Your views on human beings having a sin nature

[TedT]

Rom. 5:12
Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.

1 Cor. 15:22
For just as [because of their union of nature] in Adam all people die, so also [by virtue of their union of nature] shall all in Christ be made alive.

...because all men sinned. The interpretation that this phrase proves that Adam is the cause of our being in sin is by exegetically applying the created on earth theory of our creation.

Pre-Conception Existence theology or PCE suggests that all people in HIS image (ie, able to be a proper Bride for HIM), were created in the heavenly Sheol where they heard HIS proclamation of YHWH's divinity and HIS gospel of salvation given to the whole of creation, Col 1:23. The various responses to this call separated all people into 3 broad categories: 1. those who put their faith in HIM as being their GOD and who were therefore elected to salvation and the heavenly marriage, 2. those who rebuked HIM as a liar and therefore a false god who became instantly condemned for this unforgivable sin and 3. those elect who rebelled at the call to come out from among their friends who were now condemned so the judgement could proceed without injury to them, (Matt 13:27-30) but they would not, becoming evil in HIS sight and needing redemption and sanctification as HE had promised them in their election.

Only sinners are sown into this world of mankind, Matt 13:36-39, and Rom 5:12 ...because all men sinned. means that all men sinned pre-earth and sin arrived in the earth with the first sinner to be sown here, Adam. He only led the way, he did not cause their sin.

1 Cor. 15:22 ...in Adam all people die and
Rom. 5:12 ...and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men,
means that all elect sinners were put under/into Adam's death, not sin, so Christ would not have to die a new time for each and every elect sinner but with all elect sinners in Adam He only needed to die once to cover all elect sinners...NOT that Adam caused all sin to spread over all the earth!

 

[Whosoever]

Cain fell into sin just like his sinful father. And Cain is a warning for us all. Why do we find ourselves alienated from God? Why are we weighed down with selfishness, bitterness, envy, and the like? Because we have inherited Adam’s sin nature; “through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.” And, in inheriting Adam’s sin nature, we have inherited the death that comes with it. Genesis 5 bears this fact out. “And he died” is the recurring refrain of the chapter and becomes the theme of the human race, from Adam to Seth to Enosh to us. Because Adam sinned, we became sinners. And, because of Adam’s sin and our own sin, we have God’s sentence of death hanging over our heads—“through one transgression [that of Adam] there resulted condemnation to all men.” Rom. 5:18

 

[civic]

Cain fell into sin just like his sinful father. And Cain is a warning for us all. Why do we find ourselves alienated from God? Why are we weighed down with selfishness, bitterness, envy, and the like? Because we have inherited Adam’s sin nature; “through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.” And, in inheriting Adam’s sin nature, we have inherited the death that comes with it. Genesis 5 bears this fact out. “And he died” is the recurring refrain of the chapter and becomes the theme of the human race, from Adam to Seth to Enosh to us. Because Adam sinned, we became sinners. And, because of Adam’s sin and our own sin, we have God’s sentence of death hanging over our heads—“through one transgression [that of Adam] there resulted condemnation to all men.” Rom. 5:18

The result of Adams sin is death. Death spread to all his offspring not a sin nature. That concept did not begin until augustine brought it into the church. I provided plenty of church history in this thread proving it did not exist in the early church snd the same goes with free will was the church position until augustine.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Denial of the sin nature is by default the sin of self-righteous pride, for it is claiming inherent goodness not based on the Work of the Cross.

That's the important point.

Totally ridiculous. Nobody's claiming "inherent goodness". our nature is HUMAN, and James explains how TEMPTATION WORKS. Same for Adam, same for us - no "nature change" indicated.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

it was Adam’s free choice that allowed sin to affect mankind.

The only thing that Adam's SIN effected was "Mankind's environment". Man's nature was unaffected.

 

[Obadiah]

The only thing that Adam's SIN effected was "Mankind's environment". Man's nature was unaffected.

Where does death enter into that equation? Do you think that it's something to do with the environment? I mean the lifespan did get lower and lower so that could be an environmental issue. What do you think Bob? About Adam's character? I know if I got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for whatever reason I would probably become a pretty grumpy person. Losing that meal ticket and all.

 

[Obadiah]

The result of Adams sin is death. Death spread to all his offspring not a sin nature. That concept did not begin until augustine brought it into the church. I provided plenty of church history in this thread proving it did not exist in the early church snd the same goes with free will was the church position until augustine.

Okay that's interesting I'll have to check that out.

 

[Whosoever]

The result of Adams sin is death. Death spread to all his offspring not a sin nature. That concept did not begin until augustine brought it into the church. I provided plenty of church history in this thread proving it did not exist in the early church snd the same goes with free will was the church position until augustine.

Thanks for making all that information available.

 

[civic]

Totally ridiculous. Nobody's claiming "inherent goodness". our nature is HUMAN, and James explains how TEMPTATION WORKS. Same for Adam, same for us - no "nature change" indicated.

Exactly is why man is still redeemable because the image of God is still the same in man. Nothing changed in the image of God in man.

 

[Eleazar]

In Romans 3:23, Paul tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” There are no “innocent” people. The apostle John adds this sobering thought, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him [Jesus] a liar, and His word is not in us”. 1 John 1:10

The Bible teaches that sin is both a condition and an action. Man possesses an innate sin nature (condition) due to his rebellion against God, and it is because of his sin nature that he tends to perform sinful acts (action).

A look at today’s world, or for that matter at any era of human history, shows the presence of evil in all human beings. This fact is so self-evident that examples are unnecessary. So the bottom line is all humans, including Christians, are worthy of punishment and in need of a Savior. The reality is no matter how sin came into our life the only way we're going to straighten it out is by becoming a follower of Jesus.

 

[Ozias]

We were redeemed from the penalty of sin by Christ’s death on the cross. But that doesn’t mean we never deal with sin again. Our old sin nature was not removed at the cross. It is still there, vying with our new spiritual nature for control over our life. Fortunately, grace is sufficient to release us from the power of sin in the present.

The grace of God has appeared, “teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age … that He might … purify for himself His own special people, zealous for good works.” The focus of these verses is “the present age” in which we now live. The grace of God is our teacher.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Where does death enter into that equation? Do you think that it's something to do with the environment? I mean the lifespan did get lower and lower so that could be an environmental issue. What do you think Bob? About Adam's character? I know if I got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for whatever reason I would probably become a pretty grumpy person. Losing that meal ticket and all.

What's your point?? Adam died SPIRITUALLY on the spot, when he sinned - just like we all do when we SIN for the first time. That's the DEATH that's important. He died PHYSICALLY hundreds of years later, but that's relatively unimportant.

 

[Obadiah]

What's your point?? Adam died SPIRITUALLY on the spot, when he sinned - just like we all do when we SIN for the first time. That's the DEATH that's important. He died PHYSICALLY hundreds of years later, but that's relatively unimportant.

There was no point it was a question About your post.

The only thing that Adam's SIN effected was "Mankind's environment". Man's nature was unaffected.

So I guess you're saying we became spiritually dead. But I still don't get it how does that change the environment? And it seems like our nature would certainly be changed. And it seems like the physical death was important because God didn't want them to eat off of that tree and live forever.

 

[JD731]

My view is in the beginning we were created in God's image and I believe after the fall that image is severely tarnished. So much so That God had to save us. Because, we possess a natural tendency to sin. We can hate, lie, and perform other acts out of character with the nature of God.

Goodness of the infant/toddler/etc. is not the issue in my view. Innocence is the issue. Adam and Eve were not good because they had not sinned but they were innocent because they did not know good and evil by experience. From that point they had conciousness of the difference. It would require a law and a temptation to establish goodness.

He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

[Hosanna]

Goodness of the infant/toddler/etc. is not the issue in my view. Innocence is the issue. Adam and Eve were not good because they had not sinned but they were innocent because they did not know good and evil by experience. From that point they had conciousness of the difference. It would require a law and a temptation to establish goodness.

He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Now that's interesting and it hasn't been mentioned before in the two threads we have going on. I forgot all about the tree being called the knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

[DavP]

Who first sinned?, should be the main question raised here. And I don't mean Eve.

Satan, the devil, is who committed the very first sin against God. And that is actually why... we are here, and why The Father sent His Son to die on the cross for us, to defeat death and the devil for us. For this reason, all born in the flesh were assigned to sin so that God's Salvation might be to those who believe on Jesus Christ.

By the time the devil appears in God's Garden in Genesis 3 as "that old serpent", he had already rebelled in the previous world with coveting God's throne, wanting to be worship as God, and Satan then had been cast down, even along with one third of the angels that rebelled with him in that time before Adam and Eve.

This is rarely spoken of, but it is the most profound Biblical view of why we all are here, and why Jesus was sent to die on the cross for the remission of sin of those who believe.

1 John 3:8
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
KJV

Heb 2:14-15
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;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
KJV

I implore those who have not studied this to look deeper in God's Word, especially the Ezekiel 28 & 31 chapters with understanding that God uses the names of flesh kings as 'types' for Satan. Same applies to certain parts of Isaiah 14 where God gives a proverb about Satan and the sin of wanting to be God that he first committed in the world prior Adam and Eve and this present one.

 

[Complete]

Re: replies#13 & #14 and the early church.

Hello @civic,

Holding up the early church as a yardstick to measure doctrine by is not wise, in my opinion. The word of God is our only true measure, and that rightly divided. For apostacy was in evidence during the ministry of Paul, and all in Asia turned away from Paul and his teaching, so the early church would be the last place I would look for doctrinal confirmation.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[DavP]

Re: replies#13 & #14 and the early church.

Hello @civic,

Holding up the early church as a yardstick to measure doctrine by is not wise, in my opinion. The word of God is our only true measure, and that rightly divided. For apostacy was in evidence during the ministry of Paul, and all in Asia turned away from Paul and his teaching, so the early church would be the last place I would look for doctrinal confirmation.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

The early Church turned away from Apostle Paul's teaching?

Who in the world did you hear that false idea from?? Did you not read Peter in 2 Peter 3 where he confirmed Apostle Paul's Epistles?

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
KJV

Christ Jesus would even use Apostle Paul to write the majority of the Books of the New Testament. So how could anyone think that Paul fell into apostasy against Christ? That kind of thinking is blasphemy against Christ Himself, since Jesus chose Paul specifically, according to Acts 9, witnessed by Apostle Luke who wrote Acts.

 

[Complete]

The early Church turned away from Apostle Paul's teaching?

Who in the world did you hear that false idea from?? Did you not read Peter in 2 Peter 3 where he confirmed Apostle Paul's Epistles?

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
KJV

Christ Jesus would even use Apostle Paul to write the majority of the Books of the New Testament. So how could anyone think that Paul fell into apostasy against Christ? That kind of thinking is blasphemy against Christ Himself, since Jesus chose Paul specifically, according to Acts 9, witnessed by Apostle Luke who wrote Acts.

'Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ.'
(Col 2:8)

Hello DanP,

I was not saying that Paul himself was apostate: of course not. Please do not jump to wrong conclusions but read what is actually being said. Although I can understand why you should have mistaken my meaning in this case, because I did not express myself very well.

Paul warned of apostacy in his day: that is what I wished to convey, for it was present then.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[DavP]

'Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ.'
(Col 2:8)

Hello DanP,

I was not saying that Paul himself was apostate: of course not. Please do not jump to wrong conclusions but read what is actually being said. Although I can understand why you should have mistaken my meaning in this case, because I did not express myself very well.

Paul warned of apostacy in his day: that is what I wished to convey, for it was present then.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Sorry if I offend, but your words below betrayed you. You were actually giving a warning of what the early Church believed concerning Apostle Paul's teachings...

"Holding up the early church as a yardstick to measure doctrine by is not wise, in my opinion. ... and all in Asia turned away from Paul and his teaching, so the early church would be the last place I would look for doctrinal confirmation."

In reality, many of the 1st century Church teachings of the Church fathers stayed very close to what God's Word teaches as written, excluding those of the Alexandrian school like Origen and Clement.

It was the 2nd century when doctrines like Gnostic Amillennialism began to creep in. And for over 1,800 years, the Christian Church has followed the Epistles of Apostle Paul, whom Lord Jesus chose as His vessel to write most of The New Testament Books. True Christian Churches today still follow the doctrines by Apostle Paul in his Epistles.