Sin Nature - the phlogiston of Christian Theology?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It appears that the most comprehensive discussion of the matter of sin (as to its cause and its effect on humanity) occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans.

Yep!

In the introductory chapters (1-4), Paul outlines the effects of sin especially in regards to our broken relationship with God. It is here that he clarifies our universal need of a change, a complete change, and that there is absolutely no way for us to do it through our efforts.

I agree. And I feel that the emphasis on relationship is key. It seems that God left Adam and Eve alone in the garden, until their flesh took its course. It had nothing to do with a "sin nature" - its that flesh not subjected to God in right relationship will sin.

He works his way to the grand truth of "justification by faith". It is here that the first major change is presented. Christ Jesus has shed his precious blood for us all, and by virtue of God's grace, our status is changed from "subject to His wrath" to "Justified by faith in His blood."

Yes, a change in the outworking of how God effects salvation through faith. But the idea of salvation (righteousness) through faith originated in Genesis 15:6. As an aside, this links to a common misunderstanding about how people were saved in the OT. Many folks think the Jews were made right with God through the Law. This is false. Salvation was always by grace through faith. This is taught explicitly in Romans 9:31-32

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Getting back to your post ...

Beginning in chapter 5, Paul begins to explain how through Adam both sin and death entered into the "world". Now we begin to see the "cause" of our pitiful state.

The old humanity was made subject to both sin and death. In the discussion that follows, both sin and death are reigning as despots.

It is at this point that the wondrous change that God has accomplished through Christ's sacrificial life, death, and resurrection is expanded to include the victory over both sin, and death. And, as Paul clarifies in his following letters, Christ has created a new humanity in Himself.

In Romans 6:6, Paul explains...."that our old humanity was crucified together with Him, that the body of sin may be nullified...."

The expression, "the body of sin", and the "old humanity" are linked together, and it is His death on the cross that is focus of the victory.

The change that has occurred is the end of the old, and the inauguration of the new.

Joel

Very important points, Joel.

I need to really get a grip on "old man" and "body of sin." I'll get back to you when I get things clarified a little more.

Richard

[joel]

I need to really get a grip on "old man" and "body of sin." I'll get back to you when I get things clarified a little more.

Richard
----------------------------------------

Richard, that would be ideal.

The "old man" , and, the "old humanity" are descriptive of what we all, without exception, are "in Adam".

Your particular calling, as the originator (original receiver) of the Bible Wheel revelation, and, as the administrator of the Bible Wheel forum and site, place you in a very unique position to help us all be "adjusted". I am so thankful for your obedience, and faithfulness. You have been specially equipped to do this task. I am also thankful for your openness, as well as your insistence upon the acquisition of the truth, without compromise. These are special graces, granted from God.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I need to really get a grip on "old man" and "body of sin." I'll get back to you when I get things clarified a little more.

Richard
----------------------------------------

Richard, that would be ideal.

The "old man" , and, the "old humanity" are descriptive of what we all, without exception, are "in Adam".

Yes, the idea of "in Adam" versus "in Christ" is essential to the correct understanding. It is how the Bible talks. But if we apply that to the question at hand, it still doesn't tell us if the phrase "sin nature" has any meaning. It makes me think of 1 Corinthians 15:45-50

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

We have a whole set of contrasts between Adam/Christ, earthly/heavenly, natural/spiritual. So the whole thing still feels like "flesh vs. spirit" as opposed to "sin nature" vs spirit.

I think it will be very good for us all to get this clear. It feels like it will impact our "walk in the Spirit" vs. "walking in the flesh." I have some more results from my study I hope to get posted later tonight.

I trust you understand that though I have been pressing the idea that there may not be such a thing as "sin nature" that does not mean I am convinced on that point. I'm just exploring it, seeing how it holds up in light of the Bible when tested by folks who know and love God's Word.

Your particular calling, as the originator (original receiver) of the Bible Wheel revelation, and, as the administrator of the Bible Wheel forum and site, place you in a very unique position to help us all be "adjusted". I am so thankful for your obedience, and faithfulness. You have been specially equipped to do this task. I am also thankful for your openness, as well as your insistence upon the acquisition of the truth, without compromise. These are special graces, granted from God.

