Featured The Sin Nature

Paul that that the good he does is "Christ in him"


There are two options (biblically) - flesh and spirit. Adam was created flesh, and we were born flesh. Flesh cannot please God.

The Word was God and was with God. God is Spirit. But the Word became flesh. Flesh-Spirit....100%man - 100% God.

We do struggle between the flesh and spirit where those not born of the Spirit don't. Jesus was tempted by the flesh but submitted all things to the will of the Father.

No 3rd type of "nature" needed for us to sin. The desires of the flesh absent the will of the Spirit equates to sin every time.

 

I'm taking it slow . Just this point.

If the "sin nature" refers to the nature opposed to the Spirit (Scripture gives us two natures - spirit and flesh) then Adam certainly had this nature as evidenced by his transgression.

Had Adam not had a nature that desired things not of the spirit then Adam would have never sinned.

Sin was unknown, until they sinned. I was not guilty of lying until I lied.

Human nature (this "sin nature", or "flesh") is not a sin in and of itself. Jesus had desires of the flesh that did not align with the will of the Father. But He submitted to the Fathers will, He set His mind on the Spirit.


What changed immediaty after Adam ate of the fruit?

Not their nature (they still desired things of the flesh). Their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

 

I never said they lost innocence. I never said they didnt fall. It is follish to assign to me things I never said.

What I did was give you what the Bible says happened immediately after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

That is this "fall".

I did deny that Adam's nature changed. The readon is Scripture. The Bible does not say Adam's nature changed. In fact, the Bible tells us that Adam sinned by following his desires rather than God's command. Paul stresses this by pointing out Adam was flesh while Jesus "became a life giving Spirit".

Exactly what verse ate you looking at that states Adam's nature changed?

 

@Charlie24 ,

I never quite understood why so many Protestants retained the Catholic view of original sin and all change in nature.

This was vital to Catholic theology, but not so much for most Protestant theologies. Maybe Presbyterians and Methodists....but not for most Baptists.

I believe that the Bible gives us a complete account of what we need to know about Adam's transgression. The only reason to add extra-biblical doctrines or enhancements is if one believes the Bible does not make sence.

This is the reason we started this conversation- to look at what God's Word says about these issues.


Here is an illustration - my dog likes to obey me because he likes the praise. But my dog acts on his canine nature. He likes praise. Sometimes he does not do what I want him to do, or he gripes very loudly about obedience.

This is not my dog doing evil. Now, if my dog had his eyes opened, became like us knowing good and evil, then he could be accountable for his disobedience.

His nature wouldn't change. And this would mean he would still follow his instinct or desires. But he would do this knowingly. And he would be a slave to disobedience.

Now....if I became a dog, with that canine nature, but also with my human nature, then I could show him a better way IF I could somehow endow him with a human nature (I can't). He would have to die to that canine nature and be made alive in a human nature.


That is a silly illustration, I know. But it highlights what the Bible says Jesus did for us.

 

Gotcha. It's for others who may read the thread. That is often important, and sorry I thought it was directed at my post.

My position is Adam and Eve lost innocence. Their natures, however, remained flesh. This is the reason for Adam's transgression. Had Adam been "of the Spirit" and set his mind on spiritual things then he would have been obedient. Paul covers this very well in explaining the difference between the First Adam and Christ as a type of Adam.

 

This is what I was getting at.

I define "biblical" by being in the text of Scripture ("what is written"). That's why I believe the Doctrine of the Trinity (it is in the text of Scripture....not in one place but you can actually quote Scripture).

You seem to define "biblical" as what you believe the Bible ultimately teaches.

The problem with that definition is it means you can never actually test doctrine against "what is written". You have to test what you believe is ultimately taught by the Bible by what you believe the Bible teaches.


This is why we will have to agree to disagree. I was hoping that you had some passages that you believe described Adam's nature changing (his instinct or desires changing). But there are none (I also knew this going in).

 

Please provide a passage stating that "being of the Spirit" was different before sin entered the world.

 

I agree. Everybody does believe their ideas are biblical.

A lot has to do with criteria. To have a meaningful discussion we should have a common criteria.

With our discussion we cannot because we are not talking about different interpretations but a different criteria.

I believe we have to, as best we can, stick with God's Word ("what is written" in Scripture). We will still have disagreements but these will be about interpretation.

There is no mention of Adam's nature changing, of "being of the Spirit" changing, of Jesus having a different human nature than the rest of mankind.


How do you test your belief if not against "what is written"?

 

The problem is it is impossible to test what you believe is taught against what you think the Bible teaches and have any objective standard.

What if the flow of Scripture is actually the Biblical narrative?

Why look for subjective meanings when Scripture makes sence without making us the criteria of its meaning?

Why would God give us so much detail and yet not give us your ideas if your ideas are true?

 

Oh....I agree we have to agree to disagree.

I'm not trying to understand your position (I get that) but your process.


You asked me what happened immediately after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

My answer was that their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

My thought process - the Bible tells us that immediately after eating the fruit their eyes were opened and they became like God knowing good and evil.

Your answer was that Adam's nature changed, that "being of the Spirit" was different before Adam transgressed God's command.


I am interested in how you arrive at that conclusion and exactly how you test that against Scripture.

 

I always think back to Adam in that situation in the Garden. God created Adam, planted a garden, and then took Adam and put him in the Garden.

I also believe this was in accordance with God's plan.