PDA

View Full Version : Inherently Evil/Inherently Good



Scubadude
Jan 19th 2009, 05:14 PM
Which do you think it is? Each belief has it's effect on Christian community, and changes the way you would talk to unbelievers.

But, which is the truth? Scripture seems to support both views.

reformedct
Jan 19th 2009, 05:32 PM
man is totally depraved. this doesnt mean that he is as evil as he can possibly be, but every part of his being has been tainted by the effects and power of sin. The Bible is clear that the heart of man is wicked, and that those without the Spirit have minds that are hostile and cannot recieve or submit to things of the Spirit. This doesnt mean that humans dont do "good things". Athiests can build hospitals, feed the poor etc. However the Bible also plainly says that anything apart from faith is sin. It doesnt matter what we do, if it is apart from faith, it is sin. All unbelievers are perpetually living in sin, until they accept Christ. All of our righteous deeds(the good stuff we do!) is as filthy rags(mentsral rags to be more specific)

mikebr
Jan 19th 2009, 05:33 PM
Which do you think it is? Each belief has it's effect on Christian community, and changes the way you would talk to unbelievers.

But, which is the truth? Scripture seems to support both views.

We were created in God's image. :hmm:

Did Adam undo what God did?

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 19th 2009, 05:37 PM
reformedct:
man is totally depraved. this doesnt mean that he is as evil as he can possibly be, but every part of his being has been tainted by the effects and power of sin. The Bible is clear that the heart of man is wicked, and that those without the Spirit have minds that are hostile and cannot recieve or submit to things of the Spirit. This doesnt mean that humans dont do "good things". Athiests can build hospitals, feed the poor etc. However the Bible also plainly says that anything apart from faith is sin. It doesnt matter what we do, if it is apart from faith, it is sin. All unbelievers are perpetually living in sin, until they accept Christ. All of our righteous deeds(the good stuff we do!) is as filthy rags(mentsral rags to be more specific)

Could you back this up with Scripture? Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you, just that showing where Scripture teaches this would substantially strengthen your argument. And after all, this is Bible Chat. ;)

reformedct
Jan 19th 2009, 05:49 PM
Could you back this up with Scripture? Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you, just that showing where Scripture teaches this would substantially strengthen your argument. And after all, this is Bible Chat. ;)

why certainly lol

in Mark 7:21-23 Jesus said, "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." and....

Matt. 15:19 He said, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20"These are the things which defile the man." and...John 8:34 (http://www.calvinistcorner.com/kjv/John/john_8.htm#30), "Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."


<li style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"> Jer. 17:9 (http://www.calvinistcorner.com/kjv/Jer/Jer_17.htm#The), "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?"
Rom. 7:18 (http://www.calvinistcorner.com/kjv/Romans/rom_7.htm#that), "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not."

Psalm 5:9 - There is nothing reliable in what they say; their inward part is destruction itself. Their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.

Ecclesiastes 9:3 - the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.

Proverbs 28:26 - He who trusts in his own heart is a fool



Romans 8:7 - the mind set on the flesh... does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so

1 Corinthians 2:14 - But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.


no faith= sin Romans 14:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Romans%2014.23): "Whatever is not from faith is sin."

can man at least understand the gospel by themselves?

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 - our gospel is veiled... to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.



as i said before this doesnt mean that mankind is AS EVIL AS IT CAN BE. it means that every faculty of the human being apart from God is affected by sin and its effects


also, man does still bear the image of God . He is still fearfully and wonderfully made. However it is also true at the same time that he is indeed in a state of fallenness and wickidness

from these verses i would feel very wrong to say that man is inherently good. The Bible is clear as seen in these Scriptures that the mind is fallen, the flesh is fallen, and the heart(core) is fallen.

Theophilus
Jan 19th 2009, 05:53 PM
Jeremiah 17:9 (NLT) - The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?

One vote for the "inherently bad" column.

RabbiKnife
Jan 19th 2009, 06:01 PM
Yet another of the mysterious of paradoxes of God.

Man is totally depraved, and in his heart is nothing good, yet even an evil man gives bread to his children and not stones.

Man is made in the image of God and at the same time is inherently bad is his fallen state.

Scubadude
Jan 19th 2009, 06:45 PM
man is totally depraved. this doesnt mean that he is as evil as he can possibly be, but every part of his being has been tainted by the effects and power of sin. The Bible is clear that the heart of man is wicked, and that those without the Spirit have minds that are hostile and cannot recieve or submit to things of the Spirit. This doesnt mean that humans dont do "good things". Athiests can build hospitals, feed the poor etc. However the Bible also plainly says that anything apart from faith is sin. It doesnt matter what we do, if it is apart from faith, it is sin. All unbelievers are perpetually living in sin, until they accept Christ. All of our righteous deeds(the good stuff we do!) is as filthy rags(mentsral rags to be more specific)

Adam and Eve were made, and they were pronounced VERY good. The sin they committed did not change the core of who they were. They still fulfilled God's command to fill and multiply, till the ground, God continued to interact with them and humanity. We are not inherently evil. Sinful, but not evil. Sin is a cancerous tumor. IT has no right to exist. But, being created in the image of God, we do.

When have you ever heard of people walking through a maternity ward saying, "God help us for all these new, wicked little evil beings who will just add more suffering to the world!" ?

And, since this is Bible Chat, the Jer 17:9 passage doesn't suggest that we are inherently evil, just sinners. The sinfulness of sinning is in the fact that we are really better than that, but chose to act differently, separating ourselves from the Lord.

JordanW
Jan 19th 2009, 07:02 PM
Man is born into a sinful nature, because of Adam and Eve. I think they are born inherently evil, but can become good if they accept Christ.

reformedct
Jan 19th 2009, 07:18 PM
Adam and Eve were made, and they were pronounced VERY good. The sin they committed did not change the core of who they were. They still fulfilled God's command to fill and multiply, till the ground, God continued to interact with them and humanity. We are not inherently evil. Sinful, but not evil. Sin is a cancerous tumor. IT has no right to exist. But, being created in the image of God, we do.

When have you ever heard of people walking through a maternity ward saying, "God help us for all these new, wicked little evil beings who will just add more suffering to the world!" ?

And, since this is Bible Chat, the Jer 17:9 passage doesn't suggest that we are inherently evil, just sinners. The sinfulness of sinning is in the fact that we are really better than that, but chose to act differently, separating ourselves from the Lord.

i never said that their sin changed who they were as people created by God. They, as well as we, are still created in the image of God. yes, they still mulitiplied and all that, i never claimed they did not. But they were in fact affected to the core. Whoever commits a sin is a slave to it. Not simply a good guy who does bad but a slave. the Bible teaches that we are rebels from birth. is it possible to be a sinless rebel?



Psalm 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth.
Isaiah 48:8 - "You have not heard, you have not known. Even from long ago your ear has not been open, because I knew that you would deal very treacherously; and you have been called a rebel from birth."
Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
Genesis 8:21 - the Lord said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth


you say that their sin did not change their core. Could you please show Scripture that backs that assumption? also, is not the heart the core of our being?

As i said we do still carry the image of God. i never said that wasnt the cae. we are fearfully and wonderfully made, meaning that God has created humans as a spectacular show of His glory. The way the human works and thinks and moves is amazing and testimony to itelligent design. However you must also accept the rest of Scripture that clearly says all facets of man are fallen.


They are not as bad as they could be. There is still a form of "goodness" in a man, for example even a sinner will give his son bread if he asks, etc, but the heart is also full of wikedness and whoever commits sin is a slave to sin. The Bible says all have sinned. therefore, all are slaves. Sinners still have a sense of what is right/wrong. they have a sense of justie and mercy. these are because we are indeed in the image of God. However Scripture STRONGLY indicates that the mind, the heart, and the flesh are corrupted, and that all have sinned

You are not really disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with what the Bible says


if we are not good to the core, simply try an expirement. Try to stop sinning. let me know if you suceed for more than a year. The Bible says that all this evil comes from the heart of man. i do not know how much clearer it could be? the heart is the very core of man

also i see you have claimed that being evil from the heart does not mean inherently sinful? so i can have an evil heart but not be inherently sinful?

also, we are not merely sinners. our hearts are FULL of evil

Ecclesiastes 9:3 - the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.

dont get upset with me, thats what the BIble, the Word of God says. I dont really give much heed to your "hospital room of evil babies" example. i base my truths on what the Bible says, not philosophical speculation


Do you seriously believe that when the Bible says our HEARTS are full of evil and wicked that it simply means "we make sinful choices?"

Jesus has already made it clear that all these evil things come from THE HEART of man. OUR SINFULNESS EXTENDS BEYOND OUR CHOICE AND IS BROUGHT FORTH FROM OUR VERY OWN HEARTS. not that we simply do bad things, but bad things come from our HEARTs. the bible says our HEarts are wicked. a bad tree CANNOT produce good fruit. The Bible clearly and repeatedly says that we are evil at the core, to our very hearts


i do not see where the confusion is. Perhaps someone else has been teaching you that we are inherently good? i know in America and in the world we like to assume that deep down man is good. This is beause we want to have "self-esteem" or feel good about ourselves or find some sort of value in ourselves. The fact is that all of our value and worth is in Christ. apart from Him the bible says we are worms and that all have become worthless. Not very good for self-esteem huh?

the Bible says anything apart from faith is sin. Are babies born having faith in God?

also i noticed you made a comment about us choosing evil when we knew better. Although that was the case with Adam and Eve BEFORE THEY SINNED, you cant use that as an example of fallen humanity, because the Bible already declares that all have sinned, and that we are by nature objects of Gods wrath. We go astray from the womb. we are evil from our youth.

