Sin Nature or Human Nature?

[mondar]

I think the following verses help us understand that "original sin" is much more then death of the body:

No One Is Righteous
Romans 3:9-18
9What then? Are we Jew any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

GMS

GMS, do you see any differences between the concepts of "universal condemnation" and "original sin?

 

[Heidi]

I think the following verses help us understand that "original sin" is much more then death of the body:

No One Is Righteous
Romans 3:9-18
9What then? Are we Jew any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

GMS

God post, Mondar.

 

[Diolectic]

Rom 5:12 just as by one man sin entered into the world, And because of sin, death also entered into the world;
so also death passed upon all men, upon whom have sinned: -

To briefly explain this verse, and why it "debunks" what I am saying, let me make a few comments.

Of course "one man sin entered into the world" is referring to Adam. For the pelagian view, you might say that the verse is referring to the possibility of people sinning began with Adam, but the verse is not talking about the possibility of sin, but sin actually entered into the world with Adams sin. The nature of this actual sin entering the world is explained as the verse proceeds.

What do you mean "the nature of this actual sin entering the world"

I never imply that there is a possibility of people sinning, I say people will inevitably sin because of there root is not in Christ. Please read my OP carefuly.

The end of the verse gives the result of Adams sin, "all have sinned."

Of course all sinned, the logical result in free will is to sin. Furthermore, without knowing the law and especialy the Law Makere, one will sin against Him. One must not forget that there is temptation everywhere in the world.

So, the end of the verse mentioning that the physical death passsed upon whom have sinned is a statemant of reality, not that it passed onto the future generations from that moment, but the physical death passsed upon evryone that becomes alive by birth.

This relationship is made clear by the middle of the verse when it says "death through sin, and so death passed upon all men." We can tell what ages are under Adams sin by noticing at what ages people die. If death has passed upon infants, then it is because infants have sinned in Adam. You are right in that infants cannot commit personal sin, but nevertheless, infants die.

You come to a wrong conclusion, plants and animals die but do not sin.

The term "death through sin, and so death passed upon all men" in greek means because of sin, death also entered into the world, and the is because of Adams sin that only phisical death passed into the world.

You are right in that infants cannot commit personal sin, but nevertheless, infants die. How can they die if they are not under sin? Babies in uterus die. Babies have died anytime after conception. They die in childbirth, they die anytime after childbirth. Why all this death among babies? Because they are under sin, and this happened in the sin of Adam.

Death is not because Adams sin passed upon all men because everything dies even the living that can not sin as plants and animals. They fact is that death passed upon all men.
This "physical death" that passed upon all men is mentioned in Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was not willingly subjected to futility, but through Him subjecting it, on hope;
:21 that also the creation will be freed from the bondage of corruption to the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

How did sin and death reign through the one (Adam)?

It does not say "sin & death, but only death. It is not because we all sinned in Adam, that is unrealistic. Imposible to do anythin in someone els.

Rom 5:17 For if by the offense of the one man [physical] death reigned because of the one, much more the ones receiving the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness in [physical]life will reign through the one [Man], Jesus Christ.

and so we all died in Adam. You cannot have death where there is no sin.

The word "died" in the verse you are alluding to is not passed tense:
1Corinthy 15:22 as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
It is talking about in the liniage of adam all die.

If we did not all die and sin in Adam, what happened at Christs death?[/quote]Again the word is not passed tense, but present, active, indicative, 3rd Person, Plural.
Which means that every person who will be born will die spiritualy: that is in the liniage of Adam.
We know that it is a spiritual death because even those who become in Christ will die physicaly.

So, how do you read Romans 5? What do you think happened to us in Adams sin? Nothing?

There is nothing in Romans 5 that sais anything remotly close to "in Adams sin"

 

[Diolectic]

I think the following verses help us understand that "original sin" is much more then death of the body:

No One Is Righteous
Romans 3:9-18
9What then? Are we Jew any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

What makes an infant unrighteous, since you include them with the verses that you quoted.
They are incapable to understand therefore exempt,
They know nothing to seek, much less a God but maybe their bottle when old enough.
Infants can not be included with any of this because they do not use deceit with their tongues and their mouth is not full of cursing and bitterness.
They don't even know violense, nor to care about blood to have feet that are swift to shed blood, furtheremore, their feet coul;dn't cary them anywere swiftly.
An infant can not even comprehend a way of peace.
An infant can not even comprehend God, much less fear of God.

Lets stay with reality.

 

[Heidi]

What makes an infant unrighteous, since you include them with the verses that you quoted.
They are incapable to understand therefore exempt,
They know nothing to seek, much less a God but maybe their bottle when old enough.
Infants can not be included with any of this because they do not use deceit with their tongues and their mouth is not full of cursing and bitterness.
They don't even know violense, nor to care about blood to have feet that are swift to shed blood, furtheremore, their feet coul;dn't cary them anywere swiftly.
An infant can not even comprehend a way of peace.
An infant can not even comprehend God, much less fear of God.

