Born in Sins

[DHK]

HP: Why not just simply say that everything I say is out of context and everything you say in accordance to context. That usually works for you does it not?

I have explained Jer.13:23.
Now you give me your explanation: each part of it, not just a one-liner summary.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I have explained Jer.13:23.
Now you give me your explanation: each part of it, not just a one-liner summary.

HP: Sometimes the simple approach to such a verse is better. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

HP: Sometimes the simple approach to such a verse is better. :thumbs:

An admission to the denial of the clear teaching of the verse--the depravity of man; that man is born with a sin nature. An exposition of this verse, done properly, can come to no other conclusion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

You can certainly say that even if it does not have the a bit of validity to it.:thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you have a conscience?

Conscience falls under the first definition of willful sin I gave not under this definition.
Romans 1:26 comes under the first defintion of willful sin not under this definition

If our nature was evil, it would be natural to commit such sins.

That is precisely why infants as they grow older and are able to more fully express themselves do by nature those thing defined as sin without training. Remember, you cannot use such things as they characterize God because there is a difference between JUST anger,wrath and UNJUST anger and wrath. Stubborness and selfishness are NEVER used as terms to characterize God because they are negative in character and infer sinfulness.

Boy, all I know is that Jesus said sinners do good.

This is no excuse for obviouis eisgesis! Every text you have used is a text that has to do with relationships between men and what men perceive to be good whereas, every text I have presented to you has to do with man and God and the law's definition of sin which demands not one point violated in order to be "good."

No, Paul said (quoting Psa 14) we have GONE OUT of the way. We have gone off track, we have run off the road. He said we have BECOME unprofitable. If you were born dead in sins with a corrupt nature, then you could not later BECOME unprofitable.

Romans 3:9-20 is the summary conclusion of Romans 1:18-3;8 that justifies wrath of God revealed from heaven (Rom. 1:18) because he proves there is none without excuse and there is none righteous by nature. By nature they are the children of wrath and are "transgressors from the womb" (Isa. 48:8).

What they have gone away from is the revelation of nature, conscience, law when they came to the age of accountability which demonstrates they are "transgressors from the womb.

I am in fact understanding the scriptures for what they literally say. You are overlooking plain words anyone could understand to fit your presuppositions.

No you are not! There is not one solitary verse in Romans 1:18-3:20 that demands anything other that their departure, going astray, becoming unprofitable was anything other than willful sin at the point when they were capapble of discerning right from wrong via revelation from nature, conscience or law!

And here is the scathing condemnation of your position/interpretation that there is "NOT ONE" among Gentiles and Jews (Rom. 3:9) that come to that point who can be found that does not go astray, depart, become unprofitable - NOT ONE!

If your theory had a shred of truth there could be found at least ONE person that did not go astray, did not become unprofitable, did not come short of the glory of God, did not sin like Jesus SINCE YOU DEMAND ALL WERE JUST LIKE JESUS by nature from birth!

If your theory had a shred of truth the law could at least find ONE to justify, could not shut "every mouth" could not condemn "all the world" SINCE YOUR THEORY DEMANDS ALL WERE JUST LIKE JESUS by nature from birth!

However, Paul repeats "ALL" not "most all" but "ALL have sinned.' Paul repeats "NOT ONE" could be found good. "NOT ONE" could be found that doeth good! Paul could not find one mouth the Law could not shut but shut "every mouth"! Paul could not find any flesh justifiable under law but NO FLESH could be justified by law. Paul could not find ONE the law could justified among Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:9) but the law condemned "ALL the world" (Rom. 3:19-20).

In other words, your interpertation is at best a joke but in truth an absolute false doctrine.

 

[Winman]

I do not demand anything, the scriptures plainly say Jesus took on him the "nature" of the seed of Abraham, that he was made like unto his brethren in all things, that he suffered being tempted, and that he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. These are direct, doctrinal statements, not obvious hyperbole like Psa 58:3, or verses where we are compared to a leopard.

Furthermore, the scriptures warn to test the spirits, and anyone who denies Jesus came in the "flesh" is the spirit of antichrist.

