Is the Flesh Sinful?

HP: Pray tell us how this verse has anything whatsoever to do with sin being passed to all mankind? How is sin passed down? Are you going to tell us it is through the sprem of man and or of the egg of the woman?

HP: Where does it say Adam did not transgress God law as well as Eve? When you disobey a known commandment of God, listening to anything or anyone other than God, deception by the enemy is certainly involved but that in no wise makes one innocent of voluntary transgression against a known commandment of God, therefore sin.

This verse could be paraphrased as follows. Adam was not deceived and as such sinned willfully. Eve was deceived but also willingly disobeyed and therefore was in transgression and sin in spite of the deception.

HP: Once one has sinned you are absolutely correct, and Scripture states that all have sinned.

HP: Very well. Please proceed. 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

 

What about the OP? Would anyone take a shot at answering the question directly, especially one that feels that the egg of Mary was not sinful and utilized by the Holy Spirit in the formation of the fleshly body of Christ yet believes in original sin and denies that the DNA of Joseph could have been used due to OS? Here was the question.

If the flesh is not sinful; in and of itself, and an egg is not sinful in and of itself being material matter, is the sperm of man sinful or can sin be transmitted by it? Why or why not?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
If the flesh is not sinful; in and of itself, and an egg is not sinful in and of itself being material matter, is the sperm of man sinful or can sin be transmitted by it? Why or why not?

HP: We have many criticized on the list, and justly so, for adding to the text that which is simply not stated or implied. Tell me why you should not receive the same criticism for adding the word and concept of ‘sin’ being passed on when the text does not state or imply it in the least? The Scripture simply states ‘death’ is passed on, not sin.

HP: First, does the word ‘many’ imply a universal principle of OS? If so, then one would have to conclude that universalism must be correct, for by the obedience of Christ, ‘many’ shall be made righteous.

HP: Here I see a clear contradiction in your view. You tell us that the flesh, in and of itself, is not nor can it be sin, then you speak of ‘biology’ as if it holds the key if we just knew where or the Bible was specific. If the residence of, or the transmission of, sin can be in any way shape or form be explained by biology, it is indeed located and centered in the flesh, again, contrary to your other statement which claims it is not. You cannot have it both ways. Either the flesh is sinful and as such biology holds the key, or it is not. Which is it?

HP: Then you have assumed on one hand that the flesh, in this case the sperm is indeed the carrier of sin and as such the flesh is indeed sinful, while on the other hand in the case of the egg, simply flesh as well, it is not. How is your presentation so far to be seen as anything but clearly contradictory?

HP: Here again you are speaking in pure biological terms associated with the flesh. How can sin reside in the flesh when you say that it does not nor can not?

HP: What are all the warnings I have heard from you concerning conjecture? You have not established a ‘sin nature’ from birth passed on genetically or otherwise with any of the passages you have used so far. Your argument sounds like that of Eliyahu who constantly beats the drum of ‘the sinful flesh’ but never establishes that the flesh is sinful.

HP: I am sorry but what I have heard, other than Jesus being born of a virgin, is adding to the text words that are not there and in your own words, ‘conjecture,’ not facts.

 

HP: Could you elaborate on the point you are making? Thanks.

 

HP: The point is that both sinned regardless of who was deceived or not, or who listened to whoever apart from Gods command to do this and ye shall live, do this and ye shall certainly die.

 

HP: Is the context who sinned and who did not? No, far from it. Here is a brief notation from Barnes on this verse. “It is not meant here that Adam did not sin, nor even that he was not deceived by the tempter, but that the women opposed a feebler resistance to the temptation than he would have done, and that the temptations as actually applied to her would have been ineffectual on him.”

Again that which is referred to in this verse as the ‘transgression’ would appear to me as not directly speaking concerning the actual sin involved as it was a verse that speaks to the reason why God placed the women subservient to the husband and to be in subjection to man in the place of public worship. She had circumvented her God given head and wrongly so. That process, antecedent to the actual sin, may not have been sin in and of itself, but it certainly could be rightfully seen as a transgression, as in the sense of a fault.

Now we went and stirred up the feminine isle for sure. :tonofbricks:

 

HP: No, Roman 5: 12-19 does not teach constitutional moral depravity commonly known as Augustinian original sin. The Scriptures you mention have been gone over many times so I will not address them at this time.

Now bear in mind ridiculous is a word you yourself used. You say that to say that sin resides in the flesh is ridiculous, and then tell us that you are not certain if you believe it resides in the sperm or not, that it might not be ‘written in stone.” How can I conclude otherwise than you cannot even decide whether or not your own sentiments on this issue are ridiculous or not? If by chance they are ridiculous, as you at least allow for the clear possibility to exist, would it not be wise for you to first establish what you honestly believe in a manner consistent with reason and Scripture which we can safely assume is truth and as such far from the ‘ridiculous’? Either it is entirely possible for sin to lie in the flesh, the sperm of man to be exact, or it is impossible for sin to lie in the flesh and as such cannot be transmitted by the sperm of man.

You cannot waffle on both sides of the fence. Either your position is clearly ‘toenail’ ‘ridiculous,’ in your own words, or sin does not and cannot lie or be transmitted by the sperm (flesh) of man, just as you say it cannot be transmitted by the egg of woman. Which is it?

 

HP: This verse has not been handled as many times as the others DHK mentioned, so I will address it while I wait on his response to the last post.

The portion of the text that is pointed to as being support for OS (original sin) is the words, ‘by nature the children of wrath.” The question is, does this verse really support the Augustinian notion of original sin?

It is a wicked and monstrous doctrine to hold that God is not only angry with, but that He will punish for eternity, those that by their very nature from birth have been destined to sin prior to ever making a solitary choice or willing to do evil. Scripture represents God as angry at men for the deeds they commit not the nature they were born with.

The argument that when the word ‘nature’ is used, that it somehow automatically infers a sinful constitution from birth, is simply not so. There is absolutely no validity to that position whatsoever. The word ‘nature,’ such as in the verse in question, simply is referring to the state of man universally as moral agents find themselves as antecedent to salvation, i.e., in an unregenerate state as opposed to a regenerate state subsequent to salvation.

Of a truth unregenerate man is in a morally depraved state and as such his nature is one of a child of wrath. Again, that in no wise indicates that such was the case from birth or that the false notion of OS is in any way implied by the text.

In order to see this verse as implying the notion of OS, one first has to approach the text from the presupposition that OS is true. It cannot be deduced from the text in and of itself in the least. To approach this or any other text with the word ‘nature’ in it, by forcing such narrow and self- inflicted presuppositions upon it, by insisting that the word ‘nature’ must mean ‘inherited constitutional depravity and that from birth,’ is a certain way to induce error into our interpretation of the text.

 

Onward to the substance

 

While we await DHK's response to the substance of my last posts..............

The plain truth of the matter is that there are indeed men that have had a great impact upon the doctrines taught in the Church even today that lived hundreds of years ago. Whether or not you are aware of the fact or not, the Early Christian fathers did not hold to constitutional depravity. It was Augustine that introduced a notion that you yourself feel is ridiculous, in that he believed, taught, and castigated all that would not also agree, that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not the will. It was that ruling notion that developed the doctrine of original sin. If you have not read by more than one scholar that Augustine was the father of the doctrine of original sin, you need to keep reading.

Why should the mere giving credit where credit is due, in this case Augustine receiving the just credit for the induction of the dogma of original sin within the Church, be offensive to you believing in constitutional depravity as you have evinced in your numerous posts? I happen to believe it is important on issues such as this to understand where a dogma has originated from, and that such has NOT always been the stand of the Church then, nor is it today, regardless of what may be termed as the ‘orthodox’ position of the day. I would agree with you that any dogma that indicates that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh should be considered as ridiculous. I would also add that it goes beyond the ridiculous to the level of being absurd and is counterproductive to the truth.


It would be nice to see you sensitive as well with the use of words, especially words, in a debate over the issues, that serve no useful purpose other than to cast out personal attacks against the other, words such as ‘heretic’ and ‘heretical’ aimed directly at another individual and or idea. Possibly we could strike a reasonable compromise for the sake of Christian charity.....

 

HP: Sin indeed lies in the spirit or soul of man. The ‘inner man,’ not the flesh. It is the spirit/soul that will stand and give an account at the judgment bar of God in the world to come, not the natural decaying dead flesh.

On another note, if physical death was the penalty of sin, then Christ would have died in vain seeing that all would be paid by mere mortals as they ceased their physical existence. It would also raise the issue of double jeaprody, man having to continue to pay for that which Christ supposedly had already paid for. Such would render the payment made by Christ as 'ineffectual' to accomplish it's ends as well, seeing man is still paying for that which was supposed to already be paid for.

HP: Sinful flesh, as has been mentioned several times before, is a reference to the ‘whole of humanity’ that has sinned.