Joel

Thanks for the clear understanding and very encouraging words Joel. All I can say is Praise God from whom all blessings flow! It makes me think of 1 Corinthians 4:7

For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

With much given, there is much responsibility. I am really thankful that you, and all the other brothers and sisters in the Lord, are here to help. If there is one thing I know, I am a very weak man. I can do nothing on my own. Just ask my wife. But I stand in/by God's grace, and in my weakness I will glory with our Brother Paul, if it be that the power of Christ can be rest upon me. (2 Cor 12.9)

The thing I am so happy about is that we have a group of real truth seekers who don't get mad when someone disagrees or questions their ideas. A truth seeker admires people who question and demand biblical answers, because they know that is necessary to correct for error so we can get closer to the truth, since we all fall short in so many ways.

Great blessings on you bro!

Richard

[Brother Bob]

Just getting back to this discussion.

Human nature is usually defined as "that set of attributes that all humans have in common." As such, it is a collective abstraction. I don't think of a "substance" called "human nature." We run into really big problems if we try to push the definition of collective abstractions too far. For example, is it part of human nature to have two arms? If so, then are you not a human if you lose an arm? If we push it, we are forced to adopt some sort of genetic definition of "human nature" but even then we would be plagued with endless variations in the genome. And besides, that's not what people normally mean when they talk of human nature anyway. It is just an abstraction for a set of common characteristics. And as such, we make a grave error if we treat it as a "substance" with its own set of "properties."

Richard, it seems you DO define human nature but in your unique way....it is simply the flesh and if I'm understanding you properly, the flesh refers to the body. The body for you is neutral. It only does what the spirit of a person tells it.

Human nature is what the Bible says it is. In Genesis 2:7 we're told that God took the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life and man became a human 'soul' or being. From this verse we see that man wasn't given a soul, but is a soul. In its simplest terms human nature consists of a body (with one arm, two arms or no arms), and the spirit of life. Together they form a living being or soul or person (a self). So human nature is consists of three parts: body, soul and spirit. We see Paul saying this very thing in 1Thess. 5:23 -"May God preserve you blameless, body, soul and spirit..."

I think this is why the topic is so difficult for some folks. Most people don't deal well with abstractions, and so they make them into "things" and then they attribute "properties" to those "things" and begin to apply causal laws to them and develop theories about how they are "transmitted." That is what has happened with the theory of "sin nature." People sincerely talk about it like its a substance that can be transmitted through the father to the unfortunate child. A brief refutation of this non-biblical idea is found here.

I read the link and I didn't find a scientific refutation that a father's nature is transmitted to the child. I read of his opinions of what he thinks happened at Christ's birth, but nothing convincing. I mean I do agree with him that the divine nature of Jesus had to enter into the womb in some mysterious way. More questions are raised then answered in that sermon...at least for me.

I guess I'm still trying to understand where you are coming from. Are you saying that parents do not pass on DNA and genes that determines the body and the self? It seems that we are in some way skirting original sin as this issue is discussed. But is there any doubt we inherit likenesses to our parents including predispositions, mannerisms and similar bodily features? This is indisputable. Why then is it so hard to believe that Cain and Able inheritied the fallen nature of their dad and mom? They were not born perfect, but with a warped human nature as I explained above. When Adam and Eve sinned their spirits were disconnected from God's Spirit. God originally created their spirits to be in union with His Spirit. In this pristine condition they naturally had dominion over ALL of their selfish and bodily desires. When they fell, both self and body asserted their desires over a spirit without God's spirit. That was the nature Cain and Abel were born with. They inherited a nature where self and body were preeminent and their spirits without God were secondary. That is what we call the 'carnal' nature or sin nature and is what Paul refers to in Romans.

This is why it is hard for me to follow you lead when you say that

There is a perfect human nature without any predisposition or tendency to sin either hereditary or culturally learned.

It seems like you are treating "human nature" as a "thing" that can be "perfected." But this doesn't make sense to me because "human nature" is a collective abstraction. Of course, we have verses like Hebrews 12:23 that speaks of "the spirits of just men made perfect." But that's different because "the spirits of just men" are not abstractions but realities. The just men really exist and can be perfected in relation to God. But "human nature" does not "exist" - it is not a "thing" that can be "perfected." Only things that actually exist can be perfected.

