic Church: Satisfaction Theory
Eastern Orthodox Churches: Ransom Theory
Conservative & some Mainline Protestants: Penal Substitution Theory
Protestant Word-faith Movement: Ransom Theory
Liberal Christians & post Christians: Moral Theory or a non-violent theory

I am sorry to introduce so many ideas in one post, but this topic has 2000 years of history so there's really no way to avoid it. I have been studying the theories of atonement for a while because my brother-in-law Robin Collins (Professor of the Philosophy of Science and Religion at Messiah College) has been working on a new theory for some years now, and we talk a lot.

All the very best,

Richard

[Gil]

GUILT :

"JESUS CHRIST PROMISED ANOTHER COMFORTOR"

ADVOCATE,COUNSELLOR,COMFORTOR.

The first two are legal terms,so will address those.
Rom.5:17,18

We are under a covenant of Grace not Law.
A free gift of rightiousness was given.
The words just,justified,justification,righteous,or righteousness are translated from one basic Greek word.A legal term which means "acquittal". It means cleared of all guilt.
In Rom 5:17 the word receive is the Greek word "lambano" in the active sense,it means accept,or take hold of ,requiring an action on our part.
The Father,Holy Spirit of Life is the same way.One has to accept him,in the same sense of action,as reaching out and grabing him. We are to have the same Faith in the Father as Jesus did while he was still in a flesh body.
Jesus is our advocate,in that we accept " HIS " righteousness as our own through faith.Any other form of righteousness on our part is self righteousness.
You notice that Jesus the Christ in the flow of the Holy Spirit is in between the Father and us.Making him our intercessor,and our covering, and in his Image are we being transformed into. His soul-spirit ( pneuma -psuche).
When the Father looks at us he see's Jesus first and not us.Through his righteousness only are we found to be not guilty.To believe that we can accomplish righteousness on our own merits,thru any works of our own is simply not so ,or scriptural.

We are all still in the flesh,but we do the best that
we can. Our old conscience is seared and takes on the conscience
of Jesus Christ. That is we try and follow the two commandments that he was given by the Father.

For man in the flesh to remain in the Law is to be back again yoked to the Law.
It was an impossible task for the children of Israel, with the added mental picture that Jesus tried to show them. That being ,that all unrighteousness begins within the Mind as a thought. The thought itself preceeds the action or deed.
According the Jesus, that to even think a deed ,shows that sin remaineth.

The fact that we within the BOC are found to be not guilty of sin is not
a licence to sin.
To me anyway, a violation of the love commandments is what biblical sin
is all about.

We are fortunate that we are found to be not guilty, as to love our enemies
is hardly possible.
Man has two faces, and as a rule of thumb I try to keep in mind how Man
is relatively in the same boat. I try to offer him a hand of friendship. If
he strikes me on the right cheek, I show him my left. Left hook that is.

If you have Faith in the Father as did Jesus, I would'nt let the problem
that sin seems to haunt some people get to me.
Do the best you can and leave the rest to the Spirit of Life.
Your free of the Law, save conscience. Let conscience be your guide.
It is your friend ,not enemy.

Gil

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If you have Faith in the Father as did Jesus, I would'nt let the problem
that sin seems to haunt some people get to me.
Do the best you can and leave the rest to the Spirit of Life.
Your free of the Law, save conscience. Let conscience be your guide.
It is your friend ,not enemy.

Gil
Tremendous answer Gil! It's hard to believe the amazing synchronicity here. I was writing an article about the same thing for my blog when I saw your answer:

How to hear the Voice of God: Your Conscience
(http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/06/how-to-hear-the-voice-of-god-your-conscience/)

[joel]

We have two inner inclinations as believers.......the law of sin works in our members to bring forth "death". Death is the rations of sin, the master of our flesh. It is not "wages"....as if pay for work....but "rations" which are meted out to the soldier.

The second inner inclination, as a believer, is the Spirit of God within, working with our conscience, and as we, with our minds, agree with the law of God, a harvest of godly fruit is developed within and is to be expressed in love and kindness to others.......we are bearing fruit of the Spirit.

When we were unbelievers, all that we did was "work of the flesh". And, as Cain is our example, if we bring the works of our flesh our offering to God will not be accepted.

In His loving mercy, however, He provides a sin offering for us which lies at the door.......like the ram caught in the thicket.....God provides the Lamb of God whose blood covers over our "misses".

Now, it is a matter of sin in us, attempting to be our master again. But, we have a new Lord. His very life is in us and will be expressed through us to others as we seek the good for them.

