Do we hacve fallen sin natures or not now?

[JonC]

Our basis for the bodily resurrection is due to now being being spiritually alive in Jesus, and not still spiritual dead in Adam!

That is what you say - not Paul.

In that passage Paul speaks of different kinds of "flesh" (man, animal, etc.) and points to us being resurrected with a body (but one that is spiritual, how it is we do not yet know).

You are taking a statement in one verse out of context to emphasize your opinion. That is abusing Scripture.

Adam when created was sinless in his humanity, nature as he was in the state Jesus was born in at Incarnation.... Both were sinless humanity, perfect flesh , but Adam sinned and experienced the effects of the fall, as we all do save for Jesus!

That is not in the Bible, but I understand it is what you believe.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is what you say - not Paul.

In that passage Paul speaks of different kinds of "flesh" (man, animal, etc.) and points to us being resurrected with a body (but one that is spiritual, how it is we do not yet know).

You are taking a statement in one verse out of context to emphasize your opinion. That is abusing Scripture.


That is not in the Bible, but I understand it is what you believe.

Jesus was not born with same human nature as we were, as that would have made him a sinner!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is what you say - not Paul.

In that passage Paul speaks of different kinds of "flesh" (man, animal, etc.) and points to us being resurrected with a body (but one that is spiritual, how it is we do not yet know).

You are taking a statement in one verse out of context to emphasize your opinion. That is abusing Scripture.


That is not in the Bible, but I understand it is what you believe.

Its not what I believe, as that is held by essentially all Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists!

 

[JonC]

Its not what I believe, as that is held by essentially all Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists!

That is fine, but you do know that the Bible does not actually say that, correct?

 

[davidgeminden]

jonC and Yeshua, I "believe" Jesus was born with the same physical nature as fallen mankind, except for the slow natural physical dying process with age, but not with the same fallen spiritual nature as fallen mankind. Jesus allowed external physical intervention to his body to kill his physical body. I believe physical nature and spiritual natures are two different things. Baby Jesus physical body in the womb had to have the same physical biological processes in order to absorb the oxygen and nutrients transferred from Mary's blood to His blood. I do not believe there was any transfer of Mary's fallen spiritual nature to baby Jesus in her womb.

 

[Yeshua1]

jonC and Yeshua, I "believe" Jesus was born with the same physical nature as fallen mankind, except for the slow natural physical dying process with age, but not with the same fallen spiritual nature as fallen mankind. Jesus allowed external physical intervention to his body to kill his physical body. I believe physical nature and spiritual natures are two different things. Baby Jesus physical body in the womb had to have the same physical biological processes in order to absorb the oxygen and nutrients transferred from Mary's blood to His blood. I do not believe there was any transfer of Mary's fallen spiritual nature to baby Jesus in her womb.

Jesus would experience hunger, cold, warmth of desert, but was not sinful in His humanity!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is fine, but you do know that the Bible does not actually say that, correct?

So all of those holding to that are all wrong?

 

[JonC]

So all of those holding to that are all wrong?

I do not know. Their doctrine is not taught in the Bible, so I would hesitate to stand by it. But they could be right or wrong.

 

[percho]

Adam when created was sinless in his humanity, nature as he was in the state Jesus was born in at Incarnation.... Both were sinless humanity, perfect flesh , but Adam sinned and experienced the effects of the fall, as we all do save for Jesus!

Adam when created was not a sinner. He was just flesh and bone made from the earth with life from God breathed into him.

He was however, of flesh and had lust of flesh. If he saw a pear hanging from a tree he might have lusted for it and ate it but that would not have been sin.I would venture to say that he could not sin for he had not been given a law, that could be transgressed.

However:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That there is law. Adam is of flesh. Law gives strength to sin. 1 Cor 15:56

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Adam doesn't have a snowball chance in ----.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not know. Their doctrine is not taught in the Bible, so I would hesitate to stand by it. But they could be right or wrong.

I am sorry, but I will still stand by likes of a calvin, Sproul, Spurgeon, Hodge, Berkhof, Grudem et all!

Could they all have misunderstood this teaching of the Bible?

 

[JonC]

I am sorry, but I will still stand by likes of a calvin, Sproul, Spurgeon, Hodge, Berkhof, Grudem et all!

Could they all have misunderstood this teaching of the Bible?

Yes, they could have misunderstood the issue while other scholars like Ignatius, Jerome, Justin Martyr, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, all Jewish theologians, etc.

We should stand by Scripture, not people that we have chosen because they agree with our theology.

 

[MB]

I am sorry, but I will still stand by likes of a calvin, Sproul, Spurgeon, Hodge, Berkhof, Grudem et all!

Could they all have misunderstood this teaching of the Bible?

Yes they have and so have you. You follow the teaching of men. Why not follow Christ alone and stop believing in men.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes they have and so have you. You follow the teaching of men. Why not follow Christ alone and stop believing in men.
MB

I do, that is why I am a Calvinist!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, they could have misunderstood the issue while other scholars like Ignatius, Jerome, Justin Martyr, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, all Jewish theologians, etc.

We should stand by Scripture, not people that we have chosen because they agree with our theology.

I stand with scripture, as those men were in scripture truth!

 

[JonC]

I stand with scripture, as those men were in scripture truth!

No, you do not stand with Scripture.

The Bible does not state your conclusion. You stand with those men and their theology and the results of their study of Scripture.

But it is wrong of you to pretend that your understanding of what is not actually in Scripture means that you "stand by Scripture" because it elevates your understanding to the level of the Bible and yourself (and those you follow) to God.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, you do not stand with Scripture.

The Bible does not state your conclusion. You stand with those men and their theology and the results of their study of Scripture.

But it is wrong of you to pretend that your understanding of what is not actually in Scripture means that you "stand by Scripture" because it elevates your understanding to the level of the Bible and yourself (and those you follow) to God.

You then cannot claim that your understanding is any better than what I and Calvinist Baptists and reformed have held on this topic!

 

[MB]

I do, that is why I am a Calvinist!

True you believe in men.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

True you believe in men.
MB

Yes, he is called Jesus Christ!

 

[JonC]

You then cannot claim that your understanding is any better than what I and Calvinist Baptists and reformed have held on this topic!

I am not claiming my understanding is better. I am claiming that you are not standing with Scripture but with a theology expressed by a specific group of men. Look at those you accept and those you dismiss. Do you see a common factor? It is not Scripture or an adherence to its text but which camp they fall into.

Have you not yet realized that the majority of what you have said on this (and a few other) threads is not found in Scripture itself? That is not the problem, though.

The problem is that you act as if the extra-biblical things you believe (which may or may not be true) are actually God's Word. That is a serious issue.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not claiming my understanding is better. I am claiming that you are not standing with Scripture but with a theology expressed by a specific group of men. Look at those you accept and those you dismiss. Do you see a common factor? It is not Scripture or an adherence to its text but which camp they fall into.

Have you not yet realized that the majority of what you have said on this (and a few other) threads is not found in Scripture itself? That is not the problem, though.

The problem is that you act as if the extra-biblical things you believe (which may or may not be true) are actually God's Word. That is a serious issue.

We would all feel and understanding that we have the correct understanding of the scriptures on this subject....