Can Man's Sinful Adamic Nature Be Rehabilitated?

[iouae]

Adam was a person that was created with an innocent nature.

When he sinned against God he lost his innocent nature and became a sinner.

As our representative he brought sin upon us.

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men" Romans 5:18.

Robert

By one man, sin entered the world.
By one Man, sin is removed.

That is what Paul is saying in Rom 5.
Paul is not saying that Adam passed a "fallen nature" down to us.
All Adam did was bring sin into the world, and we have continued that tradition of our own free will, not as a result of something Adam passed down to us. We cannot say "Adam made me do it".

Rom 5

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

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

 

[iouae]

Their nakedness exposed their new SINFUL STATE!"

A SINFUL STATE came into being, not a SINFUL NATURE.
Nakedness symbolises a sinful state not a sinful nature.

 

[steko]

Musterion:

Quote:
Adam was created very good, fully functional (in mature form, including his mental faculties), and was not deceived. Since he could choose to eat from any tree in the garden, save one (Genesis 2:16), and chose to sin, he possessed free will. His capacities functioned the way God intended them to function, although not for the purposes of wrongdoing. Had God forced Adam not to sin, then Adam would not have been free. In other words, the dire consequences would not have followed had God been the cause of Adam’s sin. It follows that since Adam was not forced or influenced to sin by either God or a sinful nature, he sinned of his own free will. Thus to [deny free will is to] attribute sin to the Creator [which] means two things: (1) to blaspheme against Him, and (2) to acquit Adam of his sin and responsibility.

Exactly!

 

[disturbo]

A SINFUL STATE came into being, not a SINFUL NATURE.
Nakedness symbolises a sinful state not a sinful nature.

WOW! Hey! Did you learn that from an online bible degree? Or is that something you just kind of came up with on your own?

 

[disturbo]

Musterion:



Exactly!

Exactly is RIGHT!

 

[Robert Pate]

Robert

By one man, sin entered the world.
By one Man, sin is removed.

That is what Paul is saying in Rom 5.
Paul is not saying that Adam passed a "fallen nature" down to us.
All Adam did was bring sin into the world, and we have continued that tradition of our own free will, not as a result of something Adam passed down to us. We cannot say "Adam made me do it".

Rom 5

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

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

Of course he passed his fallen nature to us.

As the first father and representative of the human race he has infected us with his fallen nature.

What do you think that "By one man's offence many were MADE sinners" means?

We didn't become sinners. We were MADE sinners.

 

[aikido7]

We didn't become sinners. We were MADE sinners.

This has been a holdover from the theology of St. Augustine. He was a flagrant libertine who rejected his life after he was converted.

He believed that sin is actually contained in male sperm cells.

His belief is a medieval one that reflects him living in a three-tiered universe of the past.

 

[patrick jane]

Galatians 3:3 KJV

 

[iouae]

Of course he passed his fallen nature to us.

As the first father and representative of the human race he has infected us with his fallen nature.

What do you think that "By one man's offence many were MADE sinners" means?

We didn't become sinners. We were MADE sinners.

Paul was drawing a comparison between the 1st and 2nd Adam. One started the process of sin, one ended it.

You say that Adam "infected us with his fallen nature".
Is it a viral or microbial infection? Is it in our DNA?
Or are you taking too much from what Paul said.

What I want you to do is explain the mechanism by which someone's decisions (good or bad) get passed on to succeeding generations.

And in fact Paul is a misogynist in that he does not even correctly identify the first person who sinned. It is through Eve that sin entered the world. But that makes a lousy comparison, Eve with Christ, so he conveniently ignored her for his analogy.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Paul was drawing a comparison between the 1st and 2nd Adam. One started the process of sin, one ended it.

You say that Adam "infected us with his fallen nature".
Is it a viral or microbial infection? Is it in our DNA?
Or are you taking too much from what Paul said.

What I want you to do is explain the mechanism by which someone's decisions (good or bad) get passed on to succeeding generations.

And in fact Paul is a misogynist in that he does not even correctly identify the first person who sinned. It is through Eve that sin entered the world. But that makes a lousy comparison, Eve with Christ, so he conveniently ignored her for his analogy.

Is there somewhere in scripture where God told Eve not to eat?



Adam was the only one given the command.


Therefore Adam was the only one capable of committing the offense.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Galatians 3:3 KJV

We never failed to fail it was the easiest thing to do.

I have a question bro.

If we dont walk where unto we think we have attained did we really attain it?

 

[iouae]

Is there somewhere in scripture where God told Eve not to eat?



Adam was the only one given the command.


Therefore Adam was the only one capable of committing the offense.

Two gaping holes in your theory are...
Eve told Satan it was wrong to eat - so she knew.
Why did God punish her in childbirth if she was innocent?
And you are sounding a bit like Paul that only men are capable of committing the offence.

