The Origin of Sin--PART III

This is a red herring. The IC has nothing to do with this subject, as the sin nature is passed down through the man. Thus the virgin birth was necessary to avoid the sin nature. The IC has nothing to do with it. It was Adam's sin that brought the curse, that brought the fall, that brought sin into the world; not Eve's.

 

You can see it that way, I see it as the logical conclusion arrived at the view you have stated. I don't find in Scripture anywhere that the sin nature needs the Y chromosome to be passed on. The irony is the Bible says that death passed to all men through the man...and Christ died. That means something came from Mary that attributed to His death.

 

Doesn't that prove that the sin nature doesn't come from the flesh? Jesus inherited Mary's flesh, but did not inherit a "sin nature". Thus the nature comes from the man. Mary had a sin nature which she inherited from her earthly, biological father. Jesus' Father was not earthly.

 

I don't see the sin nature as opposed to the flesh. I see both intertwined, being human. Jesus was human as much as we are, in every way yet He didn't sin. To me Him having the same nature as we do, being tempted in every manner as we are and not sinning is even more miraculous than not having a sin nature and being unable to sin.

 

[/quote]
You keep going back to the IC which has nothing to do with this conversation. Because the RCC believes the IC they also believe in the "grandmother of God," St. Anne. Was she also without sin, or immaculately conceived. What about Mary's grandmother, great grandmother, and all the way back to Noah or Eve? See how ridiculous this position is.

Mary provided a body. That is all. Paul uses the words "made of a woman," to emphasize this fact. He does not even say "born of a woman." He uses the word "made" to emphasize the fact that the body, not the nature came from the woman. The nature is the divine nature of God. He was human, fully human and yet without sin, or even a sin nature. He avoided that because he was born of a virgin, not of a man; conceived of the Holy Spirit, not of a man. I have given you plenty of Scripture in the past for that. Your excuse for not accepting Scripture is: "But DHK, you know that those verses can be interpreted another way." No, I don't know that. Only by those who refuse to believe that man is born with a sin nature can they be interpreted another way. Unbelief is at stake here, as is an attack on the virgin birth of Christ.

 

One can be tempted without having a sin "nature". Adam did not have a sin nature, but was tempted and failed.

Jesus did not have a sin nature (just as Adam) but did not fail.

The first Adam was tempted and sinned, the 2nd Adam was tempted and was victorious. Neither had a sin nature.

 

This is actually a very good point in my opinion.

It has been argued that sin nature consists of desires and appetites, etc...

The fact of the matter is that before sin entered the world Adam had all of those things.

To argue that Jesus had a sin nature because he could be tempted is to miss this fact.

 

I agree with Webdog. Where is the victory if Jesus did not have to overcome the flesh? The scriptures tell us in James that God cannot be tempted with evil.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

So, God in heaven cannot be tempted with evil. But we know Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. How? Through the flesh, the very same nature we have.

This is the whole point of becoming human like we are, so Jesus could overcome and have victory over the flesh where we all fall to our nature.

Luke 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

In Hebrews 2 it says Jesus did not have the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus as a man was just like us. He had the same nature we have, which the scriptures call "flesh". In fact, the scriptures say that anyone who denies Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist.

1 John 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.

Jesus came in the flesh, he had the same nature we have. This is why I do not like to call it the sin nature, a term never used in the scriptures. Having this nature with it's lusts and desires is not sinful, it is only when you obey these lusts and desires that you sin.

 

Satan knew that Jesus had the divine power to turn rocks into bread. Just having that power made the temptation much greater than we would face. But he put aside that power, or chose not to use his divine powers, that in all things he would face temptation just like any other man. It has nothing to do with "y chromosomes" which the Bible forbids us to speculate about--vain speculations.

Jesus was fully man and fully God. When tempted he was man and chose not to use his divine powers. He was tempted as a man. Remember that Adam was tempted too. He failed, as Eve failed.

--Jesus did not have a sin nature, but was born in the flesh--the incarnation. He did not use his divine powers in order that he could be tempted just as any other man. If we attribute sin to him then we take away his deity, for in God their is no sin.

He did overcome sin, as we see and as is taught in fourth chapter of Hebrews. He was tempted in all points such as we are and yet without sin. But he did not have a sin nature as we do have a sin nature. That made it harder for him not easier for him. The temptation would have been greater. As He told Peter, don't you know I could have called 12 legions of angels, but he didn't. He did not use his divine powers to have angels come and rescue him from the cross. He could have. But he didn't. He went through with the suffering anyway--as a man--with the ability to call angels to rescue him. The temptation was even greater.

