97 Mark,

By the way let me be clear that i do not think that non-calvinists are not Christians. I myself was not always convinced of reformed theology but i would never have said i wasn’t saved. Nor do i think that others are not saved.
I simply believe that as i have grown in my walk we God he has been gracious to open my eyes to new hard truths of the bible even when they seem unfair.

I will however always protest when i think the gospel is at stake, and i believe it is at stake when we deny that faith is a gift of God for all believers.

I am going to answer the above comment first because my answer should help Mark and others to know the background of where I am coming from.

Mark, although you said that you believe that non-Calvinists can be Christians, in actuality you deny that by the above remarks. You see, the gospel is not a secondary issue of faith. It is an essential of the faith. If you create an addition to that gospel by saying that one must believe that saving faith is not our own faith in God’s Word but a gift that God gives only to the elect, then you are dividing the body of Christ by making anyone who does not agree with you as ones who do not believe the gospel. And if we do not believe the true gospel, which apparently only Calvinists can believe, then we how can we be true Christians? It is inconsistent to that one can be a true Christian and yet not believe the gospel.

This division is a sin that Calvinists bring against their brothers and sisters in Christ. By defining the gospel as something other than what is clearly stated as the gospel, Calvinists set their Christian brothers and sisters outside of the Christian camp and in need of conversion to Calvinism in order to believe the gospel and be saved.

In the past I was a part of a church that was split because of the issue of Calvinism. The church I belonged to was not a Calvinist church but the new pastor who came into the church was on his way to being a full blown Calvinist and when he decided that only Calvinism was the truth, he pressured the church to accept his doctrine. Those who balked at his teaching that God justly sends unborn babies go to hell to pay for their “sins” by suffering for all of eternity, those ones were singled out as dangerous to the church for not going along with “the truth” that is embodied in Calvinism.

It wasn’t long before mature Christians were threatened with letters to kick them out of the church for not accepting Calvinism. There was no longer love for the brethren in their differences. It was his way or the highway. Since God was taught as arbitrary in His decision on who would be created to go to Heaven and who would created to go to hell, this pastor had no hesitation to act like an arbitrary “god” in removing brothers and sisters in Christ merely for quoting Scripture in the Bible studies with verses that did not agree with his Calvinistic viewpoint. After all, if they didn’t accept Calvinism were they really one of the elect? That is the reasoning that this doctrine ends with when pushed to its logical conclusion and it was acted out in my old church. Without any appearance of conscience the pastor broke all the rules of the constitution in order to try to remove from fellowship mature Christians, some of whom had been there when the church building was first built in the 1970’s. The additional truth that he had accepted as necessary for the “gospel” divided brothers and sisters in Christ.

God hates this division. Those attenders whom the pastor convinced that they were now Calvinists because they believed that God pulled at their heart and brought them to the place of faith were confused. They didn’t even understand the basics of Calvinism nor the volumes of work written to explain the entire system of Calvinism, but they were taught that the believers who would not be converted were the enemy and unless he removed them from the fellowship, God’s “truth” could not progress.

I have seen the destruction of Calvinists first hand who destroy their brothers for the sake of their love of a doctrine. I refuse to say that Calvinists are not brothers in Christ or that Calvinists do not believe in the gospel, but I also refuse to allow them to divide the body of Christ and destroy those for whom Christ died. Some of the church members were so traumatized by the lack of love by the pastor and the tearing apart of the church for the sake of a “doctrine”, that a handful of people ended up in the hospital with various types of stress related diseases and symptoms that took months to resolve.

So, Mark, while I welcome you here and I will allow areas of Calvinism to be debated when they deal with the issues of women in ministry (i.e. Adam and sin nature), I will not tolerate the charge that the gospel that I believe is not the Biblical gospel. The gospel that I and other non-Calvinists believe is not different than what you believe because there is only one gospel. If you want to add Calvinist distinctives to the gospel, then you have stepped out on a limb – a very precarious limb.

1 Corinthians 15:1–4 (NASB)
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

It is the death of Jesus, his burial and resurrection that is the heart of the gospel. We can debate the issue of whether faith is a gift of God or a response of man, but it is not listed in the gospel as an essential belief. If you divide over this and accuse your brothers and sisters of not believing the gospel because we do not believe that saving faith is a gift of God given to only a select few unregenerate people, then you are going to have to answer to God one day for what you have done. Jesus Christ takes a dim view of those who divide the church over the non-essentials.

Titus 3:9–10 (NASB)
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,

A factious man is literally a “heretic” one who causes divisions in the body.

hairetikos: denoting loyalty to a separatist group heretical, factious, causing divisions
Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

And Romans 16:17 warns us to keep an eye on those who bring divisions into the body of Christ:

Romans 16:17 (NASB)
17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

The term “dissensions” means division.

dichostasia: strictly standing apart; hence disunity, dissension, division within a community
Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. (pg 118).

So once again to repeat, I will allow any challenge of my position regarding the issues of women in ministry including issues of Calvinism on the issue of sin, but I will not allow division by calling Christian brothers and sisters in Christ as non-believers in the gospel because they are not Calvinists. I am doing what Scripture advises me to do to keep any eye on those who are divisive and who bring harm to the body. Argue passionately, sure. But don’t attack your brothers and sisters in Christ and demand that they become Calvinists or else they don’t believe the gospel.

I am trying to be as gracious as I can while drawing a line in the sand and I hope I have made myself clear. Thoughts?

Greg,

…we can certainly agree that civility and the free exchange of ideas without rancor goes a long way as a positive example to the non-Christian world.

This is important to me too. I have seen way too much of Christians accusing their brothers of heresy over minor differences in doctrine or calling them names because of these disagreements. While we are free to defend our own doctrine with passion, when we turn around and deride the character of our brother merely for disagreeing with us, or assign them to hell for taking a diffewrent position on a debatable matter that is not essential to the gospel, we look like a bunch of misfits in the Christian family. But when non-Christians can see us accepting each other in love while having our differences, it is one of the best ways to show the difference that Jesus makes. Eventually I hope to see us all united. If it doesn’t happen in this lifetime, it will in the next.

Mark,
You said:

I would like to know how you think that ‘dead people’ can respond to God.

“Dead” is a metaphor. We know that “dead” people can bury the dead. They can eat, drink, be merry and they can respond to God. Cornelius was not born again when he responded to God’s call to hear Peter. He was also not born again when he was said to “fear God” and as a “devout” man he “prayed to God continually”.

Acts 10:1–2 (NASB)
1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,
2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

We were all people under wrath- every single person. BUT, verse 4 says it was GOD who made us alive, not us.

Of course. Who is teaching that we ourselves can accomplish the miracle of re-birth? Who is teaching that we make ourselves alive? It isn’t me.

What you have said is completely contradictory to Eph 2, and it strips the glory from God. Only God can make us alive, we have no ability by ourselves.

This seems to be a consistent problem with Calvinists. They misunderstand what non-Calvinists believe. To say that I believe that we have the ability to accomplish the miraculous work or being born again of our own effort is a serious misrepresentation that is common amongst Calvinists. My question – why do you do that?

It is also interesting that you think the ‘faith’ in Eph 2 is not a gift for every believer. Then I guess you would also like to be consistent and say that the salvation that is by grace through faith (which is what the verse is about) is not for every Christian.

Hold on here and back this truck up again. You are messing with the text again and making the gift in this passage as a noun instead of a action verb.

Ephesians 2:8–9 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The “gift” is salvation which is completely a work of God. It is a verb that is tied to verse 9 “not as a result of works”. The Greek term for “works” is:

work
? that which displays itself in activity of any kind, deed, action
? in contrast to rest Hb 4:3, 4 (Gen 2:2), 10. In contrast to word: freq. used to describe people of exceptional merit, esp. benefactors
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (pg 390).