The Cross of Christ is where our "old humanity" was impaled, in Him.

The tomb is where our "old humanity" was placed into death, His death.

And, by the glorious working of God, we were "born again", together,......all of us.......just as we were made sinners in Adam in the garden, we are born anew in Christ in the belly of the earth.

Now risen with Him, we are to walk in newness of life, and serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

Righteousness being placed within us, is expressed as fruit, and good works within which we are to walk.

Efforts of the flesh are as filthy rags......the earth was cursed, and no offering which comes from it is acceptable to God.

His wrath will be demonstrated on those works.....His wrath is impending. At present, He is drawing all to the Cross, the blood and body of Christ to receive the redemption that is in Him.....and to receive the liberty that is in Him.....and to be saved by His life having been saved from the wrath of God which is awaiting the sons of disobedience (unpersuadeableness).

Joel

[jce]

GUILT :

"JESUS CHRIST PROMISED ANOTHER COMFORTOR"

ADVOCATE,COUNSELLOR,COMFORTOR.

The first two are legal terms,so will address those.
Rom.5:17,18

We are under a covenant of Grace not Law.
A free gift of rightiousness was given.
The words just,justified,justification,righteous,or righteousness are translated from one basic Greek word.A legal term which means "acquittal". It means cleared of all guilt.
In Rom 5:17 the word receive is the Greek word "lambano" in the active sense,it means accept,or take hold of ,requiring an action on our part.
The Father,Holy Spirit of Life is the same way.One has to accept him,in the same sense of action,as reaching out and grabing him. We are to have the same Faith in the Father as Jesus did while he was still in a flesh body.
Jesus is our advocate,in that we accept " HIS " righteousness as our own through faith.Any other form of righteousness on our part is self righteousness.
You notice that Jesus the Christ in the flow of the Holy Spirit is in between the Father and us.Making him our intercessor,and our covering, and in his Image are we being transformed into. His soul-spirit ( pneuma -psuche).
When the Father looks at us he see's Jesus first and not us.Through his righteousness only are we found to be not guilty.To believe that we can accomplish righteousness on our own merits,thru any works of our own is simply not so ,or scriptural.

We are all still in the flesh,but we do the best that
we can. Our old conscience is seared and takes on the conscience
of Jesus Christ. That is we try and follow the two commandments that he was given by the Father.

For man in the flesh to remain in the Law is to be back again yoked to the Law.
It was an impossible task for the children of Israel, with the added mental picture that Jesus tried to show them. That being ,that all unrighteousness begins within the Mind as a thought. The thought itself preceeds the action or deed.
According the Jesus, that to even think a deed ,shows that sin remaineth.

The fact that we within the BOC are found to be not guilty of sin is not
a licence to sin.
To me anyway, a violation of the love commandments is what biblical sin
is all about.

We are fortunate that we are found to be not guilty, as to love our enemies
is hardly possible.
Man has two faces, and as a rule of thumb I try to keep in mind how Man
is relatively in the same boat. I try to offer him a hand of friendship. If
he strikes me on the right cheek, I show him my left. Left hook that is.

If you have Faith in the Father as did Jesus, I would'nt let the problem
that sin seems to haunt some people get to me.
Do the best you can and leave the rest to the Spirit of Life.
Your free of the Law, save conscience. Let conscience be your guide.
It is your friend ,not enemy.

Gil


As I read through this post, it was like a breath of fresh air... no, better yet, a breath of FREE air!!! What a wonderful exposition! That word "Acquittal" conveys to the guilty, such a spirit of relief & contrition!!!

Thank-you Gil. Blessings to you!

John

PS: I was not planning to post the entire quote in the interest of saving space, but its meaningfulness bears repeating.

[jce]

[QUOTE=RAM;20799]Hi John,

I know it can seem complicated, but my intent was to simplify the discussion by exposing concepts and metaphysical constructs that are not actually taught in Scripture. For example, the idea that Jesus "paid for our sins" is not taught anywhere in the Bible as far as I know, yet it is taught as doctrine by countless evangelicals as if it were the Gospel truth. Since you used this idea in your post, I would be very interested if you could show me two or three clear and unambiguous Scriptures that teach Jesus "paid for our sins." Basically, I'm asking "Where did you get this idea?" (Hint - it is the Penal Substitution theory developed by the Reformers, see below).

I am beginning to see that much of my "Christian Lingo" is really without biblical basis and this forum, with it's learned contributors has been a great eye opener. It has certainly prodded me to examine my own "Biblical Terminology".