Correct. And no one here denies the incarnation. Is that what you are accusing us of. No, we don't deny that Christ did come in the flesh, or as that verse teaches "is in the flesh." He is in the flesh. And the flesh that he had on earth was provided by Mary's womb, Mary's seed which was conceived by the Holy Spirit. No other man in history had a birth like that. It seems to me like you are denying the virgin birth of Christ.

You have a great misunderstanding of this Scripture. The verb is present tense. Demons deny that Christ IS come in the flesh, not that He DID come in the flesh. He sits in heaven IN the flesh at the right hand of God. He was resurrected and ascended bodily into heaven and sits at the right hand of God.

He had a fleshly nature. He was the second Adam. He did not have a sin nature such as you were born with. He was born of a virgin so that he would not be born with that sin nature. Our father is the devil (John 8:44). His Father was never the devil, but always the heavenly Father. We need to be born into the family of God via the new birth. He never had to be born again. He was always God, is God, and always will be God. It seems to me that you are denying the God-Man.

 

"Luke" well look at you ..... One moment your the goat being cast into the wilderness & the next your praying in the temple......Well, well, well!

 

Luk

You keep ASSUMING we are born with a sin nature, a term never stated in scripture. The scriptures say God made man upright, but he strayed into sin.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Until Augustine, many of the early church fathers did not believe man was born with a sinful nature. The Jews have NEVER believed a person is born with a sin nature.

No, the scriptures show man goes from a state of good to evil.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

To corrupt something means to go from good to bad. You cannot corrupt something that is already corrupt.

Having lusts and desires is not evil. In fact, the same word translated lust is often used to show a desire for something good.

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.


The word lust here is the very same word used in Luke 22:15 translated desire.

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Lust in James 1:14 and desire in Luke 22:15 are the same exact word. Lust is not necessarily evil, you can have a lust or desire for good things as Jesus did in Luke 22:15.

Jesus had the same nature we did, else where would there be a victory? If he had no lusts and desires to overcome, how could he defeat sin?

Satan tempted Jesus in the same way he tempted Eve. He tempted him with bread when he was hungry, as he tempted Eve with the fruit that looked good for food. He tempted Jesus with wealth, riches, power, and fame, as Eve was tempted to be wise like God. Jesus was dared to cast himself off the temple questioning whether God could be trusted, just as Satan told Eve she would not die, questioning whether God was truthful and could be trusted.

Satan tempted Jesus in the same way he tempted Eve because he had the same nature and was subject to the same temptations.

 

Winman, I believe this verse is talking about God's original creation of Adam, not every man that is born. Adam was made upright, but sinned, bringing sin upon all mankind.

 

The Bible never uses: the depravity of man, the trinity, nor theology. I trust you believe in at least the two last terms. The Bible speaks of our nature, that we go astray as soon as we are born; and also our responsibility to sin. They are both mentioned. If only the latter were true then it would be possible for a man to live a perfect life without sin wouldn't it? If your position were true it would be possible for a man to live like Jesus did, a perfect life. Right? But show me an example where that has happened.

This is the book that the J.W.'s and other cults quote from the most. Do you know why? Study chapter one and find out the context. It is Solomon looking at life from the outside, from the viewpoint of a philosopher. "Vanity of vanities" he says, "all is vanity." That is the theme. He sets out to prove that all the ways of man are vanity. Thus the verse you quote is not what the rest of the Bible teaches, it is what man thinks of himself. He (the philosopher) thinks that he is upright in his own self-righteousness. But he isn't is he. Read Romans 3:9-15.
There is none righteous no, not one.

I don't believe that. Of course if your reading the various cults that may be so. You are arguing from the position of the RCC. They always make their appeal to the ECF, never to the Bible.

Man is born in a state of evil. He cannot do good.
"How can you doing evil do good things?" It is not in your nature to do so. You can't. This is what Jer.13:23 teaches.
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The teaching is plain.

Not true. Some things are intrinsically evil.
Are you telling me that a porn movie was once good? Porn is never good, was never good. It is evil all the time. It is produced by evil men who were born evil to begin with. They are depraved because they are born with a depraved nature, and never have been born again.

The old English word for lust simply means desire. You can't pick meaning #1 sometimes and then meaning #2 at other times and then insert whatever meaning you want to prop up your own pre-conceived ideas. That is not good hermeneutics.

It could be translated desire every time. Sometimes we have good desires and sometimes evil desires. So what. The same applies to babies.

You do know that you are not making any sense do you?