The verb of God’s action in verse 8 (salvation) is contrasted with the “works” of man in verse 9 so that the action of salvation is “not of” yourselves and the action of salvation is not a result of (or out from) our works so that you can boast of what? So that no one can boast of working for a right standing with God. It alone (the work of God is the verb “salvation”) comes by grace (the cause of the work) through faith (the vehicle through which the action is delivered). There is no doubt at all that by the wording that “salvation” is the accomplishment that is done for us and given as a gift. See Wuest’s fine work here:

(2:8–10) The definite article appears before the word “grace” here, pointing the reader back to the same statement in verse 5, and informing him that the writer is to elaborate upon this previously mentioned statement. The reader of this exposition is urged to go back to the exegesis of verse 5 and refresh his memory as to the total meaning of Paul’s statement, “by grace are ye saved.”
The words, “through faith” speak of the instrument or means whereby the sinner avails himself of this salvation which God offers him in pure grace. Expositors says: “Paul never says ‘through the faith,’ as if the faith were the ground or procuring cause of the salvation.” Alford says: “It (the salvation) has been effected by grace and apprehended by faith.” The word “that” is touto (?????), “this,” a demonstrative pronoun in the neuter gender. The Greek word “faith” is feminine in gender and therefore touto (?????) could not refer to “faith.” It refers to the general idea of salvation in the immediate context. The translation reads, “and this not out from you as a source, of God (it is) the gift.” That is, salvation is a gift of God. It does not find its source in man. Furthermore, this salvation is not “out of a source of works.” This explains salvation by grace. It is not produced by man nor earned by him. It is a gift from God with no strings tied to it.
Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English reader (Eph 2:7–8).

Mark, you said:

You can’t have it both ways Cheryl. I’m afraid you have dug yourself into a hole with this one.

I find it amazing that Calvinists see Christian brothers and sisters in holes where no such holes exist. I am on solid grounds exegetically and the “gift” is not “faith” but the action verb “salvation” of which action only God can be source of.

Romans 3 is a quote from the psalms that is true. But to come to the conclusion that you have is misguided. We should ask the question- how is Paul using it here? What is the context? The verses before the quote give the answer.
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,…

The translation of the verse that you quoted does not give the full flavor of the Greek. It is an us vs them where we are righteous but all of them (Jews and Greeks) and not righteous. All of them are unrighteous (but believers are called righteous in the Scriptures) all of them do not understand (but we have been given understanding from God) none of them seeks for God (but those who accept God’s Word will seek for Him), all of them are deceivers (but Christians are not deceivers even though we are called this – 2 Cor. 6:8), none of them does good, but those who trust in God will do good, they are filled with cursing and bitterness, and destruction is in their path (but those who know their God will do exploits and they are on the path or righteousness), and they have not known peace (but we know peace as we have peace with God). This is not talking about all those are unregenerate as many have come to fear God and to seek for Him just as He commanded. But the fool who says there is no God is just like this. He curses and has bitterness in his heart because he doesn’t believe that there is anyone to be held accountable to.

No, Paul is not making the quote from the Psalms to say something that is the complete opposite of the context of atheist fools who have no peace, goodness, or righteousness. Rather Paul is comparing both Jewish and Gentile fools who do not fear God, to us who do fear God and who seek Him and find Him.

It doesn’t seem like Paul is talking only about those who do not seek God does it Cheryl? No, Paul clearly states that all are like this, Jew and Gentile, even himself.

Yes, Paul is talking about exactly what the writer of the Psalms was talking about. He was talking about the fools who refuse to obey God and who even deny His existence. They neither seek Him nor seek His righteousness. And no, not all are like this. Abraham was not like this, Noah was not like all the others and neither was Job. Even God’s own testimony is that Job was not like so many others.

Job 1:8 (NASB)
8 The LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.”

You said:

I’m afraid Paul’s intention here, (noting that the first 3 chapters of Romans are dealing with everyone, Jew and Gentile) is that he is using this quote to support his view that every single person is like this.

If every single person is like this, then God lied because God said that Job is not like that. Are you really going to make God into a liar or will you admit that Paul isn’t using the quote from Psalms out of context and in a whole different meaning than the author of Psalms meant?

No one seeks God by themselves as dead in sin. I can’t understand why you would want to water our sinful nature down when the bible is so graphic about it.

What I don’t understand if why you want to make us incapable of seeking God when God shows very clearly that unregenerate people can and must seek Him. Why do you do this?

You can’t just dismiss the context of Romans 3 and Paul’s intention of using this quote to support his argument, as irrelevant and only rely on the Old Testament context. Paul is clearly using it here with another purpose.

So it seems to me that you are trying to make Paul dismiss the context of the Psalms quote and to illegally use it out of its context and to twist it to mean that Job, Abraham and Noah were all ungodly men who spoke evil things and did not seek God or have any good actions? That is impossible. Paul could not rip a Scripture out of its intended context and twist it to mean something else. God doesn’t do things like this and if I had to get my theology that way by twisting Scripture, then I would think twice as this is unlawful and not the way of the Master who uses Scripture in context.

I will get to your further comments later as I have time.

Martin,
Here are a couple:

Inscriptional Evidence for Women as Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: SBLSP 20, ’81, 4; B’s rendering: ‘Here lies Sara Ura, elder [or aged woman]’;
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (pg 863).

Below is the meaning of the word with #2 as just the female version, but would have the same meaning just feminine:

A. Nouns.
1. presbutes “an elderly man,” is a longer form of presbus, the comparative degree of which is presbuteros, “a senior, elder,” both of which, as also the verb presbeuo, “to be elder, to be an ambassador,” are derived from proeisbaino, “to be far advanced.” The noun is found in Luke 1:18, “an old man”; Titus 2:2, “aged men,” and Philem. 9, where the RV marg., “Paul an ambassador,” is to be accepted, the original almost certainly being presbeutes (not presbutes), “an ambassador.” So he describes himself in Eph. 6:20. As Lightfoot points out, he is hardly likely to have made his age a ground of appeal to Philemon, who, if he was the father of Archippus, cannot have been much younger than Paul himself See OLD.
2. presbutis the feminine of No. 1, “an aged woman,” is found in Titus 2:3.
Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vol. 2: Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (20).

Sheryl, welcome to my blog!

Thanks for the link. I will listen to it when I can get some time set aside. Thanks!

Oh, I forgot to get to this one.

Being born again is something that happens before faith not after. The bible is clear on that. PLease show verses stating otherwise.

You first. Please show me where born again happens before faith and once you have shown me the supporting verse(s) we can discuss your challenge.

I will be waiting with baited breath 😉

Hey Mark,
Can’t keep up with you, man. We just got back from our Easter time out and my head is pounding besides the internet problems.

Let’s see what I can do before I head off to bed.

How can an ungenerate person seek God with their whole heart when their heart is corrupt? I don’t think they can. Genesis 6:5 is very clear on the condition of the human heart.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

God has graciously given us both the ability and the mandate to seek Him. While you gave Genesis 6:5 as proof that all men had only evil in their heart continually, that verse is not without exception.

Genesis 6:9 (NASB)
9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Genesis 7:1 (NASB)
1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.

Noah and Job and many others were seen as “righteous” and not ones with an “evil heart”. We cannot take a generality and make it a rule without exception. That isn’t good Biblical exegesis.

Our heart by nature is corrupt, it is stone. This is the importance of the new covenant. It is God who gives us a new heart according to Jeremiah. We need a new heart to seek after God.

Um, where does the Bible say that we need a new heart in order to seek after God?

Our new heart isn’t given to us after we seek God.

