Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

[hawkman]

Did Adam and Eve have a human nature ?

Were Adam and Eve created capable of sin ?

My question above ^^^.

Of course Adam and Eve could sin, they proved that when they chose to believe Satan rather than God, and rebelled against His command they not eat of the tree of knowledge.

Just answered Yes.

Well Praise God you did answer ! Thank you !

Is is lost to you that they were able to sin without the "sin nature" in them ?

This doctrine of "sin nature " causes so many difficulties that the babies are being baptized , Mary and Jesus have to be found somehow free of the nebulous "sin nature " .

Do you understand what I am trying to get through to you ?

But most Christians see God's warning "in the day you eat you die" as fulfilled the moment Adam ate and both realized they were naked. That illustrated they felt "changed", going from innocence to guilty. They "fell from God's grace" and became "dead in their sins" separated from God.

They became spiritually dead as we are without Christ .

Their physical death was a function of their already having died, exactly as God warned.

Their physical death came about because they did not eat of the tree of life and are now separated from the Tree of Life. Because what did God say .

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

[hawkman]

I was speaking of *spiritual contamination*--not physical contagion.

Who put the contamination on humans and when did it happen ?

Does God say this ?

 

[Alfred Persson]

I was disagreeing with Hawkman--not you. As far as I know, we're in complete agreement on this. Sorry you saw it differently!

I was speaking of *spiritual contamination*--not physical contagion. Just as we inherit our parents' DNA we inherit their spiritual contamination, as I see it.

We can inherit Sin Tendencies, such as a proneness to dependence on drugs or alcohol, but we can also choose to resist these tendencies.

I apologize. I'm watching other things and confused you with Hawkman.

Still I can't agree our level of sinning materially affects the "sin nature" of our children. But perhaps I also misunderstood that. Perhaps you are saying "evil parents who teach evil to their children, or do evil to them so that they do evil to other children, is like a contagion. I can agree with that.

Our proneness to sin and addiction, can be resisted. Otherwise Paul couldn't write the following, observing some in Corinth once did these things:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11 KJV)

 

[RandyK]

I apologize. I'm watching other things and confused you with Hawkman.

Still I can't agree our level of sinning materially affects the "sin nature" of our children. But perhaps I also misunderstood that. Perhaps you are saying "evil parents who teach evil to their children, or do evil to them so that they do evil to other children, is like a contagion. I can agree with that.

Our proneness to sin and addiction, can be resisted. Otherwise Paul couldn't write the following, observing some in Corinth once did these things:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11 KJV)

It's all good with the misunderstanding. But no, you did have me right that Sin is a kind of spiritual contagion, passed on from parents to children. A poisoned spirit will produce another poisoned spirit. A sick tree will likely produce sick fruit.

But it's okay if we disagree on this. If it's a spiritual thing there is no way I could ever prove that using material tests. We can only observe in the children the same weaknesses we've seen in the parents.

 

[RandyK]

Who put the contamination on humans and when did it happen ?

Does God say this ?

I'm not sure where God specifically spelled it out--I haven't looked that hard. I assumed most Christians believed this? Apparently not.

As I said, all Israelites had to be purified at all ages. This indicates (to me) that all of the Israelites were contaminated with Sin, or with what they themselves call "the Sin Inclination."

Of course, in the NT era all men are reliant on Christ's redemption because we are all sinners. Do we all just choose to sin, like Adam chose in the Garden? No, we choose to Sin because we've been weakened with a Sin Nature, as I see it.

No other explanation suffices to explain why children from the start are rebellious, resisting all authority outside of their own will. But there are Scriptures to this effect, and I'm sure you've heard them?

 

[Alfred Persson]

It's all good with the misunderstanding. But no, you did have me right that Sin is a kind of spiritual contagion, passed on from parents to children. A poisoned spirit will produce another poisoned spirit. A sick tree will likely produce sick fruit.

But it's okay if we disagree on this. If it's a spiritual thing there is no way I could ever prove that using material tests. We can only observe in the children the same weaknesses we've seen in the parents.

We partly disagree. I think you should revisit this scripture, study it carefully. It seems pertinent to your observation some seem to be born more evil than others.

