Is the Flesh Sinful?

[The Scribe]

I have a problem with point #1 for this reason.

Romans 5:12 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:

By one man... Wasn't it the woman who disobeyed and ate of the fruit? In Genesis 5:2, we read:

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Called THEIR name Adam. So the Woman, because she was joined to the man and they became one flesh, was also Adam.

Sin was passed upon all the world because of the woman. And it is passed on to every child born of a woman.

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 25:4 answers the second point as well.

I don't see anything out of context.

Adam and Eve were made one flesh. Through them sin was passed down to all mankind.
Genesis 2:24 (KJV)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Adam wasn't in transgression, but the woman was deceived. Adam made the choice to listen to his wife and not God.
1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Job 25:4 (KJV)
How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

The only way to be clean of sin is that they be wiped away and put under the blood of Christ.

1 John 1:7-10 (KJV)
7: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10: If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Scribe: Adam and Eve were made one flesh. Through them sin was passed down to all mankind.
Genesis 2:24 (KJV)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

HP: Pray tell us how this verse has anything whatsoever to do with sin being passed to all mankind? How is sin passed down? Are you going to tell us it is through the sprem of man and or of the egg of the woman?

Scribe: Adam wasn't in transgression, but the woman was deceived. Adam made the choice to listen to his wife and not God.
1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

HP: Where does it say Adam did not transgress God law as well as Eve? When you disobey a known commandment of God, listening to anything or anyone other than God, deception by the enemy is certainly involved but that in no wise makes one innocent of voluntary transgression against a known commandment of God, therefore sin.

This verse could be paraphrased as follows. Adam was not deceived and as such sinned willfully. Eve was deceived but also willingly disobeyed and therefore was in transgression and sin in spite of the deception.

Scribe: The only way to be clean of sin is that they be wiped away and put under the blood of Christ.

HP: Once one has sinned you are absolutely correct, and Scripture states that all have sinned.

Scribe: 1 John 1:7-10 (KJV)
7: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10: If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

HP: Very well. Please proceed. 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What about the OP? Would anyone take a shot at answering the question directly, especially one that feels that the egg of Mary was not sinful and utilized by the Holy Spirit in the formation of the fleshly body of Christ yet believes in original sin and denies that the DNA of Joseph could have been used due to OS? Here was the question.

If the flesh is not sinful; in and of itself, and an egg is not sinful in and of itself being material matter, is the sperm of man sinful or can sin be transmitted by it? Why or why not?

 

[TCGreek]

What about the OP? Would anyone take a shot at answering the question directly, especially one that feels that the egg of Mary was not sinful and utilized by the Holy Spirit in the formation of the fleshly body of Christ yet believes in original sin and denies that the DNA of Joseph could have been used due to OS? Here was the question.

If the flesh is not sinful; in and of itself, and an egg is not sinful in and of itself being material matter, is the sperm of man sinful or can sin be transmitted by it? Why or why not?

Maybe a fresh translation of Rom 8:3 would help. Check out the HCSB:

"What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin's domain, and as a sin offering" (emphasis mine).

In this translation, "flesh" is treated as a genitive of subordination.

 

[DHK]

If the flesh is not sinful; in and of itself, and an egg is not sinful in and of itself being material matter, is the sperm of man sinful or can sin be transmitted by it? Why or why not?

There is nothing to say that flesh is sinful. Common sense tells us that it isn't. How can an ordinary cell be sinful? The egg carries no sin. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that it does.
However we know that man has a sin nature.
We also know that that sin nature is a nature that is inherited through man.

Romans 5:12 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:
This "one man" is Adam. It can be no other. It is defined by "one". If "man" were to refer to mankind that "one mankind" would be put in contrast to other "mankinds". What would this mankind be contrasted to? Aliens from Mars perhaps? One man, the only man by which sin entered into the world is Adam himself, the first man. And because of his sin, not only death but sin passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
--Again we have the "one man's" disobedience who is Adam. By his sin, and his sin alone, were many made sinners. That is contrasted to the second Adam (Christ) by whose obedience shall many be made righteous. These are actual people with actual names.

It is then evident that the ovary does not carry the sin nature, but that the sin nature is passed down by the sin of Adam. How that sin nature is passed down from generation to generation, or from father to child, the Bible is not specific in its biology. We have only assumed that it is through the sperm. But it doesn't have to be that way. Life is a miracle in itself. At what point in life does God give "life" a spirit, a soul? And thus a sin nature passed down through the man? Man doesn't have all the answers, though some may think they have.
It is possible that when the sperm and egg unite, during the process of meiosis when the membranes of each break and the chromosomes of each combine into one cell, then, at that point, the sin nature is passed on. That is about as close as I can conjecture. Only God knows for sure. What we do know for sure is that the Bible tells us that the sin nature comes from the man, not the woman.

And because of that one fact, Jesus, born of a virgin, did not inherit a sin nature.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
If the flesh is not sinful; in and of itself, and an egg is not sinful in and of itself being material matter, is the sperm of man sinful or can sin be transmitted by it? Why or why not?

DHK: One man, the only man by which sin entered into the world is Adam himself, the first man. And because of his sin, not only death but sin passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

HP: We have many criticized on the list, and justly so, for adding to the text that which is simply not stated or implied. Tell me why you should not receive the same criticism for adding the word and concept of ‘sin’ being passed on when the text does not state or imply it in the least? The Scripture simply states ‘death’ is passed on, not sin.

DHK: Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
--Again we have the "one man's" disobedience who is Adam. By his sin, and his sin alone, were many made sinners. That is contrasted to the second Adam (Christ) by whose obedience shall many be made righteous. These are actual people with actual names.

HP: First, does the word ‘many’ imply a universal principle of OS? If so, then one would have to conclude that universalism must be correct, for by the obedience of Christ, ‘many’ shall be made righteous.

DHK: It is then evident that the ovary does not carry the sin nature, but that the sin nature is passed down by the sin of Adam. How that sin nature is passed down from generation to generation, or from father to child, the Bible is not specific in its biology.

HP: Here I see a clear contradiction in your view. You tell us that the flesh, in and of itself, is not nor can it be sin, then you speak of ‘biology’ as if it holds the key if we just knew where or the Bible was specific. If the residence of, or the transmission of, sin can be in any way shape or form be explained by biology, it is indeed located and centered in the flesh, again, contrary to your other statement which claims it is not. You cannot have it both ways. Either the flesh is sinful and as such biology holds the key, or it is not. Which is it?

DHK: We have only assumed that it is through the sperm. But it doesn't have to be that way. Life is a miracle in itself. At what point in life does God give "life" a spirit, a soul? And thus a sin nature passed down through the man? Man doesn't have all the answers, though some may think they have.

HP: Then you have assumed on one hand that the flesh, in this case the sperm is indeed the carrier of sin and as such the flesh is indeed sinful, while on the other hand in the case of the egg, simply flesh as well, it is not. How is your presentation so far to be seen as anything but clearly contradictory?

DHK: It is possible that when the sperm and egg unite, during the process of meiosis when the membranes of each break and the chromosomes of each combine into one cell, then, at that point, the sin nature is passed on.

HP: Here again you are speaking in pure biological terms associated with the flesh. How can sin reside in the flesh when you say that it does not nor can not?

DHK: That is about as close as I can conjecture. Only God knows for sure. What we do know for sure is that the Bible tells us that the sin nature comes from the man, not the woman.

HP: What are all the warnings I have heard from you concerning conjecture? You have not established a ‘sin nature’ from birth passed on genetically or otherwise with any of the passages you have used so far. Your argument sounds like that of Eliyahu who constantly beats the drum of ‘the sinful flesh’ but never establishes that the flesh is sinful.

DHK: And because of that one fact, Jesus, born of a virgin, did not inherit a sin nature.

HP: I am sorry but what I have heard, other than Jesus being born of a virgin, is adding to the text words that are not there and in your own words, ‘conjecture,’ not facts.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: Maybe a fresh translation of Rom 8:3 would help. Check out the HCSB:

"What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin's domain, and as a sin offering" (emphasis mine).

In this translation, "flesh" is treated as a genitive of subordination.

HP: Could you elaborate on the point you are making? Thanks.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Could you elaborate on the point you are making? Thanks.

Well, I was only trying prove another look at what appears to be a difficult text, meaning Rom 8:3.

I have already contributed to this discussion in another thread. Nothing new as far as I can see in this one.

 

[The Scribe]

Where does it say Adam did not transgress God law as well as Eve? When you disobey a known commandment of God, listening to anything or anyone other than God, deception by the enemy is certainly involved but that in no wise makes one innocent of voluntary transgression against a known commandment of God, therefore sin.

This verse could be paraphrased as follows. Adam was not deceived and as such sinned willfully. Eve was deceived but also willingly disobeyed and therefore was in transgression and sin in spite of the deception.

Nope. :smilewinkgrin:

1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam wasn't deceived, Eve was and there for was in transgression. Eve was deceived by satan. Adam shouldn't have listened to Eve.

Genesis 3:17 (KJV)
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Scribe: Adam wasn't deceived, Eve was and there for was in transgression. Eve was deceived by satan. Adam shouldn't have listened to Eve.

