Sin Nature or Human Nature?

[Vic C.]

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.

But it's fine for you to attack our beliefs simply because you disagree, then get upset when we question yours.

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.

Both cannot be correct. Psalm 51:5 says David was shaped in iniquity at conception. Psalms 58:3 says they go astray as soon as they were born. You are abusing the Psalmist's poetic licence by forming doctrine from verses that don't quite support it. That is bad exegesis.

I refuse to use Romans 9 as proof text because it's not about the ekkselia. Many of us have went over this passage and gave many good reasons why it's wrong to do so. You need to understand right division of the Word and realize God had plans for some of Israel to be chosen for salvation and some not. It's the only group of people, that when all is said and done, only 1/3 will be chosen.

Aah, the dangers of literally interpreting text outside of it's historical and cultural context. Heidi, is Jesus literally a gate? Did He really mean for someone to pluck out their eye? Is He really bread? Is HE really living water, or are those all "figures of speech"? What is your basis for taking everything in a literal sense? Are you are dog? Jesus seems to think so.

Personally, your way of interpreting Scripture leaves a lot to be desired. Please take this as constructive criticism. If you can't deal with opposition, then maybe debate isn't your calling.

 

[mondar]

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.

Really? LOL, I dont know what more I can say. Church history has judged Pelagius as teaching heresy.

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.

For a universal effect to happen such as death, there has to be a universal cause. The universal cause of death is sin. The sin was Adams. We all sinned in Adam and so we all die. That is called "original sin."

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

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.

This is a dog trail. I never meant to suggest universalism. I recognize that in the context the word "all" is referring to "all elect. Both the verse you quoted (19) and also in verse 15 it makes that clear in the context, so I recognize that Christ atonement is limited in its application to the elect. I do not believe in universalism. Again, you are going off on a dog trail.

By the way, verse 19 is very clear. Many are made sinners by the disobedience of one man. We sin then, because in Adam we were made sinners. That is also called "original sin."

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...

Again, I continue to point out that the reason for the condemnation (and death) is Adams sin, not ours. You continue to point out that condemnation refers to death and avoid the point. I don't know how I can be more clear.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners...

 

[Vic C.]

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.

I agree with that and from now on, I will try to remember to use the word literalistic from now on. Literalistic interpretations are the preference of many people here and they do not take historical and cultural context, as well as literary writing styles into consideration.

 

[mondar]

I agree with that and from now on, I will try to remember to use the word literalistic from now on. Literalistic interpretations are the preference of many people here and they do not take historical and cultural context, as well as literary writing styles into consideration.

Vic C.
That was charitable, I appreciate it. Possibly you disagree on the exegesis of those particular texts with Heidi, but I think you and her use the same hermeneutic. How about that! You and Heidi agree on something!!

I should go back read the thread again to catch the essence of your conversations on those verses, but I am too tired now. Bedtime.

 

[Heidi]

Both cannot be correct. Psalm 51:5 says David was shaped in iniquity at conception. Psalms 58:3 says they go astray as soon as they were born. You are abusing the Psalmist's poetic licence by forming doctrine from verses that don't quite support it. That is bad exegesis.

I refuse to use Romans 9 as proof text because it's not about the ekkselia. Many of us have went over this passage and gave many good reasons why it's wrong to do so. You need to understand right division of the Word and realize God had plans for some of Israel to be chosen for salvation and some not. It's the only group of people, that when all is said and done, only 1/3 will be chosen.

Aah, the dangers of literally interpreting text outside of it's historical and cultural context. Heidi, is Jesus literally a gate? Did He really mean for someone to pluck out their eye? Is He really bread? Is HE really living water, or are those all "figures of speech"? What is your basis for taking everything in a literal sense? Are you are dog? Jesus seems to think so.

Personally, your way of interpreting Scripture leaves a lot to be desired. Please take this as constructive criticism. If you can't deal with opposition, then maybe debate isn't your calling.