Paul does say there is none that doeth good, but he does not say we are born that way, he says they are "gone out of the way" and "become unprofitable". The word "become" shows something new, they were not born corrupt but became corrupt.

The scriptures say man had "corrupted" his way. The very definition of corrupt is to go from a good state to a bad state, as when you leave fruit out and it rots, or when a judge takes a bribe.

And Jeremiah 13:23 says these men are accustomed to sin, which by definition means a learned behavior.

You simply ignore the common definitions of words to hold to your presuppositions. Two verses later (vs.25) God says they have "forgotten me", which shows at one point they knew God. You cannot forget someone you never knew.

 

[DHK]

I do not demand anything, the scriptures plainly say Jesus took on him the "nature" of the seed of Abraham,

You are quoting from the Book of Hebrews, Jewish Christians who were thinking of going back into Judaism. Hence you will find many references to people, customs, and other things related to the Jews. Abraham was their "father," or so they considered him so. He was made of the seed of Abraham means nothing more than Christ was human, just as the Jews were human. The author, in this way is relating Christ to the Jewish race. Christ is a Jewish man just as they are. He is human.

that he was made like unto his brethren in all things, that he suffered being tempted, and that he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Nothing difficult here. It refers to his humanity, not his sinfulness. We inherited a sin nature. Adam was not born but created without a sin nature. Jesus is the Creator, and did not have a sin nature. But we fall under the curse and do have a sin nature, as many Scriptures testify like Jer.13:23; Psa.51:5; Rom.3:10-12; etc.

These are direct, doctrinal statements, not obvious hyperbole like Psa 58:3, or verses where we are compared to a leopard.

David and Jeremiah were not teaching fairly tales. Jeremiah especially was teaching Israel serious doctrine. And you are ignoring it.

Furthermore, the scriptures warn to test the spirits, and anyone who denies Jesus came in the "flesh" is the spirit of antichrist.

This is more applicable to you than us. You are ignoring the vast history of orthodox Christianity and placing yourself outside of it. You aligning yourself with humanism, a secular cult. Now who should be testing the spirits? Think again. You are stating that all of Christianity for all of ages has been wrong since the time of Christ, and only the cults have been right. This is truly amazing, but very sad.

Paul does say there is none that doeth good, but he does not say we are born that way, he says they are "gone out of the way" and "become unprofitable". The word "become" shows something new, they were not born corrupt but became corrupt.

That is not what the passage says. Psalm 58:3 doesn't say that either. You have a problem with that verse and can only explain it away saying that it is a psalm, and that is all. That doesn't cut it.

The scriptures say man had "corrupted" his way. The very definition of corrupt is to go from a good state to a bad state, as when you leave fruit out and it rots, or when a judge takes a bribe.

The Scriptures also say that none is good but God. All men are evil.
"All our righteounesses are as filthy rags and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquity like the wind has taken us away."
We were born corrupt and therefore sin. Why don't people live sinless lives? You can't answer that. If man was born sinless there would be at least some that would have lived sinless lives.
This is the belief that Charles Finney had, Oberlin Theology. Finney was a heretic.

And Jeremiah 13:23 says these men are accustomed to sin, which by definition means a learned behavior.

You have to examine all three parts of the verse. The Ethiopian, the leopard, and mankind were all born, by nature, with black skin, spots, and a sin nature. They all got accustomed to their black skin, spots, and their consequent sin. What you apply to one part of the verse you must apply to the rest of the verse. But you are not being consistent in your interpretation.

You simply ignore the common definitions of words to hold to your presuppositions. Two verses later (vs.25) God says they have "forgotten me", which shows at one point they knew God. You cannot forget someone you never knew.

Many Christians forget God. The verse is speaking to God's people.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not demand anything, the scriptures plainly say Jesus took on him the "nature" of the seed of Abraham, that he was made like unto his brethren in all things,

Hebrews 2:16-17 in context demands nothing more than he was 100% human in nature - that is it! For you to demand anything more is absurd and plain eisgesis.

However, Romans 5:14 and 1 Cor. 15:44-48 do demand that He was "made" like the pre-fallen Adam or and stands in the same relationship to humanity as Adam stood BEFORE the fall. The virign birth demands he comes into the world like the Pre-fallen Adam direct from God without sin.

