Ok....I am trying to understand.
I believe:
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus did not sin
3. Jesus was made like us in every way
4. The Son came in the form of "sinful flesh"
5. Jesus was tempted in every way As is common to man.
6. Again, Jesus did not sin.
Where exactly do we not agree?
The fundamental causes of mankind's sin nature.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by 37818, Apr 20, 2024.
Page 3 of 3
-
-
Simple solution. Eve ate, Adam saw the change in her, snd didn’t want to lose her. He chose to go with her. “Sacrificed” himself to be with her, and thus became a sinner, and passed sin onto all humanity. In Adam, all die.
Christ did not have Adam as a distant father. He was a new Adam. All in Christ, the Second and Last Adam, are made alive. -
Before the fall his human nature was innocent not knowing evil when he disobeyed. His disobedience eating of the tree killed him with the knowledge of both good and evii. The knowledge of evil is the cause of his sin nature.
-
Obviously Adam was innocent before he wasn't. He transgressedand ate, and his eyes were opened - he gained a knowledge of good and evil. And nobody had to tell him he was naked. He had this knowledge.
But he was not killed with the knowledge. Sin entered through his transgression and death through sin.
My point is that Scripture itself does not speak of a "sin nature" and pre-Fall non-sin nature. Scripture speaks of Adam transgressing God's command and death becoming certain.
Nothing about a spiritual dying in addition to a physical death.
Nothing about inheriting a "sin nature".
It just seems to me that if we really believed Scripture to be perfect and complete that we wouldn't have to add to it in the name of "reasoning". -
Genesis 2:25, And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 3:6-7, . . . she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
[ By implication, we understand they now knew the difference of good and evil and became ashamed. ] -
I agree. We have stated the same thing here (great minds....:Wink).
The issue was not a change in nature but a consciousness of good and evil. -
No sin nature?
-
A nature Scripture refers to as "the flesh".
If we use words and meanings that God has used to describe these things then I think we can avoid (to an extent) wandering into unbiblical philosophical musings. -
So are you a Pelagian?
-
Do I believe the 5th century Catholic doctrine of Original Sin is correct? No. But I also do not believe Pelagianism is correct.
Pelagianism was a 5th century heresy against the Catholic Church. I am always surprised it shows up as charges against others on this board.
They rejected the idea that infant baptism was necessary for salvation and they rejected the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin.
But they did so from within a Catholic faith. The held that man has an innate goodness and can by nature please God.
This was the time the Catholic Church was working out the Doctrine of Original Sin and implications.
Basically you are asking me if I am a Pelagian or a Catholic. I am neither. Both positions were wrong.
You accept the doctrine. Were you a Catholic before becoming a Baptist?
Page 3 of 3