SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Our Sinful Nature and the Devil

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

randyj
Hi,
we have chatted over this topic numerous times in the 'lounge' but I see some new folk have strolled in and the conversation starts all over again. I think that is good; it's the way the lounge works.
I disagree with several of your points. I presume that you are taking a position similar to, if not identical with, Finney. Personally I think Finney's theology is fatally flawed although I know he was powerfully used by God. Many a man is greater than his theology. There are, of course, many more than 3 forms of the doctrine of 'constitutional sin'.

I would like to challenge your thinking with an initial question based on this passage of scripture. “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” (Rom. 8:19-23, KJVS)
Why did Adam's sin have such an impact on the world while Eve's did not? Eve's transgression was earlier than Adam's and it is the consistent testimony of scripture that it was Adam's sin which did the damage. Why should this be?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/3 4:15Profile
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re:

Jimbob and Philologos. Hi.
I don't know if I have the capacity to answer two people at once, but here goes. I hope the Lord uses this discussion for the benefit of His kingdom.
Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? What did this hardening entail?
What does it mean for the creature to be subject to vanity?
Let me start by saying that a person should never hold as absolutely true, anything that has not, as it's basis, facts that undeniably necessitate the conclusion which is held. I say this and wonder at the supposed connection between being subject to vanity and the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness. Likewise I see no real connection between Pharaoh having his heart hardened and the Calvanistic version of God's sovereignty. That the creature is subject to vanity (death if you please) is one thing. A man having such a nature that necessitates his sin is quite another. No doubt man is subject to vanity. Anyone who doubts will soon have his doubts removed. I do not see, however, the connection between this and the doctrine that states that man is incapable of [b]moral[/b] perfection (never sinning).
Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Why did God give those in Romans 1 over to a "reprobate mind" and "vile affections"? I think it is the natural consequence for persistent disobedience. And if you say "no no it wasn't a natural consequence God did it" then I will simply reply that Pharaoh could not therefore be the object of blame. There was a Calvanist man of my acquaintance who was protesting in front of a liberal church. The pastor came out and they had it out. I asked the man if he thought that God made that man to compromise. He said yes. Do you see the contradiction? He was there protesting against the hand of God!
And my question to you. "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"
You know the verse. Does not this verse imply the capacity in man to comprehend what is right? Did not God write his law upon the hearts of men? If God did write his law upon the hearts of men then we are disobedient and out of place to refuse to live according to it's dictates.
And another question (sorry Jimbob for the length) Does not the law say to love with "thy strength"? If the law demands nothing more than that which falls within the realm of our natural ability then there is no more discussion here. "Oh" you say "but it is a moral depravity that man received from Adam". Then how was it transferred by way of 'natural generation'?
I better quit before I discontent our beloved Jimbob.
With plenty of love from the Lord Jesus, Randy


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/4 15:22Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi randyj
I think that answer must have been aimed at jimbob as you do not seem to have said much about the unique effects of Adam's sin.

Quote:
man having such a nature that necessitates his sin is quite another.

This is not a necessary implication of the doctrine of original sin. A bias is not the same as a predetermination. The section of Romans beginning at Rom 5:12 speaks of two men; count the times it refers to 'one man'. In fact, the phrase 'one man' relates to 'two men'; the 'one man' - Adam, and the 'one-man' Christ. Adam is said to be a figure of the 'coming one'. Those who are of and in Adam share his nature while those who are of and in Christ share Christ's nature. As a result of Adam's disobedience 'sin' entered the world and 'death' followed. This passed through to all men...

Nor is it necessary to regard constitutional sin as being hereditary. This has to do with what is usually called 'transmission' and a belief in constitutional sin is not necessarily a belief in hereditary transmission. Sin passed immediately to all the race at the moment of Adam's disobedience. This is why I asked why Eve's sin did not have the same consequence. The answer is that Eve was not the federal head of the race.