Regarding the idea that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, comes from my interpretation of the concept of "redemption" or "to redeem". Jesus, as my Redeemer, was my substitute. He stood in my place and became the sacrifice for my transgressions, as John said "Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world". Of course, I'm actually a little intimidated making any statements that once flowed so casually from my tongue and keyboard.


Furthermore, the Bible does not state that God "poured out his wrath" upon Jesus. So where did that idea come from?

Much to my dismay, I could not locate any biblical support for that one and I actually removed that phrase from another post of mine.


As you can see, Christians have been saying words without having any idea whatsoever as to what many of those words (and metaphysical constructs) actually mean.

Yes, where I once again was blind... now I once again see (more clearly) but still need better focus.

Thanks Richard for your gentle, corrective spirit.

John

PS: I am far from convinced that Jesus returned in AD70, but I trust God will change my mind on that also... if it's true.

[joel]

Richard, are you saying that the substitutionary visions of the Son of Man, as in Psalm 88 where God pours out His wrath on the One Who is speaking, does not refer to Christ?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am beginning to see that much of my "Christian Lingo" is really without biblical basis and this forum, with it's learned contributors has been a great eye opener. It has certainly prodded me to examine my own "Biblical Terminology".

Regarding the idea that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, comes from my interpretation of the concept of "redemption" or "to redeem". Jesus, as my Redeemer, was my substitute. He stood in my place and became the sacrifice for my transgressions, as John said "Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world". Of course, I'm actually a little intimidated making any statements that once flowed so casually from my tongue and keyboard.

Hi John,

It is wonderful that you understand the work we must do to really comprehend what the Bible is all about. There is indeed a lot of "Christian Lingo" that must "unpacked" and/or rejected before we can speak with clarity about what the Bible really teaches.

I hope you realize that there is nothing at all to be intimidated about because the glory of being a Truth Seeker is that our motto is "We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold." So speak freely, and if someone points out that something you or I said was not well-founded on Scripture we can rejoice together that our our vision is being clarified. I trust that you will find this forum is different than almost all others on the internet. We rejoice when our errors and shortcomings are exposed because it gives us an opportunity to repent and it helps us come closer to the truth. I always think of my opponents and those who expose my errors as gardeners who weed out error from my Garden of Truth for free. :winking0071:

Now as for the idea of "redemption" - you appear to be using a mixed metaphor here. On the one hand, you use the metaphor of Jesus "paying" for your sin. That is a monetary metaphor. It presents the image of a monetary transaction, like Jesus took out his wallet and paid some money. But then you switch to the "substitute" metaphor in which you think of Jesus as having taken your place and suffering the punishment that you deserved because you have sinned. Now there is some basis in Scripture for both of these metaphors, but there are others as well. One of the earliest and most popular understandings of the Atonement was the "Ransom Theory" drawn from this passage:
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
The idea was that Christ offered himself to Satan in exchange for all the people that he held captive through the power of sin. This is like a "prisoner exchange." But the devil forgot that Christ was innocent and could not be held by the power of death. Sort of a "bait and switch" idea. Anselm in the 11th century criticized this view on a number of points. For example, he said that Satan was an outlaw and so had no "right" or "authority" to hold anyone ransom. So Anselm used his medieval understanding of honor and shame (based on a social system that classifies people according to "honor" not unlike the Hindu caste system) and came up with the idea that sin dishonors God and this requires somebody to satisfy God's wrath so his honor could be restored. This system is called the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement. It is still popular today and it is interesting that John Piper carelessly mixes it with the Penal Substitution Theory in his book 50 Reasons Jesus had to Die.

And then comes along John Calvin. He was a lawyer by trade and so it is little wonder that he latched upon the forensic, legal metaphors that Paul used as the basis of his Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement which now is accepted by many as "the plain teaching of Holy Scripture" (which is a bit odd since it took 1600 years to be discovered/invented).

Well as you can see, our Hermeneutical House is stuffed to the rafters with the ideas and theories of the folks who came before us. We have a lot of "house cleaning" to do before we can get a clear understanding of what the Bible really teaches on these matters.




Furthermore, the Bible does not state that God "poured out his wrath" upon Jesus. So where did that idea come from?
Much to my dismay, I could not locate any biblical support for that one and I actually removed that phrase from another post of mine.

Dismay??? Bah! Rejoice I say! You have learned more truth about Scripture.



Yes, where I once again was blind... now I once again see (more clearly) but still need better focus.

Thanks Richard for your gentle, corrective spirit.

John

It is a joy to work with you on this. And please, never forget that I am just as prone as you or anybody of stating falsehoods. I will rejoice when you find the opportunity to correct me.