The explanation for that would fall under the title "God's Sovereignty":

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (Rom. 9:21-22 KJV)

I am convinced by other scriptures no one is born to fail, that even these vessels of wrath didn't have to manifest their evil nature. They could have said "No". But God knew they wouldn't, and they have a purpose in His divine plan:

14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.
15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.
16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. (Exod. 9:14-16 KJV)

Pharaoh illustrates the point he could have chose obedience to God. No "hardening energy" went from God to his heart. Rather, he uncritically compared what his magicians did to God's acts (no comparison in scale), and chose to trust magic. Notice God says Pharaoh hardened his own heart:

10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go. (Exod. 7:10-14 KJV)
Again:

22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
23 And Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he set his heart to this also.
(Exod. 7:22-23 KJV)

The Pharoah hardened his own heart, uncritically compared the puny acts of his magicians to that of God, that when his own magicians proclaimed "this is the finger of God" he would not hear them. He confirmed God's choice he would be a "vessel of wrath":

Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. (Exod. 8:19 KJV)

God knew that is precisely what he would do, choose evil over good, rebellion over obedience.

 

[hawkman]

I'm not sure where God specifically spelled it out--I haven't looked that hard.

No one else has been able to find it either so far . I looked too and see no evidence of a application of "sin nature" or contamination to humanity . Let me know if you find anything . I have found "sin nature" to be most nebulous .

As I said, all Israelites had to be purified at all ages. This indicates (to me) that all of the Israelites were contaminated with Sin, or with what they themselves call "the Sin Inclination."

Since they lived in world full of sin and sinners and they did not yet have Jesus I would expect as much .

Of course, in the NT era all men are reliant on Christ's redemption because we are all sinners.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . Of course I believe that .

Do we all just choose to sin, like Adam chose in the Garden?

His human nature allowed him to make a choice . The very same human nature we have . God allowed him a choice .

No, we choose to Sin because we've been weakened with a Sin Nature, as I see it.

Now here is where it gets serious as you say we are in a weakened state but you by you own admission can not find where in the Bible that the weakened state was put upon us or even Who put the weakened state upon us or in us ! !

No other explanation suffices to explain why children from the start are rebellious, resisting all authority outside of their own will.

Human nature we all have it . God equipped us with it .

So do you proclaim babies should be baptized ?

But there are Scriptures to this effect, and I'm sure you've heard them?

Scripture are quoted and commentarians write commentaries and I have read tons of it . The don't know where the nebulous "sin nature " is either .

 

[RandyK]

We partly disagree. I think you should revisit this scripture, study it carefully. It seems pertinent to your observation some seem to be born more evil than others.

The explanation for that would fall under the title "God's Sovereignty":

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (Rom. 9:21-22 KJV)

I am convinced by other scriptures no one is born to fail, that even these vessels of wrath didn't have to manifest their evil nature. They could have said "No". But God knew they wouldn't, and they have a purpose in His divine plan:

14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.
15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.
16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. (Exod. 9:14-16 KJV)

Pharaoh illustrates the point he could have chose obedience to God. No "hardening energy" went from God to his heart. Rather, he uncritically compared what his magicians did to God's acts (no comparison in scale), and chose to trust magic. Notice God says Pharaoh hardened his own heart:

10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go. (Exod. 7:10-14 KJV)
Again:

22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
23 And Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he set his heart to this also.
(Exod. 7:22-23 KJV)

The Pharoah hardened his own heart, uncritically compared the puny acts of his magicians to that of God, that when his own magicians proclaimed "this is the finger of God" he would not hear them. He confirmed God's choice he would be a "vessel of wrath":

Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. (Exod. 8:19 KJV)

God knew that is precisely what he would do, choose evil over good, rebellion over obedience.

Thanks but I'm not a newcomer to these arguments. I am in fact a Predesination advocate of the kind where God knows from the child's parental origins which way it is going to choose. He calls them "children of the Devil" after they have indicated their choices. Of course, "parents" can refer to any number of previous ancestors.

People who ultimately accept Christ are never called "children of the Devil." They may have been "under God's wrath," but they were never said to be predestined for damnation.

