Human Nature versus Sinful nature

[The Biblicist]

Heb. 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Principle #1. The presence or absence of sin does not make the human nature in Adam before the fall or after the fall less or more human in nature.

Therefore it is a moot question to argue that Christ had to be made like unto fallen Adam in order to have a human nature like his "brethen" as the fall into sin did not make post-fallen Adam less human than Pre-fallen Adam. The sinful nature/principle is a parasite rather than part of human nature. The parasite is "passed" on in the "death" principle.

Principle #2. Christ was "made" like the Pre-fallen Adam unlike his "brethren" in the following ways:

a. No human father

b. Directly rather than through instrumental means by God (Adam was directly created by God and Christ was directly conceived in the womb by the Holy Spirit) unlike His "brethren" by instrumental means (father and mother with God in conception.

c. complete absence of sin in Pre-fallen Adam from direct creation to adulthood unlike his "brethren".

Principle #3 This text cannot be used to prove that his "brethren" were born without a sinful nature as a sinful nature does not determine the validity of human nature. The fall in Adam did not change his pre-fallen human nature into something other than human nature.

Principle #4. The Sin nature is passed from "father" to children through natural birth BUT the sins of the "father" are not passed to children through birth (Ezek. 18:20). The Sin nature is passed from "father" to children through natural birth because Adam stood in relationship to the whole human race differently than a "father" stands in relationship to either his children or all other mankind. It can be said of Adam "by one man's offence MANY be dead...MANY were made sinners" but this cannot be said of a "father" or his sins in relationship to his children or all humanity and to confuse the two is deceitful perversion of scriptures.


Conclusion: Human nature in PRE-fallen Adam existed without and apart from a sinful nature proving that the sinful nature does not determine what is and what is not human in nature.

Fallen Adam did not exist apart from a sinful nature but yet the fallen nature did not change human nature into a non-human nature.

Christ was "made" in all things like unto his "brethren" in regard to what is essential to human nature. Christ was not made like unto fallen Adam with a sinful nature but like unto Pre-fallen Adam without a sinful nature.

All his "brethren" were made like unto fallen Adam with a fallen nature FROM BIRTH as the fallen nature is passed on through the "father" to his children because of ADAM not because of the "father" for of Adam it is said "by one man's offence MANY be dead.....MANY were made sinners."

 

[plain_n_simple]

Who said anything about human nature? Or are you just addressing it in general?

 

[The Biblicist]

Who said anything about human nature? Or are you just addressing it in general?

If you had been following these threads dealing with this issue you would have seen the repeated, and I mean repeated quotation of this text in Jerry's responses.

 

[plain_n_simple]

I apoligize for bothering you sir.

 

[The Biblicist]

I apoligize for bothering you sir.

If you haven't been following the thread, then I am more than happy to inform you. Because you have made earlier comments I assumed you had been following the thread. No apology necessary.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In regard to what was added by the fall, Christ was "made" like unto pre-fallen Adam and Romans 5:15 and 1 Cor. 15:44-48 prove it! He was not "made" like post fallen Adam with indwelling sin and for you to say so contradicts both Romans 5:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:44-48 as the "SECOND Adam."

According to this you are making 'sin" out to be a "substance" that can indwell a body.

The Greek word that is translated "sin" is hamartia. I cannot find even one definition of that word which speaks of it being a "substance" that can dwell anywhere, much less in someone's body.

Please quote a Greek expert who gives a definition of hamartia which matches your idea that it is a "substance" that can literally indwell a person.

Thanks!

 

[The Biblicist]

According to this you are making 'sin" out to be a "substance" that can indwell a body.

The Greek word that is translated "sin" is hamartia. I cannot find even one definition of that word which speaks of it being a "substance" that can dwell anywhere, much less in someone's body.

Please quote a Greek expert who gives a definition of hamartia which matches your idea that it is a "substance" that can literally indwell a person.

Thanks!

I have told you point blank that I do not believe sin is a substance! What part of my denial do you not understand???

Death is at work in your body and indwelling sin is the principle/law that unleashes death to corrupt your body!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I have told you point blank that I do not believe sin is a substance! What part of my denial do you not understand???

What I do not understand what you said here if 'sin" is not a substance or something physical:

He was not "made" like post fallen Adam with indwelling sin and for you to say so contradicts both Romans 5:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:44-48 as the "SECOND Adam."

According to you post-fallen man is "made" with indwelling sin.

You also say:

The presence or absence of sin does not make the human nature in Adam before the fall or after the fall less or more human in nature.

How can there be a "presence" or "absence" of sin in a person if it isn't a "substance"?

You also say:

complete absence of sin in Pre-fallen Adam from direct creation to adulthood unlike his "brethren".

Again, you use the word "sin" as it is a substance that is either present or absence in a person's body.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Principle #2. Christ was "made" like the Pre-fallen Adam unlike his "brethren" in the following ways:

c. complete absence of sin in Pre-fallen Adam from direct creation to adulthood unlike his "brethren".

How can you say that there was a complete absence of "sin: in Adam since you define that sin in the following way?:

Sin is not a physical substance but a principle/law which is at work IN the phyiscal material nature of man and ultimate death will prove it!

It is obvious that that principle was at work in the Pre-fallen Adam because his own actions lead to his ultimate death, both physical and spiritual.

So you have not been able to demonstrate that there is any difference between the Pre-fallen Adam and Post-fallen man.

 

[billwald]

Isn't our "sin nature" caused by defective DNA?

If a sample of Jesus' DNA was available, would it be "scientifically" human DNA?

 

[The Biblicist]

According to this you are making 'sin" out to be a "substance" that can indwell a body.

The Greek word that is translated "sin" is hamartia. I cannot find even one definition of that word which speaks of it being a "substance" that can dwell anywhere, much less in someone's body.

Please quote a Greek expert who gives a definition of hamartia which matches your idea that it is a "substance" that can literally indwell a person.

Thanks!

Do you know the difference between MATERIAL and SPIRITUAL substance? It is not found in the word "figurative" as both can be very literal. Indwelling sin is SPIRITUAL and it wars against the soul which is spritual and not figurative.

 

[marke]

According to this you are making 'sin" out to be a "substance" that can indwell a body.

The Greek word that is translated "sin" is hamartia. I cannot find even one definition of that word which speaks of it being a "substance" that can dwell anywhere, much less in someone's body.

Please quote a Greek expert who gives a definition of hamartia which matches your idea that it is a "substance" that can literally indwell a person.

Thanks!

The Apostle Paul confessed in a very difficult passage to comprehend in some ways that when he sinned after salvation, it was "Now then no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me (Rom. 7:17)." We have this perfect treasure (Christ in us) in earthen vessels (the flesh). The flesh has a powerful influence on our new nature, which is why we are told that the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh so that (without God's intervention at our prayerful request) we cannot do the things we should. That is exactly what Paul was saying in Rom. 7.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marke, I know only with God are all things possible, and without Him we can do nothing. Still yet, if we fail is it because we 'could not' or because we 'will not?' I would maintain the later even in light of Romans 7. That chapter need to be addressed all by itself at some point in time.

Will not and cannot are closely related at times, and can be miles apart other times. For instance, 'cannot' may in reality mean 'will not' but not always. I might say, I cannot go to the places I used to go, when in reality I mean, I will not go. I might say I will not go today, when in reality I mean I cannot due to some obstacle. Such is the case with common parlance that I believe Scripture uses. One cannot always set strict rules in place for cannot and will not as well as many other expressions in communicating ideas, even in Scripture.


Here is a Scriptural example of "cannot" that I would interpret as suggesting an unwillingness to sin and not an impossibility of sinning.

1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

[marke]

Marke, I know only with God are all things possible, and without Him we can do nothing. Still yet, if we fail is it because we 'could not' or because we 'will not?' I would maintain the later even in light of Romans 7. That chapter need to be addressed all by itself at some point in time.

Will not and cannot are closely related at times, and can be miles apart other times. For instance, 'cannot' may in reality mean 'will not' but not always. I might say, I cannot go to the places I used to go, when in reality I mean, I will not go. I might say I will not go today, when in reality I mean I cannot due to some obstacle. Such is the case with common parlance that I believe Scripture uses. One cannot always set strict rules in place for cannot and will not as well as many other expressions in communicating ideas, even in Scripture.

First John 3:9 actually makes the point that Christ in us cannot sin. When we are born again, old things are passed away and all things become new (2 Cor. 5:17). We have this perfect treasure in us which is Christ in us, the hope of Glory (Col. 1:27). Our new creature (Gal. 6:15) is not just a new man, but a new creature which is born of God with God's nature imparted. This is a mystery and may be hard to understand, but it is true nonetheless.

The Bible calls this new nature and relationship with God a mystery and hard to be understood. 1 Tim. 3:16 speaks of the mystery of Christ being manifest in the flesh, which does not only refer to Christ's single body but also to Christ being united with His children in each of their new creatures. Even after we are saved we have nothing to glory of because it is Christ in us which gives us the glory we share with Him. Eph. 5:32 speaks of the mystery of Christ and His child becoming one as typified by a marriage relationship.

FONT=Georgia]Here is a Scriptural example of "cannot" that I would interpret as suggesting an unwillingness to sin and not an impossibility of sinning.[/FONT]

1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I actually finished above this and didn't know it, but I'm done for now.

 

[plain_n_simple]

First John 3:9 actually makes the point that Christ in us cannot sin. When we are born again, old things are passed away and all things become new (2 Cor. 5:17). We have this perfect treasure in us which is Christ in us, the hope of Glory (Col. 1:27). Our new creature (Gal. 6:15) is not just a new man, but a new creature which is born of God with God's nature imparted. This is a mystery and may be hard to understand, but it is true nonetheless.

The Bible calls this new nature and relationship with God a mystery and hard to be understood. 1 Tim. 3:16 speaks of the mystery of Christ being manifest in the flesh, which does not only refer to Christ's single body but also to Christ being united with His children in each of their new creatures. Even after we are saved we have nothing to glory of because it is Christ in us which gives us the glory we share with Him. Eph. 5:32 speaks of the mystery of Christ and His child becoming one as typified by a marriage relationship.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

First John 3:9 actually makes the point that Christ in us cannot sin. When we are born again, old things are passed away and all things become new (2 Cor. 5:17). We have this perfect treasure in us which is Christ in us, the hope of Glory (Col. 1:27). Our new creature (Gal. 6:15) is not just a new man, but a new creature which is born of God with God's nature imparted. This is a mystery and may be hard to understand, but it is true nonetheless.

The Bible calls this new nature and relationship with God a mystery and hard to be understood. 1 Tim. 3:16 speaks of the mystery of Christ being manifest in the flesh, which does not only refer to Christ's single body but also to Christ being united with His children in each of their new creatures. Even after we are saved we have nothing to glory of because it is Christ in us which gives us the glory we share with Him. Eph. 5:32 speaks of the mystery of Christ and His child becoming one as typified by a marriage relationship.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

This is only HALF the truth! While I do not deny any of this, there is simply more to the Christian then the "new" man! There is a battle going on inside the Christian and it is not between the New man and the New man!

There is something inside the Christian that daily must be put to death and it is not the new man we are putting to death (Rom. 8:11-12).

There is the command to "walk in the Spirit" and not "after the flesh" and there is a distinction between being "in the flesh" versus "walking after the flesh."

The New man cannot sin (1 Jn. 3:9; 5:16) but the Christian can sin because there is more to the Christian than the new man.

The New man cannot sin (1 Jn. 3:9; 5:16) but the Christian is in a process of PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION and so there is more to the Christian than merely the new man.

Romans 7:14 properly defines the problem for all Christians. There is an element in our human nature that is completely sold under sin (v. 15-18) and ultimately will die (Rom. 7:23) and must be put to death daily by the power of the Holy Spirit and will never be saved but must DIE or be glorified at the rapture or raised incorruptible because it never ceases to be corrupted in this life. Failure to understand this simple point will manifest itself in a wrong view of human nature, a wrong view of sanctification and wrong view of salvation.

 

[plain_n_simple]

I think I can agree with that.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you know the difference between MATERIAL and SPIRITUAL substance? It is not found in the word "figurative" as both can be very literal. Indwelling sin is SPIRITUAL and it wars against the soul which is spritual and not figurative.

Please quote a Greek expert who defines the Greek word translated "sin" as sometyhing that "wars against the soul."

Also, please quote a Greek expert where a definition of the same word is given as something that can actually dwell in a person.

Principle #2 Christ was "made" like the Pre-fallen Adam unlike his "brethren" in the following ways:
c. complete absence of sin in Pre-fallen Adam from direct creation to adulthood unlike his "brethren".

How can you say that there was a complete absence of "sin" in Adam since you define that sin in the following way?:

Sin is not a physical substance but a principle/law which is at work IN the phyiscal material nature of man and ultimate death will prove it!

It is obvious that that principle was at work in the Pre-fallen Adam because his own actions lead to his ultimate death, both physical and spiritual.

So you have not been able to demonstrate that there is any difference between the Pre-fallen Adam and Post-fallen man.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: The New man cannot sin (1 Jn. 3:9; 5:16) but the Christian can sin because there is more to the Christian than the new man.

HP: A whole lot more according to at least one on this list, that claims he sins every day in thought word and deed.

If the least that can be said of a new man in Christ, i.e., sin has became the abnormality in ones life as opposed to the normal way of life as a sinner, what earthly good is the new man?

This total divorce between what one is said to positionally in Christ and the common lifestyles they live daily, is a complete disconnect between the life of believers as described in Scripture and supported by reason. If ones daily life is not clearly in keeping with ones faith, their faith is not placed in the object of true faith, Jesus Christ, and love towards God and obedience to his commands.

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?


Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

 

[The Biblicist]

Please quote a Greek expert who defines the Greek word translated "sin" as sometyhing that "wars against the soul."

Do you regard the Apostle Paul a sufficiently qualified Greek expert?

Rom. 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

I think this one text answers every objection you have given in this post.


1. The law that wars against "the mind" is the law "OF SIN"

2. Sin exists "IN" his members, defined by context as "the flesh" or "my body"

3. This law did not dwell "IN" Adam's prefallen body because it is also called the law of "DEATH" in the same context.