Dichotomy or Trichotomy?

Thanks, JD. that explains a lot.

But in 1John 3:9, doesn't the Bible say that the saved person cannot sin because His "seed" is in him? Yeah, it does. So that pretty much negates one of the objections. We KNOW that the spirit (mind, emotions, and will) still have sinful thoughts but the soul/conscience remains "pure" to use Paul's terminology.

skypair

 

Skypair - I appreciate your lust for the truth, but at some point you need to understand that the spirit will lead us into all truth if we get past the point that we individually are the arbiters of truth.

Just saying, "yeah, but" in the face of deeply Scriptural understanding and explanation is not a defense, it is stubborn pride. Make your case in the manner and with as much scholarship and substantiation as the teachers you have been shown - that is - take the breadth of Scripture with the understanding of the language, culture and history along with rigorous reasoning and prayer - then your argument may be credible.

As it is, it seems as if you are making up your theology from scratch as you go along. A dangerous course that has historically been shown to be fraught with error.

Blessings.

 

Here is an excert from the "Moody Handbook of Theology":

 

I'm w/you, skypair. To me, your explanation above makes perfect sense.

 

According to Ryrie's "Basic Theology" :

 

Hodges also held to the "Creation theory" view (like the Catholics and many Reformed) rather than to the "Traducian theory".

And as I posted in relation to "Moody Handbook of Theology" this view does cause some problems for the Dichotomous view.

Do you also hold to a 'Creation theory' as well??

----------------------------------------

For me regarding the problem for the Traducian theory is solved simply in understanding that the sin nature (which relates to the immaterial part of man) is passed on by the Father and not the Mother. Thus Mary had to be a virgin that Christ would be sinless because the child could only taken on or partake in the nature of His Father. The mother passed on the essense of natural body which is corrupted (hunger, thirst, fear, et..) but the father passed on the sin nature which is fallen (depraved, darkened, bound, et..).

 

You may agree, but what have you done to "test everything and keep the good"? - if you are only depending on your own reason and emotions, you will likely be in error.

That is - something may "make sense" but be completely in error. (Naturalism, for instance.)

The Spirit will not lead away from God's word. Plumb the depths of your beliefs, understand what presuppositions you bring to your rationale. Build on the good work of godly men that seek only God's glory.

 

Traducianism falls on this point.

Unless God's perfect creation is flawed by the inherited sin of Adam transmitted from generation to generation through the flesh. Which is what Scripture teaches.

The Father did not create a "divine sperm" and fertilize Mary's egg, otherwise Jesus would have inherited the sin of Adam, through the flesh of Mary.

As it was, she was only the vessel. A blessed vessel, for sure, but nothing more.

This misunderstanding is how the RCC has moved into error concerning the immaculate conception of Mary and elevating her as co-redemptrix.

She only gave the infant Christ her womb - not her flesh. Christ was knit together sinless as the second Adam. Sinless Man through sinful Man, but not of sinful flesh.

 

So God creates a perfect thing but 'at some point' (you can't pin point when) that creature is then tainted by sin. So you have man being conceived without sin but then that sinless being becomes tainted with sin at some point afterward.

You make no sense here. The child takes on the Fathers nature therefore Jesus would only take on the nature of God (sinless and without spot) not the nature of Adam (that which is sin stained). The fact the 'sperm' being 'divine' (without taint) negates all sin corruption thus any link to Adams nature.

So you advocate that Mary merly held Jesus as He grew supernaturally but did not share in any way with him of herself? She was merly an incubator? SWell that is a very unbiblical position.
If she did not share aspects of herself with Him then He would not have the frailties of flesh and even death to that flesh.

This is a complete fabrication or another misunderstanding. Mary is not without sin but the sin nature is not passed on through the mother but the father. You err in your (mis)conceptions.

 

God's ways are beyond our understanding. All I know is Jesus had not sin, yet was of the seed of David, according to scripture. I can't take it beyond scripture.

Rom 1:3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

BBob,

 

IOW - you mean the Reformers and those like minded - right? :laugh:

I say build your theology upon the Word of God and not the Word of God upon your Theology. And if Godly men of a certain theological persuasion agree then praise the Lord and if those same don't agree then praise God as well as long as you are persuaded according that which the Lord has shown you. But ALWAYS keep yourself ready to change your view if God so shows you.

 

Who said Man was conceived without sin?

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

The moment life enters the flesh, the whole being is tainted with sin

Incorrect - if Mary's egg was used, Jesus would have been tainted by the sin of Man.

How so? Show me.

Christ was murdered and did not inherit the wages of sin.

Sin is passed through the flesh. Again:

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

 

And how is that problematic?

He was the seed of David according to his fleshly parents.

 

Were you there when you were being conceived????? I thought the egg had to be fertilized first.

BBob,

 

BB, that has absolutely nothing to do with the truthfulness of Psalm 51:5 :"Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."( NRSV )

 

Yes, you are a sinner through the transmission of the sin by the father. Without a father there is no creation of a child thus it is concieved IN or already in sin. Why, because the sin nature was passed on AT conception and therefore he was concieved already in sin.

Why do you believe Jesus had to be born of a virgin?
If to fulfill prophesy, still why was it necessary?

 

Probably the sin was the "act of lust" of which Mary did not have when conceived by the Holy Ghost.

If what you say is true, then how can "the soul that sinneth shall die"???? If it is already dead, it can't die.

BBob,

 

It seems that is what he is saying.
He states "the moment life enters the flesh", thus you have God creating a being without sin because He doesn't create beings IN sin. Then you have God stuffing (so to speak) the spirit into the flesh (at some point) and thereby tainting it the sinless soul 'now' with sin. The person was made without sin and then by God cast into sin by God Himself placing that soul into sinful flesh.

The implications go on from there...

But here's the kicker - what makes the flesh sinful since we sin by nature not due to flesh??
Is itself sinful or is it corrupted (as in no longer perfect)?

 

There is no sinless being born of Post-Fall Man (of not through, as Christ was). The soul is imparted simultaneously with the knitting of the flesh. Body and soul are inextricably bound. Body and soul are immediately tainted by Adam's sin. Our sin nature is bound up in our body and soul. Our whole person.