What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Marcia
Babies are born with a sin nature; they are not born righteous. One does not have to commit a sin to be a sinful creature; this is where you disagree with me, DHK, my church, my seminary, my mission board, and the Christians I know. Accountability is a separate issue. When is one accountable? I don't think we know.

HP: Wow!

How long have we conversed Marcia, are we not a ‘Christians that you know?’ Are you not judging the salvation of those you indeed know, at least in some measure or to some extent on this list, that disagree with your stated opinion? I certainly believe that is a possibility.

 

[Marcia]

HP: Wow!

How long have we conversed Marcia, are we not a ‘Christians that you know?’ Are you not judging the salvation of those you indeed know, at least in some measure or to some extent on this list, that disagree with your stated opinion? I certainly believe that is a possibility.

When I say "Christians I know," I mean really know, personally. I don't really "know" anyone on this Board firsthand. I know them secondhand via the Board, which to me is not really knowing someone in person.

But even counting this Board, I would say you and trustitl are the only ones I know from the Board who deny a sin nature in man.

 

[trustitl]

I believe that this is dangerously close to heresy if it isn't already.
Was Jesus born in sinful flesh, as you say?

Not as I say.
"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"

Would that not make Jesus a sinner--contrary to the Word of God, and all orthodox Christian teaching. A sinner cannot die for another sinner. He could be our sacrifice because he was sinless, and born sinless.

It would be if your understanding were true. However, as I have explained we are sinners when we sin. Jesus was sinless because he never acted upon the lusts of the flesh in a sinful way. You just won't accept that.

The sinless took the place of the sinner. That is the idea behind the atonement. He became our substitute. But what qualified Him as our substitute for sin. The fact that He was perfect man: completely sinless in every way.

What qualified Jesus as our substitute is that he never sinned.

Babies are born with a sin nature; Jesus was not. He could not have been. He escaped being born with a sin nature via the virgin birth being conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not man by which the sin nature is passed down throughout the generations.

I do not accept the theory that sin is passed down genetically. It has no clear scriptural support. Sin is a result of acting upon lust as is clear in James 1:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

You have sin as a condition before birth.

The biblical progression is lust, sin, death. You have it that we are born sinners and being spiritually dead which causes us to lust.

Eve is a perfect example of this. Romans make it clear: "For all have sinned" simply means every human is guilty of this. You would have it read "all are born in sin" which Paul could have easily written to make it clear were it so.

Gen. 3
"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."

What was Adams sin? He ate in direct disobedience to a command from God. Note that sin entered through Adam, not Eve. Eve was deceived first, but was not the channel through which sin entered the world.

 

[BD17]

From this opinion you read the Bible for you will not be able to support it with clear scripture. Actually the opposite is what I see.

How do you defend God being just for holding us accountable for being born with a "condition" that we had no control over?

Was God just in killing all the first born children of Egypt? Was he just in hating Esau, was he just in killing Christ the only person who did not sin and was not sinful, your thinking hear is clearly un-biblical. I say you have a harder time supporting your belief that sin is an act and not a condition. Romans says we are all dead because Adam, how is that just we did not eat the apple.

 

[BD17]

Not as I say.
"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"


It would be if your understanding were true. However, as I have explained we are sinners when we sin. Jesus was sinless because he never acted upon the lusts of the flesh in a sinful way. You just won't accept that.


What qualified Jesus as our substitute is that he never sinned.


I do not accept the theory that sin is passed down genetically. It has no clear scriptural support. Sin is a result of acting upon lust as is clear in James 1:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

You have sin as a condition before birth.

The biblical progression is lust, sin, death. You have it that we are born sinners and being spiritually dead which causes us to lust.

Eve is a perfect example of this. Romans make it clear: "For all have sinned" simply means every human is guilty of this. You would have it read "all are born in sin" which Paul could have easily written to make it clear were it so.

Gen. 3
"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."

What was Adams sin? He ate in direct disobedience to a command from God. Note that sin entered through Adam, not Eve. Eve was deceived first, but was not the channel through which sin entered the world.

Note Paul did not say "For all have sinned except children below the age of whatever." Paul also goes on to say he does the things he ought not to do instead of the things he ought to. Why does he do this because he is a sinner, without the quenching fire of Christs blood we are incapable of doing what is rightoues in God's eye. A man can be the kindest most generous and heartfelt person but all his acts are sinful if not done out of a love for the Lord. You are saying that there was no need for Christ because it is possible for a man not to sin, therefore that man would not need to accept Christ as his savior because technically according to you he did not sin, so the logical conclusion to your argument is that we do not need Christ to gain entry into heaven because it is possible to not sin ever. This contradicts Christs own words that he is the only way to eternal life.

 

[trustitl]

Note Paul did not say "For all have sinned except children below the age of whatever."

Paul makes it very clear in Romans 1-2 that sin is transgressing the law for Jews and failing to live up to the "law unto themselves" standard for Gentiles. He concludes with "all have sinned" in chapter 3.

How do you explain Romans 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." When would you say Paul was "alive". I would say it was before he was under the law. When was that? Scripture does not say.

Paul also goes on to say he does the things he ought not to do instead of the things he ought to. Why does he do this because he is a sinner, without the quenching fire of Christs blood we are incapable of doing what is rightoues in God's eye.

Paul is using Romans 7 to show what life is like before salvation. This is one of the most misunderstood passages in the Bible. To say Paul is describing his current situation contradicts how Paul describes his life in Christ in numerous passages. This is the basis for the untrue doctrine of the dual nature of believers and the sinful nature position.

You are saying that there was no need for Christ because it is possible for a man not to sin, therefore that man would not need to accept Christ as his savior because technically according to you he did not sin, so the logical conclusion to your argument is that we do not need Christ to gain entry into heaven because it is possible to not sin ever.

No I haven't. You just improperly concluded that. I have never said anybody ever saved themselves. You just don't like my position so you come up with this false allegation. God knew all would sin so he sent his Son. All things are possible with God, but apart from him it isn't. Just because it is technically possible for someone to not sin does not mean anybody would do it. Adam proved that right away.

This contradicts Christs own words that he is the only way to eternal life.

Only if I were to say someone had obtained eternal life apart from Christ which I haven't for it is not true.

 

[BD17]

Paul makes it very clear in Romans 1-2 that sin is transgressing the law for Jews and failing to live up to the "law unto themselves" standard for Gentiles. He concludes with "all have sinned" in chapter 3.

How do you explain Romans 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." When would you say Paul was "alive". I would say it was before he was under the law. When was that? Scripture does not say.


Paul is using Romans 7 to show what life is like before salvation. This is one of the most misunderstood passages in the Bible. To say Paul is describing his current situation contradicts how Paul describes his life in Christ in numerous passages. This is the basis for the untrue doctrine of the dual nature of believers and the sinful nature position.


No I haven't. You just improperly concluded that. I have never said anybody ever saved themselves. You just don't like my position so you come up with this false allegation. God knew all would sin so he sent his Son. All things are possible with God, but apart from him it isn't. Just because it is technically possible for someone to not sin does not mean anybody would do it. Adam proved that right away.


Only if I were to say someone had obtained eternal life apart from Christ which I haven't for it is not true.

You have to follow your belief to their logical end, just because you have not said that does not mean that your position does not allow for the possibility of it. Once again chapter 7 follows chapter 6 in which Paul states we are all dead in Adam. Chapters 3-7 describe sin as a condition we are in not an act:

8But sin,(M) seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.

16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with(U) the law, that it is good. 17So now(V) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells(W) in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19(X) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want,(Y) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

What is sin here the acts committed or the force driving the acts? What is the cause of Paul doing what he does not want? According to Romans it is SIN a condition not the act.


In answer to whether God is just:

14What shall we say then?(W) Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses,(X) "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,(Y) "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For(Z) who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man,(AA) to answer back to God?(AB) Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21(AC) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump(AD) one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience(AE) vessels of wrath(AF) prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known(AG) the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he(AH) has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he(AI) has called,(AJ) not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,

He hardened the heart of Pharoh "for this very reason I raised you up in order that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." How is that just? He raised him up and destroyed him for the very purpose of making His name known.

 

[trustitl]

Was God just in killing all the first born children of Egypt?

You assume he did it because they were guilty. I say he did it to punish Pharaoh. He did not hold them guilty for Pharaoh's sin for that would be unjust.

Was he just in hating Esau,

I see it in the sense Jesus said to hate our mother and father. It was his choice to work through Jacob.

was he just in killing Christ the only person who did not sin and was not sinful

Nobody took Jesus' life. He laid it down on his own. Surely you don't think God killed Jesus.

I say you have a harder time supporting your belief that sin is an act and not a condition. Romans says we are all dead because Adam, how is that just we did not eat the apple.

Not quite sure what you mean here.

We will all die because of Adam's sin, we are just not guilty because of it.

 

[trustitl]

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Romans 7:22-23

You think that sin is some condition that makes man evil. How was it before he was saved that Paul delighted in the law of God? Paul desired good with his mind, but his flesh fought against that. Flesh has no desire to please God, but merely to be fulfilled. This is what he calls a law of sin in his members. His flesh pulled him toward sin like the law of gravity pulls an object to the ground.

Without the Spirit of God man will inevitably, but not out of necessity, sin.

Regarding Pharaoh I start from the premise that his heart was hard when God started to harden it. Hardened steel is hard steel made harder just like Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh could have repented but chose to harden his heart through the deceitfulness of sin. His sin was unbelief.

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."(Heb. 3:13)

"And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants." Exodus 9:34

You see god provided the means for hardening Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh sinned causing his heart to harden.

 

[Marcia]

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Ps. 51.5

If one is not born with sin or with a sin nature, then one has a righteous will and is righteous. If one is born righteous, one is not spiritually dead and does not need a Savior.

Those of you saying there is no such thing as a sin nature are saying people are born righteous, and, I assume, that one does not need a Savior until they sin?

However, I see no evidence in the Bible for saying one is born righteous. What about Ps. 51 above?

 

[DHK]

Not as I say.
"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"

Christ did not come in sinful flesh, as you previously said. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh as Paul says. Likeness is not the "same as" sinful flesh. It is the appearance of. He did not have sinful flesh. He had something similar. He came into this world as a perfect human in every way. There was no defect in him. He was perfect. He was perfect wholly man, and perfect, wholly God at the same time. At no time did he ever give up his deity. And at all times did he remain sinless.

When John tried to describe what he saw in Christ, what did he say?
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

It would be if your understanding were true. However, as I have explained we are sinners when we sin. Jesus was sinless because he never acted upon the lusts of the flesh in a sinful way. You just won't accept that.

I accept what the Scripture says. The only reason that Christ could die for us, sinners, is that He, Christ, was sinless. Consider Scriptures:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (no provision for so-called innocent)

1 Peter 2:22-24 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
--He was the sinless Son of God. He never sinned. He was perfect man and perfect God at the same time. What qualified Him?
1. He was sinless. Only a sinless man could die for a sinful man.
2. He was God. Only God could die for all sinners throughout all ages everywhere.

What qualified Jesus as our substitute is that he never sinned.

--That is what you answered to this post:

"The sinless took the place of the sinner. That is the idea behind the atonement. He became our substitute. But what qualified Him as our substitute for sin. The fact that He was perfect man: completely sinless in every way."
--That is what I have been saying all along. What is there in the above statement that you disagree with? He became our substitute because he was sinless.

I do not accept the theory that sin is passed down genetically. It has no clear scriptural support. Sin is a result of acting upon lust as is clear in James 1:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

You quote James out of its context, just as Catholics and other religions who believe in a works-based religion quote James 2 out of context. The cults love to use James because they do not understand the context of the book. James is writing about "practical Christian living." That is the theme of his book, not theological doctrine such as Paul was writing in the book of Romans. If you fail to see that you will be wrong every time you try to apply James theologically. James is saying in a practical way, in your everyday life, that when you are tempted or tested with your own lust, and you give into that fleshly desire, then you have sinned. The consequence of sin is death--not only spiritual sin, but often physical death (but not necessarily always). This is a practical book, speaking of practical Christian living. It is not speaking of the sin nature. But Paul does, and he refers to it many times.

You have sin as a condition before birth.

I said that babies are born with a sin nature; Jesus was not. How can you take issue with that? Again look at Scripture:

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
--David admits he was born with a sin nature.
David was born in a noble family. He father was Jesse. When Samuel went to his family to anoint the king of Israel, all his brothers passed before Samuel, but none of them were chosen. He asked: are there any others? No one would have thought that the young teen-age boy tending the sheep in the fields would be the one who would be the next king of Israel; but when brought forth Samuel anointed him. All of his brothers fought against Israel. David played his harp in the royal palace before King Saul before Saul even knew he was to be king. He came from a good family. But David acknowledged that he had a sin nature, not a wicked mother. What a ludicrous thought to think!

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--Babies are not innocent. They go astray as soon as they are born. If you don't believe Scripture what will you believe.

Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
--Man cannot do good. It is impossible. Just a impossible for a leopard to change his spots or an Ethiopian to change his skin, it is impossible for man to do good. He is not innocent, nor ever was.

Why?
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
--Because of his heart. It is deceitful above all things. He was born that way.
Every man is born that way. He is born with a sin nature.

The biblical progression is lust, sin, death. You have it that we are born sinners and being spiritually dead which causes us to lust.

You get that out of James, taking it out of context.

Eve is a perfect example of this. Romans make it clear: "For all have sinned" simply means every human is guilty of this. You would have it read "all are born in sin" which Paul could have easily written to make it clear were it so.

Eve wasn't born with a sin nature; you were.

Gen. 3
"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."

What was Adams sin? He ate in direct disobedience to a command from God. Note that sin entered through Adam, not Eve. Eve was deceived first, but was not the channel through which sin entered the world.

And that sin passed upon all men, didn't it?

 

[trustitl]

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Ps. 51.5

Resorting to Psalms for doctrinal support is not very convincing and having to use this translation is further evidence of little support for this doctrine.

If one is not born with sin or with a sin nature, then one has a righteous will and is righteous. If one is born righteous, one is not spiritually dead and does not need a Savior.

I have never said we are born with a righteous will. However, Paul did say that he delighted after the law of God before he was saved. (Rom. 7:22) Why would he have done that?

Those of you saying there is no such thing as a sin nature are saying people are born righteous, and, I assume, that one does not need a Savior until they sin?

Is it a strange notion that one would need a savior only after they sin? I have said that all need a savior, even in the womb.

The following is from post #110
I have had this question asked before but I will gladly answer it again. A baby needs a savior. In fact, they even need a savior when they are in the womb? Along with all of creation which is groaning, a baby is an innocent victim of the curse. Do they need a savior for their sin? I don't think so, for they have not sinned yet.

Do you think baby's go to hell to burn eternally? Are they sent there by a just God who declares them guilty when they have never even done anything, much less sin?

 

[Marcia]

Resorting to Psalms for doctrinal support is not very convincing and having to use this translation is further evidence of little support for this doctrine.


I have never said we are born with a righteous will. However, Paul did say that he delighted after the law of God before he was saved. (Rom. 7:22) Why would he have done that?


Is it a strange notion that one would need a savior only after they sin? I have said that all need a savior, even in the womb.

The following is from post #110
I have had this question asked before but I will gladly answer it again. A baby needs a savior. In fact, they even need a savior when they are in the womb? Along with all of creation which is groaning, a baby is an innocent victim of the curse. Do they need a savior for their sin? I don't think so, for they have not sinned yet.

Do you think baby's go to hell to burn eternally? Are they sent there by a just God who declares them guilty when they have never even done anything, much less sin?

I am not just using something from Ps. but also other passages that DHK and I and others have cited.
NET Bible Note on Ps. 51.5

Heb “Look, in wrongdoing I was brought forth, and in sin my mother conceived me.” The prefixed verbal form in the second line is probably a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive), stating a simple historical fact. The psalmist is not suggesting that he was conceived through an inappropriate sexual relationship (although the verse has sometimes been understood to mean that, or even that all sexual relationships are sinful). The psalmist’s point is that he has been a sinner from the very moment his personal existence began. By going back beyond the time of birth to the moment of conception, the psalmist makes his point more emphatically in the second line than in the first.

NET ©Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. 1
NIV ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
NASB ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
NLT ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
For I was born a sinner––yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
MSG ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
I've been out of step with you for a long time, in the wrong since before I was born.
BBE ©
SABDAweb Psa 51:5
Truly, I was formed in evil, and in sin did my mother give me birth.
NRSV ©
bibleoremusPsa 51:5
Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.
NKJV ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
KJVBehold, I was shapen
<02342> (8797)
in iniquity
<05771>_;
and in sin
<02399>
did my mother
<0517>
conceive
<03179> (8765)
me. {conceive...: Heb. warm me}


NASB ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
Behold
<02005>
, I was brought
<02342>
forth
<02342>
in iniquity
<05771>
, And in sin
<02399>
my mother
<0517>
conceived
<03179>
me.
HEBREWyma
<0517>
yntmxy
<03179>
ajxbw
<02399>
ytllwx
<02342>
Nwweb
<05771>
Nh
<02005>
(51:5)
<51:7>

LXXM(50:7) idou
<2400>
INJ
gar
<1063>
PRT
en
<1722>
PREP
anomiaiv
<458>
N-DPF
sunelhmfyhn
<4815>
V-API-1S
kai
<2532>
CONJ
en
<1722>
PREP
amartiaiv
<266>
N-DPF
ekisshsen {V-AAI-3S} me
<1473>
P-AS
h
<3588>
T-NSF
mhthr
<3384>
N-NSF
mou
<1473>
P-GS

 

[Marcia]

I have never said we are born with a righteous will. However, Paul did say that he delighted after the law of God before he was saved. (Rom. 7:22) Why would he have done that?

It is a point of debate as to whether Paul wrote this as a believer or as speaking as an unbeliever. You will find both views strongly held. I see nothing here to support the view that man does not have a sin nature. God gave us a conscience, so we know good and bad, though imperfectly. Even people without the law know there is good and bad.

But everyone has a sin nature.

 

[Amy.G]

But everyone has a sin nature.

Just watch a 2 year old bang his brother on the head with a toy and you'll know that's true. :laugh:

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Wow -- agreeing with both Marcia and DHK --- at the same time -- which only goes to prove that with God, all things are possible.

BTW, don't most (all) major denominations within Christendom agree on the issue that humankind is born with a sinful nature?? In fact, that may be one of the few issues that we all agree with :laugh: .

Romans 5 seems to be pretty clear on the subject at hand.

"12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

 

[trustitl]

Just watch a 2 year old bang his brother on the head with a toy and you'll know that's true. :laugh:

As a father of 6 children plus 4 foster children I know what you are talking about. But a sinful nature is not the only way to explain such behavior. A child is born with fleshly desires and when they are not met they respond accordingly. This is very natural.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned." I Cor. 2:14

 

[DHK]

As a father of 6 children plus 4 foster children I know what you are talking about. But a sinful nature is not the only way to explain such behavior. A child is born with fleshly desires and when they are not met they respond accordingly. This is very natural.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned." I Cor. 2:14

You say that a "child is born with fleshly desires."
If they are born in an innocent state, then those so-called fleshly desires would not exist would they? Those fleshly desires are the sin nature. Otherwise they would not be prone to sin, would they?

 

[trustitl]

Christ did not come in sinful flesh, as you previously said. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh as Paul says. Likeness is not the "same as" sinful flesh. It is the appearance of.

Curious to know if everybody else agrees with DHK on this one?

If so reconcile it with the following:

"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." Heb. 4:15

Anybody dare agree with my take on this?

 

[trustitl]

You say that a "child is born with fleshly desires."
If they are born in an innocent state, then those so-called fleshly desires would not exist would they? Those fleshly desires are the sin nature. Otherwise they would not be prone to sin, would they?

No, they are a part of God's creation.

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."

Eve had these desires before sin entered the world.