Not even "children of Satan" are "predestined for damnation." God simply knows the earth from which they were formed. It isn't that the parents are making decisions for them, but the fact their parents, grandparents etc. do make choices that launch their progeny far from the place where there is any remote interest in going God's way.

They are predestined by those before them who decided to get off of the path of God's word. As such, they are born of seed generated outside of God's will by human rebellion against that word, and thus are the product of rebellion against God's word. They are completely disinterested in God's word by the very nature that produced them.

Are such people really free? Of course. They can opt to at least go God's way at times. But they will never want to *be* people who are dominated by God's word. They can mitigate their negative destiny, but they really don't even want to avoid it. As someone gleefully sang, "I'm on the highway to Hell!" Such people want their freedom from God.

 

[RandyK]

No one else has been able to find it either so far . I looked too and see no evidence of a application of "sin nature" or contamination to humanity . Let me know if you find anything . I have found "sin nature" to be most nebulous .

Since they lived in world full of sin and sinners and they did not yet have Jesus I would expect as much .

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . Of course I believe that .

His human nature allowed him to make a choice . The very same human nature we have . God allowed him a choice .

Now here is where it gets serious as you say we are in a weakened state but you by you own admission can not find where in the Bible that the weakened state was put upon us or even Who put the weakened state upon us or in us ! !

Human nature we all have it . God equipped us with it .

So do you proclaim babies should be baptized ?

Scripture are quoted and commentarians write commentaries and I have read tons of it . The don't know where the nebulous "sin nature " is either .

I didn't say I've never found the "Sin Nature" teaching in the Scriptures. I just haven't been looking for "proofs" to that effect because I believed most Christians already accepted that.

As you said, you believe "all have sinned." The presupposition has to be, I think, that "all sin because all have a Sin Nature." Otherwise, wouldn't there have been many people who simply chose not to Sin?

As I said, sacrifices were made for all Israel--why would they be required for those who didn't Sin? Do you think Jesus needed a sacrifice for being a sinless human?

Rom 8.3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh...

The flesh is weak because Sin is in the flesh.

For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Thanks but I'm not a newcomer to these arguments. I am in fact a Predesination advocate of the kind where God knows from the child's parental origins which way it is going to choose. He calls them "children of the Devil" after they have indicated their choices. Of course, "parents" can refer to any number of previous ancestors.

People who ultimately accept Christ are never called "children of the Devil." They may have been "under God's wrath," but they were never said to be predestined for damnation.

Not even "children of Satan" are "predestined for damnation." God simply knows the earth from which they were formed. It isn't that the parents are making decisions for them, but the fact their parents, grandparents etc. do make choices that launch their progeny far from the place where there is any remote interest in going God's way.

They are predestined by those before them who decided to get off of the path of God's word. As such, they are born of seed generated outside of God's will by human rebellion against that word, and thus are the product of rebellion against God's word. They are completely disinterested in God's word by the very nature that produced them.

Are such people really free? Of course. They can opt to at least go God's way at times. But they will never want to *be* people who are dominated by God's word. They can mitigate their negative destiny, but they really don't even want to avoid it. As someone gleefully sang, "I'm on the highway to Hell!" Such people want their freedom from God.

Got it. I think its beyond my intellectual capacity to identify the cause of what you observe, if the major causes like God's Sovereignty and Free Will don't explain it. I'll end my discussion of that aspect here.

Re Predestination, I believe you might find my take on this interesting.

Argument Against “Double Predestination” and Support for the Tripartite View | End Time News

Clarified and Strengthened Argument Against “Double Predestination” and Support for the Tripartite View Many theologians reject the Calvinist doctrine of “Double Predestination,” which asserts that God has predestined some individuals to salvation (the Elect) and others to condemnation (the...

endtimenews.net

 

[hawkman]

I didn't say I've never found the "Sin Nature" teaching in the Scriptures. I just haven't been looking for "proofs" to that effect because I believed most Christians already accepted that.

Ok . I do not accept the Theology of Augustine , that is where it came from .

As you said, you believe "all have sinned." The presupposition has to be, I think, that "all sin because all have a Sin Nature." Otherwise, wouldn't there have been many people who simply chose not to Sin?

I think all sin by example , we ALL live in a world with sin and sinners all around us .