Oh yeah? In Deut. 10:16 God commands the people to circumcise their hearts before He does His work of circumcision that produces a new heart.

Deuteronomy 10:16 (NASB)
16 “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

Deuteronomy 30:6 (NASB95)
6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

This circumcision by God is the removal of the foreskin of sin on our hearts and it is necessary for us to love God with all of our hearts and live in His love. God fulfills the complete act of what man is required to start. Man is required to repent and to circumcise his own heart through a turning away from evil and a turning toward God, while God does the miracle of a brand new heart. There is nothing at all in the Scriptures that I have seen that says God must give us a new heart before we can seek Him.

The human heart is evil and does not seek God.

I have already dealt with this in context. It is the fool who says there is no God who does not seek God. Those who do seek God and who fear God are called righteous. They are never called evil.

The spiritual heart on the otherhand will. That is why we need to be re-born (a new heart) before we can accept the message of salvation.

That is a human tradition and human reasoning but it is not Scriptural. Where does the Bible say that we have to be born again before we can accept the message of salvation? Where does the Bible say that Cornelius was born again before he heard the gospel?

That is why we need to be born again BEFORE we can see the kingdom of God…Jesus again repeats himself that we CANNOT enter the kingdom of God (be saved) unless we are born of the Spirit and water.

Mark, Mark, Mark, how long will you change the Scriptures? “entering” the kingdom of God is not being born again “be saved”. One is born again a long time before one enters the kingdom of God and into eternity. It is a fact that one cannot see nor enter the kingdom of God without being born again, but to equate being born again with “entering the kingdom of God” is mashing the Word of God.

Acts 14:22 (NASB95)
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”

The disciples did not claim to have “entered” the kingdom of God. It was something that was future to them and not the same thing as their being born again.

Your fighting against the Bible by stating that we can seek God when our heart is stone and not re-born.

My friend, it appears that you are the one who is in need of understanding the Scriptures. First of all, not every heart is stone. Those who harden their hearts against God’s call will eventually turn their heart to stone, but not all harden their hearts. Many will respond with gladness to His call.

Secondly God commands the unregenerate to seek Him.

Isaiah 55:6–7 (NASB)
6 Seek the LORD while He may be found;
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

It would be a cruel act for God to command men everywhere to seek Him if He was the One deliberately stopping them from seeking Him.

Our God is a gracious God, filled with loving kindness and abounding in mercy.

I will get to the other questions/comments next day, God willing.

Mark,
You said:

I understand that you believe in a sin nature from Adam and Greg does not, but the logical conclusion of what you are saying leads to the same path. You say we have the ability as unregenerate people to come to God.

Hold on there, back up that boat! I didn’t say that unregenerate people have the ability to come to God. I said that unregenerate people can seek God. These are two completely different things.

God cannot be found unless He allows Himself to be found. God has given the promise that He will be found under several circumstances. One circumstance is that the person seeks for God with their whole heart.

Deuteronomy 4:29 (NASB)
29 “…you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.

Seeking God and “coming to God” are not the same thing.

You have an interesting misunderstanding of my position as you said:

You say that we have the ability as unregenerate people to not sin. If this is true, then theoretically we could be sinless.

I didn’t say that unregenerate people have the “ability” to not sin. It is impossible for a person with a sin nature to never commit one sin. That is one of the reasons why Jesus had to be born without a sin nature.

What I did say was that unregenerate people have the ability to choose to not follow the temptation to sin. While the “old man” nature within us propels us into various levels of sinful behavior, this nature cannot force us to sin. We are left with the choice, but our “free will” is not completely free since the “old man” naturally tends toward rebellion. A person can fight the “old man” but never master this “old man nature” without the help of the Holy Spirit and even then we are fighting a battle that will never be won perfectly until the “old man” within this mortal body is put to death and we take on our new bodies with our perfect new nature made in the image of Christ.

If I am able to avoid sinful behaviour because of my free-will, this should apply to all sin, therefore theoretically I could avoid sin even though I have a sin nature.

Nope. It is not even possible. The “old man nature” is not an after thought of God’s but part of His Sovereign plan to make us all alike in need of Him.

Romans 11:32 (NASB)
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

Because all have one nature (the old man nature given to us through Adam) all are shut up in disobedience through our human nature. God did this by making sure that there was not even one single offspring of Adam that was conceived before the fall. All of us are shut up together in this nature for the purpose of making us all equally in need of a Savior and all equally in need of God’s mercy.

This then leads to the problem you pointed out with Greg that we then no longer need a saviour. I can’t see how you can worm your way out of that one.

I don’t need to worm my way out of anything since I affirm the Scriptures. Our “old man” nature has made sure that all of us are in the same hot water. All of us need a Savior and my view can never be twisted to say that we can be sinless and work our way to Heaven.

Either we will by nature always sin or we won’t, and we can keep God’s commandments. The view you are presenting doesn’t make sense.

Actually it is your view that doesn’t make sense. While I am saying that it is impossible for a person with a sin nature (old man nature) to stay sinless, it seems to me that you are saying that it is impossible for a person with a sin nature to fight a temptation. If that were true then there would be no faithful marriages and no truth could possibly be told by any unregenerate person. But this is obviously not true. is it?

You used the example of an adulterer. Problem is Jesus up’d the anti. Anyone who looks lustfully is committing adultery. Are you willing to say that we can fulfil this requirement by ourselves, without the intervening of the Holy Spirit.

What I am saying is that no unregenerate person is forced to commit adultery because of his/her sin nature. And some have even dealt successfully with lust. After all it helps to be an unregenerate person who is a eunuch 😉 However all of us are bound up in this common nature that brings rebellion out in us in one area or another (or in all areas!) We all need a Savior.

I agree that God gave us the abililty to make choices. God calls on us to follow him. The problem is that after the fall our nature was corrupted by sin. We by nature reject God by sinning from the moment we are born.

Nah. That is overstating your case. You may have sinned the first day you are born, but most babies are unable to break the 10 commandments until a little later.

I’m sure you can see Cheryl after having children, that we as parents have to teach our children how to be good. They will by nature be evil.

Nah again. Jesus said that even those who are by nature evil people, can also by nature do good things. Young children can just as easily reach out to comfort another child as they can smack the nonsense out of an irritating sibling. No one has to teach them how to comfort a hurting child or how to smack down a nuisance. Even babies can do good out of their human nature as they still have enough of the God-image within them to do good things. That image has not been destroyed.

You don’t teach a toddler how to lie, he/she will do it automatically.

Most toddlers will naturally lie, but some will not sin as easily in this area. Their weakness may be in another area even though they will all be bound under sin.

Thus our ‘free-will’ is totally corrupted.

If this was true, then Jesus did not tell us the truth when he said that evil people can do good. And they can do this good freely of their own free-will without coercion

We will always choose sin over God In our natures. This is why we need a saviour, we can’t do it by ourselves.

We don’t need a Savior “because we always choose sin over God”. We need a Savior because we are all sinners and without the price that Jesus paid on our behalf, we would be lost in our sin and alienated from God.

I am having trouble with my internet tonight so I am going to see if these comments go through and I will get to the rest as the connection allows me to.

Mark,

I can’t see how your view is any different to Greg’s really. You say we are born with a sinful nature, yet you say that we have the ability to not sin.

Since Greg doesn’t believe that we have an “old man” nature and I believe that we do, how is it that our view is not different? Also I didn’t say that we have the ability not to sin at all so that we are sinless. I did say that we have the ability to make choices when we are tempted, whether we will sin or not. For example many married men have had temptations to commit adultery but not all have committed adultery. The fact that many have not sinned in this way even if they are unbelievers shows that they had a choice to stay away from this sin.

What makes us able to make those choices? Free-will? IF you say free will then your view is identitical to Greg’s since he also believes that we have the ability to do good or keep God’s requirements by our own free-will.

God has given us the power to make choices. Otherwise it would be deceitful for God to tell us to “choose you this day…” if we had not power of choice. But at the same time we do not have the ability to keep the requirements of the law otherwise we wouldn’t need a Savior.

Problem is this contradicts with scripture. Eph 2 says we are dead in sin.

Eph 2:”dead people” can respond to God. They can also sin.

Romans 3 outlines the nature of sin. No-one seeks God, nor does any do good.

Romans 3:11 is a quote from Psalms 14:1-3 and the context about those who do not seek God, is those who say there is no God.

Psalm 14:1–3 (NASB)
1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
2 The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.

Yet throughout the Scripture we find those who seek and fear God. Deut. 4:29 is a prophetic word about those who will seek God.

Deuteronomy 4:29 (NASB)
29 “But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.

2 Chronicles 15:4 (NET)
15:4 Because of their distress, they turned back to the LORD God of Israel. They sought him and he responded to them.

You said:

John 3 says that we need to be re-born before we can come to God.

John 3 doesn’t say this at all. It says that unless we are born again we cannot see the kingdom of God. It doesn’t say that we can’t come to God.

Many old testament prophecies of the new covenant talk of a ‘new heart’ that is needed becasue our heart is corrupt.

We are told to circumcise our hearts. We do this through repentance as we come to God and as we believe Him, He gives us a new heart.

Point is- until the Spirit gives us a new heart and opens our eyes we will never be able to act in faith in Christ.

Faith in God and receiving Jesus comes before we become children of God.

John 1:12 (NASB95)
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

The Bible never says that we are again first and then we are able to have faith.

And Romans 14 says everything not done in faith is sin. So even those ‘good’ works are sin since they are not done in faith.

Romans 14 is talking about believers not unbelievers. The context is eating something that you believe to be sinful. It is going against our conscience. The chapter has nothing to do with unregenerate men doing good works.

Romans 14:22–23 (NASB)
22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

You said:

Our free-will is corrupt since the fall. We will always choose sin over God, unless the Spirit intervenes in our lives.

As I said before, our free-will is not completely free. However God has chosen to give us the freedom to seek God as He requires this from all of us.

If faith is not itself a gift, can you explain therefore how then we are not adding to our salvation?

Salvation is the gift of God and the vehicle is by grace through faith. The faith that is listed as God’s gift is not given to all of the saved just as not all have the same gifts.

EVen if God does 99% and we do the last 1% it is still works based salvation.

If we “work” even 1% for our salvation then it is a works based salvation. However faith is not a work.

Galatians 2:16 (NASB)
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Romans 4:2–3 (NASB)
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

THis is what Augustine and the reformers have been fighting against throughout all of Church history, yet people still wish to promote this false teaching.

Augustine the Father of Catholicism and any brother who separates from their brothers in Christ by calling their faith a work is harming the body of Christ for we are not to separate from our brothers in the faith or to call their faith a heresy merely because they are not Calvinists.

Pinklight,

Our salvation also is not just a new body and the resurrection but a restored relationship with God that has been paid for by the Lord Jesus. <

Cheryl, can you expound for me a little on the first statment in regards to the fall of Genesis.

When the fall happened man became mortal and subject to decay. The final part of our salvation is getting a new body not subject to death or decay.

Romans 8:23 (NASB)
23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Sometimes pastors have an editor who takes their sermons and makes them into books. That is the kind of help that John MacArthur has and it may also be what Piper is doing.

This time away ministry will likely be hard on Piper and that will likely filter through to his wife. They do need our prayers to deal with their issues and move on in God’s strength.

Greg,
Thanks for taking the time to flesh out your view.

1) When I argued that humankind also has the ability to fulfill the law of Christ, I was thinking in terms of Galatians 6:2.

Restoring, helping, and doing good to one another does indeed fulfill the law of Christ, whether it is done by Gentiles outside the house of Israel, or done by the Jews within.

If man’s default condition can only be evil by nature, how can he by nature (Romans 2:14) do the things contained in the law as Paul claims?

I don’t believe that man’s default condition is only “evil by nature”. The Bible says in several places that we can do good. The gentiles can do good and even the Pharisees who were against Jesus could do good to their own children. The issue for Paul was not whether we can do good things but if the good that we can do is the basis of a “work” that will save us. None of us is sinless so the good that we do doesn’t create a “good” person who has no need for the Savior. So we both agree mankind is capable of doing good things.

I am simply affirming that humans are born with a spark of the divine (made in God’s image) and the free will to exercise that spark.

caveat: This in no way says, nor does it imply that I can effect my own resurrection (apart from Christ) into a brand-new corporeal (flesh) body (Job 19:25-27) that does not wear out and die (Revelation 21:1-6). Only Jesus can do that for me.

I can also agree that we are capable of doing good by our own free will, however we do not have the ability to live a sinless life without the Holy Spirit’s power for our will has been tainted by the fall. Our salvation also is not just a new body and the resurrection but a restored relationship with God that has been paid for by the Lord Jesus. Only Jesus can do that for us too, right?

Romans 7:18 (NASB)
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

But I do agree with the classical humanism of Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) as touching his call for moderation and tolerance in stark contrast to the dogmatism of the reformers (Luther & Calvin).

caveat: The humanism of Erasmus is NOT the same as the secular humanism of today.

I believe that the truth is in the middle so that humanity’s free will is not completely free nor is it completely in bondage. If human will was completely free then we wouldn’t struggle with sin as Paul shared his struggle in the book of Romans. And if human will was completely in bondage then it would make no sense for Jesus to say that even the evil Pharisees could do good things.

Also no matter how many good things we can do should we desire to do them, those good works can never wash away our sin for just one sin against God’s law makes us a law breaker.

James 2:10 (NASB)
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

You also said:

3) I do not deny that we all wage an inner war between choosing to do good things or opting to continue in the pursuit of wickedness.

And yes the heart is deceitful and wicked (Jeremiah 17:9); no contest, but the Bible also speaks of a merry heart and a clean heart.

But would you also agree with me that God is the one who must clean our hearts since we are incapable of making ourselves pure?

Proverbs 20:9 (NASB)
9 Who can say, “I have cleansed my heart,
I am pure from my sin”?

What I see in the Scriptures is that the one who trusts in God is considered righteous. And that one who is considered righteous by God is able to consistently live by faith in his/her actions.

4) I believe that we have inherited physical death from Adam in conjunction with the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17)

Genesis 4:7 also tells me that I have been given the ability to do the right thing and slam the door in sin’s face.

Unless this set-up has somehow been changed or abrogated in the remainder of scripture, I am having a difficult time finding an inherited trait that forces me to open the door, make nice with sin, and let it have its way with me.

The inherited trait does not force us into letting sin have its way with us. Rather the trait causes us to desire sin naturally while God has also created us in His image allowing us the ability to refuse sin should we so desire. So just as Paul says that the gentiles obeyed the law even though they had not been given the law (just as we all have a God-given conscience) none of the gentiles kept God’s law perfectly.

The issue with Cain is two-fold. First of all he did not give his sacrifice to God by faith thus only Abel’s offering is said to have been by faith:

Hebrews 11:4 (NET)
11:4 By faith Abel offered God a greater sacrifice than Cain, and through his faith he was commended as righteous, because God commended him for his offerings. And through his faith he still speaks, though he is dead.

After Cain did not come to God by faith, he had his sacrifice rejected by God. It is interesting that Cain is told that he must master sin after he had already sinned by refusing to come to God in faith and sinned by being angry without cause.

The way I see this is that the sin nature made it easy for Cain to sin by being angry without cause, but just because it was natural for him to feel hatred doesn’t mean that this sin had to have complete control of him. While Cain had the mandate to master the hatred within him so that it would not become murder, the fact that he had an internal hatred to begin with shows the sin nature.

So the difference is that the sin nature causes us to have the internal inclination towards sin yet we are still able to make choices regarding what we will do with our sinful feelings. If we give in to the feelings that are already within, sin becomes our master and it becomes harder to fight just as practiced sin makes us a slave to sin.

Greg, I am wondering if you can see the difference between what is within naturally and our actual acting out of the sinful thoughts? It seems to me that the cause of confusion is mixing the two up. Your answer didn’t deal with inner sin nor did you deal with Cain’s already sinful anger that had already happened. If you are willing to distinguish between the two (one sin that had not yet happened at the time God talked to Cain and one sin that had already been committed within him) that would be great.

Mark,
The people that are helping me in the Calvinist area are apologists for Calvinism. I was told that the Calvinist position is that we are “sinners” from the moment of conception because of Adam’s sin. This is far different than having a “sin nature”.

I haven’t had a chance to see my grandkids yet as we arrived too late but the next few days should be wonderful. I will pop in here as I can.

Mark,
You said:

However to come to the conclusion as you have done that Jesus was theoretically able to sin i must reject.

Then you are saying that Jesus was not the last Adam? That He did not have free will like the first Adam?

How can you say that Jesus being fully God could have sinned?

Because Jesus wasn’t just fully God. He was also fully human. And in God’s creation humans were given free will. Adam was able to sin even though he didn’t have to sin. He had the choice to obey or disobey.

The Bible says that Jesus learned obedience. Did He have an ability to learn and an ability to obey? Then He had to have an ability to disobey otherwise He wasn’t the last Adam, just like the first Adam in his humanity before sin entered the world.

Are you saying he left his ‘godness’ in heaven during his time on earth. I find it very hard not to see your view as heretical.

No I am not saying that. I am saying that He laid aside his right to use His abilities as God independently and for His own benefit. He lived here on the earth completely as a human relying on His Father to give Him the okay to use His God powers. That is why He can read people’s thoughts at one time and yet another time He didn’t know who touched Him. He was not operating on His own but on full dependence on the Father. He was living as a human, as the last Adam so that He could be an example to us. How could He be an example if He had no temptation to sin? The Father could not be tempted, but Jesus could be tempted. Why? Because the Father is not human. Only Jesus took on humanity so that He could be our Kinsman Redeemer.

This is the mystery of the incarnation, how one man Jesus Christ, can be fully human tempted in everyway, yet at the same time fully God unable to sin.

There are two kinds of mysteries. One kind of mystery is that which has been revealed and is available for us to get to know and understand. The other kind of mystery is hidden and is not given to us. What has been revealed about Jesus Christ is for us to know as it is a revealed mystery.

Like i have said, it is a very difficult thing to understand yet explain. The fact that he had no father, therefore he had no sin nature, therefore Eve had no sin nature is too long a bow for me.

Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. I would suggest that you get some shorter arrows and then you won’t have a problem with this bow 😉 Okay, silliness aside, my next post will deal with the issue of the last Adam compared to the first Adam. It might help a little. God is an Amazing God who has revealed all kinds of pictures for us in the Scriptures if we are willing to diligently search and find them. Nothing is haphazard to Him as all has a plan. When we can see God’s plan revealed in the Scriptures, it helps us to know His Character better as we can understand better how He controls the outcome without controlling the people.

I may be offline for extended periods of time during this Easter season as we will be spending time with our daughter and her family. I will be back here as I am able but my time away will start from later this morning.

Jocelyn,
You are right in that “equality” is not the same in a complementarian marriage. And whether we are comps or egals we can earnestly desire a successful resolve to their marital difficulties that has appeared because of Piper’s self-confessed root of pride.

And welcome to my blog and I hope you feel at home here!

Mark,
You said:

Have you read Calvin on the issue of original sin? Particularly Book 2 chapter 1 of his Institutes?

No, I haven’t. I have kept my research mainly to the Bible and lexicon studies along with historical sources. Actually I have had quite a few Calvinists quote Calvin to me with obvious contradiction to the Scriptures, that I haven’t even had a desire to read his material. However I do have the Calvin 108 volume collection (http://www.logos.com/products/details/5170) in my trusty collection ready for any study that I need to do for my DVD on the Sovereignty of God. However getting into that has to wait until I finish my book this summer.

Mark,

I appreciate your comments regarding Gen 3:15. Let me just say one final thing in case you missed it. I do agree with you that looking bcak at this verse in our position, we can see the prophetic nature of it. I’m just trying to look at the verse exegetically, that’s all- i think this is perhaps where we differ slightly.

One cannot properly do exegesis without understanding the type of writing that you are exegeting. When we are looking to a prophesied future event, where God says what the serpent will do in the future and what the woman’s seed will do, one cannot determine the meaning without an understanding of the prophetic. You cannot just provide a meaning to the time when God said the words. God is defining the ultimate cosmic battle that ultimately draws in God Himself. If we take Genesis and Revelation we will see a prophesy and a fulfillment of the cosmic battle between good and evil. The ultimate victory of Christ using the very cross that satan used as a weapon against Him gives us the very nature of God for us to see.

God’s nature is to take evil and turn it around on its head to turn it into something that is good. And on the flip side God takes what is meant for evil and He gives back to the evil doer a measure-for-measure payment back.

Do you remember the account of Haman and Mordecai and Esther? Haman was asked by the king what he could do to bring honor to a person that deserved honor. Haman thought who could the king want to honor more than himself and he set up what he wanted as an honor. It was a public honor with royal robes and a public declaration of the king’s favor and honor. But then he had to do this for Mordecai whom he despised. This event caused him to hate Mordecai so much that he devised a plan to kill all of the Jews. He planned to take away Mordecai’s public honor by a public hanging and Haman built a huge gallows 75 feet high to publicly humiliate and kill Mordecai. But if you remember the story, God turned the evil around in his own face and Haman and his sons were the ones hung on those 75 feet high gallows.

This is God’s way. He takes the evil that is planned and He turns the evil around into the bosom of the evil doer. How did God turn the evil of satan around?

Is it not true that He brought satan’s destruction through the seed of the one whom satan deceived? Is it also not true that satan devised a plan to kill Jesus with a curse of death by killing him on the cross? Remember that any who is hung on a cross is cursed. And is it not also true that God took this plan and turned it on its head and used the cross to defeat satan?

Colossians 2:15 (NET)
2:15 Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

There are multiple prophecies of Jesus birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection in the OT scriptures. Where is the prophesy in the OT of God’s turning around the evil plan of satan to kill Jesus on the cross and to use this plan to make a public spectacle of the enemy triumphing over him in it (the cross)? All of this was prophesied the very day that satan deceived the woman. And the type of death was prophesied (crushing of the heel on the cross) before crucifixion was even invented. God gets the glory for all of this.

However, taking your exegesis, all God is saying is that the serpent is going to be hated by people and he will try to bite men on the heel and they will try to kill him because they don’t like each other. And so the curse on the serpent becomes the curse on man with each after the other bruising one another. Does this interpretation fit with God’s way of turning the evil around and bringing the evil planned back on the head of the evil doer? Does this interpretation show that God is able to bring good out of evil? Or does this interpretation fail in bringing God the full glory that His Son brings Him through the destruction of the serpent?

Comparing the two interpretations shows a serious lack of meaning to your view and the fact that the cosmic battle of good and evil and between the serpent and the Messiah was understood long before Christ was born to crush the head of the serpent, showing to me a consistent pattern of God getting the glory. If you choose to reject that after all I have shown and stick to an interpretation of curses between snakes and men giving no glory to God, then I guess you have the right to your interpretation. But I don’t buy it at all.