There's a huge difference between attacking people's beliefs and making personal comments about them, Vic. Do you not attack the beliefs of atheists? Or do you agree with the beliefs of atheists? :o So you need to elarn the difference between attacking a person's beliefs and making comments about him personally. When discussing issues, particularly concerning the bible, all people need to accept that other will disagree with them. That should be accepted without attacks on their person. You also attack my beliefs but I do not make personal attacks about you or infer that you are deliberately avoiding my posts if you don't answer them. I trust that you will give me the same courtesy.

Sorry, Vic, but the bible does not contradict itself. So if you claim that those verses contradict each other, then your interpretation of them is incorrect because God does not lie. It's that simple. :wink:

The bible doesn't just contain parables and metaphors. God is also very direct such as when Jesus tells us that he's the only way to God and that we need to be born again of the holy Spirit. If it was all metaphors and parables then his word could never be made clear to his chosen and would therefore be a waste of time.The Catholics also use that reasoning when claiming that mary was a virgin all her life. By your reasoning, then any interpretation of the bible is correct. But that's not true because all the interpretations disagee with each other and God doesn't contradict himself. So if you find verses that cotradict each other, then your interpretation is incorrect. there's no other way to say it. :wink:

 

[jgredline]

sigh

 

[Diolectic]

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.

Really? LOL, I dont know what more I can say. Church history has judged Pelagius as teaching heresy.

Then why do a lot of christians agree with me and Finney on this subject?
Not all agree with ""sin nature/original sin".

For a universal effect to happen such as death, there has to be a universal cause.

Why?

The universal cause of death is sin. The sin was Adams. We all sinned in Adam and so we all die. That is called "original sin

If the universal cause of death is sin, then why do plants and animals die? do they sin?
Furthermore, no where in the Bible says, "all sinned in Adam", but it does say, "in Adam all die (1Co 15:22)

I never meant to suggest universalism.

But, you do when you claim that Rom 5:19 means many were made sinners involentarily.

I recognize that in the context the word "all" is referring to "all elect.

That is conjecture.; The elect must always be in conection with Gods foreknowlege.
He foreknew who would love Him, therefore He elected them.

For example:
I know my wife so well that I know that she will choose "Olive Guarden" over all other restaurants
if it is in the choises.
Therefore I make reservations before I ask and order her usual meal all before I ask.

It was all predetermind, and she had all the chances to go anywhere els in the choices, but I foreknew that we were going to "Olive Guarden"

Another example:
I am alreay at "Olive Guarden" and I will only elect those to come to where I am eating, that want to be at "Olive Guarden" with me.
I foreknew that some hate me and do not like where I am.
However, I love those who hate me enough to make away for them to come and dine with me, and give the invitation out to all who love and hate me.

I recognize that Christ atonement is limited in its application to the elect. I do not believe in universalism. Again, you are going off on a dog trail.

You are proving your ignorance of the atonement by saying that.
None the less, universalism is not correct eather.

Limited Atonement is only effectual after one believes which makes the atonement of Christ a potential work instead of an active work, exclusive and not inclusive.
Ones who hold to this doctrine deny the power of Christ' making peace between God and all mankind(1Tim 2:5), while they make atonement to be the salvation of only those who are elected.

By the way, verse 19 is very clear. Many are made sinners by the disobedience of one man. We sin then, because in Adam we were made sinners. That is also called "original sin."

No where in the Bible says, "in Adam we were made sinners." But, as I keep showing you, In Adam all die (1Corinth 15:22)
That is the only thing that happens "in Adam"

Tell me, How are all men in Rom 5:19 universaly made sinners, if all men are not universaly made righteous in reality?

Remember, if one part of the verse is universal, the second part must be universal.

Again, I continue to point out that the reason for the condemnation (and death) is Adams sin, not ours.

It does not say that the condemnation (and death) is Adams sin.
The condemnation was death.
How could the condemnation be sin when there is no implication of that?

how I can be more clear.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners...

You could be alot more clear if you made some sense.
You don't even know what Romans 5:19 is saying.
Don't you agree to the way I've shown?

 

[mondar]

Then why do a lot of christians agree with me and Finney on this subject?
Not all agree with ""sin nature/original sin".