A new race has begun and its federal head is Jesus Christ. A man in either in the one or the other. He cannot be in both at the same time.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/4 16:09Profile
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re:

:-) Philologos. Thanx, I did thoroughly enjoy your reply. And I get the feeling that we are getting somewhere. I do realize that not all people believe that a man's sin nature necessitates his sin. I will have you know however that almost every single person I have had discussion with on this topic have believed that very thing. I am now vexed with the question now "what was the manner in which a sin nature passed upon all men if not natural generation? You say because he was our federal head. What is meant by 'federal head' anyway. Do you mean that he was the representative of the human race? If so,then in what way was he our representative? I do believe that he was our representative of sorts. He was what all men are and did what all men have done. However all this is completely separate from one's physical constitution. I do think that a person can heighten their propensities to sin by sinning. No doubt every one of us knows full well that the sins that we are most tempted to commit are the ones that we have already committed in the past. We may also rightly observe that a person is far more likely to commit a sin when someone else is committing an act of sin in our presence ,and I might add, the sins that those people are committing.

Quote:
This is why I asked why Eve's sin did not the same consequence. The answer is that Eve was not the federal head of the race.


Now may I say that this is pure speculation. I might with just as much propriety say that it was because he was a far greater influence on the human race. I do not hold to such a statement for I have not weighed it.
Quote:
by one man sin entered into the world


"by one man a sin nature entered into the world"
Quote:
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned


"and so death passed upon all men for that Adam sinned"
One is the Bible and one is man's opinion. Can you tell which one is which?
Now as for sharing the nature of another I think it quite possible. I do not, however, ascribe to the teaching that it is an involuntary sharing of natures. Those who follow Christ willingltakepart of his moral nature. Those who follow in the steps of Adam do so willingly.
Quote:
This is not a necessary implication of the doctrine of original sin. A bias is not the same as a predetermination


O.K. you now say that our sin nature produces a bias in us toward evil. I ask 'Was not Christ "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin"? How can this be so if he did not have the same bias toward sin?
Waiting a reply, Randy
P.S. Sorry for the way I did the scripture quote vs the made up quote. I don't know how to fix it


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/4 18:13Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
You say because he was our federal head. What is meant by 'federal head' anyway. Do you mean that he was the representative of the human race? If so,then in what way was he our representative?

As I use the term it means more than a 'representative'. Here is some obscure verses from Daniel in which Daniel addresses Nebuchadnezzar;“Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.”(Dan. 2:37, KJVS)
And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. Dan. 2:38 (KJVS) Most would say that this 'head of gold' prophecy related to the Neo-Babylonian Empire but Daniel illustrates a Bible revelation. Nebuchadnezzar's behaviour will determine the fate of his empire. (There is an interesting current issue which springs from this. The alliance forces claim that Saddam Hussein has betrayed his country and must be held accountable. Saddam claims that he is not accountable to his country but that his country is accountable to him because he is its head. This is a fascinating collision of Western and Eastern concepts of rule. Biblically, Saddam is right. That should get me some mail!) In a similar way Adam's behaviour impacts upon the whole of 'his kingdom'. It impacts upon his wife and upon the earth itself which comes under a curse, not because of what either Satan or Eve has done but because of what Adam has done. The enmity resulted from Satan's work, the earth-curse resulted from Adam's work.

Genesis has a definite cause and effect with regard to Adam's transgression. “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
(Gen. 3:14-15,17-19, KJVS)Modern version which do not distinguish between the singular 'thou/thy/thine' will obscure this, but the older versions will make it very plain that God held Adam uniquely responsible for the events recorded here. This is confirmed in Paul's later statement in which he differentiates the nature of Eve's and Adam's behaviour;“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1Tim. 2:14, KJVS)It was because the 'curse' came into our world by a man, that it had to be removed by a man.


Quote:
O.K. you now say that our sin nature produces a bias in us toward evil. I ask 'Was not Christ "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin"? How can this be so if he did not have the same bias toward sin?