No it suited Paul's figure of speech to have a first and a second Adam.
Everybody knows Eve was guilty. Only by misunderstanding Paul can one make her innocent.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Two gaping holes in your theory are...
Eve told Satan it was wrong to eat - so she knew.

Yes she was told what God said by her husband.

Why did God punish her in childbirth if she was innocent?

Why was it punishment?
Did she already know or experience childbirth in some other way?

And you are sounding a bit like Paul that only men are capable of committing the offence.

Nope.

Only Adam received the command.

Adam was the figure of Christ who was to come.

Eve was the figure of the church.

Just like Adam, Jesus has a fiancee, Jesus gives us the commands of God just like Adam did Eve.

Unlike Adam, Jesus did not listen to the voice of his fiancee but stayed obedient to God.

We as the church are to be laboring in childbirth.

Yet our desire to be praised for it goes to our husband.

For without the Holy Spirit there is no impregnation.

No it suited Paul's figure of speech to have a first and a second Adam.

What? You dont believe Jesus was the last Adam?

Everybody knows Eve was guilty.

Yes, of being deceived and cheating on her fiancee at least intellectually with Satan.

There was only one command and it was given to Adam, hey guess what?

It wasn't thou shalt not be gullible.


Whereas Adam loved himself and followed Eve to keep what he desired, and he fully well knew it was temporal not for her salvation.

Jesus the last Adam came to save himself a wife.

Only by misunderstanding Paul can one make her innocent.

One more thing that Jesus and Adam have in common.

They both love what God gave them.

The first Adam died with his wife by being disobedient.

The last Adam died for his wife by learning obedience.


We must learn from our husband to love one another as he loves us.

Gullible cheatin' little tramps that we are.

 

[iouae]

Yes she was told what God said by her husband.




Why was it punishment?
Did she already know or experience childbirth in some other way?





Nope.

Only Adam received the command.

Adam was the figure of Christ who was to come.

Eve was the figure of the church.

Just like Adam, Jesus has a fiancee, Jesus gives us the commands of God just like Adam did Eve.

Unlike Adam, Jesus did not listen to the voice of his fiancee but stayed obedient to God.

We as the church are to be laboring in childbirth.

Yet our desire to be praised for it goes to our husband.

For without the Holy Spirit there is no impregnation.





What? You dont believe Jesus was the last Adam?




Yes, of being deceived and cheating on her fiancee at least intellectually with Satan.

There was only one command and it was given to Adam, hey guess what?

It wasn't thou shalt not be gullible.


Whereas Adam loved himself and followed Eve to keep what he desired, and he fully well knew it was temporal not for her salvation.

Jesus the last Adam came to save himself a wife.







One more thing that Jesus and Adam have in common.

They both love what God gave them.

The first Adam died with his wife by being disobedient.

The last Adam died for his wife by learning obedience.


We must learn from our husband to love one another as he loves us.

Gullible cheatin' little tramps that we are.

What a lovely analogy, creating a type where Eve represents the Church, and Adam = Christ. You compare aspects of their relationship such as Eve was "cheating on her fiancee at least intellectually with Satan" presumably making her a "gullible cheating' little tramp".

Now I personally like your analogy. Especially since I believe Paul wrote the first Corinthians letter exactly as you did, in response to somebody who had said something.

And to make his point, Paul compared Adam to Christ.
And you went further comparing Eve to the church.
And everything you wrote may be a fair comparison.
Or maybe you stretched it a little saying that Eve was cheating on Adam, at least in her mind, the "little tramp".
Paul may even have tried to throw in a bit of levity, since his letter to the Corinthians was getting a bit heavy.

You have perfectly illustrated my point. Sometimes when we write we overdo things a little. We may even stretch the truth to make our point. I very much doubt Eve had any desire for the snake, only for his snake-oil. But to fit your analogy, you need to force things a little.

I believe Paul wrote exactly like you and me. I doubt he sat down to write "scripture". He sat down to write a "post" which God saw fit to preserve as scripture. And just as your personality is etched into your post, so Paul's was into his letters. And Paul was not beyond exaggerating. And Paul was stretching the truth to say sin entered the world only when Adam sinned, ignoring Eve's clear sin.

 

[beloved57]

Many believe that it can be. Some Catholics believe that by the grace of God working in a persons life and through the indwelling Holy Spirit, they can live a life of perfect obedience to God's Holy Law and be justified. This is why they are continually going to mass to be like Jesus.

If that were true, that we could become righteous by what we do, then Jesus lived and died in vain.

This is one reason why some people believe that Catholicism is anti-Christ. It does away with the substituionary and representative work that Jesus did in our name and on our behalf, that justifies us and reconciles us to God, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.

Christians are called to live their lives before God as sinners. Saved sinners. This is why Paul refered to himself as "The Chief of Sinners" 1 Timothy 1:15. Paul struggled with sin just like we do, "For the good that I would do, I don't do it, but the evil which I would not do, that I do" Romans 7:19. It is the Holy Spirit working in the Christians life that convicts him of sin. If you don't see yourself as a needy sinner, you may not have the Holy Spirit.