Lets stay with reality.

No, that's not true as Jesus points out in Luke 12:47-48. "The servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the servant who does not know his master's will and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."

So Jesus makes it quite clear that even those who haven't heard or don't understand God's word are still guilty. But those who don't know they're guilty will simply receive a lighter punishment just like someone who breaks a law in another State where he doesn't know the laws. He will still be punished although not as severely, because of ignorance of the law.

 

[mondar]

[quote:a33ac]mondar wrote:
So, how do you read Romans 5? What do you think happened to us in Adams sin? Nothing?

Diolectic wrote:
There is nothing in Romans 5 that sais anything remotly close to "in Adams sin"[/quote:a33ac]
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;...

Why would judgement come upon all men? Why were all men condemned? Was it something Adam did? or something we do?

Sorry, I cannot agree with the Pelagian denial of original sin. I will have to agree with orthodox christianity that there is origional sin, or sin nature.

 

[Heidi]

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;...

Why would judgement come upon all men? Why were all men condemned? Was it something Adam did? or something we do?

Sorry, I cannot agree with the Pelagian denial of origional sin. I will have to agree with orthodox christianity that there is origional sin, or sin nature.

Here's another one: Romans 5:12, "Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-for before the law was given, sin was in the world."

 

[Diolectic]

No, that's not true as Jesus points out in Luke 12:47-48. "The servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the servant who does not know his master's will and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."
So Jesus makes it quite clear that even those who haven't heard or don't understand God's word are still guilty. But those who don't know they're guilty will simply receive a lighter punishment just like someone who breaks a law in another State where he doesn't know the laws. He will still be punished although not as severely, because of ignorance of the law.[/

We are not talking about ignorance here, but incapability.

Again, we are not talking about not understanding God's word but incapable to even comprehend a God.

God will not judge or condemn for being incapable.

Here's another one: Romans 5:12, just as by one man sin entered into the world, And because of sin, death also entered into the world; so also death passed upon all men, upon whom have sinned, because all sinned-for before the law was given, sin was in the world."

How is this to do with sin nature?

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;...

Why would judgement come upon all men? Why were all men condemned? Was it something Adam did? or something we do?

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation[of physical death]; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of [physical] life.
Jugement was because of Adam and the condemnation of physical death came upon all men by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope(Rom 8:20b). This hope is for the reason that we are not meant to feel at home here, but we hope for the glorious liberty of the children of God(Rom 8:21b) as we wait and long for open recognition as sons through the deliverance of our bodies(Rom 8:23b).

Sorry, I cannot agree with the Pelagian denial of original sin. I will have to agree with orthodox christianity that there is origional sin, or sin nature.

It's not the Pelagian view as I made clear in my second post on this thread. Origional sin, or sin nature only started with Augustine of Hippo who famously concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell because of original sin.
It was the way I am attempting to show you all on this thread from the beginning until Augustine of Hippo.

Have you ever read any of Charles Finney?

 

[mondar]

Concerning the history of the term Pelagian...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagian

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin.

This is a wiki quote. Augustine was part of the discussion. Augustines view of origional sin was supported at the council of Ephesus, and several other minor councils, I would not say that the view of original sin should be attributed solely to Augustine. This same councils condemned Pelagius as a heretic. The concept of "original sin" or "sin nature" was and still is a part of western Christianity.

I am therefore using the term Pelagian correctly to speak of anyone who denies original sin. In history, denial of original sin is a concept attributed to Pelagius. Please read the wiki article.

 

[mondar]

[quote:996e6]
mondar wrote:
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;...

Why would judgement come upon all men? Why were all men condemned? Was it something Adam did? or something we do?

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation[of physical death]; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of [physical] life.

Jugement was because of Adam and the condemnation of physical death came upon all men by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope(Rom 8:20b). This hope is for the reason that we are not meant to feel at home here, but we hope for the glorious liberty of the children of God(Rom 8:21b) as we wait and long for open recognition as sons through the deliverance of our bodies(Rom 8:23b).
[/quote:996e6]

You start off right when you say,
"Jugement was because of Adam"
but then you try to avoid the truth of your own statement by going off on some dog trail and quoting a verse that is not related directly to this context.

Can you tell me any other possible reading of the words "by the offence of one?" What did the offence of one (Adam) cause? In that clause can you especially focus on the words "by." What did Adams offence cause?

There is a parallel construction to the grammar in verse 18. Notice the words that I will put in bold are identical.

αρα ουν ως δι ενος παραπτωματος εις παντας ανθρωπους εις κατακριμα ουτως
και
δι ενος δικαιωματος εις παντας ανθρωπους εις δικαιωσιν ζωης.