If a person is not born perfect like Adam or Jesus, then they are born with a human nature that is predisposed to follow the appetites and desires of both self and body since they are born with a spirit disconnected from God. That is not abstraction...that is a fact. Human nature cannot be perfected but it can be changed.....and it is when person receives Christ and is given the Holy Spirit to indwell their human spirit. At that point God restores the proper way we were made to function... with the spirit dominating the appetites and desires of both body and self (soul). A saved person now walks in the Spirit/spirit and when the body and selfish desires seek to go against God's will and law a justified man makes those thoughts and desires captive to God's Word.

Yes, the Scripture says "the carnal mind [lit. mind of the flesh] is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom 8:7. That is exactly what I said in my opening post. The flesh sins because it CAN NOT be subject to the Law of God. That's the point of this thread. We do not need an abstraction called "sin nature" to understand what the Bible teaches on this point. Note also, that since the flesh is real, it can be perfected. And that's what's going to happen at the resurrection! Praise God!

I would argue that we do need an abstraction called a "sin nature" since the way Paul uses the word "flesh" means exactly that! Paul is not just referring to the body when he uses the word "sarx". He uses "soma" to refer to the body. He is also referring to the self which has a mind of its own since the spirit of flesh is disconnected to God.

May I ask you what you mean by: "...the flesh is real, it can be perfected." ? Do you mean the body???

I think it is impossible to identify "sin nature" with "human nature" because Jesus was fully human, yet without sin.

I personally think this is what is causing the confusion. Briefly, I believe the Scriptures teach that Jesus was born with a human nature like Adam and unlike every other human being ever born. He was conceived without any predispositions or tendencies or DNA to sin. He was born perfectly connected to God, His Father. But this is a matter deserving a thread of its own. See this link for a brief idea of how Jesus was different from all other 'born' humans: the sinlessness of Christ

As for the meaning of "flesh" - first, it is the literal stuff humans are made of, and second, it is the aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world, as opposed to God. There are other shades of meaning, but this post is already too big so I'll let it rest there.

Couldn't help yourself could you my friend? You know there is more than just a body to our "nature" when you say there "is an aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world", and "there are other shades of meaning".

This is why I avoid forums. It's not that I'm not pushed and sharpened which is excellent and you brother are strong iron....it's the time I must spend to slowly type and think through this deep stuff. But I don't see any other way when talking about God and His Word. And I'm wordy as it is.

I just attended a Graham Cooke conference. He has a little book "Towards a powerful Inner Life". Short read and powerful. Check it out: grahamcooke.com He does a good job of a modern way of explaining the inner nature of man.

[joel]

Richard, as you continue to consider the issue of "sin nature", the term, in my opinion, is one that attempts to define our human problem of sin's influence by using a term that cannot be located in scripture.

So, as is your practice, in locating specific scripture to help us along the way, you quoted a section of Paul's I Corinthian letter where Adam and Christ are again compared. That is surely a very good place to search.

In that section, in Chapter 15, Paul is discussing the resurrection of the dead.
The question had been raised in vs. 35...."How are the dead raised?". He uses the examples to explain that when the body is placed into the earth, it is housed in one type of body. When it is raised, it is housed in a different type of body. Additionally, he shows that different types of bodies radiate different degrees of glory; the sun shines, the moon reflects.

Prior to the discussion where Adam and Christ are compared, Paul makes a comparison of the different types of bodies;

I Corinthians 15:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead: The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

In verse 44, that which is interpreted as a "natural body" may be more correctly shown to be a "soulish" body. The Greek word is "psuchikos". The spiritual body is "pneumatikos". The body, before being sown, is a "soulish body" i.e. it is subject primarily to the senses, being governed by the soul.
The body, when raised, is a "spiritual body", i.e. one which is governed by the spirit, rather than by the soul.

45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

Rather than "a living being", it would be more accurate to say, "a living soul." Adam is first, whereas Christ (being implied), is the last. He is the "Omega" of the old humanity.

47 The first man was out of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

The distinction now concerns their place of origin. The first man, Adam (being implied) comes out of the earth. He is made of the earth. The second Man, Christ (being implied) is coming out of heaven. He is the second Man, indicating the "protos" ("Alpha") of a new humanity.

Paul's teaching that follows in Chapter 15 describes that our bodies, being "soulish", will be changed to "spiritual" bodies. This is the great secret of the total change that will occur......our physical bodies, coming from the earth, are "soulish" bodies as long as we remain in them. But, we will not all be put into the earth, and raised. Some of us will be alive when He returns. Whether alive, or, in the grave, we will all be changed from "soulish" (which is also "soilish"), to "spiritual".