HP: The point is that both sinned regardless of who was deceived or not, or who listened to whoever apart from Gods command to do this and ye shall live, do this and ye shall certainly die.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

HP: Is the context who sinned and who did not? No, far from it. Here is a brief notation from Barnes on this verse. “It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the women opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptations as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him.”

Again that which is referred to in this verse as the ‘transgression’ would appear to me as not directly speaking concerning the actual sin involved as it was a verse that speaks to the reason why God placed the women subservient to the husband and to be in subjection to man in the place of public worship. She had circumvented her God given head and wrongly so. That process, antecedent to the actual sin, may not have been sin in and of itself, but it certainly could be rightfully seen as a transgression, as in the sense of a fault.

Now we went and stirred up the feminine isle for sure. :tonofbricks:

 

[DHK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
If the flesh is not sinful; in and of itself, and an egg is not sinful in and of itself being material matter, is the sperm of man sinful or can sin be transmitted by it? Why or why not?

HP: We have many criticized on the list, and justly so, for adding to the text that which is simply not stated or implied. Tell me why you should not receive the same criticism for adding the word and concept of ‘sin’ being passed on when the text does not state or imply it in the least? The Scripture simply states ‘death’ is passed on, not sin.

Romans 5:12 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:
--It is evident that death cannot pass upon men without sin passing first. The wages of sin is death. The two are connected with each other. Because sin is passed on from Adam onward, the result of sin--death--is also. "In the day that thou eatest (sin) thereof, thou shalt surely die." Sin is always connected to death. The sin nature is passed throughout all generations; the Adamic nature, which results in death.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--David admits (not that his mother was sinful, or that his mother was sinning when he was born) but rather that he was born with a sin nature. That is the teaching of this verse.

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--Man has a sin nature. He has it right from the womb. He comes forth speaking lies.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
--We are called the children of wrath because we are born with a sin nature, children of the devil. For this reason we need to be born again.
The Scripture teaches again and again that man is sinful by nature. That sin nature is passed down by the man.

Romans 5:18 So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. (WEB)
--Because of that one sin of Adam all mankind is condemned. We are condemned because we all have a sin nature which gives us the propensity to sin. Our sin condemns us. The wages of our sin is death.

HP: First, does the word ‘many’ imply a universal principle of OS? If so, then one would have to conclude that universalism must be correct, for by the obedience of Christ, ‘many’ shall be made righteous.

I only quoted the verse. How do you arrive at universalism. I can only conclude that you arrive at a heresy from a simple reading of the Bible. I really have no idea what you are talking about here.

HP: Here I see a clear contradiction in your view. You tell us that the flesh, in and of itself, is not nor can it be sin, then you speak of ‘biology’ as if it holds the key if we just knew where or the Bible was specific. If the residence of, or the transmission of, sin can be in any way shape or form be explained by biology, it is indeed located and centered in the flesh, again, contrary to your other statement which claims it is not. You cannot have it both ways. Either the flesh is sinful and as such biology holds the key, or it is not. Which is it?

You act as if the Bible and science in no way can be harmonized. Is your religion pure metaphysics with no practical value. I feel sorry for you if that be the case. The Bible is not a book of science, but I believe it to be scientifically correct. Thus, yes, I can have it both ways. The Bible and science do not contradict each other, but rather complement each other. I can explain through biology, in part, how the virgin birth had to take place at conception, how it had to involve a fertilized egg, how it could not start at a date any later than a fertilized egg, etc. There is no contradiction.
Biology does not speak in the realm of morality.
Biology upholds what I believe to be true--that a cell such as an egg is neither sinful nor sinless. Thus: "Flesh in and of itself is not sinful."

HP: Then you have assumed on one hand that the flesh, in this case the sperm is indeed the carrier of sin and as such the flesh is indeed sinful, while on the other hand in the case of the egg, simply flesh as well, it is not. How is your presentation so far to be seen as anything but clearly contradictory?

I said that man passes down the sin nature. I also said that we don't know exactly how, and no man has all the answers. There are some that believe it is through the sperm, but that is not written in stone. The Lord teaches in His Word that the sin nature is passed down from one generation to another through the man. Thus the phrase: the "Adamic nature." I have given you Scripture on this already. It is what Romans 5:12-19 teaches.

HP: Here again you are speaking in pure biological terms associated with the flesh. How can sin reside in the flesh when you say that it does not nor can not?

Sin doesn't reside in the "flesh" The sin nature resides in the man. Does your soul and spirit reside in your toenails? That is your flesh also. How ridiculous do you want to get?