Let me copy from the NASB
The same words (δι ενος ) will be put in bold.
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation
even so
by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Tell me, in the 2nd part of the verse, do you deny that "by one" (Christ) the free gift came upon all men into justification? The grammatical construction in the first part of the verse is the same ("by one"). So then, by one (Adam) comes judgement to condemnation.

So let me ask you once again, what happened to mankind when the offense of one came? Nothing? Then why does Paul even say "by one?"

 

[Heidi]

It's not the Pelagian view as I made clear in my second post on this thread. Origional sin, or sin nature only started with Augustine of Hippo who famously concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell because of original sin.
It was the way I am attempting to show you all on this thread from the beginning until Augustine of Hippo.

Have you ever read any of Charles Finney?

We're talking about babies having a sinful nature which Pslam 51:5, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

So since Atonement has said that everyone here believes the bible, then I will trust that you believe that verse also. Thus there's no reason to argue this point any more.

 

[jgredline]

So since Atonement has said that everyone here believes the bible, then I will trust that you believe that verse also. Thus there's no reason to argue this point any more.

Heidi
You have taken Atonement way out of context here...You are doing with him what you tend to do with scripture...You know full well that there are many here who do not believe the bible...You need to stop accusing people of this....

 

[Vic C.]

Am I to conclude that this "proof text" supports the notion that all are born with this "original sin"? Do you all take everything so literal? If so, please help me reconcile these two verses:

(note, I said reconcile, not rationalize)

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the belly, speaking lies. (LITV)

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. (LITV)

The Calvinist interpretations leave no room for the poetic nature of the Psalms.

 

[Heidi]

Am I to conclude that this "proof text" supports the notion that all are born with this "original sin"? Do you all take everything so literal? If so, please help me reconcile these two verses:

(note, I said reconcile, not rationalize)

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the belly, speaking lies. (LITV)

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. (LITV)

The Calvinist interpretations leave no room for the poetic nature of the Psalms.

That's untrue. The bible is poetic, but it's also true. So there's no reason to claim that the bible is untrue. Since God himself is truth, then every word out of the mouth of God is also true.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi
You have taken Atonement way out of context here...You are doing with him what you tend to do with scripture...You know full well that there are many here who do not believe the bible...You need to stop accusing people of this....

Atonement said this:

Listen here, you're getting pretty close to getting kicked off here. This is the third time tonight you are saying I and others don't believe in the Bible. You have NO RIGHT to tell anyone they don't believe in the Bible. I asked you a simple question and you can't give me a straight answer.. Therefore your question deserves no answer.. Get some sleep and come back to post when you are level headed, because right now you are walking a very thin wall, and one loose brick and you're going to fall off..

So is Atonement now telling us that people here don't believe the bible? :o I certainly am not allowed to claim that, jgredline. So why do I now get chastized for not claiming that people here don't believe the bible? :o Is Atonement allowed tosclaim that people here don't believe the bible, but I'm not allowed?Please clarify.

 

[Vic C.]

That's untrue. The bible is poetic, but it's also true. So there's no reason to claim that the bible is untrue. Since God himself is truth, then every word out of the mouth of God is also true.

Fair enough, I will ask the question that you avoided again:

Am I to conclude that this "proof text" supports the notion that all are born with this "original sin"? Do you all take everything so literal? If so, please help me reconcile these two verses:

(note, I said reconcile, not rationalize)

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the belly, speaking lies. (LITV)

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. (LITV)

Which one is correct theology?

One more thing, please do not put words in my mouth to make it look like I said something I didn't say. I did not say the Bible is untrue.

What you said:

So there's no reason to claim that the bible is untrue.

 

[Heidi]

Fair enough, I will ask the question that you avoided again:

Am I to conclude that this "proof text" supports the notion that all are born with this "original sin"? Do you all take everything so literal? If so, please help me reconcile these two verses:

(note, I said reconcile, not rationalize)

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the belly, speaking lies. (LITV)

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. (LITV)

Which one is correct theology?

One more thing, please do not put words in my mouth to make it look like I said something I didn't say. I did not say the Bible is untrue.

What you said:

So there's no reason to claim that the bible is untrue.

First of all, I didn't avoid your post. I'm currently involved in 2 debates on the debate forum and several here. And I also have a life. So I'm getting really tired of the personal attacks from people who disagree with me, and from a moderator, no less. If you are right, then there's no need for personal attacks. If you are wrong, then your attacks are unwarranted. So if this continues, I won't stay much longer.

You have to operate from the principle that both verses are true because God does not lie. Only then will you find the corret interpretation because God doesn't contradict himself. And that is; Psalm 58:3 simply means that the wicked are estranged from God in the womb. That is explained by the fact that they "go astray from the belly speaking lies."