As I said, sacrifices were made for all Israel--why would they be required for those who didn't Sin? Do you think Jesus needed a sacrifice for being a sinless human?

The sacrifices were for ALL the Jewish people , was Jesus Jewish ? So yes Jesus was sacrificed for even if he was sinless .
RandyK read this for some deeper info where the "sin nature " original sin got it's traction .
https://earlychristianhistory.net/orig-sin.html

 

[Elijah7777]

In my personal curiosity Christ wasn't born through Joseph so he didn't inherit the sinful nature of Adam, but we have that nature. How would you factor that in?

It only factors in if you accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The reason I love Jesus the way I do is because He was human and knows how I feel. Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin.” To be tempted and tested is said to be a double-edged sword.

 

[RandyK]

Ok . I do not accept the Theology of Augustine , that is where it came from .

I think all sin by example , we ALL live in a world with sin and sinners all around us .

The sacrifices were for ALL the Jewish people , was Jesus Jewish ? So yes Jesus was sacrificed for even if he was sinless .
RandyK read this for some deeper info where the "sin nature " original sin got it's traction .
https://earlychristianhistory.net/orig-sin.html

I read the message, but do not accept the premise, that Original Sin and a Birth Sin Nature was conceived of by Augustine alone. He may have wanted to oppose Pelagius, but Pelagius needed to be exposed.

Augustine got his beliefs about Original Sin from the Scriptures--not out of his own head. As I said, the Law indicated all Israel required sacrifices for their sins--their sins were assumed as such by their fallen human nature.

And in the Gospel, it is assumed that all people require forgiveness of sin. If people didn't have to sin, there could be no such requirement.

Paul indicated that sin extended from Adam to all of his descendants by necessity. If you don't accept this only because of this guy's paper, I suggest you not base your beliefs on *some guy's paper!*

Rom 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned... 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

What made Augustine's views unique is his coupling of Original Sin with Predestination. Calvin took this farther, I believe, with his Double Predestination, as it is called. But Luther really was the one who brought Augustine's Predestination into the modern era.

I don't fully agree with Luther's sense of the "bondage of the will"--I believe in Free Will. But I do believe there is a certain amount of bondage to the Sin Nature we were born with. This just doesn't prevent us from choosing for Christ, which is something Luther taught only happens by preliminary action by Christ.

We love because he loved us first. But this doesn't prevent us from freely choosing Christ. We are bound to a Sin Nature, but not necessarily prevented from overcoming that Nature by pursuing righteousness from Christ.

Anyway, there is a lot more that can be said about this. This is a subject I know something about. But we can either pursue it further, or just agree to disagree?

 

[RandyK]

Got it. I think its beyond my intellectual capacity to identify the cause of what you observe, if the major causes like God's Sovereignty and Free Will don't explain it. I'll end my discussion of that aspect here.

Re Predestination, I believe you might find my take on this interesting.

Argument Against “Double Predestination” and Support for the Tripartite View | End Time News

Clarified and Strengthened Argument Against “Double Predestination” and Support for the Tripartite View Many theologians reject the Calvinist doctrine of “Double Predestination,” which asserts that God has predestined some individuals to salvation (the Elect) and others to condemnation (the...

endtimenews.net

Yes, you're view is interesting, but I am of the more binary camp indicating some are predestined for salvation while the rest simply reject salvation. The latter are not predestined because they are born with predisposition towards rejecting God's salvation, and God therefore cannot predestine them to something they are not by nature inclined towards.

Those predestined to salvation may not appear to be inclined to want salvation, but actually do want that salvation. They are the product of predecessors who have prepared the way of God's word before them so that they are in effect born into that word and into that natural desire for salvation.

It is not purely Bible Study that determined my belief here. It is a matter of my own discerenment of people over many years. I am able to see who are predestined and who are not. It's a gift.

As to many of the verses you speak to, such as those judged and those written in the book of life, it gets confusing because I think God chooses whole nations for life, who can then be cut out of that book of life--not in matters of eternal salvation, but rather, in matters of being removed from that election.

Sometimes judgment is just temporary. And salvation of a whole nation is indicative not of the salvation of every individual, but rather, of the restoration of all that constitutes a nation, as opposed to merely a remnant of a nation.