I think we would do better to pursue the federal headship of Adam and Christ before moving onto this, but in a sentence or two... who is the 'we'? of this scripture? It is the shared experience of the writer and those to whom he wrote. Those who received the letter were those who had been“...once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,” (Heb. 6:4-5, KJVS)... that is to say 'the regenerate'. True regeneration unites us with Christ's co-crucifixion of the 'old man' and puts the 'man in Christ' into an entirely different spiritual context to the 'man in Adam'. I do not believe in the co-existence of 'the old man' and 'the new man' in a regenerate man's life. Still, I think we would do better to pursue the 'federal headship' theme first.

ps
any folks struggling with [url=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ronbailey/theethine.pdf]Ye Old Englishe[/url] will find a little help available.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/5 7:03Profile
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re:

Hello Philogos, It looks like Jimbob will get his request on this occasion for I wish only for clarity on your part. I wish to know specifically whether or not you believe that Adam's posterity is treated according to the merits of Adam. There is no doubt on my part and hence no quarrel as to whether or not there are consequences for Adam's sin that have impacted the rest of the race in some way or another. I wish to narrow the discussion, if I may, to this particular query, to wit, whether or not man is treated according to the merit of Adam.
A scripture for thought before answering.
"What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children' teeth are set on edge? 3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Eze 18:2
Randy


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/6 11:57Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re: Our Sinful Nature and the Devil

"How does the devil influence our sinful nature?"

Romans 7:

[18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
[19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
[20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
[21] I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

We must be honest with Paul, and admit that evil is present in the flesh, our flesh, my flesh. Flesh can be overcome by His Spirit when we surrender our will. I don't know about any of you guys, but I have a long way to go with this. The devil has our flesh to tempt. Our flesh has no good thing, but the Spirit within in us has no sin. The devil can only tempt the flesh, and God can only use of us what we surrender to Him. The less we surrender to God, the more we can be tossed about by Satan.

I believe there is a multitude of Christians who are being choked down by the cares of this world. We will all come to judgment, though we are saved, and give an account of whether or not we loved this present world. I am in the process of searching my heart and being honest with myself to clean up each and every aspect of my walk with the LORD, God willing.

"How does he make some people do certain things?"

Ephesians 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:
[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.

After we are saved, there is now the matter of our Christian walk. Christians will not be judged for how well they were converted, but how well we walked. What we did with the gifts and abilities He gave us. What we did not do with these, as well. The devil is given the ability by God to try us. There is no need to be fearful, as God will not allow him to do anything that is not for the LORD's glory.

Here are just some of the tragedies that were seemingly Satan's victory, but ended, or will end with the LORD's glory:

The fall of Adam and Eve
Cain's murder of Abel
The enslavement of the Jews
The killing of Jewish children (Exodus / Gospels)
Fall of David
Babylonian capture of Israel
Murder of Christ
Slaughter of Christians under Saul
Deception of the world by Satan

Obviously Satan has stirred many people to do much evil, but the end result is our LORD's victory. Satan's ability is only as much as the LORD gives permission for him to do, and as much as our human flesh gives in to Satan's influence.

The LORD uses Satan like a pawn, and Satan tries to do the same with us. It is only by us relying on the Spirit of God that Satan is repelled. If we try to fight Satan in the flesh, we are going to be get beaten up (Jer 12:5). But by turning from sin, denying ourselves and the lusts of our flesh, and relying upon God's Spirit to do the work, we then become a vessel of His will.

EDIT: Duncan Campbell has a great testimony about the devil invading his church service, and what they did to repel him. Campbell openly admits he was himself completely bound at that moment, and had to rely upon someone else to pray Satan out of the meeting.

And the Country was Filled with Water:

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=1316&commentView=itemComments


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2005/10/6 13:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I wish to know specifically whether or not you believe that Adam's posterity is treated according to the merits of Adam. There is no doubt on my part and hence no quarrel as to whether or not there are consequences for Adam's sin that have impacted the rest of the race in some way or another. I wish to narrow the discussion, if I may, to this particular query, to wit, whether or not man is treated according to the merit of Adam.