This was not the case with Adam and EVe because they were born in faithful relationship with God in a sinless state. However after they sinned sin spread to all.

Psalms 5:5 God HATES all who do evil. This doesnt mean we should be mean to unbelievers but the fact is that although God loves them, His wrath is on them because of thier NATURE

now, does the words, BY NATURE objects of Gods wrath, simply mean we make bad choices even though we are better than that, or do we make bad choices by our nature? if our nature is good, why is it deserving of Gods wrath?

Yukerboy
Jan 20th 2009, 01:33 AM
We were created in God's image. :hmm:

Did Adam undo what God did?

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Good call. We were made sinners by Adam's disobedience.

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 02:00 AM
We were created in God's image. :hmm:

Did Adam undo what God did?They can only claim he did, without ANY (0 - nada - none) supporting scripture.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 03:42 AM
They can only claim he did, without ANY (0 - nada - none) supporting scripture.

did you happen to read my earlier comment?

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 03:49 AM
did you happen to read my earlier comment?Yes. The question is "Inherently Evil/Inherently Good"
but none of the scriptures you posted say anything about that, do they? No, and they certainly don't say anything about a change taking place in Adam to the negative that can be passed on to his descendants.

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 03:52 AM
Now we just have to wait for someone to post Psalm 51 :rolleyes: in context language and law and the thread will be complete.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 04:11 AM
Yes. The question is "Inherently Evil/Inherently Good"
but none of the scriptures you posted say anything about that, do they? No, and they certainly don't say anything about a change taking place in Adam to the negative that can be passed on to his descendants.

? how is saying the heart of man is wicked and full of evil not related to man being inherently evil?

i think you guys are reffering more to imputed sin of Adam, which is a whole different subject.

However, whether you believe in imputed sin or not, or if you believe we are born sinners or not, the fact remains that man is evil from his youth

"The intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21)

so whether you believe in imputation or born sinner or not born sinner, the fact remains that mans heart is evil from his youth.

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 04:33 AM
Because it only describes a state after birth into a natural world with natural flesh where satan is the god of this world (Eph 2). None of them describe the state of man at birth. Birth and womb verses describe us as fearfully and wonderfully made, having a soul that knows very well what is right, which is also what Romans 1-3 says.

Ecclesiastes 9:3 says -throughout their lives
Genesis 8:21 says -from his youth

I need something from birth because inherent is the question.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 04:52 AM
Because it only describes a state after birth into a natural world with natural flesh where satan is the god of this world (Eph 2). None of them describe the state of man at birth. Birth and womb verses describe us as fearfully and wonderfully made, having a soul that knows very well what is right, which is also what Romans 1-3 says.

Ecclesiastes 9:3 says -throughout their lives
Genesis 8:21 says -from his youth

I need something from birth because inherent is the question.


thats an interesting interpretation. is there any verses that show the inherent nature of man is sinless?

Yukerboy
Jan 20th 2009, 05:02 AM
Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

We did not become sinners of our own accord. We were made sinners through the disobedience of one man.

We did not become righteous of our own accord. We were made righteous through the obedience of one man.

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 06:13 AM
made means 'designated/ordained' and if you look at how the Greek is used elsewhere the nature of the person made is not affected because they were made. That's called the holistic method of interpretation. It ensures we don't cherry pick verses, misinterpret them, and use them out of context. ;)

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 06:19 AM
thats an interesting interpretation. is there any verses that show the inherent nature of man is sinless?Is there any verses that show the inherent nature of man is sinful?

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 06:43 AM
Oh, and actually I already posted two.

"fearfully and wonderfully made, having a soul that knows very well what is right, which is also what Romans 1-3 says."

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 06:51 AM
reformedct, consider
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Who is 'him'? Man. It says "all in subjection under him.....But now we see not yet all things put under him."

Why? What did God tell Adam? To guard, protect, keep, and subdue. From what? This would not have been said if all was already under him. God put all things
"in subjection under his feet"
not
"under him"

That was what Adam was supposed to do. He did not. He sinned.

Does it say "sin entered the world" or "sin entered man"? It says the world. The world that was in subjection to Adam that he was supposed to keep his dominion and subdue all in the earth, because while all things were in subjection, all things were not under. Do you see the difference?

The passage in Hebrews goes on to show us that Jesus did what Adam did not.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved 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.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

Which is why 1Cor 15 says the natural came first and the heavenly last. Adam was neither heavenly or immortal. That was God's intent through learning knowledge and wisdom through Him, just as we see with Jesus, but Adam tried to take the short cut and sinned.

Yukerboy
Jan 20th 2009, 07:00 AM
made means 'designated/ordained' and if you look at how the Greek is used elsewhere the nature of the person made is not affected because they were made. That's called the holistic method of interpretation. It ensures we don't cherry pick verses, misinterpret them, and use them out of context. ;)

So if we say through the disobedience of one man, the many were ordained sinners, I would agree with that.

Sirus
Jan 20th 2009, 07:06 AM
Right, that makes no change in their constitution/essence/nature at birth. Do you agree with that? If not, then you do not agree. Again, look up how the word made is used eslewhere. I've posted them a few times already.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 03:58 PM
reformedct, consider
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Who is 'him'? Man. It says "all in subjection under him.....But now we see not yet all things put under him."

Why? What did God tell Adam? To guard, protect, keep, and subdue. From what? This would not have been said if all was already under him. God put all things
"in subjection under his feet"
not
"under him"

That was what Adam was supposed to do. He did not. He sinned.

Does it say "sin entered the world" or "sin entered man"? It says the world. The world that was in subjection to Adam that he was supposed to keep his dominion and subdue all in the earth, because while all things were in subjection, all things were not under. Do you see the difference?

The passage in Hebrews goes on to show us that Jesus did what Adam did not.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behooved 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.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

Which is why 1Cor 15 says the natural came first and the heavenly last. Adam was neither heavenly or immortal. That was God's intent through learning knowledge and wisdom through Him, just as we see with Jesus, but Adam tried to take the short cut and sinned.

so far i have seen

being made under angels

being fearfully and wonderfully made (which i interpret as being made in the image of God, not that we are inherently good)

having fleshly desires

im sorry but i am still not convinced by these verses that we are inherently good

when i see verses like : go astray from birth, evil from his youth, by nature objects of Gods wrath (not by choices objects of Gods wrath) i get a different feel. plus, so far on my study of psalm 51:5 in the original Hebrew and septungint that it is indeed referring to Davids sin and not his mothers

plus, if we are not imputed any sin on adams account, why should we die? does that not mean we are suffering because of Adams sin if we die? Shouldnt we all have the potential to "not die"? ive heard the verse about the iniquities of the father not being given to the child, but if that was reffering to Adam also, whose sin is clearly made distinctive from all other men, then we must conclude that being ordained sinners is not fair right?

also, concerning the verse in Genesis:

Genesis 8:21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Genesis%208.21) declares, "...the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." Jonathon Edwards, in his classic work The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, remarks that on this verse: "The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence...so that the word here translated youth, comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy."

holyrokker
Jan 20th 2009, 04:21 PM
I feel like I'm always getting into these discussions far behind everyone else.

Why are the only two options Inherently Evil or Inherently Good?

Can't "good or evil" be determined by our choices?

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 04:37 PM
I feel like I'm always getting into these discussions far behind everyone else.

Why are the only two options Inherently Evil or Inherently Good?

Can't "good or evil" be determined by our choices?

hello holyrokker,

i see what you are saying, but the Bible does clearly say that we were by nature objects of Gods wrath

and that all kinds of evil flow from the heart of a man

i believe it is very difficult to say that we are only evil or good because of our choices. It seems that the Bible teaches that choices are made from the heart that we have. ie a good tree does not bear bad fruit, a bad tree does not bear bad fruit, not a neutral tree can choose to make bad or good fruit

Walstib
Jan 20th 2009, 05:05 PM
Why are the only two options Inherently Evil or Inherently Good?

I was thinking a third option could be inherently human. A built in capacity to do acts of good or evil. Considering that when it come justifying a person...

So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. (Luk 18:19 NKJV)



and that all kinds of evil flow from the heart of a man

How do you reconcile this somewhat hard line view with the "evil" here who do good? Saying evil comes from a heart does not in itself show good can not come from that same heart.

"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"(Luk 11:9-13 NKJV)

Does this good justify a person, no. But this person can still preform acts that by nature are good.

Peace,
Joe

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 05:11 PM
I was thinking a third option could be inherently human. A built in capacity to do acts of good or evil. Considering that when it come justifying a person...

So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. (Luk 18:19 NKJV)




How do you reconcile this somewhat hard line view with the "evil" here who do good? Saying evil comes from a heart does not in itself show good can not come from that same heart.

"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"(Luk 11:9-13 NKJV)

Does this good justify a person, no. But this person can still preform acts that by nature are good.