There is a very important distinction, however, earlier in the letter, where Paul indicates that we are no longer, while remaining on the earth, to be as if we are "soulish". We are to become "spiritual", in this life, now, awaiting the change that will occur to our "jars of clay".

In Chapter 2, vs. 14, Paul says, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one."

The "natural man" is the "soulish man".

In a few verses following, Paul makes another distinction; Chapter 3, verse 1;
"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ."

The carnal man is "sarkikos", pertaining to the flesh.

I took this long-winding path, Richard, to support what you were asserting; it is a battle between "flesh", and "spirit" that is being waged.

Sin is instrumental in utilizing the flesh, but, we need to be able to make the clear distinction that flesh remains with us as long as we are in these bodies. Sin has been "nullified" on the cross.....but, that is a matter for other discussions, as we learn to no longer walk, according to flesh, but, according to spirit.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Just getting back to this discussion.

Glad you are back. Of course, you haven't really been gone long, and the conversation is not even a week old yet. One of the harder things to realize is that we don't have to answer everything at once. There is no rush. This thread will be on this forum as long as the forum is up, which I hope will be a long time!

Richard, it seems you DO define human nature but in your unique way....it is simply the flesh and if I'm understanding you properly, the flesh refers to the body. The body for you is neutral. It only does what the spirit of a person tells it.

Please don't get frustrated with me Bob. I'm just working out my thoughts on this. My idea about "human nature" as an abstraction probably needs to be corrected in light of the fact that the NT uses the word phusis (nature) in many of its senses, such as human behaviors that are "against nature" (Rom 1.26) and the divine nature that we partake in through Christ (2 Pet 1:4), and most importantly for our present discussion, we were "by nature the children of wrath" "fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind" before we were saved (Eph 2:3).

This is why its really important we don't feel forced to get this all figured at in one fell swoop. We haven't even begun! It would be folly indeed to come to any conclusions before we do a reasonably deep word study on "flesh" and "nature" (phusis) and "sin" and "old man" etc. All of this can be a really wonderful joy if we don't feel pressured to rush to the finish line. This forum is a place for relaxed reflection on the Word of God in hopes of hearing that "still small voice" that will guide us to a correct understanding of the Word of God.

Human nature is what the Bible says it is. In Genesis 2:7 we're told that God took the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life and man became a human 'soul' or being. From this verse we see that man wasn't given a soul, but is a soul.

Amen! That has been my understanding for many years. I am glad you agree.

In its simplest terms human nature consists of a body (with one arm, two arms or no arms), and the spirit of life. Together they form a living being or soul or person (a self). So human nature is consists of three parts: body, soul and spirit. We see Paul saying this very thing in 1Thess. 5:23 -"May God preserve you blameless, body, soul and spirit..."

It is interesting that the "living soul" of Gen 2.7 is nepesh chayah, which is identical to the phrase used to describe the living creatures created on the Fifth Day. Of course, we know that there is a difference, and I suspect it lies in the fact that God breathed the Breath of Life (nishmat chayim) directly into Adam, whereas no such description is found in the creation of the animals. Other verses that speak of nishmat shaddai (Breath of the Almighty) as the giver of man's life:

KJV Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty (nishmat Shaddai) hath given me life.

Nishmat Shaddai is also used in parallel with Ruach (Spirit), which is different that nephesh (soul) in the Hebrew conception:

NKJ Job 32:8 But there is a spirit (ruach) in man, And the breath of the Almighty (nishmat Shaddai) gives him understanding.

So there is some good support from the Hebrew for the trichotomous nature of man - Body (Basar), Soul (nephesh) , Spirit (Ruach), but this idea is disputed, with some teaching a dichotomous human nature.

I read the link and I didn't find a scientific refutation that a father's nature is transmitted to the child. I read of his opinions of what he thinks happened at Christ's birth, but nothing convincing. I mean I do agree with him that the divine nature of Jesus had to enter into the womb in some mysterious way. More questions are raised then answered in that sermon...at least for me.

The point was not to refute that the father's "sin nature" is transmitted, but that the "sin nature" is transmitted solely by the father. I think the refutation pointed in the right direction. As far as I know, that idea is not taught in the Bible. Why would we think the mother doesn't transmit her "sin nature"? She's much more intimately connected to the child's flesh than the father. The only Scripture I can think of that might support the "father only " theory is Gen 5:3 because it says that Seth was begotten in the "image" and "likeness" of Adam, not Eve. But that's not much from which to build a doctrine. It seems that some people also use Rom 5:12, but I've never read an explanation of why, just a citation of the verse as if it were self evident.

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific refutation" since I have never heard of any science that could locate the "sin nature" in the structure of the cells or in DNA. I think the burden of proof is on those who would suggest it could be found there.

I guess I'm still trying to understand where you are coming from.

Me too!

Are you saying that parents do not pass on DNA and genes that determines the body and the self?

Absolutely not! Of course I believe we inherit traits from our parents, both physically in DNA and habitually in life style. But that is not determinative of who we are. Just look at identical twins. There is a third factor beyond Nature/Nurture that I call Moral Agency. The choices we make are strongly influenced, but determined by only nature and nurture.

It seems that we are in some way skirting original sin as this issue is discussed.

My original idea was to explore the possibility that "Sin Nature" has no explanatory power, and does not correspond to anything in the real world. Most people say we sin because we have a sin nature. This seems to be false because Adam and Eve sinned without a sin nature. Also, it feels like saying "the devil made me do it" rather recognizing our personal responsibility. I am looking for an understanding of the Bible that feels true and integrated with reality in a deep organic way. It may be that "sin nature" is taught in the Bible, but if it is, it seems obvious that its not obvious, or someone would have just pointed me to chapter and verse. Correct?

But is there any doubt we inherit likenesses to our parents including predispositions, mannerisms and similar bodily features? This is indisputable.

Agreed, as stated above.

Why then is it so hard to believe that Cain and Able inheritied the fallen nature of their dad and mom?

Because when you say "fallen nature" you mean "sin nature" and I have not determined if there is such a thing as "sin nature." Just changing the words doesn't help.

As for "fallen nature" - that is a phrase I can use if we understand it properly. Obviously we are fallen from communion with God. And so we sin because we are born of the flesh, and the flesh can not be subject to the law of God (Rom 8.7). So the fact that we are flesh out of communion with God explains everything, including the first sin in the Garden. What do we need the phrase "sin nature" for? Does it not mislead us to believe that something has been "added to the system"? If we can explain everything in terms of flesh vs spirit, then why do we need to introduce a third "entity" called "sin nature"?

An excellent help would be if you could show me that "flesh vs. spirit" is insufficient to properly understand the problem of sin.

They were not born perfect, but with a warped human nature as I explained above. When Adam and Eve sinned their spirits were disconnected from God's Spirit. God originally created their spirits to be in union with His Spirit. In this pristine condition they naturally had dominion over ALL of their selfish and bodily desires.

This is a perfect explanation in terms of flesh vs. spirit. I notice you did not need to mention "sin nature".

When they fell, both self and body asserted their desires over a spirit without God's spirit. That was the nature Cain and Abel were born with. They inherited a nature where self and body were preeminent and their spirits without God were secondary. That is what we call the 'carnal' nature or sin nature and is what Paul refers to in Romans.

Why not say "That was the condition Cain and Abel were born in." That seems to have a different spin. We then don't have a magical/mystical transformation that created a new substance called "sin nature."

If a person is not born perfect like Adam or Jesus, then they are born with a human nature that is predisposed to follow the appetites and desires of both self and body since they are born with a spirit disconnected from God.

Again, a perfect explanation of everything in terms of flesh vs. spirit. The flesh without the spirit connected to God is "predisposed to follow the appetites and desires". No need to say they were "born with a human nature that..." because the human nature, before the first sin, was such that it was predisposed to follow its own appetites. Eve saw that the fruit was desirable ... she acted in her flesh, obviously out of communion with God, since otherwise she could not have sinned.

That is not abstraction...that is a fact. Human nature cannot be perfected but it can be changed.....and it is when person receives Christ and is given the Holy Spirit to indwell their human spirit. At that point God restores the proper way we were made to function... with the spirit dominating the appetites and desires of both body and self (soul). A saved person now walks in the Spirit/spirit and when the body and selfish desires seek to go against God's will and law a justified man makes those thoughts and desires captive to God's Word.