However i’m not sure i’m ready to accept that the nail through the heel is fulfillment of Gen 3:15. That’s a bit too allegorical for me. You may be right, but i’d hold to that one loosely.

What I find so awesome is that the more evidence archeology finds, the more of a God-pattern we see. When I first saw the pictures of the heel being crushed by the nail several years ago I was jumping inside by the incredible marvel of God’s Word. It wasn’t a “bruising” of Christ’s heel at all and this never seemed to fit. When did this allegorical “bruising” happen to Christ? But when I could see that it was a literal “crushing” of the heel on the cross, it all came together for me. The more I read the Scriptures the more they come to life for me and the more I came to trust the God who can predict the serpent’s plan before it ever entered the serpent’s head. The serpent never got it or he would never have crushed the Messiah’s heel on the cross. If he had really known the character of God that evil is put back on the head of the evil doer, he would have understood that getting Christ on the cross was his death knell. Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled on the day that they nailed Christ’s heel onto the cross and satan never even knew it was coming.

To all,
We have a group of people meeting in our home on Tuesday nights and we have been going through The Truth Project http://www.thetruthproject.org/ Tonight’s lesson was on the nature of man and the sin nature that is a battle within us. The host compares the worldview of the world that says that there is no evil within us and that we are basically good, showing that there are two worldviews that are diametrically opposed to each other. It has been a really good series so far and lesson 3 is top notch for showing how this nature of the “old man” within us is an important doctrine to understand to properly fight the battle between the “flesh” and the “Spirit”.

Anon y mous,

You said:

Because I reject the “inherited sin nature” perspective does not then mean that I believe that any of us are somehow free from the myriad actions and choices of our parents and ancestors. Nobody starts life with a clean slate completely free from the influence of anyone but themselves. But the language for what we experience is not properly boiled down to “guilt or innocence.” It is the language of consequences as well.

The consequences that Paul is talking about are not because of the “choices” of our parents. It is about what is inside “us” that is a part of us.

While Christ made us alive together with Him and paid the price for our sin, there is a battle that goes on inside us that we cannot win without Christ who enables us to live “in the Spirit” so that we do not fulfill the desires of the flesh.

So the second question I need to ask you is what is the “desires of the flesh” that the Christian is not to live in?

Galatians 5:16–17 (NIV)
16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Here Paul is talking to Christians and he says that there is a sinful nature that is contrary to the Spirit. He also says that these two natures are in conflict with each other so that you (Christians) do not do what they want to do. What kind of nature is it that Christians fight with that is in conflict with the Spirit?

Romans 6:12 (NASB)
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,

Romans 6:16 (NASB)
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

In Romans 6:12 Paul is again talking to Christians telling them that there are lusts that want to reign in their mortal body and they are to not let this happen or they become slaves to this sin. If Christians are free from sin, then why is it that they are warned not to present themselves as slaves to sin?

You also said:

God who loves us, made us alive in Christ, freeing us from the wrathful rule of the prince of the power of the air and bondage to our passions, and created us anew for good works. According to Eph.2:3, we “were” children of wrath – we were subject to the wrathful rule of the prince of the power of the air, but now Christ made us live.

You say here that “children of wrath” and you connect this together with the “wrathful rule” of satan. What makes you think that children of wrath means subject to satan’s wrath?

The Scriptures don’t talk about satan’s rule as a wrath, but rather that we were accursed children subject to God’s wrath and our own nature of hostility.

Colossians 1:21 (NASB95)
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,

2 Peter 2:14 (NASB)
14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children;

I don’t see satan’s wrath being listed but I do see God’s wrath against those who live in unrepentant sin:

Romans 2:5 (NASB)
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

Lastly, you said:

Otherwise, you end up with a God who is either overly concerned about defending His honor or a God who cannot forgive an offense without payment – a God without mercy and grace. Now, that does not correlate very well at all with the God I find in Scripture and it oversimplifies mankind’s problem and the measures necessary to save us. God paid His own penalty – that is forgiveness.

By “or a God who cannot forgive an offense without payment” do you mean that He would be a God who requires us to pay for the offense or do you mean that God forgives without a sacrifice that pays for our sin? I am not exactly sure what you meant by this. Could you explain this a little more?

Anon y mous,
Welcome to my blog and to this conversation!

You said:

We didn’t all sin “in” Adam. Death spread to all men because all sinned. Adam, whose name means humanity, is the archetype for mankind.

The nature of humanity was, in Adam, to die.
The nature of humanity in Christ, to live.

I agree that we didn’t all “sin” in Adam. That is a common error that takes Adam’s guilt and makes it our guilt but that can’t be true. But we were “in” Adam when he sinned and our physical death is part of what we received through our first father. But Scripture doesn’t say that we die only because we are from a mortal, but it clearly links our sin to something that has been spread to us.

But if the only “nature” of humanity through Adam is merely physical death, then how is it that sin “entered the world”? Remember the passage doesn’t say that “death” entered the world, but rather it was “sin” that entered. How did sin “enter” the world if sin involves only one man?

The Greek term for “enter” means;
a move into: 15.93
b happen: 13.110
c begin: 68.7
d begin to experience: 90.70
live with 41.24
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 2: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains

The questions that don’t seem to have a logical answer are how one man’s sin could cause sin to move into the world? And how is it that death is “spread” to all men since this death is attached to the fact that all sin?

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”
This is such an important part of Christianity. God who loves us, made us alive in Christ, freeing us from the wrathful rule of the prince of the power of the air and bondage to our passions, and created us anew for good works.

There are several questions I have with your interpretation, if we are freed by Christ to the bondage of our passions, then why do we still have these passions inside?

If you don’t know God, then it is impossible to see sin in its proper perspective.

I agree that the world’s view cannot see sin in its proper perspective.

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.” Eph.2:1-3

This depicts the habitual style of life which had characterized these believers prior to their conversion. Had Paul intended to convey the notion of inherited sin nature at the time of their birth, he easily could have expressed that idea by saying,
“you became by birth children of wrath.” But he didn’t.

But Paul did say that we were “children of wrath”. Look at the interlinear print below:

Greg,
I so appreciate being able to discuss these issues. I welcome any comment, question or challenge as I do believe these are important issues to debate over in Christian love. It is also easy to misunderstand a person’s comments and I am glad that you are going to try to make your comments even clearer. Thanks for joining in!

In Piper’s sermon, where the statement came from, he mentions that the best way for Noël and what she wants is for him to step away from ministry for 8 months. Now I wonder if John Piper considers himself submitting to his wife? I say that he is in a loving way serving her by submitting to her needs. Would a complementarian see him as submitting?

I have one more comment for people to think through and you may want to comment on this.

A sinless man was able to sin in the garden but he was also able to stay in the place of sinless as this was his nature. When man fell his nature changed so that he was unable to get back to where he had fallen from. He was now unable to live without sin and his new nature made it natural for him to sin just as it had been natural for him not to sin before he fell.

If man was now living in the “natural fleshly nature”, he could no longer be trusted to obey God’s law. It would appear then that God’s words…

Genesis 3:22…he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever…”

When God used the prefixed imperfect tense it shows that the action was in progress but not yet completed.

Grammar (of a tense) denoting a past action in progress but not completed at the time in question.

If Adam’s rebellion to God regarding the tree of life was in progress but not yet completed, then this reveals his sin nature in progress heading toward a direction that God wanted stopped before it happened?

If Adam’s rebellion that is “in progress” at the time that God kicked him out of the garden, is not this the perfect definition of the “old man nature” or the “natural man” that we now call the “sin nature”?