For example, "all Israel will be saved" means that an entire nation will get saved, and not just a small part of a nation. Thus, election does not necessarily refer to all individuals being saved, but only to God's choice to operate through an entire nation and somehow complete that nation if only by rejecting some individuals and substituting them with others.

They can be cut off from that election in some ways, and in other ways, the fact they were elected remains true forever to some degree. For example, a person can be called to be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he or she will automatically be saved. Even if they turn away, their call cannot be removed--whether they are saved or not.

It gets complicated. We can discuss for more explanation, or not?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Yes, you're view is interesting, but I am of the more binary camp indicating some are predestined for salvation while the rest simply reject salvation. The latter are not predestined because they are born with predisposition towards rejecting God's salvation, and God therefore cannot predestine them to something they are not by nature inclined towards.

Those predestined to salvation may not appear to be inclined to want salvation, but actually do want that salvation. They are the product of predecessors who have prepared the way of God's word before them so that they are in effect born into that word and into that natural desire for salvation.

It is not purely Bible Study that determined my belief here. It is a matter of my own discerenment of people over many years. I am able to see who are predestined and who are not. It's a gift.

As to many of the verses you speak to, such as those judged and those written in the book of life, it gets confusing because I think God chooses whole nations for life, who can then be cut out of that book of life--not in matters of eternal salvation, but rather, in matters of being removed from that election.

Sometimes judgment is just temporary. And salvation of a whole nation is indicative not of the salvation of every individual, but rather, of the restoration of all that constitutes a nation, as opposed to merely a remnant of a nation.

For example, "all Israel will be saved" means that an entire nation will get saved, and not just a small part of a nation. Thus, election does not necessarily refer to all individuals being saved, but only to God's choice to operate through an entire nation and somehow complete that nation if only by rejecting some individuals and substituting them with others.

They can be cut off from that election in some ways, and in other ways, the fact they were elected remains true forever to some degree. For example, a person can be called to be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he or she will automatically be saved. Even if they turn away, their call cannot be removed--whether they are saved or not.

It gets complicated. We can discuss for more explanation, or not?

We can discuss this further, but not in this thread. They like to keep different subjects separate. Pick an aspect you want to discuss and start a new thread, I'll respond there. Peace.

 

[reddogs]

In my personal curiosity Christ wasn't born through Joseph so he didn't inherit the sinful nature of Adam, but we have that nature. How would you factor that in?

The Bible is clear, the seed was of man..
Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

You can even look at what is held today.. https://www.gotquestions.org/seed-of-Abraham.html

 

[hawkman]

Anyway, there is a lot more that can be said about this. This is a subject I know something about. But we can either pursue it further, or just agree to disagree?

Ahh , the rabbit hole is opening and in it we go !

I read the message, but do not accept the premise, that Original Sin and a Birth Sin Nature was conceived of by Augustine alone. He may have wanted to oppose Pelagius, but Pelagius needed to be exposed.

Were we told the truth about Pelagius ? Read this short Pelagius write up and I will point out something to you .

10 Things You Should Know about Pelagius and Pelagianism

Who was Pelagius and what impact did and does he continue to have?

www.crossway.org

Now point #9 , as I read that it did not make any sense to me that Pelagian held to two completely different ideas about grace ! Could have someone have made a strawman out Pelagianism so the heretic label could be applied ? I posit that Religious politics was being played and Pelagian was in Augustin's crosshairs . Guess what after more research I found a book wrote by a British historian about Pelagian and also a video , watch the first 20 minutes or so of the video and give me your thoughts .

Augustine got his beliefs about Original Sin from the Scriptures--not out of his own head.

But were his beliefs correct .

As I said, the Law indicated all Israel required sacrifices for their sins--their sins were assumed as such by their fallen human nature.

I notice Adam and Eve's ability to sin seems to be forgotten when "sin nature" appears . They sinned as humans WITHOUT a "sin nature" . The did have a human nature .

Paul indicated that sin extended from Adam to all of his descendants by necessity. If you don't accept this only because of this guy's paper, I suggest you not base your beliefs on *some guy's paper!*

Sin came into the human world through the transgressions of Adam and Eve there is no doubt .
I suggest Augustine was wrong .

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Sin and death spring from Adam. AS Christ was born of a virgin, His human flesh was free of death and sin:
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
(Lk. 1:34-35 NKJ)

21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Cor. 15:21-22 NKJ)

Christ's human nature was fully human, yet without sin:
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15 NKJ)

Christ "knew no sin" because: 1) "sinfulness not present in his flesh"; 2) "Never entertained the idea of sinning"
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(2 Cor. 5:21-6:1 NKJ)

"Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth"; (1 Pet. 2:22; Isaiah 53:9)

"Holy, undefiled, separate from sinners"
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; (Heb. 7:26 NKJ)


To sum up, Christ was incarnate in sinless human flesh, having only a "likeness to sinful flesh":
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, (Rom. 8:3 NKJ)

Alfred Persson, Jesus was fully human so that he could die in our place and fully divine so that he could rise to give us new life.

 

[RandyK]

Ahh , the rabbit hole is opening and in it we go !

Were we told the truth about Pelagius ? Read this short Pelagius write up and I will point out something to you .

10 Things You Should Know about Pelagius and Pelagianism

Who was Pelagius and what impact did and does he continue to have?

www.crossway.org

Now point #9 , as I read that it did not make any sense to me that Pelagian held to two completely different ideas about grace ! Could have someone have made a strawman out Pelagianism so the heretic label could be applied ? I posit that Religious politics was being played and Pelagian was in Augustin's crosshairs . Guess what after more research I found a book wrote by a British historian about Pelagian and also a video , watch the first 20 minutes or so of the video and give me your thoughts .

But were his beliefs correct .

I notice Adam and Eve's ability to sin seems to be forgotten when "sin nature" appears . They sinned as humans WITHOUT a "sin nature" . The did have a human nature .

Sin came into the human world through the transgressions of Adam and Eve there is no doubt .
I suggest Augustine was wrong .
View attachment 21642

It's a great subject--one that I've looked at for many years. I've leaned towards Calvinism, and my brother, who I love and respect very much, is on the Free Will side. And as the lady in your video might say, some of these things do not properly represent the adherants because the terms can be misleading.

I find it easiest to break the issues down simply by stating my own views, which then expose how the categories of belief get confused.

1) I'm a Predestinarian, pro-Augustine, pro-Luther, pro-Calvin, and yet with more of a belief in Free Will than, say, Luther, who wrote "The Bondage of the Will." I believe that Melanchthon, Luther's friend, was more Free Will than Luther.

2) God determined to prevail upon a set number of people a certain necessity to embrace God's word, even though this quest is set back and distracted by Sin. Therefore, an elect had to have existed in God's mind, and is predetermined both before and at birth.

Those not established to be this "elect" are *added,* not by God but by Satan and by the exercise of Free Will run amok by man cooperating with Satan. Men utilize their gift of Free Will to exercise independence from God, which is actually rebellion against God's word.

And the inevitable result of such a wicked autonomous tree is wicked autonomous fruit, or children. God didn't make them--Satan, by allowance of men, did. Such men have Free Will, but they are not *inclined* to put themselves under complete "bondage" to Christ.

It is not our job, as men, to decide how and when each kind of man should appear. It is in God's mind a process that is complicated and unnecessary for us to know, though we can certainly see it unfold before us in history. God has certainly said X number of people will be saved. If so, then it will happen by necessity, even if it includes our Free Will.

What I will say about the woman discussing Pelagius is that she bases her "favorable" view of Pelagius on what I believe is the false view that Augustine invented his new "orthodoxy." As she herself said, many of the ideas being discussed in his time were previously existing.

But the real point is, some of the previously existing doctrines and discussions were taking form in history that brought certain emphases to bear that were either orthodox or heretical, based on an examination of the apostles' teaching. For example, Augustine brought to bear Paul's teaching and Jesus' teaching on Predestination in a fresh way precisely because Pelagius was able to produce clarity of existing belief that came to be viewed as heretical.

So, it doesn't really matter if what Pelagius taught had been stated by orthodox believers before him. What he clarified in his own environment began to be viewed as a form of independence from God. That is, his sense of Grace weakened God's involvement in Free Will, making Free Will not completely separate from God's Grace, but certainly more independent of it.

