Why couldn't Adam? Why could the serpent?
ECT Nang's Boastful Lie
- Thread starter Doom
- Start date
Why couldn't Adam? Why could the serpent?
musterion
Well-known member
Positionally, yes. Conditionally, not nearly often enough. Thankfully our position in Him is what counts.
There are several significant problems with Augustinian Original Sin, not the least of which is the virgin birth of Theanthropos. Another would be the culpability and competence of children (or others with physical/mental disabilities) until the law can impute sin.
One of the greatest atrocities of Augie's fallacy is the injustice of young children being considered as destined for the lake of fire when they can't even have the law impute the noun as a sin condition from any verb of their conscious and willful sinning and resulting acts as sins.
There's much more, but maybe this will get it started. It might be more appropriate to start a dedicated new thread instead, though.
Do it! sounds like an interesting subject, I cannot add much to the subject as I have not studied the man in depth but, a thread on the subject might be edifying indeed.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I don't think any Believer would deny that experience in their lives. And it's evident that Paul experienced the same thing, which is the "what" that you're referring to.
That doesn't mean another "nature" (an as-yet undefined word from your perspective) is the "why" and "how", etc. It's the "why" and "how" that needs to be addressed, not the result and accompanying bare assertion.
That's all I'm trying to say. But all of what you're representing isn't another "nature" in us, by any term or definition that can be applied from the Greek text by exegesis of scripture.
Instead, we're translated. Our hypostasis is resurrected out of our reckoned-dead and buried prosopon into the prosopon of Christ. That's the anti-type of the robe exchange type from 1Sam 18:1-4 with Jonathan and David.
The Logos was robed in flesh. That flesh became the once-for-all sacrifice for sin as He was made sin who knew no sin. Then that flesh was buried, resurrected, and ascended, and is glorified and seated in heavenly places.
He took our filthy rags of our robe of flesh and gives us His robe of flesh to put on by faith. Faith (pistis) isn't the earnest expectation and anticipation with desire for promises made. That's hope (elpis).
Faith is a substance, and it's now. It's not awaiting our physical death for life in Christ. It's living and walking by the law (distribution) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus NOW.
Yes, there's the law (distribution) of sin in our members, along with death. But that's not the law (distribution) we live by. That's not another "nature" of two that makes us dualistic like Yin and Yang and other mystical folklore or Eastern religions. It's us being hypostatically translated (moved to another location) into the prosopon of Christ.
That's how we live this life in the flesh by the faith of the Son of God. We're ontologically IN Him. Like Paul, we're to be in His prosopon (2Cor 2:10). For God accepts no man's prosopon (Gal 2:6).
"In Christ" and "put ye on the Lord Jesus" and other such statements by Paul are literal. Spiritually literal. We're to put on the prosopon of Christ by faith, having reckoned our old man dead as crucified with Christ. Anything else is just figurative rather than literal. A shadow of the true. We've already had the types and shadows. Jesus is the anti-type and the light that lighteth all mankind with no shadow of turning.
Right. I'd think every Believer would echo all that.
That doesn't mean the automatic scriptural and linguistic answer for that is the word "nature" and it's definition.
That experience is valid and authentic. That still doesn't mean the arbitrary and undefined English word "nature" is scripturally and linguistically correct for all that. Words are labels. Maps for a territory. They just point at the substance, but aren't the substance itself. Words only represent things, so it's important to have the underlying reality of what such words are pointing TO.
It can't just be a vague preferential assignment of jargon as semantics. Your general experiential description is valid. It depicts the reality of the Christian walk. But it's still lacking the appropriate semantic and definition. It's not God's Rhema, because it isn't what God was speaking about, since scripture never says "nature" for that.
What's a "nature"?
Where?
I'm not being pedantic or obtuse. In validating what you're saying, I'm just rightly insisting it's not exegetical or semantical according to linguistics as the term that can be applied to that very real phenomenon.
And the answer is to read scripture and believe exactly what it says instead of making everything figurative. Our inner man is translated. Moved to another location. Our hypostasis is in the prosopon of Christ. And because we're in Him, He's in us. And we thus have the mind (phronema, result of thinking from HIS mind) of Christ. We let that mind (phronema, the results OF thought of the mind... HIS) be in us which was also in Christ Jesus.
It's exactly what Jesus Christ did in the flesh. He let that mind (phronema) be in Him.
I'd say we all do. The term "nature" is just not what is accurately the scriptural term for all that. That's Dualism, and that's the danger of hope versus the hypostasis of faith that hypostatically translates us.
Thanks for your transparency and heart for truth. This is the kind of conversation that edifies one and all. It's what TOL is for, and I'm sharpened by your iron.
Last edited:
The rejection of Romans 5 is a very typical example of a "Christian" going to hell. They do not believe nor trust.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Hi CR!
He had no sin. Satan is the father of lies; a lie and the father of it. That wasn't Adam, and Adam had only know truth. God's Word is truth, and God walked and talked with him.
