ECT The Most Misunderstood Passage in the Bible--Romans 5:12-18

[Shasta]

Yes, a man must be born AGAIN spiritually. The word "again" means "another time, once more." That can only mean that previously Nicodemus must have already been born of the Spirit. So when do you think that Nicodemus was born of the Spirit the first time?



He was telling Nicodemus that the birth to which a person must be "born again" was not in regard to a physical birth but one which is of the Spirit.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).​

It is impossible that the "death" here is speaking about "physical" death. Men do not die physically because they sin. Instead, they die that way because the no longer have access to the very thing which would allow them to live for ever, the tree of life (Gen.3:22-24). Because of that all men are destined to die physically (Heb.9:27) and therefore they do not die physcially because they sin.

Of course Romans 5:12 is speaking about "spiritual" death. Just as Adam died spiritually as a result of his sin so also his descendants die spiritually when they sin. The Bible declares that the LORD is not a respecter of persons (Ro.2:11) so the LORD will not treat mankind in a different way than he treated Adam.

Since men die spiritually as a result of their own sin then it becomes obvious that a man has to be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually. Therefore, no one is born dead spiritually.

The only thing is that He did not say Nicodemus was supposed to undergo a second spiritual birth. The point in saying "that which is born of the flesh is flesh" and "that which is born of he spirit is spirit" was to make a qualitative distinction between the First birth and the one which he lacked. The first one gave him physical life. The second NEW birth would give him SPIRITUAL life.

 

[Lon]

The battle between Pelagius did not affect the Eastern Church, neither did Augustine. He was a Latin theologian who was not in the Eastern theological tradition. The ECFs did not believe the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to mankind. They did believe the Fall had made man liable to sin. At the same time they believed that man had a free will and even retained the Image of God although it was was marred by what happened.

I am saying this because people keep accusing me of believing in Original Sin and it clouds the conversation. I do not hold to Original Sin but to "Ancestral Sin." The difference was stated clearly in an article I read today.



By sinful nature they did not mean a corrupted essence that necessitates actions. That was a Gnostic idea. Very often, it seems, doctrines are formed in reaction to some error or extreme, real or perceived. Once the lines are drawn people are driven to extreme intractable positions and can no longer objectively divide the scriptures. Everything must support ones particular view.

I do believe we inherited the condition of Adam and thus 1) that he/we are separated from God, 2) that death on all levels, is the consequence, as a disease, like Aids or Leprosy 3) that although 'sins' are the action, it is the nature already at odds with God that is culprit, therefore, a mixing of words over ancestral sin opposed to Original sin, imho, is yet the same discussion. I realize EO sees it differently, but logically, it is yet the same and I think Augustine argued as much. Rather, I think it a desire to distance, and move to the mediating position, yet, I think it still must remain posturizing else we'd have to correct the Lord Jesus' words in John 14:6 at least as far as I can discern. Both Aids and Leprosy don't 'kill' you, they produce a condition whereby you must succumb to some fatal disease. Similarly, I think that might be the gist between Original or Ancestral sin. In Him -Lon

 

[Lon]

The only thing is that He did not say Nicodemus was supposed to undergo a second spiritual birth. The point in saying "that which is born of the flesh is flesh" and "that which is born of he spirit is spirit" was to make a qualitative distinction between the First birth and the one which he lacked. The first one gave him physical life. The second NEW birth would give him SPIRITUAL life.

Agree, the scripture passage itself says born of water AND born of Spirit, such that born is not born of Spirit, but born without Him. It is as clear as that when the Lord Jesus Christ says "that which is born of flesh is flesh; that which is born of Spirit is Spirit." Therefore, there can be no doubt that a second-birth is 'born of Spirit' (the first time). It has to be read that way because the Lord Jesus Christ expounded exactly that.

 

[Shasta]

[Nang;4980727]God ordained and declared Christ the head of His church.

Holy Scripture teaches there are two "Adams." If the last Adam (Christ) is head of His
spiritual offspring, then in principle the first Adam is head of his physical offspring. If the two had not been contrasted in Scripture, then the first would not have been a type of the last. Since the first Adam is a type of Jesus Christ, who is a federal head of the Church, then the same truth and office would apply in type to the first Adam.