This is where Luther's "Bondage of the Will" comes into conflict with Free Will. It is the joining of Predestination, advocated by Augustine, with Original Sin. However, both Predestination and Original Sin were taught by the Apostles and by the Bible, in my opinion.

It is true that Augustine's form of teaching on these was a new treatment of these older subjects, but it was done in a time when there was a danger of using Free Will and Grace as an excuse for lessening the dependence of Free Will on Grace.

The woman argues that Pelagius never did this in his writings. But in reality that appears to have been the effect not just on Augustine but on the whole of orthodoxy within the Church. Otherwise, the councils would not have agreed with Augustine. Augustine was not so powerful and invincible that he could coerce the entire Church leadership into agreeing with his own novel wording!

In summary, I have no problem understanding that Pelagius may have leaned on Grace for his Free Will to some degree. But in the denial of Original Sin that teaching is going to lead Free Will away from Grace, no matter how you put it in seeming biblical language. To ignore the inclination of our will away from God's word is to lessen the very danger that started human Sin!

I'm not here saying that Original Sin means God must choose Salvation for us. But I am saying that Original Sin prohibits Man from obtaining Salvation apart from Christ's enablement, whether you call it "Prevenient Grace" or not. Once you claim Man can obtain Salvation apart from Christ not only do you fall into "heresy" territory but you also propose a false non-corrupt view of human will. King David said that the heart of Man contains an evil that is not always apparent.

I believe that Grace enables us to choose for Salvation, but does not "Determine" this choice. God simply sets up preexistent conditions by which human will inclines towards a particular choice to obtain this Salvation, if only after setbacks and delays.

All men have Free Will, and do have good works, that they are indeed able to do. But the inclination towards Salvation is a preexistent matter, and man, by his Free Choice, is able to choose against this Salvation, giving birth to children, at some point in the future, who then incline away from this Salvation. These "non-elect" are not the product of God's preexistent will, but rather, of actions in time that act against God's will and result in an inclination towards independence from God.

So, what is it that causes the Elect to choose for Salvation if it is not predetermination or Prevenient Grace? It is actually a form of Prevenient Grace that is not deterministic, as I hold my own belief to be.

It is simply God's original word in Creation, to set apart X number of people for Himself, causing those X number of people to be drawn to His word. Those who are not so drawn to His word are the product of human works done *apart from His word," and are thus the product of works resisting His Grace.

Where I stand apart from some other doctrinally-orthodox believers is in my sense that people did not lose their ability to exercise Free Will in their resistance to embracing Christ. Though I believe in Original Sin I do not believe this reduces Man to an inability to choose or to do good. They may be inclined against Salvation but they can still accept Christ in part or God's word in part, and can still do good.

They can *partly* embrace Christ's word by doing some things that Christ approves of without accepting him wholly. And we should encourage alll men to do good, which they can do, whether they embrace Christ as a complete Lord or not.

The ability to do good was created innately in Man from the beginning, when he was made in the image of God. That did not end with Sin. We are born in Sin, but we still are able to draw upon our innate ability to accept Christ or to simply do good.

It is important, if we are to be Saved, to accept Christ as Lord wholly, and not just part of his word. But we have to be aware that with Original Sin we have the capacity to obey God's word or not. And the result of choosing against God's word can result in things coming into being that God never intended to come into being from the beginning.

Original Sin makes us aware of our constant need to avoid the attraction of Sin and to align ourselves with God's word--not just part of the time but all of the time. But Original Sin does not make our decisions the product of God's determination alone. He determined to have X number of elect children. We still must choose for that which we are inclined towards, and to be faithful to God's word in all areas of our life.

Big subject!

 

[RandyK]

We can discuss this further, but not in this thread. They like to keep different subjects separate. Pick an aspect you want to discuss and start a new thread, I'll respond there. Peace.

I tend to address things as they come up, which sometimes goes down a "rabbit hole." So, I prefer to await a thread that invites the subject, rather than seeming to impose something terribly controversial.

Hint: I'm willing, but hate, to be the one starting an obvious controversy among brothers!