Peace,
Joe


yes, as i have said earlier, total depravity does not mean that a sinner can not do good acts. However it affirms that everything apart from faith is sin. So yes, sinners can do good acts, but even the good things they do, if they are apart from faith is sin. Total depravity does not mean that people with evil hearts cannot do acts that are good. it simply affirms that even the good they do is sin, and that all of our righteous acts are as filthy rags

Walstib
Jan 20th 2009, 05:19 PM
Total depravity does not mean that people with evil hearts cannot do acts that are good. it simply affirms that even the good they do is sin, and that all of our righteous acts are as filthy rags

I do agree with you for the most part. Most of the disagreement is in that word total. I would just think about how you may want to at least reword what you are saying. Calling good sin is slippery ground I think. Not far away from calling sin good.

Saying the good they do is not counted toward their righteousness (right standing) is one thing, calling good sin is another altogether.

Peace,
Joe

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 05:22 PM
I do agree with you for the most part. Most of the disagreement is in that word total. I would just think about how you may want to at least reword what you are saying. Calling good sin is slippery ground I think. Not far away from calling sin good.

Saying the good they do is not counted toward their righteousness (right standing) is one thing, calling good sin is another altogether.

Peace,
Joe

by total it simply means that the mind, heart, will, and flesh are all affected by sin. And by calling good sin, all i am doing is saying what the Bible says, not my own opinion. The Bible says(not me) everything apart from faith is sin. If we are doing anything outside of a relationship with God thru faith we are in sin according to the Bible

now, that being said, a good act is a good act. feeding the poor is a good act. but feeding the poor apart from a relationship with God is sin. God cares about the reason. As the Bible says, whether you eat or drink do it to the glory of God.

so, if i build a bank with no intention of giving glory to God, or not in faith, or as an act of worship to God, it is sin. thats just how it is. I know it sounds harsh but thats what the Bible says. all of our righteousness is indeed as filthy rags. (menstraul rags to be more accurate to the original language)

i think most CHristians have a weakened sense of the depth and depravity of sin against an infinetly good and holy God. Our sin is serious, very serious.

Walstib
Jan 20th 2009, 05:40 PM
And by calling good sin, all i am doing is saying what the Bible says, not my own opinion. The Bible says(not me) everything apart from faith is sin. If we are doing anything outside of a relationship with God thru faith we are in sin according to the Bible

We are playing with words a bit, sorry for being particular with definitions.

How to word what I am sayining. A good act can be done by someone with sinful motives. The act remains good, the intentions are sinful. Two things are in discution here here as I see it, acts and intentions.

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28 NKJV)

We agree for the most part, all I am saying is that the act remains a good act done in sin. If you want to keep your way of saying it, all is good. I just would clarify it a bit more myself.

Peace,
Joe

holyrokker
Jan 20th 2009, 05:44 PM
i see what you are saying, but the Bible does clearly say that we were by nature objects of Gods wrath

I replied to this same comment that you made in another thread, I’ll repeat the entire reply here as well:

The passage to which you refer is found in Ephesians 2:1-10

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

It’s important to see that phrase in its context. I know, I know - always trying to wiggle out of a “sinful nature” proof-text by pointing to “context”. Why can’t I just make a small group of words mean what I want it to mean without getting all technical?

First – Notice that the phrase is just that, grammatically; a phrase. It’s not a complete thought. It’s not a full sentence. It isn’t even a full clause. It’s part of a larger thought.

The thought pattern actually begins in chapter one. How do I know? The paragraph begins with the conjunction “and”. This section is an addition to what Paul was addressing in the previous paragraph.
Ephesians 1:15-16 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you…

Paul then goes on to talk about what Christ did for us.

Second – Notice the phrase that finishes the sentence: “like the rest of mankind”. Paul is reminding us that we who are Christians weren’t always Christians. We are not a particularly special group of people. There is nothing about us that makes us better than “sinners” – because that’s what we used to be.

This thought is also seen in verse 9 - And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast


Third – The word translated by nature is translated from the Greek word physis; which can also be translated into English as:
· the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature: as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse;
· a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature


Conclusion – This passage is not a discussion of an inherent sinful nature, rather it is part of a broader discussion about how we are completely dependent upon the mercy of God, because, just like everyone else, we have all sinned and become the natural objects of God’s judgment.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 05:57 PM
I replied to this same comment that you made in another thread, I’ll repeat the entire reply here as well:

The passage to which you refer is found in Ephesians 2:1-10

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

It’s important to see that phrase in its context. I know, I know - always trying to wiggle out of a “sinful nature” proof-text by pointing to “context”. Why can’t I just make a small group of words mean what I want it to mean without getting all technical?

First – Notice that the phrase is just that, grammatically; a phrase. It’s not a complete thought. It’s not a full sentence. It isn’t even a full clause. It’s part of a larger thought.

The thought pattern actually begins in chapter one. How do I know? The paragraph begins with the conjunction “and”. This section is an addition to what Paul was addressing in the previous paragraph.
Ephesians 1:15-16 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your lovetoward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you…

Paul then goes on to talk about what Christ did for us.

Second – Notice the phrase that finishes the sentence: “like the rest of mankind”. Paul is reminding us that we who are Christians weren’t always Christians. We are not a particularly special group of people. There is nothing about us that makes us better than “sinners” – because that’s what we used to be.

This thought is also seen in verse 9 - And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast


Third – The word translated by nature is translated from the Greek word physis; which can also be translated into English as:
· the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature: as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse;
· a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature


Conclusion – This passage is not a discussion of an inherent sinful nature, rather it is part of a broader discussion about how we are completely dependent upon the mercy of God, because, just like everyone else, we have all sinned and become the natural objects of God’s judgment.




thank you for this coment, however the text in no way says that by sinning we became objects of Gods wrath. It says we were dead in sins AND were by nature objects of Gods wrath.

It does not say, by being dead in sins, you BECAME by nature objects of Gods wrath.

also:

"Third – The word translated by nature is translated from the Greek word physis; which can also be translated into English as:
· the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature: as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse;
· a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature"

i have no inclination in reading this text to assume the second greek definition, which is apparrantley the lesser used definition, which is why it is the second defintion to the first, which refers to the nature of things.

also, in context of the whole of Scripture, it is consistently affirmed that the outward comes from the inward. From the heart comes evil. A good tree does good, A bad tree does bad. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit

so, in context of THE WHOLE BIBLE lol, when i read by nature objects of Gods wrath, i am in no way inclined to think: this must refer to repetitive sin and therefore becoming accustomed to a sinful nature

im not saying its impossible, but i am saying that your argument is not convincing enough for me to believe that this nature has been CAUSED by sinning, but rather that the sinning came from the nature

holyrokker
Jan 20th 2009, 06:13 PM
thank you for this coment, however the text in no way says that by sinning we became objects of Gods wrath. It says we were dead in sins AND were by nature objects of Gods wrath. The passage also does not say that were are either born dead in sins and trespasses, nor does it say that we were born the nature of God’s wrath.


It does not say, by being dead in sins, you BECAME by nature objects of Gods wrath.

You are right. It says that we were, by nature, objects of God’s wrath because we were dead in our sin.

Look at Ephesians 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind

This is the reason that we were by nature the object of God’s wrath. It doesn’t mean we were objects of wrath because we were born with a sinful nature.

"Third – The word translated by nature is translated from the Greek word physis; which can also be translated into English as:
· the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature: as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse;
· a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature"


i have no inclination in reading this text to assume the second greek definition, which is apparrantley the lesser used definition, which is why it is the second defintion to the first, which refers to the nature of things.

also, in context of the whole of Scripture, it is consistently affirmed that the outward comes from the inward. From the heart comes evil. A good tree does good, A bad tree does bad. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit

so, in context of THE WHOLE BIBLE lol, when i read by nature objects of Gods wrath, i am in no way inclined to think: this must refer to repetitive sin and therefore becoming accustomed to a sinful nature

im not saying its impossible, but i am saying that your argument is not convincing enough for me to believe that this nature has been CAUSED by sinning, but rather that the sinning came from the nature

It doesn’t convince you because you are PRESUMING an inherited sinful nature. Are are reading that into a text that isn’t saying that.

You are presuming that we begin sinful.

Yes, sinful actions come from a sin-filled heart. But that doesn’t necessarily mean we are born with a sin-filled heart.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 06:20 PM
The passage also does not say that were are either born dead in sins and trespasses, nor does it say that we were born the nature of God’s wrath.



You are right. It says that we were, by nature, objects of God’s wrath because we were dead in our sin.

Look at Ephesians 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind

This is the reason that we were by nature the object of God’s wrath. It doesn’t mean we were objects of wrath because we were born with a sinful nature.

"Third – The word translated by nature is translated from the Greek word physis; which can also be translated into English as:
· the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature: as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse;
· a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature"

It doesn’t convince you because you are PRESUMING an inherited sinful nature. Are are reading that into a text that isn’t saying that.

You are presuming that we begin sinful.

Yes, sinful actions come from a sin-filled heart. But that doesn’t necessarily mean we are born with a sin-filled heart.


First off, in this specific instance between me and you, i am not arguing wehther the nature comes at birth. I was trying to point out the false notion that we are by nature objects of wrath BECAUSE we are dead in tresspasses and sins


""You are right. It says that we were, by nature, objects of God’s wrath because we were dead in our sin.""

i am pointing out that the text does not imply or say that the nature was caused by the act of sin. I think in your mind you are thinking we sinned and therefore became by nature. I am saying that this passage does not imply this notion. do you see what im sayin? im not presuming anything here. I think you are presuming that the nature was caused by the sin, which is not what the text says.

holyrokker
Jan 20th 2009, 06:30 PM
First off, in this specific instance between me and you, i am not arguing wehther the nature comes at birth. I was trying to point out the false notion that we are by nature objects of wrath BECAUSE we are dead in tresspasses and sins


""You are right. It says that we were, by nature, objects of God’s wrath because we were dead in our sin.""

i am pointing out that the text does not imply or say that the nature was caused by the act of sin. I think in your mind you are thinking we sinned and therefore became by nature. I am saying that this passage does not imply this notion. do you see what im sayin? im not presuming anything here. I think you are presuming that the nature was caused by the sin, which is not what the text says.

But you claimed that the phrase "by nature children of wrath" means that we are objects of God's wrath because we were born with a sinful nature. Tha isn't what the passage says, is it? Isn't that an interpretation that you are assigning to the passage?

The context in which the phrase occurs tells us that it is indeed saying that were we were, by nature, objects of God’s wrath because we were dead in our sin.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 06:43 PM
But you claimed that the phrase "by nature children of wrath" means that we are objects of God's wrath because we were born with a sinful nature. Tha isn't what the passage says, is it? Isn't that an interpretation that you are assigning to the passage?

The context in which the phrase occurs tells us that it is indeed saying that were we were, by nature, objects of God’s wrath because we were dead in our sin.

this is what i am saying. The text does not say or imply that the nature came after we sinned. The text also does not say implicitly that the nature came from birth

the text does say we were by nature objects of Gods wrath

as i said earlier, as in Jesus examples, it is said that evil comes from the heart, not the other way around. as in the parables of good/bad trees.

this, along with Psalm 51:5 all point to corrupiton from birth.

perhaps i could be wrong, i just have yet to be convinced of it. It is very very hard for me to read all these Scriptures and honestly come to the conclusion that we are born inherently good. Not saying im 100% right, just saying i am honestly not convinced of it. I was looking for you to prove that the nature came after the sin, which you have not, and no one else here has either swayed me to believe that we are indeed born inherently good.

This, along with my interpretation of Psalm 51:5, which i believe is the majority historical view anyway, besides that of Pelagius, a publicly and historically condemned heretic, along with the fact that anything apart from faith is sin, leads me to believe we are sinners from birth.

as i said i could be wrong but i have yet to be convicted that i am, and i am also well aware that i am not coming out of left field with a minority view with no historical backbone

i may be wrong but i think the whole reason i brought up Ephesians 2 was in response to someone saying the Bible never says the exact words "sinful nature" therefore we dont have one. I was showing how indeed we are corrupt in our very nature as well as sinners by choice. I was mainly using Epehsians 2 to communicate that the Bible does indeed speak of a nature deserving of Gods wrath, even though the term "sinful nature" is not used in the Bible

either way as i said before i am still convinced that psalm 51:5 speaks of Davids own sinfulness, since he had not yet commited a sin, and the bible does speak of a nature worthy of Gods wrath, it is my current view that we are indeed with this nature from birth

"The context in which the phrase occurs tells us that it is indeed saying that were we were, by nature, objects of God’s wrath because we were dead in our sin."

here is an example where you are doing the very thing you accuse me of. The context, DOES NOT SAY THAT OUR NATURE WAS CAUSED BY OUR SIN.

you are assuming that. It says we were dead in sins AND by nature.

Not, we are by nature BECAUSE of our sins. There is a BIG difference. The passage claims that we sinned AND that we were corrupt by nature. It does not say that we are corrupt by nature BECAUSE we sinned

i was using this verse to prove that we are indeed corrupt by nature. Yes, this passage in Ephehsians 2 does not prove corruption at birth, but it does indeed prove corrupt nature, not just good people doing bad.

The verse that has convinced me of corrupted nature at birth is Psalm 51:5 as i said earlier, Romans 5, and other verses that speak of going astray from birth.
Also, the fact shown in other threads that God specifically slaughtered babies. if they did not deserve to be slaughtered and God slaughtered them that would be unjust. All of this points me to corruption at birth

holyrokker
Jan 21st 2009, 01:11 AM
this is what i am saying. The text does not say or imply that the nature came after we sinned. The text also does not say implicitly that the nature came from birth

the text does say we were by nature objects of Gods wrath

as i said earlier, as in Jesus examples, it is said that evil comes from the heart, not the other way around. as in the parables of good/bad trees.


I agree. Evil comes from within a man's heart. The man is not born sinful or evil. If that were the case, sin would have come from a previous generation.

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 02:18 AM
im sorry but i am still not convinced by these verses that we are inherently goodI'm not trying to convince you or even say we are born inherently good. We are neutral being born not having done good or evil. We are bent towards evil, not because of our nature alone, but because of a veiled relationship, if you will, with God.



when i see verses like : go astray from birth, evil from his youth, by nature objects of Gods wrath (not by choices objects of Gods wrath) i get a different feel. plus, so far on my study of psalm 51:5 in the original Hebrew and septungint that it is indeed referring to Davids sin and not his mothersEphesians 2 clearly is because of our choices. How can you read these and see birth and not the choices each individual?

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

David was talking about the sins he committed in context, but not in the verse in question. The verse in question reveal the world he was born into, as seen in Ephesians 2. Natural and prince of the air.



plus, if we are not imputed any sin on adams account, why should we die? does that not mean we are suffering because of Adams sin if we die? Shouldnt we all have the potential to "not die"? ive heard the verse about the iniquities of the father not being given to the child, but if that was reffering to Adam also, whose sin is clearly made distinctive from all other men, then we must conclude that being ordained sinners is not fair right?It doesn't EVER say iniquities of the fathers on the children, it says the consequenses of iniquity of the father on the children. Very big difference. That is also the law that Gentiles were never under and Ezekiel 18 says everyone is responsible for their own sin.

Why does Adam's sin have to be imputed to us for us to die? The word is condemnation in Romans 5. It means judgment. The judgment handed down to Adam, not sin. Sin entered mans world, not man. The judment handed down to Adam was til thou return to the dust -banished from the tree of life. Reading Genesis 5 we see that death passes on all men. This we all know. Because of this and our veiled relationship sin is certain for all so all die. There's no scriptural reason to make it anymore complicated than this. This is what the text says very plainly. It's only when people use the english word for 'made' instead of the Greek and assume another death than the physical death in the text that problems arise requiring us to twist other scripture for justification. Like Edwards below....

also, concerning the verse in Genesis:

Genesis 8:21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Genesis%208.21) declares, "...the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth." Jonathon Edwards, in his classic work The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, remarks that on this verse: "The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence...so that the word here translated youth, comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy."See!
If you look at ALL the verse that word is used in you will see it used as I have said and that Edwards, as usual, is dead wrong.

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 02:25 AM
i am pointing out that the text does not imply or say that the nature was caused by the act of sin.
That is exactly what it does.

were by nature at the time you...

walked
according to
course
spirit NOW worketh
conversation
fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind

What scripture says we are subject to God's wrath because of another's sin? Just one will do. Just one.

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 02:29 AM
This, along with my interpretation of Psalm 51:5, which i believe is the majority historical view anyway, besides that of Pelagius, a publicly and historically condemned heretic, along with the fact that anything apart from faith is sin, leads me to believe we are sinners from birth.Well then, consider the words of Jesus and the apostles concerning the state of and end of the Church. Then, enjoy your doctrine. ;)

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 02:32 AM
Also, the fact shown in other threads that God specifically slaughtered babies. if they did not deserve to be slaughtered and God slaughtered them that would be unjust.:B
Why? Why did God do that? There is a very good reason! Why the genocide?

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 03:19 AM
That is exactly what it does.

were by nature at the time you...

walked
according to
course
spirit NOW worketh
conversation
fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind

What scripture says we are subject to God's wrath because of another's sin? Just one will do. Just one.



That is exactly what it does.

were by nature at the time you...

walked
according to
course
spirit NOW worketh
conversation
fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind

hello sirus. my point is that ephesians 2 gives a list of things we have done and states we were in, but it does not ever say: Your nature was like this BECAUSE of sin. It gives a list. dead in tresspases, walked according to, the sprirt that now worketh, by nature this, etc, but it never claims that one thing was a cause of another. it simply gives a list

the spirit that now worketh just means the spirit that is presently at work in the world in the sons of disobedience. it doesnt mean now as in you did this Now this is what happened. it is like saying the sun that now shines on the earth.

the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience. present tense now, not causual now

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 03:19 AM
Also, the fact shown in other threads that God specifically slaughtered babies. if they did not deserve to be slaughtered and God slaughtered them that would be unjust. All of this points me to corruption at birthBTW; following this line of thinking, why is this unjust, but God imputing another mans sin to us, damning us, is not?
:rofl:

And what does Romans say about God being just because He judges us for our own sin? :bounce:
lets see Romans 3? Yep v5-6. A quote from Psalms I believe. Read that one too.

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 03:20 AM
Well then, consider the words of Jesus and the apostles concerning the state of and end of the Church. Then, enjoy your doctrine. ;)

im not sure what you are speaking of here

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 03:23 AM
leaven/corruption (mustard seed-> greatest tree)
false doctrine
not enduring sound doctrine given heed to

cracks me up when people use the 'popular', 'time tested' argument. If it was corrupt in the days of the apostles what has it been since? Study Church History?

