the sin nature - let's get deeper with it

[Yelsew]

Are you going to address Npetreley likewise?

 

[The Archangel]

Yelsew, et al.,

Adam had to be created righteous and sinless (meaning without an inherent sin nature)

WHY? A couple of reasons:

1. The Bible talks of the Adam-Christ comparison. Christ was the "second Adam."

Because this is the case, would you, then, suggest that Christ, the God-Man, was initially unrighteous and sinful? I hope not!

2. The Bible speaks of how sin entered the world. It is simple--Adam did it.

Adam had both the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He choose poorly.

The curses pronounced by God in Genesis were because of Adam and Eve's sin. If it were a condition they were created in, those curses would have been there, by design, from the beginning.

3. If Adam was sinful when he was created it means that God didn't create him "very good." I know Yelsew will go into his tome of what "good" means. This is kind of like defining what "is" is.

A Whole-Bible-Theology shows that Good is perfect. Why then does Jesus, addressing the Rich Young Ruler, say "Who is good but God?" Certainly you don't mean to suggest this that "good" does not mean perfect in reference to God.

Augustine is extreemly helpful here. He sees 4 conditions:

1. Able to sin; Able not to sin (Adam and Eve in the Garden)

2. Not able not to sin (Adam and his race..until the cross)

3. Able to sin, Able not to sin (Christians, set free from the chains of sin)

4. Not able to sin (the eternal state)

Furthermore, If the act of redemption (relating to the whole drama from Genesis to Revelation) is meant to show that God's plans and purposes will not be thwarted and if our eternal state is a return to "Eden," then why would God return us to a state where we can sin? Simple. He wouldn't and doesn't.

The Adam-Christ comparison is extreemly valuable in determining these matters.

Adam: Able to sin; able not to sin; not able not to sin. (in that progression)

Christ: Not able to sin.

When the Bible talks of "in Christ" as opposed to "in Adam" it is saying, in effect, that we are already free from sin but we are not yet fully free from sin.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Yelsew]

1. The Bible talks of the Adam-Christ comparison. Christ was the "second Adam."

Because this is the case, would you, then, suggest that Christ, the God-Man, was initially unrighteous and sinful? I hope not!

I say that Adam and Jesus were identical in that before Adam's disobedience, they were exactly alike, righteous in every way, but with a nature that allows one to sin. Adam chose to sin, Jesus remained obedient!

2. The Bible speaks of how sin entered the world. It is simple--Adam did it.

Adam had both the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He choose poorly.

The curses pronounced by God in Genesis were because of Adam and Eve's sin. If it were a condition they were created in, those curses would have been there, by design, from the beginning.

Let's see, Adam was to toil the soil from whence he was made, and Eve was to have pain in childbirth. Are these alterations of Creation? or alterations of condition? I believe they are alterations of condition and not creation. Eve had not birthed her first child, so what did she know of childbirth. Adam had not worked a day in his life so what did he know of work?

3. If Adam was sinful when he was created it means that God didn't create him "very good." I know Yelsew will go into his tome of what "good" means. This is kind of like defining what "is" is.

No this time it is "sinful". Sinful means sin full, or one who is full of sin. Adam was not sinful in the garden, He was righteous, a condition of having no sin, right up to the time that he sinned. When he sinned, his condition was changed from being righteous to being a sinner. We all enter this world in a condition of righteousness, not having sinned, and remain that way until we first sin, then we are sinners.

A Whole-Bible-Theology shows that Good is perfect. Why then does Jesus, addressing the Rich Young Ruler, say "Who is good but God?" Certainly you don't mean to suggest this that "good" does not mean perfect in reference to God.

When it comes to human behavior, good always has reference to God's goodness. When it comes to creation, everything created is good, or not good when compared to the design. Goodness is relative to what was intended. God looked upon his created man and said it is good. Man is God's highest order creation for this world, because man is the only creation designed to interact with God in the form that God is, and that form is spirit! All other creation is under strict subjugation to obedience of God, and therefore cannot disobey! Man while subjected to God, is given the capability to disobey of his own choice, and like Satan, we all choose to disobey.

Furthermore, If the act of redemption (relating to the whole drama from Genesis to Revelation) is meant to show that God's plans and purposes will not be thwarted and if our eternal state is a return to "Eden," then why would God return us to a state where we can sin? Simple. He wouldn't and doesn't.

What makes you think that God removes us from a state where we can, that is, having the ability to sin? In recorded history there has not been one man who was so changed, that is, from having the ability to sin - to not having the ability to sin. Every human from Adam henceforth has and retains the ability to sin from birth to death of this flesh. For human's, sin is always relative to life of the flesh.

The Adam-Christ comparison is extreemly valuable in determining these matters.

Adam: Able to sin; able not to sin; not able not to sin. (in that progression)

Christ: Not able to sin.

If Jesus is the Christ, then the Christ is fully human, and therefore is not different in form that any other human. That is to say that everything that applies to Adam applies to Jesus. The difference is that Jesus did not disobey, where Adam did.

When the Bible talks of "in Christ" as opposed to "in Adam" it is saying, in effect, that we are already free from sin but we are not yet fully free from sin.

We are 'in Christ' when we believe and act in accordance with our "regenerated spirit". We are in Adam when we behave according to the flesh. The atonement brought through Jesus sets us free from the penalty of sin, but does not relieve us from the consequences of our sins, nor does it give us license to continue to sin. The atonement enables us to not sin.

 

[The Archangel]

Yelsew,

I say that Adam and Jesus were identical in that before Adam's disobedience, they were exactly alike, righteous in every way, but with a nature that allows one to sin. Adam chose to sin, Jesus remained obedient!

NOPE! Why?

James 1:13 (ESV)
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

Jesus, who is God, cannot have been tempted with evil. Sure Satan tried. Sure they were real temptations. Jesus was impervious to them, that's all.

Are these alterations of Creation? or alterations of condition?

They are alterations of the creation and of condition. Why?

Romans 8:23 (ESV)
And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Our condition was changed to a fallen condition and the creation was cursed by God. Bot the creation, its condition and our condition, are impared by sin. Creation, which we are a part of, groans for the ultimate redemption.

We all enter this world in a condition of righteousness, not having sinned, and remain that way until we first sin, then we are sinners.

This cannot be. Why?

Romans 5:12 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Genesis 6:5 (ESV)
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Psalm 51:5 (ESV)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

David claims that he was born a sinner. So is it the case with us.

Goodness is relative to what was intended

No. Goodness is only relative to God alone.

Luke 18:19 (ESV)
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

God looked upon his created man and said it is good. Man is God's highest order creation for this world, because man is the only creation designed to interact with God in the form that God is, and that form is spirit!

We were designed to interact with God, yes. However, we were designed to act as bodily individuals with a God who is spirit. Why? Adam had a body before the fall. And, we all will have glorified bodies in the eternal kingdom. It always has been intended for us to dwell in and relate to God in bodies.

In recorded history there has not been one man who was so changed, that is, from having the ability to sin - to not having the ability to sin

Every redeemed person falls into this category. All the believers have moved from "Death" to "Life." Death means slavery to sin and Life means the ability to choose between sinning and not sinning.

For human's, sin is always relative to life of the flesh.

NOPE! No way! No how!

Sin is ALWAYS in relation to God. Why? David after, in effect, killing Uriah the Hittite says this:

Psalm 51:4 (ESV)
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.

The sin is not against Uriah or Bathsheba. It is against God and Him alone.

If Jesus is the Christ, then the Christ is fully human, and therefore is not different in form that any other human. That is to say that everything that applies to Adam applies to Jesus.

NOPE! Jesus is a special creation--actually a "recreation." Sin nature cannot apply to Jesus because, while fully human, He is fully God. Jesus is never without his divine attributes. Therefore, He can have no sin nature.

The atonement enables us to not sin.

This is a self-contradiction on your part.

We are 'in Christ' when we believe and act in accordance with our "regenerated spirit". We are in Adam when we behave according to the flesh.

I don't think that you totally understand what the phrase "in Christ" means.

Have a nice afternoon.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Aki]

Yelsew:

let me put it this way: when one has a sin nature, this means committing sins is no surpirse. it's his nature.

with Adam, he does not have the nautre to sin. yet though sinning is not his nature, this does not mean the inability to sin.

you are actually treating the ability to sin and the sin nature to be one, which is not the case.

can Adam sin without the sin nature? yes.

can a man not sin when he has a sin nature? no.


to Archangel:

so we meet again. so i see you don't freeze well, here's one hot face for you:

i must point a correction. in in one of your post above you put Christ in the category of "not able to sin". the truth is, Jesus Christ in His humanity has the ability to sin, yet He did not fall. thus it should be "able not to sin".

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Aki:
Yelsew:

let me put it this way: when one has a sin nature, this means committing sins is no surpirse. it's his nature.

with Adam, he does not have the nautre to sin. yet though sinning is not his nature, this does not mean the inability to sin.

you are actually treating the ability to sin and the sin nature to be one, which is not the case.

can Adam sin without the sin nature? yes.

can a man not sin when he has a sin nature? no.


to Archangel:

so we meet again. so i see you don't freeze well, here's one hot face for you:

i must point a correction. in in one of your post above you put Christ in the category of "not able to sin". the truth is, Jesus Christ in His humanity has the ability to sin, yet He did not fall. thus it should be "able not to sin".

I must by conviction disagree with this. Christ did not possess the nature of man apart from the nature of God. It is the nature of God then which prevents the possibility that Christ may sin. If I have misunderstood your statement and perhaps it is that you meant to say it is possible then for man to sin once being "in Christ" this I do not dispute. Man, like Lazarus, is still bound in his grave clothes and will from time to time sin as a result.

I must emphasise the fact that Christ could not have sinned in any measure.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Christ did not possess the nature of man apart from the nature of God.

Then you are saying that the Christ was not Fully Man. For to be fully man, the Christ would have had to have the nature that allows one to sin. But because He did not sin, he proved himself to be the Holy and Worthy Lamb of God. That is what distinguished Him from all mankind. No other man has proven to be worthy, because each has failed in being sinless.

It is the nature of God then which prevents the possibility that Christ may sin.

Jesus knew in His spirit who his Father is and behaved accordingly. He deliberately did not sin. Though he did have the capability to do so.

If I have misunderstood your statement and perhaps it is that you meant to say it is possible then for man to sin once being "in Christ" this I do not dispute.

That is, in fact what you did dispute, so I am glad to see that you have changed your mind.

Man, like Lazarus, is still bound in his grave clothes and will from time to time sin as a result.

If you mean that man is still bound by the penalty of sin, I disagree. The penalty was paid by Jesus once for all, but that atonement does not remove the consequences of sin. For example: If you sin against another you have offended the other and you must confess your sin to the other or otherwise make retribution or concession, or the consequences could be that the other has nothing more to do with you. You will have damaged the relationship. That is why confession of sin is an ongoing requirement. So if you sin against God, John says, "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

I must emphasise the fact that Christ could not have sinned in any measure.

We disagree, Jesus could have sinned if he had chosen to do so! He was able to sin, but did not!

 

[Frogman]

Yelsew,

You don't beleive man is depraved, but you believe Christ could have been capable of sin? So man is not depraved, but God is?

This is what your post reads brother. I did not deny Christ was fully man. I beleive he was, but I believe this man was without the depravity in any way as we are. Christ was conceived Supernaturally. You and I and all others are not, we are conceived in iniquity, He was not.

Thanks for making it plain that you and I disagree. That was a Blessing.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

AKI,

let me put it this way: when one has a sin nature, this means committing sins is no surpirse. it's his nature.

NO, when one has a track record for sinning, it is no surprise that one sins. Having a sin nature merely means that one is able to sin, and usually at some point in his life does sin.

with Adam, he does not have the nautre to sin. yet though sinning is not his nature, this does not mean the inability to sin.

Adam sinned because he has a sin nature. He did not receive a sin nature because he sinned!

you are actually treating the ability to sin and the sin nature to be one, which is not the case.

See above, and you will see this statement is not true.

can Adam sin without the sin nature? yes.

NO, if one does not have a sin nature one cannot sin, it is impossible! That is why God does not sin! In Him there is no sin.

can a man not sin when he has a sin nature? no.

Only one man did, and He is called the Worthy Lamb of God.

 

[Frogman]

NO, if one does not have a sin nature one cannot sin, it is impossible! That is why God does not sin! In Him there is no sin.

Yelsew,
Correct me if I am wrong, but you contradict your last post where you said Jesus could have sinned, when you posted this.

I try to keep up with your spinnings on the abilities of man, but I cannot, and now you seem to say in one post that God is depraved, while answer that post by saying God does not sin! In Him there is no sin.

Which do you believe so we can address the reasons we disagree, which BTW is the only thing you have gotten correct in either of these posts.

Bro. Dallas

 

[npetreley]

Adam had a sin nature? Yelsew, do you really believe this stuff, or do you just post it to get a rise out of people?

 

[romanbear]

Npetreley;
I wonder what makes a Calvinist so hateful?. Could it be because there is no love in Calvinism. If there is no love in Calvinism then God isn't in it. How sad things are when there sarcasm runs wild and they show there true nature. How they hate anyone who believes the truth.
Romanbear

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by Frogman:
I must by conviction disagree with this. Christ did not possess the nature of man apart from the nature of God. It is the nature of God then which prevents the possibility that Christ may sin. If I have misunderstood your statement and perhaps it is that you meant to say it is possible then for man to sin once being "in Christ" this I do not dispute. Man, like Lazarus, is still bound in his grave clothes and will from time to time sin as a result.