PS: I am far from convinced that Jesus returned in AD70, but I trust God will change my mind on that also... if it's true.
One thing will help clarify. The Olivet Discourse says nothing about Jesus "returning." The disciples did not even understand that he was "going." The prophecies of the coming of Christ in judgment are just that. The idea of a "Second Coming" is nowhere taught as such in Scripture.

As you can see, the required "housecleaning" touches ever aspect of traditional Christian teaching. There is an OCEAN of absurdities passed off as "what the Bible teaches" and most people's minds are sunk at the bottom of it.

All the very best my friend. It is a joy to be working with you this wonderful study.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, are you saying that the substitutionary visions of the Son of Man, as in Psalm 88 where God pours out His wrath on the One Who is speaking, does not refer to Christ?

Joel
Hi Joel,

I certainly can see why you might think that Psalm applies to Christ. But before we jump to that conclusion, I think we need to review the precedents that establish how we know when something in the OT applies to Christ.

We know that some passages apply to Christ because we have an explicit NT reference, as with Psalm 22 or Isaiah 7:14.

In other cases where we don't have an explicit NT reference, we still can have great confidence that the passage refers in some way (maybe only typologically) to Christ. For example the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22) is nowhere explicitly associated with Christ, but the connections are so clear and profound that it leaves no doubt. We can see how truths explicitly taught in the NT are typologically anticipated in that story.

But the situation with Psalm 88 is different. The idea that God poured out his wrath on Christ is not explicitly taught anywhere in the NT. Therefore, we have no reason to think that we can create that doctrine by appealing to an OT Psalm as "applying to Christ." The typologies of the OT only confirm the truths explicitly taught in the NT. They can not be used as the primary source for new doctrines.

Richard

[joel]

Richard, is there a specific scriptural reference to God pouring out His wrath upon Israel in 70 A.D.?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, is there a specific scriptural reference to God pouring out His wrath upon Israel in 70 A.D.?

Joel
Absolutely!

It is one of the primary themes of the NT. It begins with one of the most important prophecies of the OT.
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
This prophecy of "Elijah" was fulfilled in John the Baptist who, in keeping with the rest of the prophecy, warned of the wrath to come upon apostate Israel:
Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Christ spoke of this same wrath when he, just like John, called the apostate Jews a "generation of vipers" -
Matthew 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Christ said this prophecy would be fulfilled during the lifetime of his audience (in the first century). The fulfillment of this prophecy is given in John's vision recorded in the book of Revelation:
Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
The red text is the precise fulfillment of Christ's prophecy against Jerusalem:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
And the blue text is nearly identical to the judgment God spoke against apostate Jerusalem just before they were destroyed by the Babylonian empire:
Jeremiah 25:8 Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Because ye have not heard my words, 9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations. 10 Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle.
This understanding is confirmed by Paul who confirmed Christ's words concerning the Jews "filling up the measure" their wrath:
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
And this, of course, speaks of the "great and notable day of the Lord" that began at Pentecost as declared by the Apostle Peter:
Acts 2:16 But this >>>IS<<< that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
And this is that which Christ declared in the Olivet Discourse:
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Jerusalem was desolated in 70 AD. And Josephus, the Jew who witnessed the destruction, agreed with Scripture when he declared that it was the judgment of God upon apostate Israel.

Thus we see the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John, and John the Baptist and Jesus Christ himself all declaring the same thing in perfect harmony. And this is confirmed by history and the testimony of Josephus. Of course this is just a brief review of the highlights. The testimony of the entire NT confirms it with great certainty.

All the very best,

Richard

[jce]

The fulfillment of this prophecy is given in John's vision recorded in the book of Revelation:
Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
The red text is the precise fulfillment of Christ's prophecy against Jerusalem:[INDENT]Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
All the very best,

Richard

Richard, If the "great city" referenced in this passage is Jerusalem, would it be reasonable to assume that Jerusalem will be no more. For example, if for some unforeseen reason, Israel was to expunge the Palestinians from the old city, re-establish its boundaries, rebuild the temple and begin to exercise the old rituals again, would that violate God's Word that "it would be no more"?

My reason for raising this question rests on the fact that when God Judged Babylon it was prophesied that the walls and city would not be rebuilt and it remains so to this day. Also Capernaum lies in ruins as a result of God's Word and Sodom & Gomorrah.

"I'm looking for loopholes"
(W.C. Fields' remark when caught reading the bible)

Blessings Richard.