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 03:23 AM
BTW; following this line of thinking, why is this unjust, but God imputing another mans sin to us, damning us, is not?
:rofl:

And What does Romans say about God being just because He judges us for our own sin?

i never said god was unjust for imputing sin? i said i believe we are indeed bor sinners and we are sinners on account of Adam, therefore God IS just in killing babies. i dont see where the confusion is. maybe i missed something? The sin of Adam was unique. i never said God was unjust to impute the sin of Adam

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 03:25 AM
leaven
corruption
false doctrine
not enduring sound doctrine given heed to

cracks me up when people use the 'popular' time tested' argument. If it was corrupt in the days of the apostles what has it been since? Study Church History?

i do believe all of those things will happen. I also believe that those that the Father has given to the Son are in the hands of Christ and that He will raise him up on the last day. i dont understand where the confusion or problem is?

also, if you are reffering to the leaven in Matthew 13, it is my interpretation based on personal reading of the Scripture and commentary that the leaven specifically mentioned in Matthew 13 (and the mustard seed) is not corruption, but rather communicating that the gospel would start with a small influence and then grow out from there and influence greatly

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 03:36 AM
the confusion is in you saying 'will' happen, as if it hasn't already

this belief causes you to fall back on or have some level of trust in the majority that have gone before us. Why choose the majority? That was your argument. Why not the minority? What does scripture reveal from cover to cover concerning majority verses minority? And I do mean cover to cover. This is why you have multiple threads on this subject. You just said it.
"which i believe is the majority historical view anyway"
but, but, but...What saith the Scriptures?

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 03:49 AM
hello sirus. my point is that ephesians 2 gives a list of things we have done and states we were in, but it does not ever say: Your nature was like this BECAUSE of sin. It gives a list. dead in tresspases, walked according to, the sprirt that now worketh, by nature this, etc, but it never claims that one thing was a cause of another. it simply gives a list

the spirit that now worketh just means the spirit that is presently at work in the world in the sons of disobedience. it doesnt mean now as in you did this Now this is what happened. it is like saying the sun that now shines on the earth.

the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience. present tense now, not causual now
In Romans 1, to whom is the wrath of God revealed? Throughout all scripture for that matter. Who?

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 03:52 AM
i never said god was unjust for imputing sin?Unfortunately you haven't found a passages that even implies it yet!

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 03:55 AM
the confusion is in you saying 'will' happen, as if it hasn't already

this belief causes you to fall back on or have some level of trust in the majority that have gone before us. Why choose the majority? That was your argument. Why not the minority? What does scripture reveal from cover to cover concerning majority verses minority? And I do mean cover to cover. This is why you have multiple threads on this subject. You just said it.
"which i believe is the majority historical view anyway"
but, but, but...What saith the Scriptures?


the confusion is in you saying 'will' happen, as if it hasn't already

this belief causes you to fall back on or have some level of trust in the majority that have gone before us. Why choose the majority? That was your argument. Why not the minority? What does scripture reveal from cover to cover concerning majority verses minority?

lol i still dont see reason for confusion or mockery

yes, i also believe corruption has already existed since the day of the apostles. The reason i said majority was just to offer yet another reason why i still stand confidently on my beliefs. If i claimed something that was new and never heard of i would doubt it was true. not that that would be impossible, but if many throughout the history of the church also held my view it simply gives me further encouragement that i am on the right track.

However i do not believe that just because the majority says something means that it is true. i ultimately base my beliefs on my immediate and personal interpretation of Scripture alone. I just mentioned the majority as another reason why i am confident. The majority is not the decisive thing, but when i study the Word, come to a conclusion, and see that many that came before me also believed it, it is indeed encouraging. There is nothing new under the sun in my opinion. i dont believe there is such thing as "new truth". its the same truth from the beginning. so when i read my bible, and then look at the history of the church, its encouraging that i am not coming up with some brand spankin new false doctrine lol

as far as the Scriptures about majority vs minority, that doesnt always mean the minority is right. If someone starts a Christian cult i wouldnt join them just because they were the minority. in the same way i dont agree with people just because they are the majority. I have currently been very scrutinizing on the doctrines of grace, and so far in my reading of Scripture, the doctrines of grace are indeed accurate.

the way i became reformed was through vigorously examining their doctrines against the bible. it wasnt like i said: well this is the majority, so i will pick them lol i sat down and persoanlly began to study Scripture for myself,and so far i am convinvced that the doctrines of grace are true

hope that clears things up?

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 03:59 AM
In Romans 1, to whom is the wrath of God revealed? Throughout all scripture for that matter. Who?


the wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. i dont see where this argument is going?

also, let me state, so that there is no confusion: i believe god was righteous in imputing Adams guilt. so i am sorry but i dont know what you are looking for from me about that. forgive me if i am a little slow. please clarify what exactly you are wanting me to say

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 04:10 AM
you forgot 'who hold the truth'

Romans 3, a quote from Psalms 51 btw, says God is just because we are judged by our own sin and not imputed sin from another.

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 04:13 AM
I said this in another thread.

“are we inherently good?”
At birth we are not more inherently (in our nature) inclined to do good or evil. We are innocent at birth but we face the impossible challenge of living in this world without God and not sinning. The reason our desire to do good is just as present as the desire to do evil at birth is because at birth the ‘desires’ are God given desires that we don’t have the wisdom and knowledge to know how to direct. We are just infants after all. The lusts and desires are just there. So yes, we are born inherently good with the ability to choose to direct the desires to evil by virtue of free will, no different than Adam and Eve, who were men just as we are. Being born and not knowing how to direct our God given desires doesn’t make us sinful or the desires themselves sin, anymore than Adam being created by God with the desires didn’t make Adam sinful or the desires sin. Adam having the commandment on what to do with the desires and acting contrary was sin. “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.“

To say otherwise means we can blame our condition on either God for how He created us, or Adam for sinning to our account, and Scripture never says guilt of someone’s sin in put on another’s account (imputed), and it does not say Adam’s nature changed to be sinful when he sinned in the garden and that we inherit that changed sinful nature. It DOES say because of (consequence) Adam’s sin we are born in an environment (death- physical, and a veiled relationship with God) that ensures all will sin, making all guilty of their own sin to be applied to their own account.

The consequence of Adam’s sin for Adam and us was death. What is death?
1) Separation from the tree of life was the physical death. Contrary to popular belief Adam and Eve were natural/earthy/mortal and needed the tree of life to live forever. Genesis 1-3 and 1Cor 15 says this but no scripture says they were immortal. Not one. Sorry, but ‘it is good’ and ‘death entered the world by sin’ doesn’t say they were immortal in there nature. That interpretation based on assumption ignores the fact that even after they sinned God said they would live forever in their guilty state if they continued to have access to the tree of life.
2) A change in relationship with God. We say ‘separated’ which, without repentance and faith, leads to the second death in the future.

You say, God said the day he ate he would surely die. Yes, and Adam was kept from the tree of life and banished from the garden the day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew for ‘shall surely die’ is ‘dying die’ or ‘dying you will die’. Meaning, if you disobey it will be certain that you die (no tree of life) because you are dying (mortal, corruptible, dust, decaying, natural, temporal, flesh). Death passed, and passes on all men. The Hebrew says it, translations say it, Hebrew scholars say it, and God said it removing man from the garden, guarding the tree, and saying man would live forever in a sinful state if he had access to the tree of life.

There was a change in Adam’s relationship not his nature. God was working His will and plan for the Lamb slain for the foundation of the world before man was created. This is evident in fact that God created the environment where Adam would have to trust what God said about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and God leaving Adam in the garden after telling him to guard, protect, watch, keep, his dominion and subdue all things in the earth, which included Satan. Where was God when Eve was tempted and when Eve gave the fruit to Adam to eat? This is not to say Adam could not have called out to God, but we see man in some sort of relationship with God doing that and God answering all throughout Scripture.

The point here is that people say Adam died spiritually and therefore we are born spiritually dead. Well, if our spirits are from God as scripture says how would that dead spirit be inherited from Adam? Where does it even imply such a thing in scripture? It’s either from God or Adam, which is it? Scripture says from God, not from Adam. I can post 100 passages that show mans spirit functioning and alive and well, but you can’t show me one verse of a dis-functional or dead spirit, no, not even one. So why single out the spirit? Is the spirit any more separated from God than the body or the soul? The error here is that people assume Adam started out spiritual but no scripture even implies that.

1Cor 15 says pleased God to make Adam earthy after one image and that the natural man image was before the spiritual man image (Jesus (anointing) baptized with the Spirit without measure). So where is the change in Adam’s nature in scripture? I know death, which is physical and some ‘separation’ in relationship, but where is the change in his nature (body-soul-spirit) in scripture and how was it passed down to Adam’s descendants?

After Adam sinned God was not completely out of the picture or completely severed from communication with man, because of His love, will, and pleasure. If that were the case we wouldn’t be here having this discussion, however because of man’s theology, ‘completely severed’ is how the word ‘separated’ is used and conveyed. Yet, Cain and Abel and all the others on down the line spoke with God and had some sort of relationship with God, but it was not in the garden walking with God in the cool of the day with the tree of life to live forever. The relationship changed, not the nature.

Rom 5:19 says ‘many were made sinners’. Made means designated/ordained’ or appointed to a position. It does not mean created with a thing or disease called sin, to be inherently born with and guilty of another’s sin. Still, the English/modern definition of the word ‘made’ is how most read and understand that verse. Reading the original language and intent of the original author with other scripture through the holistic method of interpretation is very enlightening! It says Adam’s sin brought death -separated us from the tree of life and changed mans relationship with God, appointing us to a position, causing all men to physically die and sin their own sin (Rom 5:12, Eze 18).
Here is how ‘made’ in Rom 5:19 is used in the Greek in Scripture.The nature of the person made is not changed as a result of being made.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Mat 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

Luk 12:14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Act 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

Act 7:27 But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?

Act 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

Moreover (v20) I would point out ‘much more’ is found five times from v9 to v20, and you should go read about how ‘much more’ the spiritual man-life giving spirit-Christ image affected man over how the natural-earthy-soul man Adam image affected man! ;) Jesus didn’t come just to restore what Adam lost, but to obtain a far greater inheritance through righteousness that Adam ever had because he sinned and didn't live a righteous life as Jesus did.

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 04:19 AM
you forgot 'who hold the truth'

Romans 3, a quote from Psalms 51 btw, says God is just because we are judged by our own sin and not imputed sin from another.

yes, Romans 3 is referring to individual sin. I also believe Romans 5 is referring to being made sinners on account of Adam (although it seems you would disagree with me here, but thats OK, no bad feelings) i could be wrong about Romans 5 but so far i do believe that it is saying we are sinners on account of Adam as well as the fact that we have individual sin

i believe we are judged for individual sin and i also believe we are sinners through Adams sin. I believe both. is there anything else?

Walstib
Jan 21st 2009, 04:22 AM
I agree. Evil comes from within a man's heart. The man is not born sinful or evil. If that were the case, sin would have come from a previous generation.

Would you agree after a human is conceived they still fall short of the glory of God? I think there is room for someone to be born "with sin" and there not be a need for them to be totally evil. Is falling short of the glory of God itself not sinful *missing the mark*?

Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned*G264 and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:20-26 NKJV)

*
G264
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
ham-ar-tan'-o
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.


Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., 1890.

Peace,
Joe

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 04:24 AM
hope that clears things up?unfortunately it doesn't. Because your belief follows Gnostics, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and many others, not Judaism and Scriptural Christianity.

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 04:26 AM
yes, Romans 3 is referring to individual sin. I also believe Romans 5 is referring to being made sinners on account of Adam (although it seems you would disagree with me here, but thats OK, no bad feelings) i could be wrong about Romans 5 but so far i do believe that it is saying we are sinners on account of Adam as well as the fact that we have individual sin

i believe we are judged for individual sin and i also believe we are sinners through Adams sin. I believe both. is there anything else?Then read what I wrote above and tell me what you think because your english interpretation of Romans 5, is well, just english.
Was man made a a sinner by nature or designation (i.e. environment --in the world, with flesh, without God)? What does the text say in Greek?

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 04:38 AM
I said this in another thread.

“are we inherently good?”
At birth we are not more inherently (in our nature) inclined to do good or evil. We are innocent at birth but we face the impossible challenge of living in this world without God and not sinning. The reason our desire to do good is just as present as the desire to do evil at birth is because at birth the ‘desires’ are God given desires that we don’t have the wisdom and knowledge to know how to direct. We are just infants after all. The lusts and desires are just there. So yes, we are born inherently good with the ability to choose to direct the desires to evil by virtue of free will, no different than Adam and Eve, who were men just as we are. Being born and not knowing how to direct our God given desires doesn’t make us sinful or the desires themselves sin, anymore than Adam being created by God with the desires didn’t make Adam sinful or the desires sin. Adam having the commandment on what to do with the desires and acting contrary was sin. “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.“

To say otherwise means we can blame our condition on either God for how He created us, or Adam for sinning to our account, and Scripture never says guilt of someone’s sin in put on another’s account (imputed), and it does not say Adam’s nature changed to be sinful when he sinned in the garden and that we inherit that changed sinful nature. It DOES say because of (consequence) Adam’s sin we are born in an environment (death- physical, and a veiled relationship with God) that ensures all will sin, making all guilty of their own sin to be applied to their own account.

The consequence of Adam’s sin for Adam and us was death. What is death?
1) Separation from the tree of life was the physical death. Contrary to popular belief Adam and Eve were natural/earthy/mortal and needed the tree of life to live forever. Genesis 1-3 and 1Cor 15 says this but no scripture says they were immortal. Not one. Sorry, but ‘it is good’ and ‘death entered the world by sin’ doesn’t say they were immortal in there nature. That interpretation based on assumption ignores the fact that even after they sinned God said they would live forever in their guilty state if they continued to have access to the tree of life.
2) A change in relationship with God. We say ‘separated’ which, without repentance and faith, leads to the second death in the future.

You say, God said the day he ate he would surely die. Yes, and Adam was kept from the tree of life and banished from the garden the day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew for ‘shall surely die’ is ‘dying die’ or ‘dying you will die’. Meaning, if you disobey it will be certain that you die (no tree of life) because you are dying (mortal, corruptible, dust, decaying, natural, temporal, flesh). Death passed, and passes on all men. The Hebrew says it, translations say it, Hebrew scholars say it, and God said it removing man from the garden, guarding the tree, and saying man would live forever in a sinful state if he had access to the tree of life.

There was a change in Adam’s relationship not his nature. God was working His will and plan for the Lamb slain for the foundation of the world before man was created. This is evident in fact that God created the environment where Adam would have to trust what God said about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and God leaving Adam in the garden after telling him to guard, protect, watch, keep, his dominion and subdue all things in the earth, which included Satan. Where was God when Eve was tempted and when Eve gave the fruit to Adam to eat? This is not to say Adam could not have called out to God, but we see man in some sort of relationship with God doing that and God answering all throughout Scripture.

The point here is that people say Adam died spiritually and therefore we are born spiritually dead. Well, if our spirits are from God as scripture says how would that dead spirit be inherited from Adam? Where does it even imply such a thing in scripture? It’s either from God or Adam, which is it? Scripture says from God, not from Adam. I can post 100 passages that show mans spirit functioning and alive and well, but you can’t show me one verse of a dis-functional or dead spirit, no, not even one. So why single out the spirit? Is the spirit any more separated from God than the body or the soul? The error here is that people assume Adam started out spiritual but no scripture even implies that.

1Cor 15 says pleased God to make Adam earthy after one image and that the natural man image was before the spiritual man image (Jesus (anointing) baptized with the Spirit without measure). So where is the change in Adam’s nature in scripture? I know death, which is physical and some ‘separation’ in relationship, but where is the change in his nature (body-soul-spirit) in scripture and how was it passed down to Adam’s descendants?

After Adam sinned God was not completely out of the picture or completely severed from communication with man, because of His love, will, and pleasure. If that were the case we wouldn’t be here having this discussion, however because of man’s theology, ‘completely severed’ is how the word ‘separated’ is used and conveyed. Yet, Cain and Abel and all the others on down the line spoke with God and had some sort of relationship with God, but it was not in the garden walking with God in the cool of the day with the tree of life to live forever. The relationship changed, not the nature.

Rom 5:19 says ‘many were made sinners’. Made means designated/ordained’ or appointed to a position. It does not mean created with a thing or disease called sin, to be inherently born with and guilty of another’s sin. Still, the English/modern definition of the word ‘made’ is how most read and understand that verse. Reading the original language and intent of the original author with other scripture through the holistic method of interpretation is very enlightening! It says Adam’s sin brought death -separated us from the tree of life and changed mans relationship with God, appointing us to a position, causing all men to physically die and sin their own sin (Rom 5:12, Eze 18).
Here is how ‘made’ in Rom 5:19 is used in the Greek in Scripture.The nature of the person made is not changed as a result of being made.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Mat 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

Luk 12:14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Act 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

Act 7:27 But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?

Act 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

Moreover (v20) I would point out ‘much more’ is found five times from v9 to v20, and you should go read about how ‘much more’ the spiritual man-life giving spirit-Christ image affected man over how the natural-earthy-soul man Adam image affected man! ;) Jesus didn’t come just to restore what Adam lost, but to obtain a far greater inheritance through righteousness that Adam ever had because he sinned and didn't live a righteous life as Jesus did.


thank you for sharing this post

however,
please show Scripture to support this notion:

At birth we are not more inherently (in our nature) inclined to do good or evil. We are innocent at birth

"The error here is that people assume Adam started out spiritual but no scripture even implies that."

lol Adam had no spirit?
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead (http://scripturetext.com/james/2-26.htm)


if Adam had no spirit he would have been dead.

the condition of the spirit can change. As David said, renew in me a right spirit.

yes, i believe Romans 5 is reffering to the imputation of sin (ordained and counted as sinners on Adams account)

i also believe Adams sin affected all of humanity, not simply in the counting of sin on humanity, but actually affected things.

as psalms 51:5 says david was a sinner from the time he was in his mother(and i am taking this interpretation from the original Hebrew not the NIV)

the Bible repeatedly refers to people being corrupt from the womb, from infancy, and from youth.

so, according to psalms 51:5, and the fact that Adam was not born in sin, it is my current view that Adams sin did indeed affect all of humanity, who came from his sperma or seed.


well, that is enough for me tonite, i have to get off this thing, but i hope to continue discussing later

Goodnite and God Bless!:saint:

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 04:45 AM
I said this in another thread.

“are we inherently good?”
At birth we are not more inherently (in our nature) inclined to do good or evil. We are innocent at birth but we face the impossible challenge of living in this world without God and not sinning. The reason our desire to do good is just as present as the desire to do evil at birth is because at birth the ‘desires’ are God given desires that we don’t have the wisdom and knowledge to know how to direct. We are just infants after all. The lusts and desires are just there. So yes, we are born inherently good with the ability to choose to direct the desires to evil by virtue of free will, no different than Adam and Eve, who were men just as we are. Being born and not knowing how to direct our God given desires doesn’t make us sinful or the desires themselves sin, anymore than Adam being created by God with the desires didn’t make Adam sinful or the desires sin. Adam having the commandment on what to do with the desires and acting contrary was sin. “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.“

To say otherwise means we can blame our condition on either God for how He created us, or Adam for sinning to our account, and Scripture never says guilt of someone’s sin in put on another’s account (imputed), and it does not say Adam’s nature changed to be sinful when he sinned in the garden and that we inherit that changed sinful nature. It DOES say because of (consequence) Adam’s sin we are born in an environment (death- physical, and a veiled relationship with God) that ensures all will sin, making all guilty of their own sin to be applied to their own account.

The consequence of Adam’s sin for Adam and us was death. What is death?
1) Separation from the tree of life was the physical death. Contrary to popular belief Adam and Eve were natural/earthy/mortal and needed the tree of life to live forever. Genesis 1-3 and 1Cor 15 says this but no scripture says they were immortal. Not one. Sorry, but ‘it is good’ and ‘death entered the world by sin’ doesn’t say they were immortal in there nature. That interpretation based on assumption ignores the fact that even after they sinned God said they would live forever in their guilty state if they continued to have access to the tree of life.
2) A change in relationship with God. We say ‘separated’ which, without repentance and faith, leads to the second death in the future.

You say, God said the day he ate he would surely die. Yes, and Adam was kept from the tree of life and banished from the garden the day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew for ‘shall surely die’ is ‘dying die’ or ‘dying you will die’. Meaning, if you disobey it will be certain that you die (no tree of life) because you are dying (mortal, corruptible, dust, decaying, natural, temporal, flesh). Death passed, and passes on all men. The Hebrew says it, translations say it, Hebrew scholars say it, and God said it removing man from the garden, guarding the tree, and saying man would live forever in a sinful state if he had access to the tree of life.

There was a change in Adam’s relationship not his nature. God was working His will and plan for the Lamb slain for the foundation of the world before man was created. This is evident in fact that God created the environment where Adam would have to trust what God said about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and God leaving Adam in the garden after telling him to guard, protect, watch, keep, his dominion and subdue all things in the earth, which included Satan. Where was God when Eve was tempted and when Eve gave the fruit to Adam to eat? This is not to say Adam could not have called out to God, but we see man in some sort of relationship with God doing that and God answering all throughout Scripture.

The point here is that people say Adam died spiritually and therefore we are born spiritually dead. Well, if our spirits are from God as scripture says how would that dead spirit be inherited from Adam? Where does it even imply such a thing in scripture? It’s either from God or Adam, which is it? Scripture says from God, not from Adam. I can post 100 passages that show mans spirit functioning and alive and well, but you can’t show me one verse of a dis-functional or dead spirit, no, not even one. So why single out the spirit? Is the spirit any more separated from God than the body or the soul? The error here is that people assume Adam started out spiritual but no scripture even implies that.

1Cor 15 says pleased God to make Adam earthy after one image and that the natural man image was before the spiritual man image (Jesus (anointing) baptized with the Spirit without measure). So where is the change in Adam’s nature in scripture? I know death, which is physical and some ‘separation’ in relationship, but where is the change in his nature (body-soul-spirit) in scripture and how was it passed down to Adam’s descendants?

After Adam sinned God was not completely out of the picture or completely severed from communication with man, because of His love, will, and pleasure. If that were the case we wouldn’t be here having this discussion, however because of man’s theology, ‘completely severed’ is how the word ‘separated’ is used and conveyed. Yet, Cain and Abel and all the others on down the line spoke with God and had some sort of relationship with God, but it was not in the garden walking with God in the cool of the day with the tree of life to live forever. The relationship changed, not the nature.

Rom 5:19 says ‘many were made sinners’. Made means designated/ordained’ or appointed to a position. It does not mean created with a thing or disease called sin, to be inherently born with and guilty of another’s sin. Still, the English/modern definition of the word ‘made’ is how most read and understand that verse. Reading the original language and intent of the original author with other scripture through the holistic method of interpretation is very enlightening! It says Adam’s sin brought death -separated us from the tree of life and changed mans relationship with God, appointing us to a position, causing all men to physically die and sin their own sin (Rom 5:12, Eze 18).
Here is how ‘made’ in Rom 5:19 is used in the Greek in Scripture.The nature of the person made is not changed as a result of being made.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Mat 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

Luk 12:14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Act 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

Act 7:27 But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?

Act 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

Moreover (v20) I would point out ‘much more’ is found five times from v9 to v20, and you should go read about how ‘much more’ the spiritual man-life giving spirit-Christ image affected man over how the natural-earthy-soul man Adam image affected man! ;) Jesus didn’t come just to restore what Adam lost, but to obtain a far greater inheritance through righteousness that Adam ever had because he sinned and didn't live a righteous life as Jesus did.


thank you for sharing this post

however,
please show Scripture to support this notion:

At birth we are not more inherently (in our nature) inclined to do good or evil. We are innocent at birth

"The error here is that people assume Adam started out spiritual but no scripture even implies that."

lol Adam had no spirit?
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead (http://scripturetext.com/james/2-26.htm)


if Adam had no spirit he would have been dead.

the condition of the spirit can change. As David said, renew in me a right spirit.

yes, i believe Romans 5 is reffering to the imputation of sin (ordained and counted as sinners on Adams account)

i also believe Adams sin affected all of humanity, not simply in the counting of sin on humanity, but actually affected things.

as psalms 51:5 says david was a sinner from the time he was in his mother(and i am taking this interpretation from the original Hebrew not the NIV)

the Bible repeatedly refers to people being corrupt from the womb, from infancy, and from youth.

so, according to psalms 51:5, and the fact that Adam was not born in sin, it is my current view that Adams sin did indeed affect all of humanity, who came from his sperma or seed.

spiritually dead does not mean without a spirit. the body without the spirit is dead. spiritually dead means the spirit is in a state of unresponsiveness to God. As seen: "i will remove the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh"

so far it is my view that the heart/spirit are the same thing ( i could be worng, but that is my current position)


well, that is enough for me tonite, i have to get off this thing, but i hope to continue discussing later

Goodnite and God Bless!:saint:

Sirus
Jan 21st 2009, 04:50 AM
Yes
Late
I'll address this post tomorrow, God willing.
Goodnite and God Bless!

crystalbrite
Jan 21st 2009, 07:04 AM
man is totally depraved. this doesnt mean that he is as evil as he can possibly be, but every part of his being has been tainted by the effects and power of sin. The Bible is clear that the heart of man is wicked, and that those without the Spirit have minds that are hostile and cannot recieve or submit to things of the Spirit. This doesnt mean that humans dont do "good things". Athiests can build hospitals, feed the poor etc. However the Bible also plainly says that anything apart from faith is sin. It doesnt matter what we do, if it is apart from faith, it is sin. All unbelievers are perpetually living in sin, until they accept Christ. All of our righteous deeds(the good stuff we do!) is as filthy rags(mentsral rags to be more specific)

Even without scripture to support your premise (although scripture does completely support it) just look at people in the world. I'm not talking exclusively about just all of the evil that's being done everywhere by the devil, but it's the way mankind "takes to it". People slurp up the filth and degradation. The most popular shows on TV are all about the worst of the worst and yet many people eat it up. That's why it's the mantra of news vendors "if it bleeds it leads." Because they know people love the sensationalism. Even children have become conditioned to accept violence and fornication as the norm. I think the way people are not even phased by and so easily accept the garbage tells us a lot about the condition of the human heart. Thank God He sent Jesus to clean us up so we could be in relationship with the Him. Without Jesus' Sacrifice, I can see why God could have nothing to do with us.

Scubadude
Jan 21st 2009, 11:10 PM
It’s important to see that phrase in its context. I know, I know - always trying to wiggle out of a “sinful nature” proof-text by pointing to “context”. Why can’t I just make a small group of words mean what I want it to mean without getting all technical?





:lol:

Good words, holyrokker! And a bit convicting, also. I must confess I've backed off a bit from responding as it is very frustrating trying to make my thoughts clearer (not just to myself).

Thoroughly enjoying the conversation. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the thread beond this post.

Scubadude
Jan 21st 2009, 11:42 PM
I'm curious how you would interpret Psalms 24:3-6, v4 more specifically

3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?

4 (http://bible.cc/psalms/24-4.htm) He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
5 (http://bible.cc/psalms/24-5.htm) He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. 6 (http://bible.cc/psalms/24-6.htm) This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah.