We are always pressing towards the "high calling" that is in Jesus Christ, but we never arrive, we always fall short of the righteousness of Christ. This is why Paul said, "As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one" Romans 3:10.

The Gospel is the good news that Jesus came into the world to do for us that which we cannot do for ourselves. By his sinless life, he offers to God the Father a life of perfect obedience to his Holy Law. It is this life that was lived for our justification, Romans 3:26. That was not enough, something had to be done about our sins, "For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" 2 Corinthians 5:21.

When God accepted Jesus into heaven we were accepted in him. God now sees us as perfect and complete "In Christ" Colossians 2:10.

You believe in Salvation by works, by something man in his adamic nature of flesh does ! You teach the heresy that the man in the flesh pleases God, which is a lie, when in the flesh he believes on the Lord Jesus Christ by calling on His Name !

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What a lovely analogy, creating a type where Eve represents the Church, and Adam = Christ. You compare aspects of their relationship such as Eve was "cheating on her fiancee at least intellectually with Satan" presumably making her a "gullible cheating' little tramp".

Now I personally like your analogy. Especially since I believe Paul wrote the first Corinthians letter exactly as you did, in response to somebody who had said something.

And to make his point, Paul compared Adam to Christ.
And you went further comparing Eve to the church.
And everything you wrote may be a fair comparison.
Or maybe you stretched it a little saying that Eve was cheating on Adam, at least in her mind, the "little tramp".
Paul may even have tried to throw in a bit of levity, since his letter to the Corinthians was getting a bit heavy.

You have perfectly illustrated my point. Sometimes when we write we overdo things a little. We may even stretch the truth to make our point. I very much doubt Eve had any desire for the snake, only for his snake-oil. But to fit your analogy, you need to force things a little.

I believe Paul wrote exactly like you and me. I doubt he sat down to write "scripture". He sat down to write a "post" which God saw fit to preserve as scripture. And just as your personality is etched into your post, so Paul's was into his letters. And Paul was not beyond exaggerating.

Like I said.

We have nothing of God commanding Eve.

Sin is not imputed where there is no command.

But since you were not impressed with my analogy, both of them were in the same transgression.

Both of them went after their own temporal pleasure, rather than obey God.


Here's one of the things I find interesting, instead of hiding why didn't they go straightway to the tree of Life.

Answer is, cause they didn't know about it.

Gotta wonder too how come the ole serpent didn't turn em on to the info?

Any ideas?

 

[iouae]

Here's one of the things I find interesting, instead of hiding why didn't they go straightway to the tree of Life.

Answer is, cause they didn't know about it.

Gotta wonder too how come the ole serpent didn't turn em on to the info?

Any ideas?

Any of us being told that we can freely eat of every tree...
And in the MIDDLE of the garden is a tree called THE TREE OF LIFE...
There is only one conclusion for me and that is that they DID eat of this tree.

Problem was, that one has to eat of it continuously to live forever.
Being cut off from it was as good as not ever having eaten of it after a while.

In Rev 22:2 it is for the healing of the nations. This and that we are told of 12 fruits implies continual eating. Why do spirit eternal beings need healing? Because, like our body needs sustenance to heal, even spirit bodies need "healing". This way they last forever. This too keeps the creation dependent on the Creator, forever.

Likewise all other analogies such as bread of life, living water...
these require ongoing eating - forever. No one, cut off from Christ can live, on an eternal basis.

And I even know what your reply will be. It will contain "lest".

 

[Robert Pate]

Paul was drawing a comparison between the 1st and 2nd Adam. One started the process of sin, one ended it.

You say that Adam "infected us with his fallen nature".
Is it a viral or microbial infection? Is it in our DNA?
Or are you taking too much from what Paul said.

What I want you to do is explain the mechanism by which someone's decisions (good or bad) get passed on to succeeding generations.

And in fact Paul is a misogynist in that he does not even correctly identify the first person who sinned. It is through Eve that sin entered the world. But that makes a lousy comparison, Eve with Christ, so he conveniently ignored her for his analogy.

Its in the genes and in the blood. We have inherited Adam's sinful nature.

The only solution was to put it to death, Romans 6:6.

 

[iouae]

Its in the genes and in the blood. We have inherited Adam's sinful nature.

The only solution was to put it to death, Romans 6:6.

Ignoring Paul for a moment, how have any of your bad decisions made it into the genes or blood of your children?

 

[chair]

Its in the genes and in the blood. We have inherited Adam's sinful nature.

The only solution was to put it to death, Romans 6:6.

The idea is ridiculous. If you are convinced that Paul meant this, you ought to reject Paul. That is hard to do for a Christian, so you end up stuck with a absurd idea.