Using the traditional language of this topic I would say that 'I believe in original sin but not original guilt'. I am not trying to support Calvinism in my posts. The consequence of Adam's sin was that the threatened sentence was carried out; death. Adam died in the day he sinned. There was a consequence of that which we see in the physical death with overshadows our 'cosmos'. But the vital point made in Romans 5:12 is not that Adam sinned but that Adam's disobedience opened the door to Sin's entrance. From this point in Romans 'sin' is usually preceded by the definite article, lit 'the sin'. This is a Greek way of producing the effect of a relative pronoun. It signifies 'the sin' ie 'the sin that we have just mentioned'. This Greek idiom is constantly used in the NT. When the topic, for example, of 'Jesus' is introduced it will normally be without the definite article, but subsequently the definite article will be added. I will try to give a literal translation of a couple of verses to illustrate.¶ A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. Matt. 1:1
and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ. Matt. 1:16
¶ And of [u]the[/u] Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,
and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’ Matt. 1:21
When we come to Romans 5:12ff this 'definite article used as a relative pronoun' is very evident. “because of this, even as through one man [u]the[/u] sin did enter into the world, and through [u]the sin[/u] the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;” (Rom. 5:12, YNG) This is not 'sin' as a single transgression, but SIN as a dynamic. Consequently in Romans Paul develops the truth to show SIN as a person sitting upon a throne. The vital revelation here is that we are seeing not just Adam's first transgression but the 'entrance' of SIN into the cosmos.

Paul develops this by saying “for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.” (Rom. 5:19, YNG) This plain states that through a single offence of one man something happened to 'the many'. The 'thing' that happened is that 'the many' were 'constituted sinners'.

I know the Ezek verses well. They are part of the build up to the revelation of the New Covenant in which the consequences of 'sin being visited on the third and fourth genetation' are cancelled in Christ.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/7 5:41Profile
RandyJ
Member



Joined: 2005/10/1
Posts: 49
Peace River, AB, Canada

 Re: Philogos

Quote:
Using the traditional language of this topic I would say that 'I believe in original sin but not original guilt'.


Great statement! This statement leads me to say that it is utterly repugnant to God given human reason, the scriptures, and the nature of our good God to say that death as it follows from the transgression of Adam is a punishment. God does not and did not punish mankind for Adam's sin. And as for visiting transgression to the third and fourth generation I don't think that can properly be called punishment. Punishment, especially as it is pure punishment, does not have the corrective element. That which carries the corrective element is 'chastisement'. Physical death which was delivered unto man as a whole falls, I think, falls under the 'corrective' category.
As for the reason why Adam was considered to blame for the original transgression was likely because he was the head or ruler over his wife. " For Adam was first formed, then Eve." 1st tim 2:13
Quote:
I know the Ezek verses well. They are part of the build up to the revelation of the New Covenant in which the consequences of 'sin being visited on the third and fourth genetation' are cancelled in Christ.


The consequences of sin, or the natural tendencies of sin are not the topic at issue here in Eze 18.
" Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Eze 18:4]
Death is the punishment for sin. So what the verse is saying is that punishment shall not be inflicted on an individual who did not that which is worthy of death. Now I know you might think to yourself that I am in contradiction with myself because I have just said that death was inflicted on the human race as corrective and not penal. But it does well for us to consider the fact that those who are forgiven still die. This settles all queries about whether or not physical death is penal. If physical death is penal then it follows that we are not at all forgiven. I don't think there could ever be in the mind of a person who believes in eternal retribution the thought of partial forgiveness. I don't think you would believe in partial forgiveness anyway so I leave this. Physical death is not penal. The death spoken of in Ezekiel 18 is penal. Enough said.
As to the original quote, I don't think that any punishment can follow anything but real personal guilt. This could open up another can of worms regarding Finney's controversial beliefs about the atonement. Wow, I can sense the onslaught.
In Christ, Randy


_________________
Randy Steinke

 2005/10/8 8:08Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy