We are born spiritually dead, and we prove/evidence that by our sinful/willful acts done in the flesh!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
We don't WANT "Free-Will"
- Thread starter HeirofSalvation
- Start date
- Status
We are born spiritually dead, and we prove/evidence that by our sinful/willful acts done in the flesh!
I know you believe that...and you also know I vehemently disagree. I believe the Bible when it teaches we are dead in OUR trespasses and sins in which WE used to walk.
Night and day. He said we are born dead (an oxymoron, btw, as death is the ending of life). What sins or trespasses does a baby commit in the womb? Spiritually dead people are guilty. If a baby is dead, he is guilty of nothing more than being conceived, which negates responsibility (response - ability) and just punishment.
Death mean without life with no regard for time frame. Otherwise I agree with you. Your post was not very clear.
Well, I don't know if I would say we are born sinful, we are born flesh with lusts and desires that entice and pull us toward sin.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Is this verse speaking of Eve before she sinned, or after? BEFORE. Eve already had the lust of the flesh and saw the tree was good for food. She had the lust of the eyes and saw the tree was pleasant to look upon, and she had the pride of life and saw that the tree was desired to make one wise.
Was Eve evil at this point? No, she was "very good" as proclaimed by God himself.
It is not being born flesh with lusts and desires that pull us toward sin that makes us evil. It is when we actually commit sin that we become sinful and evil.
Webdog, I know you already know this, I wrote this for the others.
And you others can mock all you want, you cannot explain the 99 just persons who need no repentance, and you cannot explain the elder son who never left his father as the prodigal son did, and never transgressed his commandments at any time.
The Pharisees were grumbling against Jesus because he kept company with sinners. This was the most common charge brought against Jesus by the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees. Jesus was showing these hypocritical men that these horrible "sinners" at first belonged to God, and that God rejoices whenever any sinner repents and returns to God.
Nevertheless, Jesus showed that 99 of the sheep never went astray and became lost, neither did they need repentance, and the elder son never transgressed his father's commandments and was EVER with him.
The only reason you cannot understand this is because your mind has been conditioned by the doctrine of Original Sin,
Last edited by a moderator:
Winman, I would say that sin, death and the curse permeate every inch of this universe, including children. All creation groans in anticipation of having this lifted. This is what I am referring to when I say "sinful". We are not spiritually dead (like an infant) yet our beings are permeated with sin.
Babies do not commit sin, this is clearly shown by Paul.
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
Jacob and Esau were very much alive in their mother's womb when this was spoken of them by Paul. Paul said they had done neither good nor evil. They were not sinners.
You can mock all you want, the scriptures do not teach we are born dead in sin.
I neither said that nor do I believe that. And I have mocked nothing.
Jeesh, first day back and already this. Someone needs to get a grip.
I understand that, and I have always understood what you mean, although I do not like to call anyone who has not committed actual sin "sinful". I am sure you understand my perspective as well.
I do believe a corruption spread on the whole universe as you do, and I am sure that this contributes in some way to man being more prone to sin. We see in scripture that Adam named all the animals, and there were far more animals in the world at that time than today. Adam would have made Einstein look like a dummy. I believe this corruption does affect our ability to make wise decisions, just as it affects our intellect.
But what we both agree to is that no man becomes guilty until he actually commits sin. We just use different words to describe man's nature, you say sin nature, I say flesh.
The main reason I do not like the term sin nature is because the scriptures say Jesus had the same nature as the seed of Abraham (post-fall) and was flesh. I would never say Jesus had a sin nature, but Jesus was flesh and had lusts and desires that tempted him just like us.
Not to change the subject, but the NIV does use the term "sinful nature" in both Romans 7:25 and 8:3.
NIV- Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
NIV- Rom 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
The word used in the KJB here is "flesh". This is the Greek word "sarx" and is the same exact word used in 1 John 4:2-3.
1 Jhn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
If the NIV is correct, and the Greek word "sarx" should be translated "sinful nature", then the NIV is saying Jesus had a sinful nature.
I think this is tremendous error.
NIV- Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
NIV- Rom 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
The word used in the KJB here is "flesh". This is the Greek word "sarx" and is the same exact word used in 1 John 4:2-3.
1 Jhn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
If the NIV is correct, and the Greek word "sarx" should be translated "sinful nature", then the NIV is saying Jesus had a sinful nature.
I think this is tremendous error.
You said this about me;
I would call this an insult and mockery. I had not insulted you, I was answering your question.
Well you are welcome to call it what you want. But your view is neither orthodox nor does it have any basis in fact. Twisting the use of the word "ever" does not make your case. And your view is so absolutely weird and crazy that it falls into the absurd category. I will leave you to yourself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Then how did Adam and Eve sin? In your view they had a perfectly holy and righteous nature like Jesus. How could they sin if your view is correct?
And doesn't the fact that Adam and Eve sinned PROVE that a person does not have to have a sin nature to sin?
And don't give me the ol' "the devil tempted them", the devil also tempted Jesus, and Jesus did not sin.
Just cutting off your excuse before you make it. :thumbs:
i don't think it would be tremendous error. If anything I believe it truly magnifies who christ is...the only human (in every way we are according to Scripture) to live who did not sin. This also affirms His Deity as He was the only one to evercome temptation. Temptation only happens if there is the option and desire to do something, which I believe shows He was like us in every manner...yet without sin. To me claiming nobody has a sin nature (human nature bent towards and stained by sin) leaves the possibility open that given enough time, someone would be able to live a sinless life. I belive sin nature is merely another name for our human nature (flesh)...I think we differ as to the scope and effect it has.
No, I agree with you, except I do not like the term sin nature applied toward Christ. Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole-hill, but sin nature to me seems to imply an inward evil, which Jesus did not have. Flesh on the other hand to me simply means to be pulled and tugged toward sin by our natural lusts and desires.
The scriptures teach we inherit our bodies from our parents. This is obvious. But our soul and spirit are given by God and are not at first evil, although when we choose to sin we become sinful, and if we choose to continue in sin we can become utterly corrupt.
And this is what scripture shows;
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
The word "corrupt" means to go from a good state to a bad state. When the scriptures say all flesh had corrupted his way, this implies that flesh was at first good, but through sin corrupted itself.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
This is the verse Paul quoted in Romans 3, except Paul said "unprofitable" where this verse says "filthy"
But note the terms "gone aside" and "become filthy". These phrases imply that man was first in the right way but turned aside, and that he was at first clean but then became filthy.
So, I do not believe the scriptures describe flesh as originally evil, but through sin becoming evil.
A fine point, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
I believe the difference is Eve had to be enticed. There is nothing in the account to lead us to believe she had an innate draw to violate His law as we do. We see this in very young children and I'm not sure the same behavior existed prior to the fall. At any rate, if there was no internal draw towards sin, was Jesus' temptation really that remarkable, or the fact He was the only human to accomplish sinless perfection?
Last edited by a moderator:
Then you are still stuck with the problem of who enticed Satan.
The scriptures say "every man" is tempted when he is drawn away of his "own lust" and enticed. The scriptures say Satan was perfect in all his ways till iniquity was found IN HIM.
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Eve already had these lusts and desires of the flesh, Satan simply excited them in my opinion. It is no different from watching a pizza commercial, when I see a hot pizza with meatballs and onions on it, I want one!
Satan cannot make another person sin, he can only excite the flesh. This is how he tried to tempt Jesus, he knew Jesus was hungry, so he tempted him to turn the stone into bread. But the desire for food originated within Jesus himself. Without this innate desire, Satan could not possibly tempt anyone.
That is something this side of Heaven we won't know, but there is a distinction between angels and humans. There are still angels who haven't sinned, but we cannot say that about any human not named Christ.
- Status