These are direct, doctrinal statements,

There is not one single word in this text about his birth nor one single word about the moral nature of infants at birth! NOT ONE SINGLE WORD. You must INFER your doctrine as there is no direct, doctrinal statement to support you error in Heb. 2:17.

not obvious hyperbole like Psa 58:3, or verses where we are compared to a leopard.

Isaiah 48:8 explicitly and clearly and directly states "transgressor from the womb" and the words of Psalm 58:3 are explicit and direct in regard to the moral nature of infants at birth in harmony with many other scriptures. It is so clear that you are forced to explain it away by IMAGINING David's mother was a harlot or that a mother could be held for responsible for conception or what goes on inside the womb as though she was God.

Job 14:1,4-5; 15:12; 25:4 are so direct and clear that infant are born morally unclean you are forced to attack the persons making these statements when in fact, God NEVER rebukes or corrects these statements.

Furthermore, the scriptures warn to test the spirits, and anyone who denies Jesus came in the "flesh" is the spirit of antichrist.

Thank you! You have just put your foot in your mouth and proved beyond doubt the extent you will go to support your false and perverse doctrine.

Paul does say there is none that doeth good, but he does not say we are born that way, he says they are "gone out of the way" and "become unprofitable". The word "become" shows something new, they were not born corrupt but became corrupt.

Do you even read my posts? I have answered this so thoroughly and demontrated it condemns your position so clearly that you should be ashamed of even going there again!

And Jeremiah 13:23 says these men are accustomed to sin, which by definition means a learned behavior.

Yes, repitition is the best teacher. Sin comes NATURALLY from birth ("Transgressors form birth" - Isa. 48:8) and when a child comes to the age of accountability that sinful nature manifests itself IN EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY CASE ("every mouth" "no flesh" "all the world" "there is none, no not one") by willful sin and that first willful sin is then "learned" from that point forward by constant repetition, and repetition is the best teacher.

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 3:9-20 is the summary conclusion of Romans 1:18-3;8 that justifies wrath of God revealed from heaven (Rom. 1:18) because he proves there is none without excuse and there is none righteous by nature. By nature they are the children of wrath and are "transgressors from the womb" (Isa. 48:8).

What they have gone away from is the revelation of nature, conscience, law when they came to the age of accountability which demonstrates they are "transgressors from the womb.





And here is the scathing condemnation of your position/interpretation that there is "NOT ONE" among Gentiles and Jews (Rom. 3:9) that come to that point of accountability who can be found that does not go astray, depart, become unprofitable - NOT ONE!

If your theory had a shred of truth there could be found at least ONE person that did not go astray, did not become unprofitable, did not come short of the glory of God, did not sin like Jesus SINCE YOU DEMAND ALL WERE JUST LIKE JESUS by nature from birth!

If your theory had a shred of truth the law could at least find ONE to justify, could not shut "every mouth" could not condemn "all the world" SINCE YOUR THEORY DEMANDS ALL WERE JUST LIKE JESUS by nature from birth!

However, Paul repeats "ALL" not "most all" but "ALL have sinned.' Paul repeats "NOT ONE" could be found good. "NOT ONE" could be found that doeth good! Paul could not find one mouth the Law could not shut but shut "every mouth"! Paul could not find any flesh justifiable under law but NO FLESH could be justified by law. Paul could not find ONE the law could justified among Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:9) but the law condemned "ALL the world" (Rom. 3:19-20).

In other words, your interpertation is at best a joke but in truth an absolute false doctrine.

And here is the scathing condemnation of your position/interpretation that there is "NOT ONE" among Gentiles and Jews (Rom. 3:9) that come to that point who can be found that does not go astray, depart, become unprofitable - NOT ONE!

If your theory had a shred of truth there could be found at least ONE person that did not go astray, did not become unprofitable, did not come short of the glory of God, did not sin like Jesus SINCE YOU DEMAND ALL WERE JUST LIKE JESUS by nature from birth!