John

PS: The spell checker needs to learn Capernaum & Gomorrah (I think I spelled these correctly)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, If the "great city" referenced in this passage is Jerusalem, would it be reasonable to assume that Jerusalem will be no more. For example, if for some unforeseen reason, Israel was to expunge the Palestinians from the old city, re-establish its boundaries, rebuild the temple and begin to exercise the old rituals again, would that violate God's Word that "it would be no more"?

My reason for raising this question rests on the fact that when God Judged Babylon it was prophesied that the walls and city would not be rebuilt and it remains so to this day. Also Capernaum lies in ruins as a result of God's Word and Sodom & Gomorrah.

"I'm looking for loopholes"
(W.C. Fields' remark when caught reading the bible)

Blessings Richard.

John

PS: The spell checker needs to learn Capernaum & Gomorrah (I think I spelled these correctly)

The "Jerusalem" that exists now has no continuity with the Jerusalem of the Bible. Modern folks have chosen to build a modern city in the location of the city that God judged and destroyed. That does not confute the clear fact that the prophecies against the Biblical Jerusalem were fulfilled.

And it appears you are unaware that "Babylon" is in the process of being rebuilt. Check this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon) (scroll down to the "Restoration" heading). If your argument is correct, then it looks like this would contradict the Bible.

Keep looking for those loopholes! I love a good challenge, and we all benefit.

Richard

[jce]

The "Jerusalem" that exists now has no continuity with the Jerusalem of the Bible.

And it appears you are unaware that "Babylon" is in the process of being rebuilt. Check this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon) (scroll down to the "Restoration" heading). If your argument is correct, then it looks like this would contradict the Bible.

Richard

Process. Everything is in process it seems.. including the rebuilding of Babylon and Jerusalem.

Isaiah 13:

17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

19And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.

20It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.

Jeremiah 51:

25Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain.

26And they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith the LORD.

62Then shalt thou say, O LORD, thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever.

64And thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her: and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.

If this reference is to the Ancient Babylon, so far, fulfilled. Although some have endeavored to rebuild it (including Saddam), and almost assuredly some will try again (if simply to try and prove the prophecy false), Scripture indicates not.

Now, if this prophecy is a reference to Jerusalem, the same rule, it seems, would apply.

To date... neither Babylon, nor it walls... are restored. Likewise, Jerusalem. Will history take another "unforeseen" turn? Babylon or Jerusalem rebuilt? What say you.

I appreciate the friendly dialogue.

John

[jce]

[QUOTE=RAM;20886]The "Jerusalem" that exists now has no continuity with the Jerusalem of the Bible.

What evidence can you present to substantiate your statement.

John

[jce]

Posted by RAM:

I would be quite distressed if Christ were openly welcomed in any government. The last time that happened we had the Spanish Inquisition. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. Yet he is Sovereign - it is he who raises up and puts down kings. As Christians, we should trust in him, not in worldly governments.

I'm still considering the implications of this statement and will pose a question later.

For now, how is it that you disconnect these words of psalm 88 from Christ?

4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit;
I am like a man without strength.

5 I am set apart with the dead,
like the slain who lie in the grave,
whom you remember no more,
who are cut off from your care.

6 You have put me in the lowest pit,
in the darkest depths.

7 Your wrath lies heavily upon me;
you have overwhelmed me with all your waves.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

For now, how is it that you disconnect these words of psalm 88 from Christ?

4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit;
I am like a man without strength.

5 I am set apart with the dead,
like the slain who lie in the grave,
whom you remember no more,
who are cut off from your care.

6 You have put me in the lowest pit,
in the darkest depths.

7 Your wrath lies heavily upon me;
you have overwhelmed me with all your waves.

John
I didn't "disconnect them." I said that they can not be used as a primary source to establish a doctrine about Christ that is not clearly taught in the New Testament.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The "Jerusalem" that exists now has no continuity with the Jerusalem of the Bible.
What evidence can you present to substantiate your statement.

John
Here's Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continuity) of "continuity" -
Main Entry: con·ti·nu·i·ty
Pronunciation: \ˌkän-tə-ˈnü-ə-tē, -ˈnyü-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural con·ti·nu·i·ties
Date: 15th century

1 a : uninterrupted connection, succession, or union b : uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change
2 : something that has, exhibits, or provides continuity: as a : a script or scenario in the performing arts b : transitional spoken or musical matter especially for a radio or television program c : the story and dialogue of a comic strip
3 : the property of being mathematically continuous
We all know that the Jerusalem of the Bible was utterly desolated and destroyed in the first century. Nothing like the Biblical Jerusalem has existed since that time and the current Jerusalem has, by definition, no continuity with the Biblical Jerusalem.