I think you use the term "christian" loosely. Finney was a heretic also.

mondar wrote:
For a universal effect to happen such as death, there has to be a universal cause.

Why?

Because that is what the text is talking about.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead,
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners

Verse 19 is the capstone. Do you believe that "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners?" You can receite your mantra over and over again, "no, it does not mean that," "it cannot mean that." But the verse is still there staring you in the eye. How were we made sinners? By one mans disobedience. Original sin cannot be any more clear then that! Can you figure out from verse 19 what would go in the black space below?
How were men made sinners_________________________ (Hint-by one mans disobedience.

mondar wrote:
The universal cause of death is sin. The sin was Adams. We all sinned in Adam and so we all die. That is called "original sin

If the universal cause of death is sin, then why do plants and animals die? do they sin?

This is a gasser. I should not be laughing, I know that. You are making points in my favor and don't even realize it. No, plants and animans do not die because of their own personal sin -----> Hint hint, "all die in Adam" ----->not personal sin.

Furthermore, no where in the Bible says, "all sinned in Adam", but it does say, "in Adam all die (1Co 15:22)

Those exact words to not appear, but verse 19 says this same thing in different words.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners
---Why are men sinners? One mans disobedience?
---What did one mans disobedience do? Make many men sinners?

You are proving your ignorance of the atonement by saying that.
None the less, universalism is not correct eather.

Limited Atonement is only effectual after one believes which makes the atonement of Christ a potential work instead of an active work, exclusive and not inclusive.
Ones who hold to this doctrine deny the power of Christ' making peace between God and all mankind(1Tim 2:5), while they make atonement to be the salvation of only those who are elected.

"which makes the atonement of Christ a potential work instead of an active work"

"Ones who hold to this doctrine deny the power of Christ' making peace between God and all mankind(1Tim 2:5)"

What contradiction you state above. On the one hand, you say that Christs death does not save, but is mere "potential" salvation. On the other hand you accuse othes of denying the power of Christ to save! These two statements are very inconsistant. Where in the bible do you see Christs death as a potential salvation?

I think it would be better for me to quit here. If you deny verse 19 demonstrates that we were made sinners by Adams disobedience, then any dialogue seems fruitless.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners
(Adam sin) (made) (us sinners)

I think I will stick with historical orthodox christianity rather then the pelagian heresy. Good luck.

 

[Diolectic]

I think you use the term "christian" loosely. Finney was a heretic also.

A Christian is a person who holds the sacrifice of Christ as the payment for the penalty of their own sin and believes in the resurection of Christ, with that, they have a relationship with God through Christ. Finney is not a heartic that distorts the doctrin of Christ and HIS sacrifice and resurection.
Would you call someone who has a difderent oppinion of the Gifts of the Spirit a heritic?

Because that is what the text is talking about.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead,
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners

Rom 5:12,-18 says Physical death came because of one sin. However, there is no charge for Adams sin. To be charged with sin is spiritual death.
However Romans 19 does not say that "by one man".

it says "as by one man" meaning to comare to "so also".

Therefore, how do people become sinners?
Man becomes a sinner the same way man is made righteous, by an act. The act for becomming righteous is putting faith in HIM, the act for becomming a sinner sinning.

You cannot ingnore this, because if one is made a sinner involentarily, then you have people being made righteous involentarily.

Furtheremore, if one is made a sinner without a choice or against the will, then you have people being made righteous without a choice of putting faith in Christ or against the will.
Righteousness is only by choosing to believe(Gen 15:6), therefore being made a sinner is only by choosing to sin.

This is a gasser. I should not be laughing, I know that. You are making points in my favor and don't even realize it. No, plants and animans do not die because of their own personal sin -----> Hint hint, "all die in Adam" ----->not personal sin.

Hint hint, Plants and animals are not in Adam, to "die in Adam" that is foolishness.

The word "die" in 1Corinth 15:22 is a spiritual death. It must be spiritual death, because Christains are no longer "in Adam" but are "in Christ" and still die physicaly.
Adams sin brought physical death not spiritual death. Man brings that on himself by his own sin:
For the wages of sin is (spiritual)death; but the gift of God is eternal life(spiritual life) through Jesus Christ our Lord Rom 6:23.

