Romans
7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

Can this be said about Jesus? Or was he different from us because of the woman’s seed that wasn’t tainted?

More questions-
So if Eve had rebelled (assuming she did and her seed was tainted then) where then did Jesus get his perfect nature from since Mary did not have a perfect nature? Or did she have a perfect nature and we do too? If Jesus didn’t get it from Mary’s seed alone, then how can he be linked back to us (Adam & Eve) and be our Redeemer? If we have a perfect nature and Mary did too, then why do we need Jesus? Why did a perfect man (his flesh) have to die if we are born perfect and we can stop ourselves from sinning and rebelling? Couldn’t any one of us then choose to never sin and therefore be perfect like Jesus was?

Questions going through my mind-
Where did Jesus get his humanity (perfect humanity/perfect nature) from? Are we born perfect or not born perfect? Were Adam and Eve made perfect or not?

It is the same thing for satan. Before he fell his nature was good and righteous.

I was thinking about just this today to in relation to our discussion.

Okay, I’ll try to wait until the next post is up to comment!

“And it’s not that Adam ‘developed’ a sin nature. His choices just made for who he was.”

But that is not what has been claimed here by Cheryl. The claim is that Adam’s sin nature is something that came into existence at the point he sinned, i.e. it did not exist prefall. Do you disagree with Cheryl here pinklight? Are you claiming that Adam had a different, additional sin “nature” before either Adam or Eve had committed any sin?

Yes, gengwall I agree with Cheryl but Adam’s nature didn’t “develope” like it was a progression. It was instant. I don’t think Cheryl has claimed that his sin nature “developed”. When Adam chose to rebel and continue as a rebel, that was it, he wasn’t going back. The text gives no indication that he repented. His choices made for who he was/became. He at one point was not a rebel, then he became one and stayed a rebel. That’s in a big way what defines Adam.

truthseeker,

Her deception was not sin, it was her breaking the command (eating) that was sin.

If, as is stated above in #390, Eve sinned by eating the fruit and breaking God’s command (1 sin) and we might say, by offering it to Adam and presenting a stumbling,tempting opportunity to him (second sin?-after all, Jesus had harsh words to say about those who cause others to stumble-i.e. little children), then Eve is at least half way or all the way to having sinned the same number of times as Adam, at this point, and this would certainly qualify her for a sin nature, too. I mean, one or two times-what’s the big difference when we are ‘developing a sin nature’?

Hi truthseeker,

But a deceived woman gave fruit to her husband. It’s not like this was a woman who knew what she was doing at the time she gave the fruit to her husband. Adam even knew that she gave him the fruit out of being deceived because he wasn’t deceived. Also God doesn’t blame the woman (by saying “Because you have” or “Because you have done this”) for giving the fruit to Adam, and this has to be because she was deceived. But he does blame Adam for listening to his wife and the serpent FOR deceiving Eve and the serpent was cursed for deceiving Eve. So what she did besides just eating – give the fruit to Adam out of deception doesn’t result in a blame of guilt by God and the reason why is because she was deceived. Now say it were Adamm who had offered his wife the fruit while not deceived – or place Eve in those shoes – God would have placed blame on the one who did that because they would have done so out of rebellion or knowing that what they were doing was wrong.

So The serpent was cursed for deceiving Eve but God did not curse the woman, punish her or blame her for giving fruit to Adam because she was deceived. But had she not been deceived and then given fruit to Adam, then yes, she would have been guilty of offering the fruit out of temptation or rebellion. Also Eve did not cause an innocent Adam to stumble since he wasn’t deceived.

And it’s not that Adam “developed” a sin nature. His choices just made for who he was.

Was Adam who is the father of the race, a rebel or not? Or is he not the even father of the race?? *eyes cross*

I see absolutely nothing stated in the text about Adam or anyone else developing/now having a sin nature. It is completely and totally absent. Would God have not stated something clearly that was this monumental? Why does everyone read it into the text? If, as egals, we claim to be so careful about what is and isn’t clearly evident and stated in the text regarding women and their ‘roles’, then why do we just jump right in there on this one and pronounce that there is, indeed, such a thing as a sin nature showing up here? It is like the emperor’s new clothes, if you ask me.

truthseeker,
It is CLEAR in Genesis that Adam rebelled (broke God’s command knowing what he was doing). “Rebel” is not in the text but the idea is there. I’m not reading into the text that he became a rebel.

What’s the nature of a rebel? Sin?

Was Eve an abuser? ROTFLOL

We are going around saying that it’s possible that her turning to her husband was sinful, and why when the text does not provide a reason! What reason do we have from the text that her desire was sin? What did she do that makes us want to believe this?

What about EVE (I’m not talking about modern women or any other women) makes us look at her as a woman who had bad intentions? What in the text tells us that her will towards Adam was twisted? Was she harmful to Adam or something out of will? When did she hurt him? Did she become evil after eating the fruit or something? When did she become a rebel? At what point did she will to harm Adam and why or where would this evil intent come from?

