The Curse of the Law

[BobRyan]

I agree that mankind has a sinFUL nature in addition to a weakened nature.

Adam Lived over 900 years -- we do not. Our nature is significantly "weakened". Christ took on our same weakened human nature.

Adam contracted a "sinFUL" nature at his fall and passed that on to all of us so that we TOO "desire to sin" all on our own. By our very nature we are in harmony with sin and rebellion. Christ did not take on ANY of this. There was NO natural inclination to sin and rebel against God's Word inside of Christ - as there is in us.

In the NEW CREATION of 2Cor 5 the new creature - the new creation also has no desire to sin -- but it must fight against the old nature - the old man of sin (seen in Rom 7) where we see "SIN IN ME" at WAR with the new creation God's makes when we are converted. Christ did not have that inner war going on.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Adam contracted a "sinFUL" nature at his fall and passed that on to all of us so that we TOO "desire to sin" all on our own. By our very nature we are in harmony with sin and rebellion. Christ did not take on ANY of this. There was NO natural inclination to sin and rebel against God's Word inside of Christ - as there is in us

.

HP: You are very good at regurgitating Augustine’s position that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. Show us a clear passage in Scripture that reveals to us this sinful nature acquired from Adam. Show us one solitary verse that tells us that Christ did not have our very nature.

You utilize the word ‘nature’ as a chameleon, ever changing to fit your dogmas. It sometimes is used by you to denote only ‘the physical’ when it comes to Christ, but changes to an all-encompassing moral evil nature from birth when it comes to man. That is a convenient use of language when one is desperate for evidence of his dogmas, but comes without the least shred of the credible use of language, nor is such a changing definition supported in any way by Scripture.

BR: In the NEW CREATION of 2Cor 5 the new creature - the new creation also has no desire to sin -- but it must fight against the old nature - the old man of sin (seen in Rom 7) where we see "SIN IN ME" at WAR with the new creation God's makes when we are converted. Christ did not have that inner war going on.

HP: If you have no desire to sin, no inclination, no drawing, no influences plying upon the will to yield the wills power in the direction of its influences in the formation of intents, you have no war going on and temptation would be a chimera. You are beside yourself in trying to tell us that Christ had no war going on within His body, drawing Him into temptations and snares. You have no evidence whatsoever that such was the case. If that was the case, He was no man like I am, and could not have been tempted in all points as I have been. Scripture tells us otherwise. Let God be true and every man a liar.

How are we tempted Bob? I have never once heard you address the clear Scripture in James that tells us how man is tempted. If Christ was a man, He also, if tempted in all points as we are, was drawn away of His own strong desires and lusts to sin, yet He did not according to Scripture fulfill those desires, and due to His victorious battles over the flesh, the devil and the world, never sinned. As that sinless, tried, tested, Spotless Lamb, He became our High Priest and atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the entire world.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: You are very good at regurgitating Augustine’s position that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

to the contrary - I insist that it is in both areas.

 

[BobRyan]

.

HP: If you have no desire to sin, no inclination, no drawing, no influences plying upon the will to yield the wills power in the direction of its influences in the formation of intents, you have no war going on and temptation would be a chimera.

That was proven to be false in case of the angels, Adam, Eve and Christ.

The sinless nature COULD be tempted -- as it turns out.

You are beside yourself in trying to tell us that Christ had no war going on within His body, drawing Him into temptations and snares. You have no evidence whatsoever that such was the case.

I keep giving you Romans 3 ---
You keep ignoring it.

Try showing how the Romans 3 description from which 'no not one' is exempt - could apply to a sinLESS person like Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
.

HP: If you have no desire to sin, no inclination, no drawing, no influences plying upon the will to yield the wills power in the direction of its influences in the formation of intents, you have no war going on and temptation would be a chimera.

BR: That was proven to be false in case of the angels, Adam, Eve and Christ.

HP:I simply disagree, and state that you have said that but failed to set froth evidence to back up your claims. I would agree that the angels, before the fall most likely dealt with far less temptations than we do in this evil world, yet just the same the drawing to selfishness had to exist to some extent to be tempted. In the case of Christ, whatever war goes on naturally in the spirit of man, Christ had in the same measure, for He took upon Himself our nature, and was tempted in all points as we are.

BR: The sinless nature COULD be tempted -- as it turns out.