Furthermore, no where in the Bible says, "all sinned in Adam", but it does say, "in Adam all die (1Co 15:22)

Those exact words to not appear, but verse 19 says this same thing in different words.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners
---Why are men sinners? One mans disobedience?
---What did one mans disobedience do? Make many men sinners?

I think you ar egetting messed up on this very verse of Romans 5:19

Why are men sinners?
It can not be from Adam sin, because no one is charged of anothers sin, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father(Eze 18:20)

What did one mans disobedience do?
It caused the creation to be subjected to futility and to a bondage of corruption(Romans 8:20-21)

What contradiction you state above. On the one hand, you say that Christs death does not save, but is mere "potential" salvation.

No, I said that Limited Atonement is a potential work and is exclusive instead of an active work.
True Atonement is an active work & inclusive. Limited Atonement is potential and exclusive.
True, I do say that Christs death does not save, because the work of Christ on His cross only makes away for salvation.
The salvation it's self comes from the relationship one has with Him.

I think it would be better for me to quit here. If you deny verse 19 demonstrates that we were made sinners by Adams disobedience, then any dialogue seems fruitless.

Why stop because of miscommunication?
I tryed to explain Rom 5:19 but you seem to not understand how I am explaining it.
Please tell me how you see that I explain it.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners
(Adam sin) (made) (us sinners)

Our own sin makes us sinners.
If the first part of V:19 is universaly making man sinners involentarily and without an act of sin on a man's own part, then the second part of the verse must say that Christ's obedience make righteousness universal and involentarily and without an act of faith also.

Do you understand?

 

[Heidi]

You could be alot more clear if you made some sense.
You don't even know what Romans 5:19 is saying.
Don't you agree to the way I've shown?

(quote)No where in the Bible says, "in Adam we were made sinners." (quote)

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 we all sinned-for before the lwas was given, sin was in the world." It couldn't be clearer that we were all made sinners through Adam.

 

[Diolectic]

(quote)No where in the Bible says, "in Adam we were made sinners." (quote)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 we all sinned-for before the lwas was given, sin was in the world." It couldn't be clearer that we were all made sinners through Adam.

Nobody can sin in anothers place, therefore we can not have already sinned while not even born yet.
The verse is not saying that we sinned in Adam, that would be rediculous.

Did you actualy sin when your mom or dad sinned befor you were actualy born?
No, it is imposable for that to be even thought of in reality.
Sin has motive and intent, you did not even exist yet to have a motive nor an intent to sin.

Can we please stay in reality?

The verse is only saying that all haved sinned that were born.
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 that were born.

If it were not that, then death passed on those who are not even alive yet and that would not make any sense eather.

 

[Vic C.]

sigh

My sentiments exactly. I don't fret it though; my beliefs on interpreting the Bible are somewhat inline with some of the best Bible scholars and commentators in history; the likes of Newton, Wesley, Clarke, Bullinger and others. All led by the Spirit, btw. Men who took history and cultural context and Biblical Hebrew and Greek into consideration. So, I am in good company.

 

[Heidi]

My sentiments exactly. I don't fret it though; my beliefs on interpreting the Bible are somewhat inline with some of the best Bible scholars and commentators in history; the likes of Newton, Wesley, Clarke, Bullinger and others. All led by the Spirit, btw. Men who took history and cultural context and Biblical Hebrew and Greek into consideration. So, I am in good company.

Mine are in line with my one teacher an that is Christ. So my company couldn't get any better.

 

[Free]

So if you find verses that cotradict each other, then your interpretation is incorrect.

And what if someone else's interpretation contradicts yours?

 

[Heidi]

And what if someone else's interpretation contradicts yours?

I just quote the bible. So if someone's interpretation contradicts the bible, then it's wrong, plain and simply.

 

[Free]

So if someone's interpretation contradicts your interpretation then you're right and they're wrong. Why is that?

 

[Heidi]

So if someone's interpretation contradicts your interpretation then you're right and they're wrong. Why is that?

Do you know the difference between a quote and an interpretation? or not? if not, then I can see why you didn't understand my answer. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." That is a quote. I just believe it." But when "interpretations" come in is when people start changing some words around, maybe adding or subtracting words from scripture. For example, adding the word "not" after the word "am" is an interpretation. Otherwise, the words are easily understandable as written. But if one doesn't believe those words, then he starts to "interpret" them and put his own slant in there by changing the words around to suit his desires.

 

[Diolectic]

Do you know the difference between a quote and an interpretation? or not? if not, then I can see why you didn't understand my answer. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." That is a quote. I just believe it." But when "interpretations" come in is when people start changing some words around, maybe adding or subtracting words from scripture. For example, adding the word "not" after the word "am" is an interpretation. Otherwise, the words are easily understandable as written. But if one doesn't believe those words, then he starts to "interpret" them and put his own slant in there by changing the words around to suit his desires.

Some time the only way to understand a verse that is translated straight from the greek is to add words.

For example:
The Greek would say this in the English syntax: John 1:13 who begotten not from bloods, neither from will flesh, neither from will man, but from God.

To make it understandable, one must add words: John 1:13 "who were begotten not from bloods, neither from the will of the flesh, neither from the will of a man, but from God.
However, The way to actualy understand what the writer meant:
The intent of this verse is stating:
who were begotten, not from human descent(bloods), neither from a procreation(will of the flesh), neither from a husband’s desire for offspring [by adoption] (will of a man)

This is the only way to read it in context.

 

[Heidi]

Some time the only way to understand a verse that is translated straight from the greek is to add words.

For example:
The Greek would say this in the English syntax: John 1:13 who begotten not from bloods, neither from will flesh, neither from will man, but from God.

To make it understandable, one must add words: John 1:13 "who were begotten not from bloods, neither from the will of the flesh, neither from the will of a man, but from God.
However, The way to actualy understand what the writer meant:
The intent of this verse is stating:
who were begotten, not from human descent(bloods), neither from a procreation(will of the flesh), neither from a husband’s desire for offspring [by adoption] (will of a man)

This is the only way to read it in context.

Funny, I've never hadf to look up the original texts because the bible makes perfect sense to me without having to do so.

But I did get the Interlinear bible which has the Greek, Hebrew and Ebglish translations, for purposes of witnessing to people who do look up old texts hoping to find an aleternate meaning in the verses of their current bible. And the differences are so few that the meaning is never changed in any of the translations. The only time people even look up old ttranslations is if they don't like or understand what the bible in their native languages says. So instead of trying to look for the meaning that one wants to find in the old languages, all one has to do is search other scripture in their current translation and they will find the correct meaning. That's because God wrote the bible and doesn't contradict himself. So you can never go wrong "interpreting" scripture by other scripture instead of quibbling about words in translations.

 

[jgredline]

Funny, I've never hadf to look up the original texts because the bible makes perfect sense to me without having to do so.

But I did get the Interlinear bible which has the Greek, Hebrew and Ebglish translations, for purposes of witnessing to people who do look up old texts hoping to find an aleternate meaning in the verses of their current bible. And the differences are so few that the meaning is never changed in any of the translations. The only time people even look up old ttranslations is if they don't like or understand what the bible in their native languages says. So instead of trying to look for the meaning that one wants to find in the old languages, all one has to do is search other scripture in their current translation and they will find the correct meaning. That's because God wrote the bible and doesn't contradict himself. So you can never go wrong "interpreting" scripture by other scripture instead of quibbling about words in translations.

Heidi
This is nonsense...AND SPOKEN OUT OF IGNORANCE...
I can read Greek fluently and I can tell you that once you understand the Greek Grammar you will know the reason why God choose the language he did to pen his NT....For example...''99% of folks who read Matt 16:18-19 believe the Church was built upon Peter...Why???Because this is what the english translations say, yet when one reads it in the Greek, it is clear the Church was built on Jesus and one does not need to cross reference this to see it....It would be clear to those who read Matt Gospel...

Now as far as this debate goes, I disagree with Diolectic...