I must emphasise the fact that Christ could not have sinned in any measure.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

Bro. Dallas,

Jesus Christ did not have a sin nature. however, as a human being, he had the ability to sin or not to sin. He was tempted. if He fails, then man becomes hopeless. if Christ overcomes all temptations, then He becomes the savior.

it's like Adam before the fall. Adam has the ability to sin or not, though without the sin nature. Adam failed, thus causing condemnation. in the same shoes Jesus Christ succeeded, thus bringing salvation.

though without sin nature, Christ may have sinned if he chose to - he has the ability!

maybe this categorizing will help:

Adam: able to sin, able not to sin, committed sin, causing condemnation.

Jesus Christ in His humanity: able to sin, able not to sin, did not sin, causing salvation.

Jesus Christ in His deity: not able to sin

[ March 17, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Adam had a sin nature? Yelsew, do you really believe this stuff, or do you just post it to get a rise out of people?

Why Yes, I truly believe what I posted. The nature does not come as a result, it is present to produce the result.

 

[Yelsew]

Yelsew,
Correct me if I am wrong, but you contradict your last post where you said Jesus could have sinned, when you posted this.

No correction needed. If as you believe, Jesus is fully man, he had to have everything that man has, otherwise he is not fully man. That does not mean that He does everything that man does.

I try to keep up with your spinnings on the abilities of man, but I cannot, and now you seem to say in one post that God is depraved, while answer that post by saying God does not sin! In Him there is no sin.

What determines depravity? It is not nature, but rather conduct.

Which do you believe so we can address the reasons we disagree, which BTW is the only thing you have gotten correct in either of these posts.

If you understood what I'm saying, you would have no trouble recognizing where we disagree.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by romanbear:
Npetreley;
I wonder what makes a Calvinist so hateful?. Could it be because there is no love in Calvinism. If there is no love in Calvinism then God isn't in it. How sad things are when there sarcasm runs wild and they show there true nature. How they hate anyone who believes the truth.
Romanbear

The love of God is not manifested apart from judgement and justice.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Aki, and Yelsew,

With respect brethren I must continue to stand where I am. I do not deny the fact that Christ was fully man, yet I believe He was also fully God. Because He was fully God His diety ruled His nature. He was not able to sin. Again I say He was not able to sin.

You are making him to have been created and He is the creator, He is, was and always shall be the Son of God, Isaiah tells us '...to us a child is born, a son is given...' (though I may have messed up the order) Note what is said there brethren A SON IS GIVEN, A child IS BORN. Yes, the eternal Son this means He was in eternity, HIS NATURE DID NOT CHANGE because of HIS BIRTH. This is the point of the virgin birth. Here not me, but do hear the word of God and do not put such emphasis on the will of the creature and so little upon the Creator.

HIS FLESH made HIM our kinsman thus the kinsman redeemer, HIS DIETY prevented any possibility of sin being in HIM in any degree whatsoever, thus the MEDIATOR, the DAYSMAN spoken of by Job, It is He alone who is able to take a hold of God and man and reconcile man to God. GOD IS LIGHT and IN HIM IS NO DARKNESS. What you are saying is effectively denying the Diety of Christ.

I stand on my earlier statement and on this post as well.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[The Archangel]

Yelsew,

Then you are saying that the Christ was not Fully Man. For to be fully man, the Christ would have had to have the nature that allows one to sin. But because He did not sin, he proved himself to be the Holy and Worthy Lamb of God. That is what distinguished Him from all mankind. No other man has proven to be worthy, because each has failed in being sinless.

No correction needed. If as you believe, Jesus is fully man, he had to have everything that man has, otherwise he is not fully man. That does not mean that He does everything that man does.

NOPE! Here is where you are wrong: You assume that sinfulness, or the ability to sin, is supposed to be a part of humanity. It simply is not.

Christ, by being sinless and unable to sin, represents all that man was intended to be.

Nevermind that Jesus was completley God while completely man (This is why we call Him the "God-Man"). James clearly says that God CANNOT sin--He cannot even be tempted to sin. If you say Jesus could sin, you state your position that He is not God.

James 1:13 (ESV)
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.


Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Yelsew]

With respect brethren I must continue to stand where I am. I do not deny the fact that Christ was fully man, yet I believe He was also fully God. Because He was fully God His diety ruled His nature. He was not able to sin. Again I say He was not able to sin.

If the Christ could not sin, what is it that makes him worthy? He is worthy because he resisted temptation, refused to sin, remained pure and holy, and carried out the Work of God that was assigned him.

 

[Frogman]

What makes him worthy is that he is the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead, he is God.

Bro. Dallas