Now as for your original assertion that it would be "reasonable to assume that Jerusalem will be no more." You took that from this verse:
Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
The phrase "shall be found no more at all" does not state nor imply "and no one will ever build a city of this name in this place for ever and ever." It simply is a statement of the utter destruction of the city and its inhabitants. We must be careful not read more into the text than what is there.

Furthermore, consider this prophecy against Tyre:
Ezekiel 26:13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard. 14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
Would you say that this prophecy is false because Tyre is once again a big city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon)? And as an aside, note the same style of prophecy as that against Jerusalem in Jer 25:10 and Rev 18:22 (no more harps shall be heard).

Great working with you on this.

Richard

[jce]

1 a : uninterrupted connection, succession, or union b : uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change

3 : the property of being mathematically continuous
[/INDENT]We all know that the Jerusalem of the Bible was utterly desolated and destroyed in the first century. Nothing like the Biblical Jerusalem has existed since that time and the current Jerusalem has, by definition, no continuity with the Biblical Jerusalem.

Great working with you on this.

Richard

What is the difference in continuity between Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem and Rome's? Have you concluded that God has cast off the Nation of Israel for the church, forever? If so, what is Paul speaking about in Romans when he suggests that God is able to "graft back in" this people who wail at the wall for His deliverance. Has not God blinded their eyes that He might open a door to the Gentiles and then at some future date, remove the scales from their eyes so that they will see Jesus as their Messiah? What would be their response? Would they not mourn for Him whom they crucified?

Romans 11:

8 According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

Who is slumbering?
Who has eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear?
And to what day?
If slumbering will they awaken? If blind & deaf, will they see & hear again?
Will there be a day for the "Awakening", "Restored Vision" and Restored Hearing"?
Or... will God leave them sleeping, blind & deaf forever?

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Why has Israel stumbled that they should fall?
Why would God provoke them to jealousy?

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Why have they fallen?
Why are they diminished? (note: not destroyed)
What fullness?

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Has God cast them off forever?

24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Cut off for how long?
Grafted back in?

25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

This verse seems to be the sum total of the other verses.

What happens next (after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in)?

26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

What part of Israel shall not be saved?

27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Whose sins?

28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

This verse makes perfect sense as evidenced by modern Israel's resentment (jealousy) toward the true church.

29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

You & I have benefited from their unbelief and that's a good plan... FOR US.
But an even better plan would be for God to restore them.

32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Who will not receive this mercy? Is it not God who justifies the ungodly?

1 Kings 8:

33 "When your people Israel have been defeated by an enemy because they have sinned against you, and when they turn back to you and confess your name, praying and making supplication to you in this temple, 34 then hear from heaven and forgive the sin of your people Israel and bring them back to the land you gave to their fathers.

Will God not first open their eyes, and then hear their prayers and forgive their sin and restore Israel?

Luke 23:

34Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."[e] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Did this prayer exclude Israel?

It appears that the passages above imply that God still has a plan for the Nation of Israel. After all, there they are again, in the earthly real estate that God had granted them many centuries ago. If they had not returned, your position would be much stronger. The fact that this little nation, against all odds, has survived only to return in the most unlikely of circumstances makes a statement about the providence of God over this nation.

A lot of material here and I am persuaded by the simplicity of these statements that the scope of this passage goes beyond AD70 and well into our future. What do you think Richard?

John

PS: I did read through your review on Vlach and I considered the Jeremiah 31 passages as your most convincing assertion, however, there remains some ambiguity regarding a future, earthly relationship between God and ethnic Israel and I don't think you were able to rule it out. Still a bit of a mystery.

And now I can go to bed and sleep on these things.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What is the difference in continuity between Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem and Rome's?

Excellent question! I anticipated you would ask that since I had to think about it myself. At first glance, it might seem that the 70 year discontinuity of the Babylonian exile is no different than the 1878 year discontinuity between 70 AD and 1948 AD. But that does not ring true to me. There is a big difference. God specifically promised that there would be a 70 exile, and that he himself would bring the Jews back to Israel to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. No such promise is given in the NT concerning the destruction in 70 AD. This is very significant because God gave specific dates for all the primary events in the history of Israel. I explained this in a thread called Continuity of Prophetic History Confirms Preterism (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=617). Here are the basic facts (original post contains more details):


In Genesis God predicted the 400 years affliction in Egypt:
In Numbers God predicted the 40 years of the wandering, and the reason for it, and that He would fulfill His promise to their children but destroy the faithless adults.
In Jeremiah God predicted the 70 years captivity in Babylon:

Note that in all three cases God declared both the duration of the captivity as well as the promise of good things that would come when the captivity was completed.



Have you concluded that God has cast off the Nation of Israel for the church, forever? If so, what is Paul speaking about in Romans when he suggests that God is able to "graft back in" this people who wail at the wall for His deliverance. Has not God blinded their eyes that He might open a door to the Gentiles and then at some future date, remove the scales from their eyes so that they will see Jesus as their Messiah? What would be their response? Would they not mourn for Him whom they crucified?

The interpretation of Romans 9-11 is a huge project that has been attempted many times in this forum. Unfortunately, folks seem to have a hard time seeing eye to eye on this.

Now as for your question - there is absolutely no promise in the NT for carnal Israel, the is, Israel defined by the flesh, to be restored as a nation. Furthermore, the Church did NOT replace Israel. The Church is the continuation of Israel. Were Peter, Paul, James, and John of Israel? Yes indeed. They were the faithful remnant that God promised to save! But not all that are of Israel are True Israel, which Paul defines as the "seed of Abraham" who have the faith of Abraham.

Now as for all the questions you asked - they belong in their own thread. We need to start systematically from the beginning of Romans 9 and walk carefully through it. I would be absolutely delighted to work with you on this, but I think it best if follow through on the rest of the conversations we have going first.

Looks like we'll have plenty to talk about for a long time coming!

I'm loving the conversation,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have moved the last two comments concerning Romans 9-11 over to the thread Sailing the Gospel Ship (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1487) which already contains many comments on this topic. Please continue that conversation there.

I would like this thread to get back to its topic concerning "sin nature."

Thanks,

RAM (Administrator)

[jce]

I would like this thread to get back to its topic concerning "sin nature."

Thanks,

RAM (Administrator)



Ah yes... we do digress.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ah yes... we do digress.

John
Yeah - it happens all the time.

But that's ok - I can just move posts over to the appropriate thread, and we can continue both conversations at once.

Richard

[terraricca]

(potential to sin = evil inclination )(potential to do good=godly inclination)=0


this is a wrong conclution IMO

[Richard Amiel McGough]

(potential to sin = evil inclination )(potential to do good=godly inclination)=0


this is a wrong conclution IMO
I agree.

In the future, it would help if you quoted the post to which you are responding so we have some context. I used the "Search Thread" function to find this post:

potential to sin = evil inclination = sin nature

Is that the post to which you were responding?

All the best,

Richard

[terraricca]

hi Richard

yes that it ,i think this was my first quote,sorry i promise to improve ,

regards

Pierre

[Richard Amiel McGough]

hi Richard

yes that it ,i think this was my first quote,sorry i promise to improve ,

regards

Pierre
Hi Pierre,

That was only a suggestion to help - it was not a chastisement! :p

[terraricca]

Hi Pierre,

That was only a suggestion to help - it was not a chastisement! :p

hi that's the way i understood it

thank you


Pierre

[joel]

But remember, the flesh is not sinful by nature. True, it is very weak, and prone to sin, but we know it can not be intrinsically sinful because the Word (Christ) became flesh and dwelt amongst us, yet without sin. And again, we have proof from Genesis that the flesh is not intrinsically sinful. Adam and Eve were created as fleshly creatures, but had no sin until they disobeyed God.

So how did Adam and Eve sin without having a sin nature?

Simple! They were fleshly creatures, and the story makes it abundantly clear they were not in conscious communion with God when they sinned! And so, they acted as fleshly creatures not guided by God, and sinned. (Note how this relates to the challenges of our daily walk!) This is further confirmed by the description of what led up to their sin:

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

Sounds like a very fleshly temptation! Compare this with the classic sin passage:

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (make one wise?), is not of the Father, but is of the world.

So there it is. That's the basic idea I was hoping to share in this post. I think it leads to a magnificent harmony between Scripture and Reality that actually makes sense. And it is extremely satisfying to have a full understanding of Scripture without a mystical undetectable substance that has no "color, odor, taste, or weight."

There is much more to say on this matter, but I will wait for a response to what has been written. I am curious if these ideas make sense to other folks, and if not, why not.

I look forward to your comments.

RAM


Since we find no evidence in the scripture as to a "sin nature", or, "sinful nature", it is wise advice to avoid the use of such terms.

RAM, you have taken the position that the flesh is the root issue, not any so-called "sin nature".

And yet, we find that the "flesh" of Adam was instrumental in some very significant occurrences in the garden; Adam named all of the animals, a remarkable feat when considering he had no formal language training. And, when he was put to sleep, Eve was taken out of his flesh and bones.

