All humans, except for Adam when first created, and Jesus, were born with a sin nature, and already in the state of being spiritually dead and at war with God, correct?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Human Sacrifice that Saves Those Under the Law by the Shed Blood of the Son of God
- Thread starter Steven Yeadon
- Start date
- Status
I already told you, brother, that I am not interested in exploring the topic more than is revealed in Scripture itself. Scripture speaks of two natures while you deal in three. Our presuppositions do not align enough for a beneficial conversation as I am not interested in hypothetical or philosophical arguments.
The bible states that our flesh was corrupted by the Fall, that we born as sinners, so Jesus would have been in the same boat, correct?
What verse in the Bible states that our flesh was corrupted by the Fall?
Adam tasted spiritual and physical death when he fell....
Their eyes were openned up when they sinned, so they now were creatures who lived apart from God, now estranged from Him, no longer in a spiritual connection with Him... Sinners....
I know what Scripture says and I am familiar with your conclusions. This third nature (a second type of "flesh") is a hypothesis based on your philosophical argument. I already told you I'm not interested in musing about "square circles".
Did anyting different change in Adam after he sinned?
The only thing that changed "in Adam" (per Scripture) is that his eyes were opened - then "the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil". (Genesis 3:22)
But insofar as human flesh being corrupted by the Fall in terms of a "sin nature", this is not in Scripture itself. It is a conclusion that you (based, I'm sure, on the scholarship of others) have come to. Scripture, however, speaks only of two natures - the spirit and the flesh. Sin is not a product of our natures but rather a manifestation of our desires giving in to temptation in such a way as to be contrary to God's will (James 1).
Do you have a sin nature?
I have a human nature. I'm also made alive in Christ.
Did you have a sin nature ever?
I was born with a human nature (flesh brings froth flesh). But when I sin it is the result of yielding yo temptation and allowing it to take hold (James 1).
What is that part of us that desires to disobey God, that refuses to submit to Him called?
The part that we are enslaved to until born again?
Isn't the truth of us having sin natures considered orthodox since time of Christ?
We don't desire to disobey God. We have desires and when we are tempted by the things we desire that temptation will birth sin if we allow it. The thief steals when he gives in to taking something that is not his - not because he desires to disobey God. The flesh is weak, not evil in and of itself.
Scriptures state that we are at war against God while lost, and cannot be subdued, and that we go astray from birth, none seeking God or His ways, right?
Scripture does say that we have all gone astray and that the mind governed by the flesh is at enmity with God. You were not thinking that before the Fall Adam's nature was equal to God in terms of morality were you?
I am resurrecting this old thread because I stumbled on a verse today that shows explicitly that Jesus Cross is considered to be a sacrifice of atonement.
Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.
The reason I think this is important is because the idea of atonement or "covering" is rich in the OT and is usually in line with a blood sacrifice. This would mean that the sacrifice of Jesus is in fact in line with those sacrifices of blood atonement covered in the OT. It would be a very interesting blood atonement in that it is a human being, the Son of God, perpetrated outside the temple cultus through God's enemies, enemies used for a Divine purpose for their own possible redemption, a blood atonement sacrifice that oddly enough can only be received on faith, and the sacrifice of blood for a New Covenant to replace the old one at Sinai where blood was sprinkled on the Israelites. I have heard it argued atonement goes all the way back to Genesis 3 when a lamb is killed to cover the nakedness of Adam and his wife with its skin.
This article covers this thread's subject matter as well:
A Closer Look: Jesus and Atonement in the Old Testament
I now wonder if the idea that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross is a blood sacrifice, in order to cover us as sinners, is in a form of competition with the idea that the Cross is more of a courtroom drama, as usually portrayed in substitutionary atonement. Could we be reading too much of ourselves and our more modern societies into the atonement of Jesus since the Reformation? By that I mean, I have seen nothing but OT foreshadowing of Jesus' Cross explained in OT terms in the bible. Are we being like Anselm in coming up with something new and unique to explain the atonement that doesn't seem spelled out biblically?
What strikes me now is Paul's explanation of his own upcoming beheading. He calls the shedding of his blood a drink offering (2 Timothy 4:6), something in line with the OT cultus that would denote it being very pleasing to the LORD. This may seem shocking, especially given our modern debates on the problem of evil, but it exposes our common belief in Christianity that wrongdoing always goes against the desired will of God. That wrongdoing, as happened to Job and Jesus, can be God's desired will because they serve a higher purpose to the LORD.
Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.
The reason I think this is important is because the idea of atonement or "covering" is rich in the OT and is usually in line with a blood sacrifice. This would mean that the sacrifice of Jesus is in fact in line with those sacrifices of blood atonement covered in the OT. It would be a very interesting blood atonement in that it is a human being, the Son of God, perpetrated outside the temple cultus through God's enemies, enemies used for a Divine purpose for their own possible redemption, a blood atonement sacrifice that oddly enough can only be received on faith, and the sacrifice of blood for a New Covenant to replace the old one at Sinai where blood was sprinkled on the Israelites. I have heard it argued atonement goes all the way back to Genesis 3 when a lamb is killed to cover the nakedness of Adam and his wife with its skin.
This article covers this thread's subject matter as well:
A Closer Look: Jesus and Atonement in the Old Testament
I now wonder if the idea that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross is a blood sacrifice, in order to cover us as sinners, is in a form of competition with the idea that the Cross is more of a courtroom drama, as usually portrayed in substitutionary atonement. Could we be reading too much of ourselves and our more modern societies into the atonement of Jesus since the Reformation? By that I mean, I have seen nothing but OT foreshadowing of Jesus' Cross explained in OT terms in the bible. Are we being like Anselm in coming up with something new and unique to explain the atonement that doesn't seem spelled out biblically?
What strikes me now is Paul's explanation of his own upcoming beheading. He calls the shedding of his blood a drink offering (2 Timothy 4:6), something in line with the OT cultus that would denote it being very pleasing to the LORD. This may seem shocking, especially given our modern debates on the problem of evil, but it exposes our common belief in Christianity that wrongdoing always goes against the desired will of God. That wrongdoing, as happened to Job and Jesus, can be God's desired will because they serve a higher purpose to the LORD.
- Status