If your theory had a shred of truth the law could at least find ONE to justify, could not shut "every mouth" could not condemn "all the world" SINCE YOUR THEORY DEMANDS ALL WERE JUST LIKE JESUS by nature from birth!

However, Paul repeats "ALL" not "most all" but "ALL have sinned.' Paul repeats "NOT ONE" could be found good. "NOT ONE" could be found that doeth good! Paul could not find one mouth the Law could not shut but shut "every mouth"! Paul could not find any flesh justifiable under law but NO FLESH could be justified by law. Paul could not find ONE the law could justified among Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:9) but the law condemned "ALL the world" (Rom. 3:19-20).

In other words, your interpertation is at best a joke but in truth an absolute false doctrine

 

[Winman]

I can easily explain why people sin, they want to do what pleases themselves, whether God approves or not. Why do people get drunk? It feels good. Why do people steal? It is easier than working. You don't have to have a PhD in theology to figure this out.

And I perceive you are a hyper-dispy. Heb 2:16-18 is true for everyone, Jesus took on the NATURE of the seed of Abraham, in "all things" it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren. You deny this.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[DHK]

I can easily explain why people sin, they want to do what pleases themselves, whether God approves or not. Why do people get drunk? It feels good. Why do people steal? It is easier than working. You don't have to have a PhD in theology to figure this out.

And I perceive you are a hyper-dispy. Heb 2:16-18 is true for everyone, Jesus took on the NATURE of the seed of Abraham, in "all things" it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren. You deny this.

We will have to agree to disagree.

1. Verse 17 says he was made like unto his brethren.
Verse two gives the reason why--that he might be qualified to be our Great High Priest. The qualification is simply that he had a human nature that he might be able to sympathize with our infirmities. He suffered as we suffered. He had a human nature. That is all. It qualified him. It has nothing to do with whether or not he had a sin nature as you wrongly read into this passage.

2. Your preconceived idea of a sinless birth requires you to interpret the verse this way. If you didn't have this idea you wouldn't take this verse out of context and use it as a proof text for your theological presupposition. For it has nothing to do with the depravity of man in the first place. That is not the subject. Compare this passage with Heb.4:15ff for the real meaning. It is qualification as our Great High Priest, not having a depraved nature.

3. It is we that have a depraved nature. So leave this passage, and deal with the passages that do teach the depravity of man such as Jer.13:23, and the many other passages that we have given you. You cannot successfully exegete Jeremiah 13:23 and not come to the conclusion that man has a depraved nature. That is the only conclusion one can come to.

The same is true of Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Rom.3:10-12; etc. They all teach the depravity of man. God destroyed the world with a Flood because of the depravity of man. His depraved heart had led to such depravity that the world had to be destroyed. "The thoughts of his heart were evil continually."

 

[Winman]

1. Verse 17 says he was made like unto his brethren.
Verse two gives the reason why--that he might be qualified to be our Great High Priest. The qualification is simply that he had a human nature that he might be able to sympathize with our infirmities. He suffered as we suffered. He had a human nature. That is all. It qualified him. It has nothing to do with whether or not he had a sin nature as you wrongly read into this passage.

2. Your preconceived idea of a sinless birth requires you to interpret the verse this way. If you didn't have this idea you wouldn't take this verse out of context and use it as a proof text for your theological presupposition. For it has nothing to do with the depravity of man in the first place. That is not the subject. Compare this passage with Heb.4:15ff for the real meaning. It is qualification as our Great High Priest, not having a depraved nature.

3. It is we that have a depraved nature. So leave this passage, and deal with the passages that do teach the depravity of man such as Jer.13:23, and the many other passages that we have given you. You cannot successfully exegete Jeremiah 13:23 and not come to the conclusion that man has a depraved nature. That is the only conclusion one can come to.

The same is true of Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Rom.3:10-12; etc. They all teach the depravity of man. God destroyed the world with a Flood because of the depravity of man. His depraved heart had led to such depravity that the world had to be destroyed. "The thoughts of his heart were evil continually."