What do you think?

Mark,

Now regarding the incarnation, I will answer that later when I have more time. Hopefully I can get to it later tonight after our bible study.

Mark,
You said:

You said that Numbers 14 says that the other generations were wicked also. But like i said i can’t see that in the text. Not only that but the 2 Kings reference deals with Menassah not the people.

Here is what a critical commentary on this passage says about the failure of Judah to repent and the confirmation from other OT writings that these people were indeed wicked.

26. Notwithstanding, the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his wrath,—&c. The national reformation which Josiah carried on was acquiesced in by the people from submission to the royal will; but they entertained a secret and strong hankering after the suppressed idolatries. Though outwardly purified, their hearts were not right towards God, as appears from many passages of the prophetic writings; their thorough reform was hopeless; and God, who saw no sign of genuine repentance, allowed His decree (2Ki 21:12–15) for the subversion of the kingdom to take fatal effect.
    Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (2 Ki 23:26)

You also said:

For example you said “The minute a person turns, repents and loves God, God breaks the sinful cycle. God is not unfair to the righteous.”

But according to Numbers 14 this simple doesn’t work. In Numbers the nation is rebelling about going into the Land promised to them, yet in verse 20 we read that God did forgive them. How does this work in your view, when directly following it, God then saids they will not enter the land. These people were forgiven yet still punished for their rebellion.

They can be forgiven for their sin but the consequences will still happen. But this in no way says that God punishes the innocent which is what we were talking about.

Again let me state that it seems far more consistent in view of all the relevant biblical passages to say that people do suffer the consequences of other peoples sins. The next generation did not rebel yet they still had to wonder in the desert for 40 years. They weren’t directly accountable for the sins, yet the repocussions still effected them.

God does not punish the innocent. When the generation came out of Egypt they were punished by not allowing them to go in to the promised land. The punishment was not 40 years in the wilderness. They were there for 40 years not for punishment but to allow all of that generation to die. Once they were dead, the children of these wicked people were allowed to go into the promised land.

Mark,
You said:

Therefore that is why i think in the context the point is broken relationships not victory over another. The serpent will bruise his heel and he will bruise his head.
I guess the other point could be whether the ‘head’ incicates something significantly more than the ‘heel’. That i suppose is open for speculation.

The context is not broken relationships because this is about a curse on the serpent not a curse on man. A curse is about destruction not about a broken relationships.

Crushing the head is considered a death blow:

Numbers 24:17 (NASB)
17 “I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A scepter shall rise from Israel,
And shall crush through the forehead of Moab,
And tear down all the sons of Sheth.

Psalm 74:14 (NASB)
14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

Judges 5:26 (NASB)
26 “She reached out her hand for the tent peg,
And her right hand for the workmen’s hammer.
Then she struck Sisera, she smashed his head;
And she shattered and pierced his temple.

So the bottom line will be what is a curse all about? If broken relationships is the serpent’s curse, then man was cursed too. This can’t be true. The curse that was revealed by the crushing of the serpent’s head is a death blow to him and a cause for victory from the One who received the crush to His heel on the cross. This meaning of curse that brought defeat to the serpent and victory to the Messiah was seen centuries before Jesus was born. For us to reject this now is to lessen God’s purpose and plan to destroy the serpent and restore our fellowship with God.

Mark,
You said:

You can’t say that the woman’s seed (in the context) is victorious over the serpents-so whether you translate it crush, strike, bruise etc you must do the same for both.

Yes, I agree that this is the really neat thing that shows how God planned satan’s destruction from the beginning.

While God cursed the serpent, He also stated how the serpent through his seed will fight back at the seed of the woman and the very act of his fighting back will cause his destruction. The Hebrew term for “crush” is a prophesy that the serpent will crush the Messiah’s heel on the cross. Look here for new crucifixion evidence that shows that the heel was pierced with the nails:

Crucifixion evidence was found in June of 1968 at Giv’at ha-Mivtar. The discovery within a cemetery which dates to the first century time period shows evidence of a man who was crucified with nails through his feet and wrists. His legs were broken. The description is very similar to that found in the NT Gospels concerning the crucifixion of Christ. Josephus described crucifixion in the time of the Fall of Jerusalem as so great that “space could not be found for the crosses nor crosses for the bodies.” (JW 5.11.1) demonstrating that crucifixion was common during the time period of Jesus.

Joseph Fitzmyer reviewed the evidence from Giv’at ha-Mivtar in his 1978 CBQ article entitled “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament.” He quotes the findings of V. Tzaferis (Israeli Department of Antiquities and Museums) who says: “This is undoubtedly a case of crucifixion.” The report continues describing what the picture above demonstrates a “large iron nail” fixed through heel bones.

The man who was crucified was 24-28 years old and 5ft 5 inches tall. The nail had been driven into acacia wood and then bent down; so that it would not be worked out. The nail was so firmly into the wood that the feet were cut off in order to remove the body from the cross (“it was impossible to withdraw the nail and there was a post mortem amputation of the feet . .. “).

Fitzmyer concludes that “the evidence for the practice is no longer solely literary in extrabiblical writings, but now archaeological as well.” Furthermore the evidence related to the Gospel of John which indicates they did not break the legs of Jesus shows a corresponding link between the typical practice (as John indicates and the evidence now demonstrates did occur) and what occurred to Jesus in the Gospels. Furthermore the relationship between actual piercing and also the cross/tree detail are both corroborated by the evidence.

From http://davidritsema.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/crucifixion/

So while God cursed the serpent in the garden because of his deception, the serpent tried to destroy God’s Messiah by cursing Him by the cross.

Galatians 3:13 (NASB)
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—

But God turned around and use the instrument that was meant to curse and kill Christ, into an instrument that would bring Christ the victory.

Colossians 2:14–15 (NASB)
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

The very cross that was used as a weapon against Jesus by crushing his heel through crucifixon became the weapon that destroyed satan’s power. The curse was complete against the serpent when Jesus triumphed over the serpent with the cross. God used the very weapon (the cross) that the serpent tried to destroy Jesus with and it was prophesied back in Genesis that the thing that would crush the Messiah heal would crush the head of the serpent.

Psalm 68:21 (NASB)
21 Surely God will shatter the head of His enemies,
The hairy crown of him who goes on in his guilty deeds.

And because Jesus crushed the head of the serpent at the cross, we too as His body will has satan crushed under our feet.

Romans 16:20 (NASB)
20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

The beauty of the cross and God’s prediction in Genesis 3:15 is that what the enemy meant for evil, God meant for good. The cross was meant by the enemy to curse and to destroy. But the cross actually destroyed the destroyer.

While the human author of Genesis likely never understood the words that he was penning concerning God’s words to the serpent, looking back on the prophesy we can see God’s plan made to destroy the serpent right from the beginning. The Word Biblical Commentary shows that even in the Septuagint and other Jewish writings back to the third century BC, the victory of the Messiah over satan was viewed in Genesis 3:15.

Certainly the oldest Jewish interpretation found in the third century B.C. Septuagint, the Palestinian targums (Ps.-J., Neof., Frg.), and possibly the Onqelos targum takes the serpent as symbolic of Satan and look for a victory over him in the days of King Messiah. The NT also alludes to this passage, understanding it in a broadly messianic sense (Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; Rev. 12), and it may be that the term “Son of Man” as a title for Jesus and the term “woman” for Mary (John 2:4; 19:26) also reflect this passage (Gallus; cf. Michl). Certainly, later Christian commentators, beginning with Justin (ca. A.D. 160) and Irenaeus (ca. 180), have often regarded 3:15 as the Protoevangelium, the first messianic prophecy in the OT. While a messianic interpretation may be justified in the light of subsequent revelation, a sensus plenior, it would perhaps be wrong to suggest that this was the narrator’s own understanding. Probably he just looked for mankind eventually to defeat the serpent’s seed, the powers of evil.
Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary (80–81).