The second verse is a true statement about the sinful nature of man. It is reconciled to the 1st verse by God's election. All were conceieved in sin. Some were chosen to be wicked as Romans 9:16 and 9:21 says and others were chosen to be redeemed. So again, there is no contradiction there.

 

[Diolectic]

Concerning the history of the term Pelagian...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagian


This is a wiki quote. Augustine was part of the discussion. Augustines view of origional sin was supported at the council of Ephesus, and several other minor councils, I would not say that the view of original sin should be attributed solely to Augustine. This same councils condemned Pelagius as a heretic. The concept of "original sin" or "sin nature" was and still is a part of western Christianity.

I am therefore using the term Pelagian correctly to speak of anyone who denies original sin. In history, denial of original sin is a concept attributed to Pelagius. Please read the wiki article.

Just because a heritic says something doesn't make it wrong.
Benny Hinn and Kenneth Coppland say things that are true but that doesn't make the truth untrue.

Can you tell me any other possible reading of the words "by the offence of one?" What did the offence of one (Adam) cause? In that clause can you especially focus on the words "by." What did Adams offence cause?

The offence of one (Adam) caused judgment to condemnation, what eles would it have caused?
The condemnation was physical death to every one who will be born.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation[of physical death]; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of [physical] life.

Tell me, in the 2nd part of the verse, do you deny that "by one" (Christ) the free gift came upon all men into justification? The grammatical construction in the first part of the verse is the same ("by one"). So then, by one (Adam) comes judgement to condemnation.

Yes, I do deny that the free gift came upon all men into justification, because it is evident that all men are not justified.
The justification is conditional.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners[by the same manner of disobediance], so by the obedience of one shall[by the same manner of obediance] many be made righteous.

It must be meant this way, otherwise you have people bing saved involentarily just as being made sinners involentarily.
Furthermore, if all were made sinners then the same way there is universal salvation.

So let me ask you once again, what happened to mankind when the offense of one came? Nothing? Then why does Paul even say "by one?"

Read Romans 8:20-21, that is were you read of the condemnation.
This next part of verse agrees.
1Corinth 15:22a for as in Adam all [physically]die...

 

[Diolectic]

We're talking about babies having a sinful nature which Pslam 51:5, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

So since Atonement has said that everyone here believes the bible, then I will trust that you believe that verse also. Thus there's no reason to argue this point any more.

The bible is poetic, but it's also true. So there's no reason to claim that the bible is untrue. Since God himself is truth, then every word out of the mouth of God is also true.

If your goint to take every verse litral and make doctrine of what ever you read in the bible, make a doctrint that the sun moves and not the Earth.

The Bible says, "He can command the sun not to rise" (Job 9:7)
Notice that it does not say, "He can command the earth to stop moving."
God directed His command at the sun rather than the earth, that implies that the sun moves and not the Earth.

"The sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." (Eccles. 1:5)

Verses that spoke of the "rising" and "setting" of the sun, "hastening to its place" so that it may "rise there again," is not so easy to explain away. Why don't you make a daoctrin that the sun moved daily around the earth and not the Earth rotataing?

Compare Psalm 19:4-6 "In the heavens He has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them."

Surly you can't ignore these Verses that are straight from Scripture.

GO make a doctrin that the sum moves around the Earth and not the Earth rotataing.
You have plenty of Scriptural backing: The sun stood still, but it don't say that the Earth stood still.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the belly, speaking lies.

One must not take this verse literally, because infants can not speak lies more less speak.
Furthermore, what do they have to go astray from?

 

[mondar]

If your goint to take every verse litral and make doctrine of what ever you read in the bible, make a doctrint that the sun moves and not the Earth.

The Bible says, "He can command the sun not to rise" (Job 9:7)
Notice that it does not say, "He can command the earth to stop moving."
God directed His command at the sun rather than the earth, that implies that the sun moves and not the Earth.

"The sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." (Eccles. 1:5)

Verses that spoke of the "rising" and "setting" of the sun, "hastening to its place" so that it may "rise there again," is not so easy to explain away. Why don't you make a daoctrin that the sun moved daily around the earth and not the Earth rotataing?

Compare Psalm 19:4-6 "In the heavens He has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them."

Surly you can't ignore these Verses that are straight from Scripture.

GO make a doctrin that the sum moves around the Earth and not the Earth rotataing.
You have plenty of Scriptural backing: The sun stood still, but it don't say that the Earth stood still.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the belly, speaking lies.

One must not take this verse literally, because infants can not speak lies more less speak.
Furthermore, what do they have to go astray from?

The term "literal" is used to affirm historical, grammatical, literary interpretation. Literalists understand and interpret grammatical parables, metaphores, similies, poetry, and even apocalyptic literature in his literary context.

I think what Heidi is saying is that literalists do not use an allegorical methods of interpretation. I thought allegorism died with Origin. Neither do we spiritualize texts.