The fundamental causes of mankind's sin nature.

[JonC]

I suppose that is true if one were to insist that original sin directly transformed mans nature to be a "sin nature". But the idea that man had a sin nature is easily found in scripture from the description of man at the time of Noah, the description of men in the behavior of God's own people, the description of men by Paul in Romans 1, and so on. This seemed to occur very early, be universal and be in some way remedied by the Holy Spirit. Other than that I guess that is why you have all the different theologies by truly serious men. So man got it somewhere, it is universal, and seems to be the case with all men of all races. The thing we have in common is our head, Adam. And we know something very pivotal happened with him.

It does depend on definitions.

Let's clarify -

Scripture refers to our natural state as "flesh" and as opposed to "spirit".

If we used "flesh" and "spirit" then perhaps it would be easier.

By "sin nature" if you mean a moral nature that is inclined to the flesh then I agree. It just seems easier to call this a "human nature" as nature itself does not equate to sin but temptation (see James 1-3).


This is how Christ could be the Son of Man (or "Adam"), btw. He was tempted in all points as are we (he had this human nature....you'd say "sin nature") but without sin (although tempted He did not give in to that temptation).

 

[37818]

Scripture refers to our natural state as "flesh" and as opposed to "spirit".

Finite flesh before acquiring the divine knowledge of good and evil was not sinful. The difficulty is Adam sinned before he had the sin nature.

 

[Silverhair]

Finite flesh before acquiring the divine knowledge of good and evil was not sinful. The difficulty is Adam sinned before he had the sin nature.

Adam nor Eve had sinned but they must have had the ability to do so or they would not have sinned. The had the ability to make choices or God would not have given Adam the command not to eat the fruit. Just as Christ had the ability to sin but did not do so.

 

[37818]

Adam nor Eve had sinned but they must have had the ability to do so or they would not have sinned.

Finite good.

 

[Silverhair]

Finite good.

You are starting to sound like a number of others on here that think just repeating a comment somehow makes it true and is the final answer.

To quote you "That knowledge of evil causes mankind whom had only been made to be finite good to become sinful."

If they only became sinful once they ate the fruit then how could they sin prior to eating the fruit?
Was it not a sin to go against the command of God?

 

[JonC]

Finite flesh before acquiring the divine knowledge of good and evil was not sinful. The difficulty is Adam sinned before he had the sin nature.

Yep. Human nature is not a sin itself. Neither is temptation.

James tells is that sin happens when we allow ourselves to give in to temptation.

Jesus refers to Himself as the "Son of Adam (Man)". He identifies as one of us, as a human being.

Jesus did not sin by being man. Being flesh itself is not sinful.

What we inherit from Adam is not a "sin nature" but a human nature and eyes opened to know good and evil.

The reason I don't like calling human nature a "sin nature" is it can lead to misunderstanding (Jesus would have had a "sin nature"). Maybe it would help as it highlights that Jesus did not sin although He had a human nature....but it still seems odd.

 

[37818]

The reason I don't like calling human nature a "sin nature" is it can lead to misunderstanding (Jesus would have had a "sin nature").

The divine knowledge of good and evil was always of the Son of God's divine knowledge of good and evil, Him being the LORD God in Genesis 3:22. It's effect on His incarnate human nature is reported in Hebrew 4:15, For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. This being He was both fully God and fully man.

The Son of God's flesh was NOT sinful flesh. But Romans 8:3, For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: . . .

 

[37818]

If they only became sinful once they ate the fruit then how could they sin prior to eating the fruit?
Was it not a sin to go against the command of God?

You are not hearing the answer.

Understand only God is infinititly good.

Luke 18:19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

 

[JonC]

The divine knowledge of good and evil was always of the Son of God's divine knowledge of good and evil, Him being the LORD God in Genesis 3:22. It's effect on His incarnate human nature is reported in Hebrew 4:15, For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. This being He was both fully God and fully man.

The Son of God's flesh was NOT sinful flesh. Romans 8:3, For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: . . .

You are partially right.

The Son, being God, always possessed a knowledge of good and evil.

But you have also contradicted yourself.

Romans 8:3 tells us that Jesus came in the form of sinful flesh.

This does not mean He sinned. Our being in the form of sinful flesh is not a sin. Sin is giving into the desires of this flesh.

That is how sin could ne condemned in the flesh (by being in the form of sinful flesh, being tempted, yet not giving in to temptation).

 

[37818]

But you have also contradicted yourself.

Give both quotes.

 

[37818]

Romans 8:3 tells us that Jesus came in the form of sinful flesh.

But not that form, but, . . . sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, . . . Yes, Jesus was truly man.

Luke 18;19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Hebrews 4:15, For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

[JonC]

But not that form, but, . . . sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, . . . Yes, Jesus was truly man.

Luke 18;19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Hebrews 4:15, For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

This is your contradiction.

Yes, that form. This is what the word "likeness" means. It does not mean "similar to" but "in the form of".

The Word was made flesh. There is only one kind of flesh in terms of man ("sinful flesh").

This does not mean "sin".

It means that we are tempted by fleshly desires (and yes, Jesus was tempted in all points as man).

The Son was made "sinful flesh" but without sin. He had our flesh. He suffered our temptations. And He destroyed sin in the flesh.

He most often referred to Himself as the Son of Adam. This was not by accident. He shared our nature but where we give in to sinful flesh, He did not.

 

[37818]

The Son was made "sinful flesh" but without sin.

We disagree in how we understand this.

2 Corinthians 5:21, . . . For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; . . .

Isaiah 53:6, . . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 John 3:5, And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Luke 18:19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, Go

I acknowledge we profess to believe the same Scriptures.

We disagree on how we understand Romans 8:3, . . . in the likeness of sinful flesh, . . .

. . . εν ομοιωματι σαρκος αμαρτιας . . . .

 

[Silverhair]

You are not hearing the answer.

Understand only God is infinititly good.

Luke 18:19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

But can you not understand the questions?

 

[37818]

But can you not understand the questions?

Yes.
Jesus ask the young man why he called Jesus good. Jesus explained only God alone is good. The young man didn't understand Jesus was the Son of God.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes.
Jesus ask the young man why he called Jesus good. Jesus explained only God alone is good. The young man didn't understand Jesus was the Son of God.

You are answering a question I did not ask.

To quote you "That knowledge of evil causes mankind whom had only been made to be finite good to become sinful."

So the questions relate to Adam & Eve not some man that spoke to Jesus.

If they only became sinful once they ate the fruit then how could they sin prior to eating the fruit?
Was it not a sin to go against the command of God?

 

[JonC]

We disagree in how we understand this.

2 Corinthians 5:21, . . . For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; . . .

Isaiah 53:6, . . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

1 John 3:5, And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Luke 18:19, And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, Go

I acknowledge we profess to believe the same Scriptures.

We disagree on how we understand Romans 8:3, . . . in the likeness of sinful flesh, . . .

. . . εν ομοιωματι σαρκος αμαρτιας . . . .

I understand it to mean that Jesus had to be made like His brethren, that He had to come in the form of sinful flesh, that He had to be tempted in every way man in order to reconcile man. The difference not being the flesh but giving into temptation (He did not sin whereas we give in to temptation and sin).


Exactly how do you understand "in the likeness/form of sinful flesh"?

 

[37818]

Exactly how do you understand "in the likeness/form of sinful flesh"?

He was both fully infinite sinless God and fully finite sinless man where He could actually be tempted as the man.

 

[JonC]

He was both fully infinite sinless God and fully finite sinless man where He could actually be tempted as the man.

I am not sure where we disagree.

We both believe that Jesus is sinless. We both agree that Jesus is God.

This has nothing to do with coming in the form of sinful flesh.

Being sinful flesh is not a sin. It is having the desires of the flesh. Actually giving into temptation is where we sin (see James 1-3).

I am saying that Jesus was made like His brothers, that He was tempted in all ways that are common to man (sinful flesh) yet He was also without sin (the temptation was real, but He did not sin).

 

[37818]

This has nothing to do with coming in the form of sinful flesh.

We disagree.