I have no doubt that when Jesus rose from the dead and He met with some of the disciples on the road, that He took Genesis 3:15 and explained its meaning to them.

Luke 24:25–27 (NASB95)
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Notice that Jesus started with Moses and from Moses’ writings He explained to them what had been written about Him and the suffering that He would experience. Genesis 3:15 is the very first Scripture that mentions the suffering of the Messiah with his heel crushed and it is also the very first Scripture that declares the victory on the same front as His heal was crushed. It is the cross and it is the sign of triumph over the serpent.

66 Mark,

I am just going to bed so I am going to pick just one of your comments for tonight and catch the rest as I can hopefully tomorrow.

My point though was simply that exegetically, reading the verse in it’s original language, context etc it is not about one ‘crushing’ the other. The actual language used is each bruising each other. This is simply pure exegetical fact.

I see now what you are getting at. Yes, the two words are the same but you are incorrect when you say that the actual language has nothing to do with crushing. I don’t know where you are getting this faulty information from but here are three lexicons followed by the Lexham Hebrew-English Lexicon and many translations.

—(1) pr. (as was first seen by Umbreit on Job 9:17), i.q. TO GAPE UPON [see note], hence to lie in wait for any thing, Gen. 3:15,“he (the seed of the woman, man) shall lie in wait for thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for his heel,” he shall endeavour to crush thy head, and thou shalt endeavour to crush his heel.
Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (811).

8789 1. LN 19.43–19.54 (qal) crush, i.e., a downward pressing motion of an object (Ge 3:15a+), see also 8790;…2. LN 19.1–19.13 (qal) batter, formally, crush, i.e., a repeated striking motion which injures (Job 9:17+)
Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)

qal: impf. sf. : crush Gn 3:15.
Holladay, W. L., Köhler, L., & Köhler, L. (1971). A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. (364).

I do agree that the same word should be used for both occurrences. After all satan did “crush” Jesus heel. When the nail was driven through the heel of Jesus the bone was crushed by the nail. So the term “crush” fits the prophesy far better than bruise.

The same Hebrew word is used in Job 9:17 and it is translated “crush” in the NIV, NKJV, NCV, RSV, GW, and Darby. And ASV translates as “breaketh” which is what crushing does. I could go on to look for more translations but I got tired.

Here is the Lexham Hebrew English where you can see the “crush”

Job 9:17 (NIV)
17 He would crush me with a storm
and multiply my wounds for no reason.

Job 9:17 (NKJV)
17 For He crushes me with a tempest,
And multiplies my wounds without cause.

Job 9:17 (NCV)
17  He would crush me with a storm
and multiply my wounds for no reason.

Job 9:17 (RSV)

17 For he crushes me with a tempest,
and multiplies my wounds without cause;

Genesis 3:15 (DARBY)
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.

and

Job 9:17 (DARBY)
17 He, who crusheth me with a tempest, and multiplieth my wounds without cause.

Job 9:17 (ASV)
17For he breaketh me with a tempest, And multiplieth my wounds without cause.

Greg,
You have brought up an excellent question for discussion.

I think that first of all that there is an issue of definitions that needs to be discussed. In my discussions with Calvinists, they have told me that the “sin nature” that we have inherited makes us a “sinner” and means that we are guilty of sin from the time that we are an unborn baby in the womb. However their definition is faulty and this meaning is not found in the Bible. The “sin nature” is not actual sin and so we cannot be a “sinner” just from the “sin nature”. There must be personal sin that accompanies it for us to be actual sinners. So while a young child may have the natural desire to sin (and this is the sin nature) there is no guilt until actual sin is committed. No one will ever go to hell for having a “sin nature”. They go for their own actual and practiced sin and rebellion.

One can also argue that humankind has an inherited ability to do great good and therefore fulfill the law of Christ (Romans 2:14-16).

Romans 2:14-16 doesn’t say that. It says that the Gentiles have a conscience within them that is a law to them. Paul also says that their conscience sometimes defends them and sometimes accuses them depending on whether or not they follow their conscience. But these verses doesn’t say that we have a ability to fulfill the law of Christ. After all, if we were able to fulfill the law of Christ, then we would not have needed Christ to die for us. We could have made it on our own through doing good things if that is all it takes.

So where’s the rub? Do humans have no ability to do the right thing and make the world a better place?

Sure. Some say that unregenerate man can not do a single thing that is good, but I don’t see that in the Scriptures. Jesus said that those who are evil can give what is good.

Matthew 7:11 (NASB)
11 “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

But is our ability to do good enough to say that we are basically good? It is interesting to see the the humanistic view is that we are basically good.

Carl Rogers says: I do not find that…evil is inherent in human nature. Carl Rogers was an influential American psychologist and among the founders of the humanistic approach to psychology.

But the Biblical world view is at odds with this view as we are told that we have desires inside that are part of our fleshly nature and these desires are not good.

Galatians 5:16–18 (TNIV)
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

There is a battle going on between the Spirit and the “natural” desires of our carnal “fleshly” nature. We have been tainted by the fall, not by someone else’s sin coming on us, but by a nature that we are at war with. For if we give in to the sinful nature within us, Paul says that we will die.

Romans 8:13 (LEB)
13 For if you live according to the flesh, you are going to die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Paul talks about this inner war with his sin nature that he needs to fight and win through Christ.

Romans 7:15–23 (LEB)
15 For what I am doing I do not understand, because what I want to do, this I do not practice, but what I hate, this I do. 16 But if what I do not want to do, this I do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that lives in me. 18 For I know that good does not live in me, that is, in my flesh. For the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want to do, I do not do, but the evil that I do not want to do, this I do. 20 But if what I do not want to do, this I am doing, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that lives in me.
21 Consequently, I find the principle with me, the one who wants to do good, that evil is present with me. 22 For I joyfully agree with the law of God in my inner person, 23 but I observe another law in my members, at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that exists in my members.

Since the bible says that even those who are evil can do good, why is it that Paul says that there is no good in him? The answer is that although we can all do good, we are not good. Our deeds can include good, but our nature is not good. There is evil in the human nature that comes from the fall.

The truth claim in the Bible is that man is fallen and his heart is desperately wicked. The world’s philosophy is that man is basically good and that he should get in touch with his own inner desires so that he can have self actualization and save himself through self-oriented pursuits.

It is a cosmic battle that rages over two dimetrically opposed truth claims. Man is not intrinsically good but he has evil living within him and so mankind needs divine grace, regeneration and redemption. If we were created as good and perfect human beings without a “natural desire” to sin, then it would be possible for one of Adam’s offspring to live without sin. But the truth is that all have sinned and our natural desires are to continue to sin. Where does the natural desire to sin come from? Scripture says that one man brought sin into the world. Where did this sin go when it came into the world?

If there is no sin nature (or natural desire for sin) then the sin that Adam brought into the world didn’t go anywhere. It just died with him. But the Scriptures talk about a “spread” of sin that has spread to all. This natural desire for sin lives in each one of us and it comes from the rebellion of the one man.

I would like to challenge anyone who thinks that we as humans do not have the natural inclination to sin within us that has been inherited from Adam, to bring as much Scriptural proof for their position. Let’s not just argue from our reasoning, but let’s discuss the texts.

Thanks, Greg, for bringing a text onto the table. I don’t think that it proves your point, but it was nice to see Scripture here instead of just an argument.

Mark,
Thanks for that thought. We do need to keep as respectful as we can with brothers in Christ who differ over the non-essentials.