I addressed all your proof-texts. I agree all men go astray, all men sin, but the scriptures do not say we are born with a sin nature. Adam-Eve, Satan and the fallen angels were created very good, and they all sinned. A sin nature is not necessary to sin

 

[DHK]

I addressed all your proof-texts. I agree all men go astray, all men sin, but the scriptures do not say we are born with a sin nature. Adam-Eve, Satan and the fallen angels were created very good, and they all sinned. A sin nature is not necessary to sin

You are right. A sin nature is not necessary to sin. But this is the flaw in your argument. Jesus said to Peter: "Put up your sword. Know ye not that I could call 12 legions of angels from my Father in heaven."
--Jesus was telling Peter of his omnipotence. He could have used it to stop him from going to the cross. He didn't need Peter's sword. 12 legions is 72,000 angels. One angel can do a lot of damage, much less 72,000. He had that power. He could have used it. But he came to do the will of his Father, and it would have been sin for him not to; it would have been sin for him to yield to that power and not to go to the cross. But he didn't. He remained sinless. He did always the will of his father, suffering even unto death.

But we are under the curse of Adam. You can't give any example of any person like this in all mankind. There is no man who can remain sinless like Jesus. Why? We all have a sin nature that we yield to.

The thoughts of our hearts are evil continually. That is not the way it was with Jesus. Jesus was good; He is God. We are not good; we are not God. This is what Jesus taught the rich young ruler in Mark 10.

Charles Finney, with a similar theology as you, thought that he could start a Christian community in which each member would be sinless. After all if they were born sinless, put in the right environment they would have no reason to sin. Right? But it failed. Even in the perfect environment man sins.
Those born in the Millennial Kingdom, in a perfect environment where Christ will be King and will rule, not all will be saved. There will be a great multitude as great as the sand of the sea that will follow Satan and rise up against Christ one final time. Why? Even under perfect conditions they will have a sin nature. They no doubt will be the offspring of those who came through the tribulation.

If your theology were right we would see fruit of it; but never in all of history has there anyone been sinless except for Christ. In that alone we know that your theology is wrong. It is humanism.

You have been given one Scripture after another, but you haven't refuted them, you have rejected them. You haven't refuted Jeremiah 13:23 at all. You have outright rejected its teaching. The same is true with Psalm 51:5. You reject its teaching.

 

[Winman]

Me, a humanist? Now that is a real laugh. I am as far from a humanist as you can get. And I would laugh at Finney or anyone else that believes he can build a perfect society.

Men have free will, and men are born flesh with lusts and desires. These desires simply want what they want regardless of whether it is lawful or not. Satan tempted Eve, but he did so by exciting her natural desires. The fruit looked good for food, that is a natural desire. The fruit was pleasant to look upon, we all enjoy beauty. It was desired to make one wise. It was not wrong to desire to be wise, we are told to be wise by God. But in this instance it was wrong, because God had forbidden it. Eve made the choice to obey her lusts and not God, and Adam followed.

No one is compelled to sin, otherwise we would not be responsible. We all choose to sin. You can theorize all you want about why men sin, but the simple fact is we all choose to do so, and are therefore responsible.

Besides being unscriptural, those who deny original sin do so not to exalt man, we do so to take full responsibility for our own actions. It is original sin that gives man the perfect excuse for sin. If you are born with a sin nature that compels you to sin, then you are nothing but a robot that has been hardwired to do wrong, and cannot be responsible. You are not a transgressor, but a victim.

This is why folks love original sin, it gives them an excuse for their sin.

Believe what you want, we will have to agree to disagree. There is no point in arguing any longer.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Charles Finney, with a similar theology as you, thought that he could start a Christian community in which each member would be sinless. After all if they were born sinless, put in the right environment they would have no reason to sin. Right? But it failed. Even in the perfect environment man sins.

HP: Where is your source of information concerning Finney? Are you simply trying to slander him or can you show where what you say was actually what he tried to accomplish?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

HP: It is beyond me how one can take this verse an act as if though it supports original sin. It does not suggest or imply OS by any stretch of the imagination. It does support the notion that once one sins, nothing they can do in an of itself can in any way remove the stain of sin.