That's what I believe - its all explained by flesh vs spirit.

I would argue that we do need an abstraction called a "sin nature" since the way Paul uses the word "flesh" means exactly that! Paul is not just referring to the body when he uses the word "sarx". He uses "soma" to refer to the body. He is also referring to the self which has a mind of its own since the spirit of flesh is disconnected to God.

This would be a good point to camp on for a while. A deep word study of the various meanings of flesh. Of course, we will need to derive the meanings from Scripture (exegesis). We are not allowed to import the concept of "sin nature" and then say "there it is!" (eisogesis).

May I ask you what you mean by: "...the flesh is real, it can be perfected." ? Do you mean the body???

Yes, the resurrected body will be perfect! Praise God! I can hardly wait ... Jesus had a body described as "flesh and bone" after his resurrection.

I personally think this is what is causing the confusion. Briefly, I believe the Scriptures teach that Jesus was born with a human nature like Adam and unlike every other human being ever born. He was conceived without any predispositions or tendencies or DNA to sin. He was born perfectly connected to God, His Father. But this is a matter deserving a thread of its own. See this link for a brief idea of how Jesus was different from all other 'born' humans: the sinlessness of Christ

I agree with everything you just said (if we let arguments about the meaning of "human nature" slide for now). When you say "He was born perfectly connected to God, His Father" I say YES! That's what I've been saying is the true explanation of the whole sin problem. Adam and Eve fell out of communion with God when they sinned, and we are born now as fleshly creatures with a "dead spirit" like a "dead electrical circuit" that can not carry the "current" of God's Life because it has been severed.

As for the meaning of "flesh" - first, it is the literal stuff humans are made of, and second, it is the aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world, as opposed to God. There are other shades of meaning, but this post is already too big so I'll let it rest there.

Couldn't help yourself could you my friend? You know there is more than just a body to our "nature" when you say there "is an aspect of ourselves that is oriented towards the world", and "there are other shades of meaning".

MY BAD! My only excuse is that I was really tired after writing so much, and didn't feel like explaining myself further at that moment. Sorry!

This is why I avoid forums. It's not that I'm not pushed and sharpened which is excellent and you brother are strong iron....it's the time I must spend to slowly type and think through this deep stuff. But I don't see any other way when talking about God and His Word. And I'm wordy as it is.

Wordy? Naahhh.

I just attended a Graham Cooke conference. He has a little book "Towards a powerful Inner Life". Short read and powerful. Check it out: grahamcooke.com He does a good job of a modern way of explaining the inner nature of man.

Thanks for the tip.

God bless you Brother Bob! Excellent help in sorting this all out.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, as you continue to consider the issue of "sin nature", the term, in my opinion, is one that attempts to define our human problem of sin's influence by using a term that cannot be located in scripture.

So, as is your practice, in locating specific scripture to help us along the way, you quoted a section of Paul's I Corinthian letter where Adam and Christ are again compared. That is surely a very good place to search.

Hi Joel,

Thanks for digging into the Greek. Its really important for any true understanding of what God intended in Scripture. You made very helpful observations. It is interesting that they link to Bob's last post where he talked about the creation of Adam in Gen 2.7 and said "man wasn't given a soul, he is a soul." I expanded on his observation, and talked about the nephesh chayah (living soul). Now when that was translated into Greek in the LXX, that phrase became "psuche zosa" which is the exact term used to describe Adam in 1 Cor 15:45, which you quoted above.

So ... since we are talking about "human nature" I think perhaps we are supposed to be comparing the "natural nature" - psuchikos - verses the spiritual nature - pneumatikos.

And suddenly, 1 Cor 15 comes into focus. Though the technical term "phusis" (nature) is not used there, the whole latter part of the chapter is a comparison of the various "natures" of things:

1 Corinthians 15:39-40 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another ..

I think this chapter will be a key to the understanding ..

Now I have a new question: What is the range of relations between sarx and psuche?

Psuche is quite rare in Scripture relative to sarx. But it does carry a bit of the "sarx" overtone, as in James 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual (psuchike), devilish.

One thing I'm trying to understand is the way sin is talked about, almost as if it is a conscious entity with a will of its own, as in Romans 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Any ideas on thes would be helpful.

[Rose]

Desires of the flesh verses Sin Nature

I've been following this thread since it started and find the discussion fascinating, so I guess I'll jump in and add a few thoughts that seem to fit.