The question of the cause of the sin may go deeper than the inherent "weakness" of the flesh which seeks gratification.

I submit that.....the word of God uttered to Adam, before Eve was there......is what the flesh needs to enable the man to do the will of God....."every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". It is the word which contains the power to save.

Rather than focusing on the flesh, I would have you focus on the subtle changes that the adversary made to the words of God. Why did Adam not heed the word?

Joel

[terraricca]

Since we find no evidence in the scripture as to a "sin nature", or, "sinful nature", it is wise advice to avoid the use of such terms.

RAM, you have taken the position that the flesh is the root issue, not any so-called "sin nature".

And yet, we find that the "flesh" of Adam was instrumental in some very significant occurrences in the garden; Adam named all of the animals, a remarkable feat when considering he had no formal language training. And, when he was put to sleep, Eve was taken out of his flesh and bones.

The question of the cause of the sin may go deeper than the inherent "weakness" of the flesh which seeks gratification.

I submit that.....the word of God uttered to Adam, before Eve was there......is what the flesh needs to enable the man to do the will of God....."every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". It is the word which contains the power to save.

Rather than focusing on the flesh, I would have you focus on the subtle changes that the adversary made to the words of God. Why did Adam not heed the word?

Joel

hi Joel

i like your answer, i always wonder why people see the scriptures in a certain way rather than an other,i think it as to do whit what is in our own hearts deep down in it.



Pierre

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The question of the cause of the sin may go deeper than the inherent "weakness" of the flesh which seeks gratification.

I submit that.....the word of God uttered to Adam, before Eve was there......is what the flesh needs to enable the man to do the will of God....."every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". It is the word which contains the power to save.

Rather than focusing on the flesh, I would have you focus on the subtle changes that the adversary made to the words of God. Why did Adam not heed the word?

Joel
Hey Joel,

OK - let me see if I understand your suggestion. It sound like you are saying that the flesh needs "the word of God" to enable the man to do the will of God.

Is that what you meant?

Richard

[joel]

Hey Joel,

OK - let me see if I understand your suggestion. It sound like you are saying that the flesh needs "the word of God" to enable the man to do the will of God.

Is that what you meant?

Richard

Yes.

We know that the flesh is "weak". It is the weakness which renders the flesh incapable to fulfilling automatically what God said, especially when an alternate "word" (the lie) is provided.

Look closely at what God said.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes.

We know that the flesh is "weak". It is the weakness which renders the flesh incapable to fulfilling automatically what God said, especially when an alternate "word" (the lie) is provided.

Look closely at what God said.

Joel
Does Scripture ever say anything about the word of God "enabling" the flesh to obey? I thought it said the opposite - the flesh can never, under any circumstances, be "subject to the law of God" because that is the function of the Spirit, not the flesh.
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
I am familiar with the text of Genesis 2 and 3. I know that folks have derived implications from the difference between what God said to Adam and what the Serpent said to Eve. If this is the path you are following, please make it explicit.

Thanks!

Richard

[joel]

Does Scripture ever say anything about the word of God "enabling" the flesh to obey? I thought it said the opposite - the flesh can never, under any circumstances, be "subject to the law of God" because that is the function of the Spirit, not the flesh.
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
I am familiar with the text of Genesis 2 and 3. I know that folks have derived implications from the difference between what God said to Adam and what the Serpent said to Eve. If this is the path you are following, please make it explicit.

Thanks!

Richard

It seems to be.......not a process of "enabling" the flesh to do, or to be something that it cannot do....or cannot be. The scripture clearly says that what was impossible for the flesh....in that it was weak.....God did......by sending His Son....in the likeness of sinful flesh.......He condemned sin in the flesh.........
That the righteous requirements of the law.......may be fulfilled in us.....in that the rigtheous requirements of the law are actually filled full in us.....in side of us.......
causing us to have a new mind set......a phronema pneuma....a spiritual mindset.
this allows us to be led by the spirit.....and not by the flesh.....so that we are now sons of God.

There being now.....no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.

And......there can be no separation from the love of God in Christ Jesus.

This being the mind-set of the spirit, is to be realized and known by all who are in Christ Jesus.

Joel

[joel]

Mold me......Lord.

Complete me, furnish me....make me what you want me to be.

Render me fit, sound, repair me......make me what I ought to be....for you, not for me.

strengthen, perfect my soul.......as the garden of God, bearing fruit, complete and whole.

this is my prayer.....my plea.

Joel