To 'be accustomed to do evil' does not support OS. It simply shows that men, by way of habits, continue to do evil. Supporters of OS simply read the dogma into Scripture as a presupposition, and then proclaim the verse supports OS. In this manner anyone could make the Scriptures to say anything they so desire regardless of the truth.

Of a truth, once one sins there is no escaping the spot of sin apart from salvations offer. No amount of good that one could do subsequent to sin, can in any way atone for the least sin. Only by the blood of Christ will any sin be forgiven and remitted.

 

[The Biblicist]

I can easily explain why people sin, they want to do what pleases themselves, whether God approves or not. Why do people get drunk? It feels good. Why do people steal? It is easier than working. You don't have to have a PhD in theology to figure this out.

Why can't we find your explanation in the scriptures????????? Why does Jesus, Paul, David and all scripture writers attribute sin to an evil heart:

Mt. 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Pr 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:

Mt. 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Mt. 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And I perceive you are a hyper-dispy.

Your perception is no better than your interpretations - Wrong! I am not a hyper dispensationalist. I am a Post-tribulationalist.

Heb 2:16-18 is true for everyone, Jesus took on the NATURE of the seed of Abraham, in "all things" it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren. You deny this.

The contrast between verse 16a and the rest of the passage is clear. He did not take upon the nature of angels but he took on the nature of man. The words "in all things" means simly he was 100% human in nature. So I do not deny what the text teaches.

However, you go beyond the meaning of the text. You demand that he took on things that are not essential to be 100% human. It is not good enough for you to believe he was "made" 100% human like pre-fallen Adam. You demand he was made 100% like post fallen Adam BUT post-fallen Adam had a DEPRAVED SINFUL NATURE! So you are really demanding that Christ had a depraved fallen nature!!!

You refuse to accept other scriptures that demand he was created like pre-fallen Adam (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22; 44-48). However, even common sense demands he was made like pre-fallen Adam because Paul compares him to pre-fallen Adam in relationship to "many" like pre-fallen Adam.

So your interpetation of Hebrew 2:16-17 is irrational, unbiblical, and extreme as it demands that Christ was "made" more than 100% human in nature when the contrast in the context is simply between angelic nature and human nature.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Because you have been proven wrong and that is your only way out.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why can't we find your explanation in the scriptures????????? Why does Jesus, Paul, David and all scripture writers attribute sin to an evil heart:

Your argument here is worthless because it could also be said that Adam had an evil heart. But since he was born spiritually alive then common sense dictates that his evil heart cannot be attributed to the way he was created.

The contrast between verse 16a and the rest of the passage is clear. He did not take upon the nature of angels but he took on the nature of man. The words "in all things" means simly he was 100% human in nature. So I do not deny what the text teaches.

of course you deny what is said here:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

According to your view those who are described as "His briothers" are "by nature" the children of wrath. You say that the Lord Jesus has 100% human nature and according to you ideas the very human nature His brothers is described as being children of wrath.

so if we are to believe your ideas we must stand reason on its head and believe that the Lord Jesus can be described as a child of wrath.

 

[Winman]

Your argument here is worthless because it could also be said that Adam had an evil hearth. But since he was born spiritually alive then common sense dictates that his evil heart cannot be attributed to the way he was created.

Yes, Augustine's theory (and that is all it is) of original sin sought to explain why men sin. Because of his Manichean and Gnostic influences he believed sin was passed physically from parent to child. But this cannot explain Adam's sin, as we know he was created very good. The simple answer is free will. And did free will continue after the fall? YES. God himself said Cain could have given an acceptable sacrifice if he so chose to do so. The fact he chose not to do so does not negate that God said he could have. Plus, we have God directly saying men can give a sacrifice (which is worship) of their "own voluntary will" in Lev 1:3. So, God himself confirms man retained the ability to make free will decisions concerning worship of God, which Augustine and Reformed theologians deny.

 

[Winman]

In response to Biblicist post #297;

It is you that goes outside scripture, Heb 2:16 does not say Jesus took on the nature of pre-fall Adam, it says he took on himself the nature of the seed of Abraham!

Abraham was a good man, but he was a sinner, and so were all of his descendants.

You are in error, the scriptures DO NOT say Jesus took on the nature of pre-fall Adam.