HP: Why do you insist on using terms that Scripture does not state or imply? Show me any Scripture you desire that tells you that Christ was born with a different nature than that common to man. I can show you several that clearly state He took upon himself the nature of men, and that without qualification of being some other nature as you denote as sinless.

For the record, I believe that all men are born without sin, and in that sense are born with a ‘sinless nature’ having not yet sinned. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God. Until one reaches the age of accountability and sins, no sin is imputed to him by God. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed.

BR:Try showing how the Romans 3 description from which 'no not one' is exempt - could apply to a sinLESS person like Christ.

Ro 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

HP: If you would just read the text without your presupposition of original sin, you would find to your amazement that the text is speaking to all men alive, for all men have sinned. Christ was not living at the time the text was written. It was not speaking to Him, nor is it speaking of any imputed guilt from Adam, but to all that had simply sinned and were living at the time.

Again the text is not addressing any but those that had already sinned. If you disagree, try making Christ part of the ‘all’ in this verse, Ro 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Not the words 'guilty,' not 'unjustly condemdened for the sins of another or some inherited sin nature involving imputed sin.'

 

[BobRyan]

HP: If you have no desire to sin, no inclination, no drawing, no influences plying upon the will to yield the wills power in the direction of its influences in the formation of intents, you have no war going on and temptation would be a chimera.

Quote:
BR: That was proven to be false in case of the angels, Adam, Eve and Christ.

HP:I simply disagree, and state that you have said that but failed to set froth evidence to back up your claims. I would agree that the angels, before the fall most likely dealt with far less temptations than we do in this evil world, yet just the same the drawing to selfishness had to exist to some extent to be tempted.

I dissagree with the notion that they were BENT toward evil as we are said to be in Romans 3.

To argue that case is to blame sin on God and claim that He "made them defective".

I argue that God created them with "Free will" and that the free will principle by nature does NOt require a robotic "bent" toward evil to choose it.

But what is more - I claim that they were created sinless and by nature "in harmony" with God's law and character. They used "free will" to choose sin "anyway".

Back to that pesky free will thing again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:

BR:Try showing how the Romans 3 description from which 'no not one' is exempt - could apply to a sinLESS person like Christ.

Ro 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

HP: If you would just read the text without your presupposition of original sin, you would find to your amazement that the text is speaking to all men alive, for all men have sinned. Christ was not living at the time the text was written. It was not speaking to Him,

Rom 3 is quoting the OT. It is applying this principle to "all" saying that NO one seeks after God Not even one!

But as you point out - this does not include Christ. But no one else "seeks after God" by natue - because their sinful nature is inclined to evil "bent" toward evil. As Paul states "SIN dwelling IN me".Rom 7.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Romans 8
3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the [b]likeness [/b]
of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin,

Paul has given us a good definition of the sinful nature in Rom 3 – showing that in that regard the sinful nature has nothing good in it – it is “full of sin” it is our sinful inclination to rebel against God’s Word.

Quote:
Rom 3
Quote:

The Sinful nature of all mankind –


9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;


12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''
13 "" THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,'' "" THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS'';
14 "" WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS'';
15 "" THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.''
18 "" THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.''


19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.




By contrast it is observed that "by the works of the LAW CHRIST WAS justified even in His human sinless flesh".

By contrast – only depravity “Dwells in us” by nature. We are “by nature the children of wrath” Eph 2:3-6.

And as Paul points out in Rom 7 – IN him is only depravity apart from the New Creation. (Good point LeBuick)

Rom 7
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

In the text above however we do have a good argument for Christ also having a “sinful” nature. But notice that the text says “in the likeness of our sinful flesh”. When Paul uses that term – he shows in several cases that he does not mean to imply an exact equivalence.

Quote:

Notice Eph 4
22that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
23and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
24and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

So while an argument could be made that “Sinful flesh” is to include the idea of sinful nature seen in Rom 3 – and that Rom 8 is making an exact equivalence claiming that Christ’s nature was totally depraved and “sinFUL” just as ours is – the example from Eph 4 above shows that this is not likely. For it is agreed that we are not in fact “God”. In the Likeness of God – does not make us anything like God in terms of exact equivalence. Christ took upon Himself our fallen – weakened human nature as opposed to the unfallen – perfect – flawless human nature of Adam. But that is as far as it went.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: So while an argument could be made that “Sinful flesh” is to include the idea of sinful nature seen in Rom 3 – and that Rom 8 is making an exact equivalence claiming that Christ’s nature was totally depraved and “sinFUL” just as ours is – the example from Eph 4 above shows that this is not likely. For it is agreed that we are not in fact “God”. In the Likeness of God – does not make us anything like God in terms of exact equivalence. Christ took upon Himself our fallen – weakened human nature as opposed to the unfallen – perfect – flawless human nature of Adam. But that is as far as it went.