Adam was created with a spiritual connection to God, called communion. When Adam fell, that communion was cut off and consequentially all of mankind was cut off from communion with God, till Jesus came, having perfect communion with God, His Father so through Jesus we are justified and restored to right standing with God.

Romans 5:9 ' Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.'

Now our communion with God is through Christ, and even though we can still fall into sin, thus temporally breaking our communion with God, we are not cast away.

John 6:37 ' All that the father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.'

What is helpful for me is to define just exactly what changed in the human makeup of Adam and Eve after they were banned from the garden. If I break things down into their simplest parts I can grasp their meaning much easier. So I took the common elements pertaining to Adam ( the first man ) Mankind ( all of us ) and Jesus ( the Word made flesh ). I find we all have God given desires in our flesh which can be tempted. That is the tendency we all have to act upon our desires outside of communion with God, that is sin, that is why we can be tempted by Satan. Adam and Eve were created by God with the same desires that we have.

Gen 3: 6 ' So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise….'

The desire we have for food can be abused when we become gluttons, and the desires we have for things that feel good can be bad for us if its used in the wrong way, without God guiding us.

Galatians 6:1 ' Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.'

If Adam couldn’t have been tempted, Satan would not have tried and Adam would never have eaten of the forbidden fruit and lost communion with God. And if Jesus could not have been tempted, then His 40 days in the wilderness, being tempted by Satan would have been meaningless.

Matt 4:1 ' Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.'

The one thing that changed after the fall, is communion with God, and the only way that could be restored was through Jesus who was born having perfect communion with God. Not marred by the fall of Adam, which has affected all our lives and caused a permanent break in our communion with God, except through the atoning blood of Christ restoring us to communion with God.

Which I think is the ultimate reason and purpose of our lives, communion with God.

[Abigail]

What is the significance of the virgin birth then if you reject the notion of 'sin nature'?

Are you making a distinction between something definite being there (a sin nature which causes us to sin) and something being missing (flesh and blood on its own) ie
Eve was made out of a piece of Adam so she had something of his in her It says in Genesis that God breathed life into Adam but it doesnt say this about Eve so I assume she got her God-breath from being taken out of Adam. There has to surely be something we get from our fathers that Jesus couldnt get either because he had already got that something (the breath of God maybe ...being pre -exixtent and God) or else what we get from our fathers is already 'dead' and Jesus needed to be 'alive' to demonstrate that Adam was capable of not sinning if he'd wanted to.

I notice in the Bible somewhere it says Eve became the mother of all the living ...is this perhaps a reference to our flesh. The Bible says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ...this implies to me there has to be something more ie flesh/blood plus something more. So then if all we really get to work with is flesh from our mothers and something broken from our fathers then we only really have the flesh portion which is neutral in and of itself though easily fails us because we need something more (the part we ideally shouldve got from our fathers if Adam hadnt sinned). So perhaps you are right that it is not sin nature(since this speaks of something active) that is impeeding us but that flesh and blood on its own is not enough for us in that it is weak

[Brother Bob]

Excellent post Rose. Thank you. It is amazing that Adam and Eve could and DID sin. I guess the same is true of Satan. Communion with God was and still is our destiny. Got prayer?

Joel, thanks for your thoughts. You don't seem to be in a hurry with this subject like I am.

Richard, I know we will have to go to the exegesis of words. But a highly theological word like TRINITY isn't in the Bible either but it's used as a way to explain 'the nature' of God. I see that NIV has 'sin nature' in the place of 'flesh' in its translation. I have problems with NIV translations, but I believe that in this case they have captured the 'idea' of how Paul was using 'flesh'. However, they are wrong to inject theology. They should just use "flesh".

Btw, I'm not frustrated with you Richard, as much as I am with my power of persuasion.

Should I post a thread on the human nature of Jesus? Rereading Richard's first post I see that is relevant to this idea of flesh vs. sin nature. I mean if we call the flesh ...'sin nature'....then we are in some way attributing sin to Christ. So forgetting using 'sin nature' for the moment...was Jesus born in 'the flesh' like all the children of Adam??? Did He inherit the fallen nature/flesh of Mary?

I have never heard any indepth discussion of the nature of Christ in church or on religious forums. Why?

God bless everyone as we all sort out these things. God is with us. Have a great day one and all.