Of course, for this to be true, one would need to establish that Eve’s “desire” is sinful

gengwall,
This is THE key. That Eve’s desire was sinful CANNOT be established from the scriptures. Therefore from where I’m sitting, there is no argument. If it cannot be established then what, why, what? From the scriptures, we are left without reason to believe that her desire was a bad thing. JUST AS we don’t have reason to believe from the scriptures that her testimony of God’s command was false, we’ve no reason to believe that her desire or turning toward her husband was negative because in both cases there is nothing in the scriptures to establish either. And that is why we just go with what the text gives us.

Then there’s Adam who continued in rebellion. Eve didn’t rebel. And it is a fact that Adam continued as a rebel without repentance.

Thought maybe you were deleting comments last night when the numbers for the comments were changing. Funny.

Now as far as the numbering, I was removing a few comments last night that were technical questions. I am not sure I should have done that as it seems to have confused a few of you because it changed the end numbering. Sorry about that guys and gals.

LOL I was wondering about that last night, Cheryl! ;p

You say, ‘…having been deceived one time (sin once)’. Are you classifying Eve’s deception as sin?

Before I’m outta here –

Correction, her deception was not sin, her eating/breaking God’s command though was. How she sinned was through being deceived, not a sin. Now Adam’s sin though was eating/breaking God’s and also eating out of rebellion. So in this way they both sinned differently.

Have a good evening too. I’m a bit tired also.
Goodnight

Really? strange huh? LOL

About #374 –

Learning how to ride a horse and gambling ofcourse are not going to be things that are going to be passed down to one’s children since riding a horse and gambling are not a “part” of one’s being/nature. Rebellion on the other hand can be a part of one’s very being. In Adam’s case rebellion was even though it was his choice. Now maybe someone would have problems with addictions or have an addictive personality – let’s say for the gambler and that, the addictive personality then would be a part of that person’s being. Were they born with it? Could be or they could have developed it.

Also if someone does something (say someone lies all the time) for long enough it can “become them”. In that case their nature then would be that of a liar. Sin can become one with a person.

I swear my number 377 WAS 380 when it posted and I meant to refer to #378 in it not 380 and I was going to correct the comment I was refering to from 380 to 378, but now the comment I was refering to has become 375! LOL! I’ve no idea!

Haha!! It worked!!
🙂

Thanks, I thought the examples were funny too ;P

380 LOL!

[blockquote]There you are Pink! Try throwing me that life preserver again![/blockquote]

Had I used the arrow keys rather than the [ ] then these words would have appeared in quotes. Does that work?

There you are Pink! Try throwing me that life preserver again!

LOL!

[blockquote>
There you are Pink! Try throwing me that life preserver again!

I’m trying truthseeker!
If I would have used the < rather that the [ my quote would have worked?

Even if you say his first sin was his choice, he evidently didn’t need a sinful nature to do it. If he didn’t need a sinful nature to commit one sin, I don’t see where he or anyone else needs a sinful nature to commit more than one sin. If we say his subsequent sins were NOT choice (fault), then we have a real problem. Whose choice were they (the subsequent sins)?

This is why my point is about his CONTINUATION in rebellion. (If I new how put “continuation” in bold I would or if I could use italics I would. So I use caps for emphasis btw).
Right, his first sin was choice and didn’t need a sin nature to do it. So he didn’t need a sin nature to continue in his rebellion either. But that why he has a sin “nature” – because he conintued in his rebellion (by choice).

You can copy and paste the text you want to quote

Then, are you saying his subsequent sinful acts were NOT made out of choice? If not, then where did those later sinful acts come from? This is the problem many unbelievers (and believers) have who question why they are accountable for actions/sins they do if they were born with (didn’t choose to have) a sinful nature that forces or compels them beyond their abilities to do sinful things. We know God says we are each accountable for our own actions, so those who question this have an extremely valid point.

No, I’m not saying that when he continued as a rebel that he no longer was a rebel out of choice. He continued as a rebel (next he blamed God and his wife) because he chose to. And because he chose to continue as a rebel that is why I say he had a sin “nature”. In other words, it was who he was. It’s what defined him in a big way. So one thing that made him the person he was, was his choice in continuing to rebel. Does that make sense? Now because this is who Adam was, though a rebel by choice, and we are all born of Adam, that is how we end up with his “nature”. We sin because Adam wanted to and wanted to continue as a rebel. We are born like Adam because we are born from Adam who did not want to repent of his rebellion. Had he repented then it couldn’t be said that we are born like Adam or in Adam because then in that case rebellion wouldn’t be shown to be a part of his nature. And none of this goes to say that God made Adam then with a sin nature, since his initial rebellion and continuation in rebellion was all choice.

I’ll be back soon truthseeker…

LOL!

One more time

use the arrow key pointing to the left
type blockquote
Use the arrow pointing to the right
type your text
use arrow key pointing to the left
forward backslash
type blockquote
Use the arrow key pointing to the right