HP: What you term as ‘unlikely’ is an absolute impossibility for sin cannot be imputed. No man is born with a sinful nature, not any man or Christ Himself. We indeed are born physically depraved, and as a direct result are born with a proclivity to sin, but that is just part of being human, a fact Christ indeed took upon Himself as well.

Nowhere will you find that Christ took upon Himself the nature of Adam that I can recall, but it does say he took upon Himself the nature of Abraham. Was Abraham born with the same nature as Adam?

 

[BobRyan]

Let's try this with small steps first - simple agreement on the simple parts.

Abraham had the nature described in Romans 3 - - the exact same depraved sinful nature described in Romans 3 from which "no not one" is exempt. And notice it is an exact QUOTE of OT facts - that were already true BEFORE the NT.

Can you agree to that?

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;


12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''
13 "" THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,'' "" THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS'';
14 "" WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS'';
15 "" THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.''
18 "" THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.''

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Let's try this with small steps first - simple agreement on the simple parts.

Abraham had the nature described in Romans 3 - - the exact same depraved sinful nature described in Romans 3 from which "no not one" is exempt. And notice it is an exact QUOTE of OT facts - that were already true BEFORE the NT.

Can you agree to that?

HP: The text does not imply constitutional depavity in any way. I do not agree with the way you read into the text your presupposition, that all are under sin and as such are born with imputed sin, which necessitated the implication of imputed guilt. Sin always carries associated guilt and blame. This text IS NOT establishing original sin, nor a sinful nature from birth, but rather simply showing that ALL have turned aside and sinned.

12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;

HP: I like the way you highlight the important words of this text. The only thing left is for you to incorporate the clear implications of the text into your thinking, and come to the understanding that this passage clearly states that they were not born sinful, but have “turned aside’ and ‘become useless.’

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I like the way you highlight the important words of this text. The only thing left is for you to incorporate the clear implications of the text into your thinking, and come to the understanding that this passage clearly states that they were not born sinful, but have “turned aside’ and ‘become useless.’

Is it your argument that "NONE seek after God" meant that in Paul's actually life "HE did not seek after God -- "???

Christ said "by their fruits you shall know them" in Matt 7.

Romans 3 describes fruits -- if you are arguing that these deeds were all DONE by ALL. In that case ALL do NOT seek after God.

The text does not say "at one point in your past for a brief second you were not seeking after God".

Paul argues in Romans 3 that HE IS the person that Romans 3 describes and in Romans 7 he calls this "SIN dwelling IN ME".

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

simply showing that ALL have turned aside and sinned.

Ok so your argument is that all these sins were being literally actively outwardly committed by Paul - (the language is ongoing and continual - not past tense) -

Rom 3

The Sinful nature of all mankind –


9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS [b]NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

[/b]
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''
13 "" THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,'' "" THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS'';
14 "" WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS'';
15 "" THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.''
18 "" THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.''

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Ok so your argument is that all these sins were being literally actively outwardly committed by Paul - (the language is ongoing and continual - not past tense) –

HP: Ok so your argument is that Paul was excluded?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Is it your argument that "NONE seek after God" meant that in Paul's actually life "HE did not seek after God -- "???

Christ said "by their fruits you shall know them" in Matt 7.

Romans 3 describes fruits -- if you are arguing that these deeds were all DONE by ALL. In that case ALL do NOT seek after God.

The text does not say "at one point in your past for a brief second you were not seeking after God".

Paul argues in Romans 3 that HE IS the person that Romans 3 describes and in Romans 7 he calls this "SIN dwelling IN ME".

IN Christ,

Bob

GE: How nice to agree with you, BobRyan! Why is it we so differ on the things we ostensibly agree on? But for once, I salute your standpoint unequivocally.
Yes, any if sinned, he sinned from nature - that is, from genetic proneness - which in everyone, is evil altogether. But for the grace of God so would everone have ended his life ... as he had begun it.