Why would someone with clean hands and a pure heart need to receive righteousness from God? This passage doesn't suggest that there is no hope for humanity because we are all worms, no longer resembling God's original design. If you acknowledge that we are ALL build in God's image, than you acknowledge that we are all build good. And, sin has entered into the WORLD because of Adam and Eve's disobedience.

If we are inherently evil, then there is no problem when some beats a child ruthlessly, or rapes and murders. It is because of the inherent good in us that makes sin so vile. It is an affront to our nature. If we were to find a man who has this good nature in him, and free from all the sin that so easily entangles, we would be tempted to worship him..... like Jesus.

I'm beginning to like Walstib statement more, "Inherently human".

Scubadude
Jan 22nd 2009, 12:07 AM
I said this in another thread.

“are we inherently good?”
At birth we are not more inherently (in our nature) inclined to do good or evil. We are innocent at birth but we face the impossible challenge of living in this world without God and not sinning. The reason our desire to do good is just as present as the desire to do evil at birth is because at birth the ‘desires’ are God given desires that we don’t have the wisdom and knowledge to know how to direct. We are just infants after all. The lusts and desires are just there. So yes, we are born inherently good with the ability to choose to direct the desires to evil by virtue of free will, no different than Adam and Eve, who were men just as we are. Being born and not knowing how to direct our God given desires doesn’t make us sinful or the desires themselves sin, anymore than Adam being created by God with the desires didn’t make Adam sinful or the desires sin. Adam having the commandment on what to do with the desires and acting contrary was sin. “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.“




Are you suggesting that by choice, we can change/direct our own nature? If we are nether inherently good or evil, but just are, as I think you are saying, then what of God's image in us? Choices and behavior are always motivated by something deeper (BTW: trying to walk the thin line of NOT getting into the sticky choice/predestined debate).

reformedct
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:06 AM
Are you suggesting that by choice, we can change/direct our own nature? If we are nether inherently good or evil, but just are, as I think you are saying, then what of God's image in us? Choices and behavior are always motivated by something deeper (BTW: trying to walk the thin line of NOT getting into the sticky choice/predestined debate).

as i said earlier, Gods image simply means that God made us in a way that represents how God is. God has dominion, we had dominion. God has thoughts, feelings, emotions, will. So do we. God is in community (Trinity) so he made male and female. God desires righteousness. We desire righteousness. God is upright, he made man upright.

We do still bear the image of God. image simply means that our attributes kinda look like Gods. Out of all creation, human beings best represent how God is (minus our sin). however that does not change the fact that men have wicked hearts. Its pretty clear throughout the Bible that man, apart from right relationship with God, is wicked down to the heart. This doesnt mean we no longer bear Gods likeness, it just means that we use our "Godlike" abilities to do evil. Instead of using our ruling power to do good we oppress the poor. Instead of using things for good (internet to spread the Gospel) we use it for evil (spreading pornography)

we still bear the image of God, nevertheless we have become wicked, dead in our tresspasse and sins, by nature objects of Gods wrath, in sinful flesh/:cool:

we were made good, then we sinned and became slaves and cursed. Anyone who has clean hands and a pure heart is because God has done a work in heir hearts

"i will remove the heart of stone, and give you a heart of flesh"

there are many verses that show God providing the righteousness that is needed.

"now unto Him who is able to present you faultless

it doesnt mean man by himself is faultless or pure. it means that God can cleanse us.

For example in Zecheriah, Joshua was standing before the Lord in fiilthy soiled garments, then the Lord gave him clean white garments


If we confess our sins he is faithful to cleanse us of all unrighteousness

the way we become pure, holy, and clean, is through God washing us, not throuh maintaining our own purity lol

whoever commits sin is a slave to sin . thats what Jesus (ahem, God) says.


is it possible to be inwardly pure, yet have a wicked heart, dead in sin, by nature an object of Gods wrath, in sinful flesh, with Satan at work inside of you? lol

Sirus
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:35 AM
please show Scripture to support this notion:

At birth we are not more inherently (in our nature) inclined to do good or evil. We are innocent at birthYou yourself said were are created in God's image because I pointed out scripture that says we are fearfully and wonderfully made knowing very well what is right- Romans 1.

Here's another;
Psa 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Notice I said "in our nature'? The reason I said that is because what people call our propensity to sin, that Adam also had, is our natural flesh, but man in right relationship with God is expected to rule over his flesh in favor of God -Adam/Jesus/those born again. But we didn't inherit a right relationship did we? No. So do we sin because of our nature, which is the same nature Adam and Jesus had, or do we sin because of a change in relationship than what Adam and Jesus had?



"The error here is that people assume Adam started out spiritual but no scripture even implies that."

lol Adam had no spirit?
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead (http://scripturetext.com/james/2-26.htm)
The context of what I said there is 1Cor 15. as in heavenly. i said,

"1Cor 15 says pleased it God to make Adam earthy after one image and that the natural man image was before the spiritual man image (Jesus (anointing) baptized with the Spirit without measure). So where is the change in Adam’s nature in scripture? I know death, which is physical and some ‘separation’ in relationship, but where is the change in his nature (body-soul-spirit) in scripture and how was it passed down to Adam’s descendants?"

People say Adam fell and spiritually died and Jesus restored. They say Adam was immortal even though scripture says he was earthly and natural. That's what I meant by spiritual. That people say Adam was what Jesus restored. No scripture implies this concept. It says the natural came before the heavenly, the heavenly being the Spirit Baptized life giving resurrecting anointed one Jesus through his righteousness, because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity (Heb 1:8-9).



yes, i believe Romans 5 is reffering to the imputation of sin (ordained and counted as sinners on Adams accountWhy? It doesn't say that at all, and if it did, it is wrong to establish such major important doctrine on one passage.



i also believe Adams sin affected all of humanity, not simply in the counting of sin on humanity, but actually affected things.Yes. It affected our relationship. Didn't God reconcile us to himself by Jesus (2Co 5:18, Col 1:20)? What's the sacrifice and blood for if not to reconcile us to God?

No scripture says "the counting of sin on humanity". Not one! It says the condemnation (judgmet). What judgment? Adam's judgment was to work and toil til he return to the dust. We got it don't we?



as psalms 51:5 says david was a sinner from the time he was in his mother(and i am taking this interpretation from the original Hebrew not the NIV)Like being designated/ordained? Fine. What does his nature have to do with that ordination and designation that is accomplished through having flesh in this world without an intimate relationship with God? Flesh? Adam had that, so what is your point? I still haven't seen one single little tiny verse that shows a change in Adam's nature.



the Bible repeatedly refers to people being corrupt from the womb, from infancy, and from youth.Youth and infancy yes, not from womb. Not once.



so, according to psalms 51:5, and the fact that Adam was not born in sin, it is my current view that Adams sin did indeed affect all of humanity, who came from his sperma or seed.
Then Jesus, being 100% human and of the seed of Abraham was affected as well. That's wrong.



spiritually dead does not mean without a spirit. the body without the spirit is dead. spiritually dead means the spirit is in a state of unresponsiveness to God.There's no scripture for this and 100's to the contrary!!!
As seen: "i will remove the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh"That plainly says for obedience, not unresponsiveness.

Sirus
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:42 AM
Are you suggesting that by choice, we can change/direct our own nature? If we are nether inherently good or evil, but just are, as I think you are saying, then what of God's image in us? Choices and behavior are always motivated by something deeper (BTW: trying to walk the thin line of NOT getting into the sticky choice/predestined debate).By choice with God, yes. ....as you said, " Choices and behavior are always motivated by something deeper" however show me a toddler with God. The problem is not the toddler or his nature created in the image of God, just that the toddler created in the image of God doesn't have God giving him the deeper motivation.

Scubadude
Jan 22nd 2009, 09:17 AM
is it possible to be inwardly pure, yet have a wicked heart, dead in sin, by nature an object of Gods wrath, in sinful flesh, with Satan at work inside of you? lol







Is this a rhetorical question?

Scubadude
Jan 22nd 2009, 09:37 AM
By choice with God, yes. ....as you said, " Choices and behavior are always motivated by something deeper" however show me a toddler with God. The problem is not the toddler or his nature created in the image of God, just that the toddler created in the image of God doesn't have God giving him the deeper motivation.



So, the toddler lacks deeper (created in the image of God) motivation, but the unguided toddler is able to make "something deeper" choices with God that will affect his nature?

:B Maybe it's late, and I need to go to bed.

theBelovedDisciple
Jan 22nd 2009, 05:37 PM
Is this a rhetorical question?


I was wondering about that too..

I 'know' its possible to 'look outwardly pure and righteous' and to 'think' one is righteous but have a wicked heart, dead in sin, an object of God's wrath, having satan living inside... having damnation.

Jesus described it right here:...

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
--------------------------------------------------------------


Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:

Sirus
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:56 AM
So, the toddler lacks deeper (created in the image of God) motivation, but the unguided toddler is able to make "something deeper" choices with God that will affect his nature?

:B Maybe it's late, and I need to go to bed.No, the unguided toddler will sin. That was made certain by Adam's sin and the judgment (condemnation -Rom 5 and 8) handed down by God in Genesis 3.

Romans 5:12....by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
.........
Romans 5:19.....many were designated/ordained sinners.

Note: there's nothing about a changed nature here