HP: What are all the warnings I have heard from you concerning conjecture? You have not established a ‘sin nature’ from birth passed on genetically or otherwise with any of the passages you have used so far. Your argument sounds like that of Eliyahu who constantly beats the drum of ‘the sinful flesh’ but never establishes that the flesh is sinful.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
--It is not that I conjecture. It is that I do not know somethings and readily admit that somethings are better left up to the Lord. I don't base an entire theology on guesses and conjectures like some others.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I said that man passes down the sin nature. I also said that we don't know exactly how, and no man has all the answers. There are some that believe it is through the sperm, but that is not written in stone. The Lord teaches in His Word that the sin nature is passed down from one generation to another through the man. Thus the phrase: the "Adamic nature." I have given you Scripture on this already. It is what Romans 5:12-19 teaches.

DHK: Sin doesn't reside in the "flesh" The sin nature resides in the man. Does your soul and spirit reside in your toenails? That is your flesh also. How ridiculous do you want to get?

HP: No, Roman 5: 12-19 does not teach constitutional moral depravity commonly known as Augustinian original sin. The Scriptures you mention have been gone over many times so I will not address them at this time.

Now bear in mind ridiculous is a word you yourself used. You say that to say that sin resides in the flesh is ridiculous, and then tell us that you are not certain if you believe it resides in the sperm or not, that it might not be ‘written in stone.” How can I conclude otherwise than you cannot even decide whether or not your own sentiments on this issue are ridiculous or not? If by chance they are ridiculous, as you at least allow for the clear possibility to exist, would it not be wise for you to first establish what you honestly believe in a manner consistent with reason and Scripture which we can safely assume is truth and as such far from the ‘ridiculous’? Either it is entirely possible for sin to lie in the flesh, the sperm of man to be exact, or it is impossible for sin to lie in the flesh and as such cannot be transmitted by the sperm of man.

You cannot waffle on both sides of the fence. Either your position is clearly ‘toenail’ ‘ridiculous,’ in your own words, or sin does not and cannot lie or be transmitted by the sperm (flesh) of man, just as you say it cannot be transmitted by the egg of woman. Which is it?

 

[annsni]

I think there is a big difference between "residing in" and "being tied to". Sin does reside in the flesh because our souls reside in flesh. That doesn't mean that it's absolutely tied to the flesh. When the flesh dies, the sin doesn't die - it continues on with the soul and is brought before the judgment. If the sin were to die when the flesh died, then everyone would have paid the penalty for that sin (death) and can now go to heaven. But sin is tied to the soul, not the flesh. But Scripture speaks of "sinful flesh" in Romans 3 - speaking not of the flesh of the body but of the human nature - that is tied to the soul.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

HP: This verse has not been handled as many times as the others DHK mentioned, so I will address it while I wait on his response to the last post.

The portion of the text that is pointed to as being support for OS (original sin) is the words, ‘by nature the children of wrath.” The question is, does this verse really support the Augustinian notion of original sin?

It is a wicked and monstrous doctrine to hold that God is not only angry with, but that He will punish for eternity, those that by their very nature from birth have been destined to sin prior to ever making a solitary choice or willing to do evil. Scripture represents God as angry at men for the deeds they commit not the nature they were born with.

The argument that when the word ‘nature’ is used, that it somehow automatically infers a sinful constitution from birth, is simply not so. There is absolutely no validity to that position whatsoever. The word ‘nature,’ such as in the verse in question, simply is referring to the state of man universally as moral agents find themselves as antecedent to salvation, i.e., in an unregenerate state as opposed to a regenerate state subsequent to salvation.

Of a truth unregenerate man is in a morally depraved state and as such his nature is one of a child of wrath. Again, that in no wise indicates that such was the case from birth or that the false notion of OS is in any way implied by the text.

In order to see this verse as implying the notion of OS, one first has to approach the text from the presupposition that OS is true. It cannot be deduced from the text in and of itself in the least. To approach this or any other text with the word ‘nature’ in it, by forcing such narrow and self- inflicted presuppositions upon it, by insisting that the word ‘nature’ must mean ‘inherited constitutional depravity and that from birth,’ is a certain way to induce error into our interpretation of the text.

 

[DHK]

The question is, does this verse really support the Augustinian notion of original sin?

Why do you keep referring to the "Augustinian notion of original sin"? I don't know what Augustine taught on original sin, and frankly I don't care. I am more interested in what the Bible teaches. I have not quoted Augustine once. So why refer to him? Let's keep the topic on the Bible, and off the ECF's and other RCC leaders.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Onward to the substance

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

While we await DHK's response to the substance of my last posts..............

The plain truth of the matter is that there are indeed men that have had a great impact upon the doctrines taught in the Church even today that lived hundreds of years ago. Whether or not you are aware of the fact or not, the Early Christian fathers did not hold to constitutional depravity. It was Augustine that introduced a notion that you yourself feel is ridiculous, in that he believed, taught, and castigated all that would not also agree, that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not the will. It was that ruling notion that developed the doctrine of original sin. If you have not read by more than one scholar that Augustine was the father of the doctrine of original sin, you need to keep reading.

Why should the mere giving credit where credit is due, in this case Augustine receiving the just credit for the induction of the dogma of original sin within the Church, be offensive to you believing in constitutional depravity as you have evinced in your numerous posts? I happen to believe it is important on issues such as this to understand where a dogma has originated from, and that such has NOT always been the stand of the Church then, nor is it today, regardless of what may be termed as the ‘orthodox’ position of the day. I would agree with you that any dogma that indicates that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh should be considered as ridiculous. I would also add that it goes beyond the ridiculous to the level of being absurd and is counterproductive to the truth.


It would be nice to see you sensitive as well with the use of words, especially words, in a debate over the issues, that serve no useful purpose other than to cast out personal attacks against the other, words such as ‘heretic’ and ‘heretical’ aimed directly at another individual and or idea. Possibly we could strike a reasonable compromise for the sake of Christian charity.....

 

[Andre]

Wow - interesting topic.

Here are my thoughts:

1. We should not read "flesh" in Paul as "physical stuff". I believe that Paul uses the word "flesh" (Greek "sarx") to denote mankind in his totality when he is in an unredeemed state. I am not sure how important this assertion of mine will be to what I subsequently write - I am thinking on the fly

2. Sin, for Paul, is like a "force" or power that can exist "outside" of a person. The issues here are quite subtle. While Paul attributes almost a "personhood" to the power of sin, he believes that it has made its "home" in the human person - in the "flesh", the latter term properly understood to denote the whole person, not just the "atoms and molecules.

3. Paul writes this very interesting statement in Romans 7:

For we know that the Law is (Z)spiritual, but I am (AA)of flesh, (AB)sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing (AE)what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with (AF)the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

I think Paul is here clearly drawing a line between his "essential self" and sin - in a sense, sin has "invaded" his personhood and is winning the war against the "essential" Paul who, interestingly enough, is a "separate" entity from the "sin" that is in him.

I think that most will disagree with me when I assert that Paul, therefore does not see himself so much as a "guilty sinner" who needs forgiveness, but more as an "infected" person who needs to be cured. But in defence of my position, Paul clearly distinguishes himself from the sin that is in him.

4. When Jesus goes to the cross, the power of sin has been localized in Jesus' "flesh" and it is sin that is condemned, not Jesus per se:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,...

I see the situation as this: This almost "personal" entity called sin has been "lured" into the flesh of Jesus. There, it is allowed to, in concentrated fury, attack the flesh (person) of Jesus, thereby killing Him, and also thereby being utterly depleted of energy and power.

5. As you can see, I see the atonement as having more of a "forces being de-activated" flavour. I do not see it as being totally about some abstract "judicial substitution carried out "somewhere in the air". I think the atonement was a lot more down to earth than that - a very real "force" was allowed to literally burn itself out as it attacked the person of Jesus.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: I think there is a big difference between "residing in" and "being tied to". Sin does reside in the flesh because our souls reside in flesh. That doesn't mean that it's absolutely tied to the flesh. When the flesh dies, the sin doesn't die - it continues on with the soul and is brought before the judgment. If the sin were to die when the flesh died, then everyone would have paid the penalty for that sin (death) and can now go to heaven.

HP: Sin indeed lies in the spirit or soul of man. The ‘inner man,’ not the flesh. It is the spirit/soul that will stand and give an account at the judgment bar of God in the world to come, not the natural decaying dead flesh.

On another note, if physical death was the penalty of sin, then Christ would have died in vain seeing that all would be paid by mere mortals as they ceased their physical existence. It would also raise the issue of double jeaprody, man having to continue to pay for that which Christ supposedly had already paid for. Such would render the payment made by Christ as 'ineffectual' to accomplish it's ends as well, seeing man is still paying for that which was supposed to already be paid for.

Ann: But sin is tied to the soul, not the flesh. But Scripture speaks of "sinful flesh" in Romans 3 - speaking not of the flesh of the body but of the human nature - that is tied to the soul.

HP: Sinful flesh, as has been mentioned several times before, is a reference to the ‘whole of humanity’ that has sinned.