You cannot assume points of comparison that are not specifically stated in the text. Adam and Christ are alike in some ways but not in others. For instance, Christ has a conscious personal connection to every single member of his body. Adam does not have such a connection to all his descendants. Christ's spiritual descendants do His will. "Those who are led of the Spirit are the sons of God" like Jesus was a son and did His fathers will. Adam was a "living soul" whose children existed because of the laws of genetics and reproduction. Christ became a "life-giving spirit" He was the life source for each of his brothers. Adam was cast out of the garden and barred from the tree of life. Some of Adam's children will follow his example. Others will enter paradise. Adam WAS used as a type of Christ but no type is comparable on every point. I think we get off when we make more points of comparison that those who wrote the scriptures.

It doesn't. It is a theological term used to teach an overarching principle and Truth . . like as the words "Trinity" and "Triune" are used to define and reveal the overarching principle and Truth of the Godhead.

I do not see evidence that Adam was designated the Federal Head. Is the progenitor of every face a Federal Head?

Agreed.

There is a factor missing in your argument that goes beyond natural consequences: Satan's deception of Eve that led to Adam's disobedience, and the resultant curse and enslavement to Satan that occurred according to God's prophetic warning in Genesis 2:16-17, 3:14-19

Through fear of death (the ordained sentence against sin), all creation has been cursed, and held captive and controlled by Satan. This is very reason for the incarnation and High Priesthood of Christ. To free His church from this bondage. Hebrews 2:9-18; Galatians 3:10-14

I very am glad you brought this up. I have been wanting to address this point because it is so often not mentioned in modern teaching. The ECF put a great deal of emphasis on the Devil's role in enslaving mankind and in the cross being a way of buying mankind back from the slave block. The fact that the world still lies under the power of the Wicked One makes it impossible that anyone born only after the flesh will grow into a sinless person.

A couple of points here, where I differ. First, I believe there was always a remnant that found salvation prior to the incarnation of Christ. There was the lineage of Abel to Noah of godly souls that called on the name of the Lord (which required regeneration and the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit . . and then Job, Abraham's lineage; Moses, King David, the prophets, etc.

Yes many humans having walked in the light they had were considered righteous.

I am not sure it is correct to claim that the Holy Spirit "unites" with the human spirit, but rather reveals His presence as indwelling the bodily temples of redeemed men/women. Why? The word used to describe this indwelling is "abide." e.g. John 15:4 Does that word mean "unite" in the Greek? I do not know . . .

I meant becoming one in a relational sense. I did not mean to imply that our spirit and the Lord's "merge" together. I drew the idea from 1 Corinthians 6:17.

Agreed, but I see the ransom as a debt owed to God, not the devil.

Christ's sacrifice indeed broke and freed souls from the power of death, as I touched on above, but I believe the ransom or debt of sin was paid by Christ on the cross, offering Himself, for Himself as representative of His church, in the offices of both Savior and High Priest. IOW's God paid God the price to redeem His church. I Peter 1:18-19; Acts 20:28

Ransoms are not paid to the parents of the abducted child but to the kidnapper. The culprit, in this case was Satan. He deceived Eve and convinced Adam to take the bait. As a result humans became slaves to sin and the Evil one who is the spirit that "works in the children of disobedience." Calvin's model of Penal Substitution was a derivation of the "Satisfaction Model" formulated by Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1000sAD. The ECF before that had taught the Ransom Model.

 

[Shasta]

I am glad to see that you finally realize that the "death" in "bold" in the following verse is speaking about "spiritual death":

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).​

You do realize that before someone can die spiritually they must first be alive spiritually, don't you? So when do you think a person becomes spiritually alive before he sins?



Earlier you realized that when the Lord Jesus spoke of being "born again" He was referring to a person being born again spiritually:



The Lord spoke of two births, one of the flesh and one of the Spirit. So His words in regard to being "born again" MUST refer to one of those two births. And it is obvious that the reference is not in regard to being born again in the flesh. Instead, it must refer to being born again spiritually.

So it becomes clear that Nicodemus was previously born of the Spirit. When do you think that happened?



What about these people to whom the Lord Jesus makes reference?:

"And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err" (Mk.12:26-27).​

In what sense are those men alive now? And since only those who are born again of the Spirit can enter the kingdom then are you saying that neither Abraham, Isaac or Jacob will enter the kingdom?

I always held the position that the birth Jesus was teaching about was the new spiritual rebirth which had not happened but which had been promised.

His comment "that which is born of the flesh is flesh) (etc) was intended to show Nicodemus the DIFFERENCE between the FIRST birth which was of the flesh and the SECOND which was to come which would be spiritual.
He is certainly NOT saying the first birth is SPIRITUAL. That is preposterous and if you did not have some doctrinal axe to grind you never would have proposed something so out of line with the wording and context of the verse.

 

[dodge]

That is not what Paul is saying. Instead, the reason all men die is BECAUSE all men sin":

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—" (NIV).​

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—" (NASB).​

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—" (NKJV).​

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-" (RSV).​

To quote just a few...

Jerry, if a 1 day old baby dies is that because the baby sinned in your opinion ? You did say people die because they sin so what sin could a 1 day old baby commit ?

You have it wrong Jerry everyone is born with a sin nature because of the fall in the garden. We have inherited a sin nature because of Adam's disobedience/fall in the garden. The baby died because he/she inherited a sinful nature and death is a result of that nature.

 

[Shasta]

Yeah, I know what you were doing. You're claiming those who practice sin are worse than those who merely commit sin, all because the words sound better.

This is exactly how John's words would have been understood in the Greek of that time. There is no real controversy about this. I could show you how to see this for yourself but I do not think you are interested. It has nothing to do with words "sounding" better or worse. It is simply a fact. God is the one who differentiates between a believer who commits sins and one who is permanently abiding in sin. I see this sort of thing on a regular basis.

 

[Shasta]

I do believe we inherited the condition of Adam and thus 1) that he/we are separated from God, 2) that death on all levels, is the consequence, as a disease, like Aids or Leprosy 3) that although 'sins' are the action, it is the nature already at odds with God that is culprit, therefore, a mixing of words over ancestral sin opposed to Original sin, imho, is yet the same discussion. I realize EO sees it differently, but logically, it is yet the same and I think Augustine argued as much. Rather, I think it a desire to distance, and move to the mediating position, yet, I think it still must remain posturizing else we'd have to correct the Lord Jesus' words in John 14:6 at least as far as I can discern. Both Aids and Leprosy don't 'kill' you, they produce a condition whereby you must succumb to some fatal disease. Similarly, I think that might be the gist between Original or Ancestral sin. In Him -Lon

The ECF believed all men would inevitably be sinners. They just did not accept the part about inheriting the guilt for someone else's choices.

 

[Nang]

Thanks for the substantial discussion we have had, Shasta . . now that I know your beliefs are EO is helpful and respected by this participant.

Ransoms are not paid to the parents of the abducted child but to the kidnapper. The culprit, in this case was Satan. He deceived Eve and convinced Adam to take the bait. As a result humans became slaves to sin and the Evil one who is the spirit that "works in the children of disobedience." Calvin's model of Penal Substitution was a derivation of the "Satisfaction Model" formulated by Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1000sAD. The ECF before that had taught the Ransom Model.

Problem with this "ransom" theory, is that Satan never intended to kidnap and hold the sons of God in bondage, for a price. The devil never asked or expected a ransom payment. What would that even be?

The death of the Son of God? Is that what you surmise?

But the death of the Son of God was voluntarily paid by Jesus Christ, to satisfy the Law of God, and redeem His people. . .. not to satisfy the devil or meet his demands in any way.

I submit the debt owed, was not a price put on our heads by the devil, but the cost to the loving heart and soul of Creator God, to lose His children to the powers of sin, death, and the devil, if even for just a time.

 

[Lon]

The ECF believed all men would inevitably be sinners. They just did not accept the part about inheriting the guilt for someone else's choices.

Yeah, as far as federal headship etc. I'm not as well versed. I suppose the disease/condition idea fits both original and ancestral?

 

[Nang]

Yeah, as far as federal headship etc. I'm not as well versed. I suppose the disease/condition idea fits both original and ancestral?

Google it . . .

 

[glorydaz]

I think I've shown very well, I'm willing to listen to outside ideas, but they must sync with scripture. Whatever your context, you agreed with Jerry and I don't see that as part of the text or context. Either the Lord Jesus Christ is indeed the only way to the Father, or we can figure this all out on our own and don't need Him. This is specifically 1) why sinless doctrine was considered against scripture and 2) why even those who 'used' to espouse it gave it up too!
Okay, it will take you longer then, like some of the others who held this view. They all gave it up. There has been no resurgence, except Mormons, wholesale by any church that names the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Such removes Him from worship.

Heresy (or doctrine) begets further heresy (or doctrine). Where there is smoke, there is fire. I never take that lightly. I am unique with my take on Hebrews. MAD, surely sees the book as to Hebrews, but read its warnings differently than I. I am extremely careful to always say I'm "outside" the camp on this one. I don't want anybody following me down the same hole unless they do as our Lord and Savior says, and count the cost. There are costs for going against the whole church. We must take those consequences, up to, and including disfellowship with orthodox congregations. Only my devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ would or could produce such a thing in me. I love that body
I disagree. Greek is of incredible help and worth. Only one studied is capable. It is akin to the difference between black/white and color television. You are better able, if you have the education. We are foolish, if we raise ourselves beyond the hard study of another. I do believe it accessible, fully, but yet in black and whites.

As far as my involvement in thread, I've given the one scripture that I believe ends the discussion: Either the Lord Jesus Christ is the Only Way to the Father, or He is not. We don't have any convenience, imho, to second guess that clear scripture. If we are born innocent, and children like my nephew make it on their own laurels, then Jesus' words to me, seem to be challenged and negated, outright. It is exactly this clear to me. You will have to talk with the Lord about this because my mind, was made up regarding the matter. Is it damnable heresy? :idunno: I think it a harsh rebuke of the Lord Jesus' words: "No Lord Jesus, you are not the ONLY way!" It may be a strawman in your mind, but I can't see past the problematic of it. I do not at all, think you or Tam, or Jerry meaning to do it. I just believe that clarity points that direction and it was why it was labelled heresy so long ago. It wasn't just an idea spun on the bench of the old codgers, imho. I think it 'scripturally' offensive/problematic.

You don't. I understand that, but such must be directly dealt with or it simply remains that you 3 embrace a heresy and the rest of the church will move on without you over the matter. You'd have to deal compassionately and in great depth of very clear scripture representation and such has never been produced thought it was adamantly attempted so long ago. You 3 aren't the only passionate ones, the Pelagians were very committed. As I said, scripturally, even they gave it up. It isn't just history, but the passions and reasoning of those involved in that history, thus to not know it, is to repeat it today. However much you and I talk about such things, we still have to deal with scripture and our responsibility for our own selves before our Lord and Savior. I believe we have to do that at some point. Our only capable job, I believe, is to present (plant) and pray (water). I pray the Lord will guide us from here, mutually. If there is fallow ground, He will have to do His work there too. Only God could move either of us from our respective corners. It must be Him, else there is no hope in even what we have discussed already.

Just my thoughts and historical orthodox perspective, given in what I hope is seen with respect, though disagreement. In Our Lord Jesus Christ -Lon

Excuse me while I puke. :vomit:


You're being an egotistical idiot. I can't even give you the name "educated idiot" because you clearly do not have a well-rounded understanding of Scripture. You can't even stay true to the doctrine you claim to espouse . Oh, children are innocent but guilty of Adam's sin. Oh, children cannot possibly know Jesus...even though He formed them in their mother's womb, and the things of God are clearly understood by His creation. Romans 1:19-20KJV You think children are monsters and Jesus said we need to be converted and become like them. I'm sorry, but I find that particularly ignorant on your part. You judge by what you see with your measly bit of understanding rather than believing the word of God.

Save any future long-winded nonsensical diatribes, they only make you look like a presumptuous fool who has no idea of the Justice and Holiness of our Great God.

 

[glorydaz]

Google it . . .

You'll have to because you won't find it in Scripture. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Excuse me while I puke. :vomit:

You're being an egotistical idiot.

It doesn't matter who said it to you, you'd say this regardless. Show me the Lord Jesus Christ behind it, not you puking or saying I'm being an idiot. You know neither does anything and is naught but vitriolic nonsense. It has no place here. I don't accept it, and I don't think you thought I would. An expression of disdain is simply "I don't like this, Lon." I know that Gd.

I can't even give you the name "educated idiot" because you clearly do not have a well-rounded understanding of Scripture.

No, I clearly do, and you know better. You really do. I disagree with you on one thing and you have a melt down? Okay, have at it. I'm listening. Not hearing your poor choice of words, but hearing your emoting. This isn't the way to do this with me. It just becomes personal and "how can you be against my scriptural understanding or stance?" You know it isn't just me. You know that. You know per fact, it is the whole church. You know this. How could you throw a gauntlet like this at my feet without throwing it at the whole church at large?

You can't even stay true to the doctrine you claim to espouse .

No. Rather you don't understand. I'm saying I have no idea, but trust the Lord Jesus Christ. Such isn't inconsistent. It is very consistent: Will not the Lord do right? Genesis 18:25

Oh, children are innocent but guilty of Adam's sin.

See? It is you who haven't been listening or reading well. I said children aren't developmentally ready to understand the differences and own them. What age? It is different for different kids. I simply trust them into God's hands. He will do right. They are His, not mine. If I have kids, they are on loan to me: They belong to God.

Oh, children cannot possibly know Jesus...even though He formed them in their mother's womb, and the things of God are clearly understood by His creation. Romans 1:19-20KJV You think children are monsters and Jesus said we need to be converted and become like them. I'm sorry, but I find that particularly ignorant on your part. You judge by what you see with your measly bit of understanding rather than believing the word of God.

No you don't, you never asked me but are putting two and two together in your own mind and especially because you are emotionally vested in this 'born-sinless' doctrine for some reason. I try not to emote my way through scripture. God says 'come let us reason.' We are to 'study' to show ourselves approved etc. The more my emotions get in the way, the worse I have found my doctrine tends to be. A level-headed mind is the better place to understanding and putting together our doctrine. On this, you'd need to ask questions instead of assuming.
You said you were mad at me, but I think I just represent what you are mad about and aren't really mad at me. Why would a disagreement make you mad at me? We have always held different beliefs.

Save any future long-winded nonsensical diatribes, they only make you look like a presumptuous fool who has no idea of the Justice and Holiness of our Great God.

You are just emoting now. I don't believe you mean a word of this. I really don't.
To me, it looks like an emotional blow out and a desire to detach. I will leave the thread. I don't want to cause any of this or be the focal point of it. If it isn't about the scriptures, there is no sense in us going at one another. -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

I do not believe we are guilty for Adam's sin, okay?

There are more ways of describing what God does in the human spirit than quickening (which means give life to). Here was the scripture I was referring to.

26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes
(Ezekiel 36:26-27)

Here God said he would give us a new (human spirit) as well as give us the Holy Spirit. Making something anew is a little stronger expression than simply restoring it to a previous state of innocence.

Hmm...well, that text in Ezek. seems to be talking about Israel (on returning to their own land), but I understand your point. Psalm 51:10 "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."

But, we were created with a body, soul, and spirit, and all of man must be sanctified as we're conformed into the image of the Son.

1 Thess. 5:23And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

I've always liked this verse which addresses the effects of the word of God on our hearts.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.​

 

[glorydaz]

It doesn't matter who said it to you, you'd say this regardless. Show me the Lord Jesus Christ behind it, not you puking or saying I'm being an idiot. You know neither does anything and is naught but vitriolic nonsense. It has no place here. I don't accept it, and I don't think you thought I would. An expression of disdain is simply "I don't like this, Lon." I know that Gd.


No, I clearly do, and you know better. You really do. I disagree with you on one thing and you have a melt down? Okay, have at it. I'm listening. Not hearing your poor choice of words, but hearing your emoting. This isn't the way to do this with me. It just becomes personal and "how can you be against my scriptural understanding or stance?" You know it isn't just me. You know that. You know per fact, it is the whole church. You know this. How could you throw a gauntlet like this at my feet without throwing it at the whole church at large?


No. Rather you don't understand. I'm saying I have no idea, but trust the Lord Jesus Christ. Such isn't inconsistent. It is very consistent: Will not the Lord do right? Genesis 18:25
See? It is you who haven't been listening or reading well. I said children aren't developmentally ready to understand the differences and own them. What age? It is different for different kids. I simply trust them into God's hands. He will do right. They are His, not mine. If I have kids, they are on loan to me: They belong to God.



No you don't, you never asked me but are putting two and two together in your own mind and especially because you are emotionally vested in this 'born-sinless' doctrine for some reason. I try not to emote my way through scripture. God says 'come let us reason.' We are to 'study' to show ourselves approved etc. The more my emotions get in the way, the worse I have found my doctrine tends to be. A level-headed mind is the better place to understanding and putting together our doctrine. On this, you'd need to ask questions instead of assuming.
You said you were mad at me, but I think I just represent what you are mad about and aren't really mad at me. Why would a disagreement make you mad at me? We have always held different beliefs.
You are just emoting now. I don't believe you mean a word of this. I really don't.
To me, it looks like an emotional blow out and a desire to detach. I will leave the thread. I don't want to cause any of this or be the focal point of it. If it isn't about the scriptures, there is no sense in us going at one another. -Lon

No, Lon, I'm not just emoting. I'm quite serious. I don't believe in answering a fool according to his folly and that's what a conversation would be with you at this point. If you ever decide to get off your high horse, I'll be more than happy to put this behind us. You are still up there, and it's not a pretty sight.

 

[Lon]

No, Lon, I'm not just emoting. I'm quite serious. I don't believe in answering a fool according to his folly and that's what a conversation would be with you at this point. If you ever decide to get off your high horse, I'll be more than happy to put this behind us. You are still up there, and it's not a pretty sight.

It is everybody. Even Nick told you the same. Okay, I'll leave. I told you it isn't worth this. I am no fool and neither is Nick, and neither is John W, and neither is the rest of the BoC.

 

[Danoh]

Jerry, if a 1 day old baby dies is that because the baby sinned in your opinion ? You did say people die because they sin so what sin could a 1 day old baby commit ?

You have it wrong Jerry everyone is born with a sin nature because of the fall in the garden. We have inherited a sin nature because of Adam's disobedience/fall in the garden. The baby died because he/she inherited a sinful nature and death is a result of that nature.

Yep.

 

[glorydaz]

The battle between Pelagius did not affect the Eastern Church, neither did Augustine. He was a Latin theologian who was not in the Eastern theological tradition. The ECFs did not believe the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to mankind. They did believe the Fall had made man liable to sin. At the same time they believed that man had a free will and even retained the Image of God although it was was marred by what happened.

I am saying this because people keep accusing me of believing in Original Sin and it clouds the conversation. I do not hold to Original Sin but to "Ancestral Sin." The difference was stated clearly in an article I read today.



By sinful nature they did not mean a corrupted essence that necessitates actions. That was a Gnostic idea. Very often, it seems, doctrines are formed in reaction to some error or extreme, real or perceived. Once the lines are drawn people are driven to extreme intractable positions and can no longer objectively divide the scriptures. Everything must support ones particular view.

Indeed, we were created with a human nature. We live in a body of flesh, after all. We get hungry, we get tired, we have physical needs. Adam did, too. And Adam had the same problem we have, Satan. It didn't take much to make Adam sin, and it doesn't take much to make us sin. What's worse, the earth is corrupt and satan is now the god of this world. Of course men will sin. But, God is here, too. Drawing men to Himself, showing forth His goodness and long suffering. He would never saddle us with a sinful nature which would most certainly give man an excuse....God says there is no excuse for us, so why do men insist on saying there is one?

Romans makes it so clear, but some refuse to see....they became vain in their imaginations. They weren't born that way. After which God gave up on them and the "lusts of their own hearts". Not through some sin nature they inherited from Adam, but because they were just like Adam and had a human nature.

Romans 1:21-22KJV Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Romans 1:24KJV Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:​

"Sin Nature".....an excuse God never gave anyone. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

It is everybody. Even Nick told you the same. Okay, I'll leave. I told you it isn't worth this. I am no fool and neither is Nick, and neither is John W, and neither is the rest of the BoC.

Clearly you're a selective reader. Nick I know. John W I know. It's you I don't know.