Inherited sin nature is wrong.

What are you asking?

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

 

That doesnt answer my question

 

Rom 6:16 KJV - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Sin = death
Obedience = righteousness

There is no third choice of freewill to choose righteousness. The default is death.

Rom 3:23 KJV - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 5:12 KJV - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If mankind has freewill, why did/do they all choose death?

 

Most I believe prefer sin because they are attracted to it. It's fun to them. The consequences are not fun but they don't wish to think of that. One person I tried to tell about Jesus flat out told me he didn't want to hear it and walked away. The next time I seen him I asked him why. He said he would not enjoy such a conversation and walked away again. Now when he see's me he always heads the other way. I can only assume that it's to hurtful in some way or he literally hates the idea that he needs a Savior. I'd like to tell him that it is far better to be in Christ than Satan.
MB

 

They die because of Adam...
Adam brought physical Death into the world
He didn't bring sin-guilt.....
It's so simple any idiot should see it.
Christ brought the physical resurrection.
Even the non-believer is resurrected.

Adam brought physical death,
Christ brings a resurrection,

Some are resurrected to the resurrection of life, and some to the
resurrection of death.

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Adam brought physical death.
They die because of it.

They aren't "Spiritually" dead in Adam...
Only their own sin can bring that.

The Scriptures couldn't be more clear and obvious.
Why can't you distinguish between the two?
Adam brought death death...like death....and stuff...
infants die because Adam brought death death, of the dying sort...

Spiritual life and death are not in view..
Babies don't suffer a Spiritual "Death" because of Adam.
But they die physically in Adam...
Just as in Christ all shall be made alive.
There's a Bible verse about that.

Even the sinners shall be made alive.
Read I Cor. 15 again...really, really, really, slowly.
You'll get it.

They only "Spiritually" die when they sin.

It takes a certain form of overly educated genius not to see this.

 

" being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." ( Romans 1:29-32 )

Good question.

" And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." ( John 3:19-20 )

I think that answers it.

 

Thank You.

 

" The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." ( Psalms 58:3 )

Then they are spiritually dead immediately, because they are already speaking lies the minute they are born.

 

That is the "wicked"...
Not everybody, it's right in the text pay attention to it.
The Psalmist doesn't consider himself the "wicked".

That's why after wishing God's vengeance upon them he writes in vs. 10 of the Psalm: "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked."
See that? Read the whole Psalm.

 

I agree.
The Psalmist, who is considered "righteous", is only righteous because of the grace of God ( Romans 8:33, Romans 11:7-8 ).
Those that are declared righteous by the blood of His Son ( Romans 5:9 ) are the only ones who are not "wicked" in the sight of God.

Please read the books of Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs and especially Romans to find out who the "righteous" are.
Anyone outside the body of Christ is considered to be "wicked" in the eyes of God, because they are not atoned for.


May God bless you.

 

The point is the Psalm cannot be made to be making an anthropological statement about man's nature, sin etc....
It is an imprecatory Psalm about wanting God to slay his enemies.....break bones, smack their teeth in etc..
The Psalmist assumes he is not one of the "wicked". It simply cannot be used to argue man's "sin nature" without doing violence to the text.
Furthermore, it says nothing of grace, God's blood, what makes the Psalmist "righteous" or anything else. We don't have a right to start rewriting the Scriptures at our leisure or reading the Psalmist through the lens of Isaiah, Proverbs or Romans.

Those books did not exist. They do not inform our understanding of the Psalm.
Please, do NOT read those books when trying to discover the meaning of that Psalm. That is cutting and plastering meanings onto the text that are not intended.
That is pure eisegesis.

I've perused those Scriptures before sir....that's why I don't agree with you.
It's also why I don't come to the Psalm with other books to superimpose on it.
I read it with the idea of discovering authorial intent....and the author has essentially nothing whatsoever to add to this particular conversation.

 

Truth is truth no matter what book of the Bible it is found in.
It all relates and fits together ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).
The proper understanding of God's word is developed when all of it is read to the exclusion of none of it.

What God said in Romans, for example, can be brought back into anywhere else, while what He said in the Psalms must be taken into account when Romans is read.

The Psalmist doesn't just assume he is not one of the wicked...he knows he is not one of them.
In addition, the text adds crucial pieces into the mix that give us a more complete picture of man's nature... his behaviour and attitude towards God, which is vital information no matter where in Scripture it is found.

Again, every word counts, and is connected to every other word and subject.

Who's re-writing it?
Certainly not me.

I'm simply understanding it in context with all the rest.

 

No part of God's word contradicts any other part of God's word.
His revelation of His word to men down through the centuries was progressive, and again, it all goes together.

I'm not "trying" to discover the meaning of anything.
I know what it says.

Eisegesis is the process by which someone reads into the Bible something it does not state.
Exegesis is reading out of Scripture what it does state.

But there's far more to reading the Bible than the just the "local", immediate context reading of it.
It's a book of letters meant to be understood as a whole...not broken down into "relevant verses" and passages.

With respect, I've studied Scripture for years...which is why I don't agree with you.
It's also why I bring in understanding from other books that make declarative statements, in order to understand the entirety of God's word.

I don't read it with the idea of discovering authorial intent.
I read it with the idea of believing exactly what it says...no more, no less.
The Author is the Holy Ghost, and He's added quite a bit since the Psalms were written...but they are no less valid now than they were then, and He has revealed more in the New Testament than what was revealed in the Old.

For example:

Isaiah 53.
We now know that this is a set of prophecies regarding the coming Messiah, who we look back to...not forward to, like the Psalmist did.
There are things the Psalmist and Isaiah were not made privy to, and were revealed by the Holy Ghost to Peter, John and to Paul, as well as others.


May God, in His grace, bless you in many ways.

 

1) What teaching of man?
2) What part of God's word contradicts the teaching that spiritual death is passed to all men through Adam?

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" ( Romans 5:12 ).

So, as it reads to me, it looks like this verse, all by itself is talknig about physical death, because there's not enough of the text to determine what typwe of death it's referring to.
But then I continue reading...
Romans 5:13-19.

Finally, I come to this:

" Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." ( Romans 5:20-21 )

There it is...the meaning of the "death".

It is contrasted with the meaning of the "life" that reigns through righteousness.
Eternal life...which is to know God and His Son ( John 17:3 ).
Which also leads to eternal physical life...the believer's glorification ( Romans 8:30 ).

2 Corinthians 5:17.
Every believer is a new creature is Christ.
They have new life.
Not spiritual death, which is to not know God and have a relationship with Him by the Holy Spirit.


His blessings to you, sir.

 

True, but that Psalm says nothing about anthropology.

Ultimately, yes. But you are not reading the Psalm for what it says....
You are ignoring what it actually says, and using other passages of Scripture to repurpose it.

Yes, and that Psalm is an imprecatory Psalm with nothing to say about anthropology.

No, it can't, that's bad exegesis....it's eisegesis.
You pretend to know what that means but, you are reading the Scripture wrongly.
You are reading Romans INTO Psalms....it doesn't work that way.
Even if it's Bible verses you are reading into it, you are still reading into it.

He speaks as though he is assured of it.
Nowhere does the text supply more info to affirm or deny that statement. You are assuming what is in the mind of the Psalmist without warrant. That is bad hermeneutic.

It says nothing about man's nature....nothing at all. You are assuming it, and adding other unrelated texts to it to make it say what you want, not what the Psalmist wants.

That is true.

That is not.

Yes, you are, by using other passages from other testaments from 1,000 years in the future....You are doing this, literally.

You are importing a future text from a millennia later in another language into it. You could not be doing more violence to it if you tried.