Another Rhema/Logos (Word) had to be spoken that wasn't God's. That came from the serpent, who spoke another Word for them to hear and bring another faith.
Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Rhema (Word) of God.
I'm not sure what you mean. In response to criticism of my heavy "style", I've started putting many English or Greek words that correspond to the opposite. Are you wanting more English terms for the Greek terms, or more expanded definitions of one or the other?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No sin in Adam.
Satan already had sin, and brought it to be conceived in the heart of man by deceit.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I've considered doing so for some time. It would be very enlightening and edifying to anyone.
There are a number of paradoxes with Augustine's version of Original Sin that everyone just subscribes to because it's the status quo and it takes a lot of exegesis and study of history to know what it all means.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I don't reject Romans 5, I embrace the depth of its meaning instead of the indoctrinated gloss that misrepresents that verse and the whole counsel of God in scripture and according to Paul's Gospel.
Your condemnation is noted, though Jesus Christ did no such thing.
Go ahead and exegete Romans 5, and tell us what passed upon all men. And include other witnesses from scripture that it was sin.
And clearly define hamartia (sin). Anyone can present concepts from gloss readings without definitions.
Instead of one-liners, feel free to edify the Body with truth. Those zingers are only your opinion.
musterion
Well-known member
Here.
Call it another nature, a law, a principle, call it whatever you like. It - sin - is not merely a thing, separate from our flesh; it's part of who and what we are (were) in Adam. Paul delights after God's holy Law in his inward man - the new nature - but the old nature in his "members" wages unending war against it, and the battleground of that war is Paul's mind.
That sounds like to competing, enemy natures to me. But as I say, call it whatever you like. The remedy is the same in any case - the Cross.
How did Satan get sin? Where did sin originate?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No "nature" there.
Apart from the term "nature/s" and ignoring that we're translated, this is all absolutely true and valid. It's hope (elpis, which is better translated "trust").
This is trust. Faith is a substance. We're hypostatically translated by the hypostasis of faith.
Agreed. The Cross is the only answer. His Finished Work.
musterion
Well-known member
Oh...
I admit that freely. You know why it's lacking? Because God saw fit not to have Paul lay out our "psycho-spiritual anatomy" for us in particularly great detail...had He done so, we likely wouldn't be having this chat. But as bare-bones was Paul's glimpse of that war is, it is nonetheless some of the deepest water in all of the Bible. For that reason, I shy away from placing my own definitions and labels onto things in the Bible which God did not label for us. It DOES appear that Paul was describing the interactions of two opposed, intelligent forces within himself. For me, "natures" fits. I go no further with it than that.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Sin is the self-standard of conduct. It's the "missing share or part" of not having and exhibiting God's standard of inner and outer conduct. Satan began to set his own standard for conduct rather than adhering to God's.
Satan is the father of lies. God's word is truth.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Fair enough. I appreciate your depth and your intentional humility. Though this is intense and deep, my only desire is for truth. And I know you share that search for truth.
Thank you for the opportunities to be sharpened by your iron. I think it edified more than just me who were reading along.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Doom
New member
Nang must have missed this post...
She would like to deceive everyone on this forum into believing that I have somehow mislead people, but she knows full well that is a lie. She used my adding the word "as" in a conversation with someone else, to take the attention off the obvious fact that she believes (and absolutely stated) that no one is saved unless they "ACT holy as Christ is holy".
That is the real issue here, and adding the word "as" (as in) "Act as holy as Christ is holy" does in no way change the meaning of her original statement. Nang's reputation as both a liar and a self-righteous deceiver are now clearly known.
She would like to deceive everyone on this forum into believing that I have somehow mislead people, but she knows full well that is a lie. She used my adding the word "as" in a conversation with someone else, to take the attention off the obvious fact that she believes (and absolutely stated) that no one is saved unless they "ACT holy as Christ is holy".
That is the real issue here, and adding the word "as" (as in) "Act as holy as Christ is holy" does in no way change the meaning of her original statement. Nang's reputation as both a liar and a self-righteous deceiver are now clearly known.
If Satan was able to start doing that then why couldn't Adam and Eve have done it without his influence?
Doom
New member
Then you have not only misread what she said, but are joining in on her deception.
The opening post of this thread is a completely accurate and unaltered post of what nang said. She has lied to you and everyone else, claiming that I changed THAT post to say something she did not say.
Furthermore... I 1q00% agree that a saved person is holy as Christ is holy, but that is not what Nang said. She said that the evidence that someone is saved is that they ACT holy as Christ is holy.
She equates holiness with how well a person acts. That is what the Pharisee in the temple did, and what Jesus condemned.
Nang knows full well that she does not "act holy as Christ is holy", but demands it of you and everyone else or you are not saved.
Instead of defending this witch, you should be honest and take the time to actually read what she said, and not jump to the false conclusion you have,