If Jesus had the same sinful nature you have he would not be God. You have robbed him of his divinity. You are denying the deity of Christ. A sinful Christ cannot be God. God is holy and without sin. If God is not holy and not without sin, then he is not God. Mary went to the priest to offer a sin offering. She admitted her need of both a Savior and that she was a sinner. Christ never did any such thing. He is not a sinner as you imply.

Correct. Both Eve and Christ did not have sin natures. The Fall had not happened when Eve was tempted.

That is correct. Eve, at that point, never had a sin nature. That came after the Fall.

 

Exactly! We go astray. A sheep that never belonged to a flock cannot go astray.

No, it would not. We are and always will be inferior to Jesus. We are created souls and spirits, he is the Creator.

No, it is Solomon speaking as "the preacher", the wisest man who ever lived, a prophet, and saying this is what he has found, that God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.

I agree.

The information is out there. Look and see.

That is not what it says at all, it says we are ACCUSTOMED to do evil. To be accustomed means to become used to something through use, through habit, not that you originate in that condition.

I agree.

Porn is corrupt because it is a perversion of good wholesome movies.
Even Satan became corrupt, God says he was perfect when he was created. Amazing, your doctrine teaches that babies start out more evil than Satan did.

 

Winman, in your posts you change the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.

 

Lust: personally I believe that Jesus flesh (sarx) had all the appetites of our flesh.

These appetites in and of themselves are not sin: desire for food, drink, comfort, a mate, a family... etc.

Jesus had them, He hungered, was thirsty, etc...

Where sin enters in is when we satisfy these desires apart from the known will of God (in Jesus case, under the Law).

He never gave in to them, not even in the Garden where He agonized at the thought of the cross, He sweat blood as a result of the conflict (for lack of a better word).

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.​

Personally, I don't care whether it was "He would not" or "He could not" sin, I love Him because He first loved me and went to the cross for me.​

Sin nature:
Romans 8
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.​

I believe the entire material universe came into the state of corruption because of Adam's sin and is far wider in scope than the just the human race, down to the atomic and sub-atomic particles. ​

Entropy, the energy death of the universe, the entire universe is caught up and in bondage to the result of sin and death.​

The Y chromosome thing is just a small part of the entire impact.​

sarx - "flesh" has both a physical and metaphysical component which may or may not impact the human genome and its DNA/RNA as related to the sin nature. Personally I believe it does.​

But why trouble ourselves with the details we probably couldn't understand anyway in our present state?​

When I heard His call and came to Him, none of these things and questions were there, yet I was freed from sin and death.​

Matthew 11

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.​

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.​

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.​

Yes, it's good to talk about these "hard to understand" things, we could do worse, but when we don't understand here is what we need:​

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.​

Proverbs 18
10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.​

HankD​

 

You're forgetting one important point. Our lusts are corrupted. They don't even feel as they should, and in that they are sin.

 

Today the word "lust" has a bad connotation. In OE the word "lust" meant two things. One could "lust" after evil things (sin), or could "lust" after good things (not sin), but the simple meaning of desire. Context determined the meaning.

The same is true with words like "tempt." Only context can determine if this was used in a sinful way or a good way.

 

Hank, this is very good, this is very similar to what I believe.

Where I may differ from some is that I do not understand "the fall" as other people do. I see that Adam and Eve were flesh before they sinned. They had lusts and desires. Look at what it says of Eve;

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 lust and desires before she sinned. How was she any different that we are today? Yes, she was "very good" because she was sinless at this point. Nevertheless, she was flesh and had lusts and desires.

And I do not see even one word of God cursing man's moral nature in the garden or anywhere else in all of scripture. Now you would think something of such magnitude doctrinally would be spoken of often, but it is not. There is nowhere in scripture where it says God cursed man's nature and caused him to be depraved.

No, God cursed the ground, and said we would return to the dust. And here is something most folks might not have considered, that is a good thing. If God had not cursed us to die, we would live forever and become more and more corrupt. It is only because we have a short life and then a promised judgment that many of us repent.

In fact, I think one of the reasons God brought about Noah's flood was to shorten men's lifespan to reduce wickedness in the world. Before the flood men lived 800-900 years. You can imagine how sinful a person would be if they expected to live such long ages. Young people are often sinful because they think they have plenty of time to repent of sin later. But when a person gets near the end of their life they take the afterlife far more seriously. There were many physical changes to the earth after Noah's flood, and I believe these changes resulted in man living far shorter lifespans.

So, the curse of death was good. Otherwise if we lived forever we would never cease to become more and more wicked.

 

:thumbsup: