Who Created or Made a Sin Nature?

[face2face]

Of course, it's your prerogative to believe in whatever you like just as long as you think what you are believing is what God has declared.

He has a point.

 

[GEN2REV]

self awareness is surely helpful!

Eh!

God's people are a peculiar people.

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called."
1 Peter 2:9

One cannot truly seek, and follow the ways of, a God that is so unlike this world while being seen/accepted as being much like the world.

I'm very content being different.

And it affords a lot of peace.

 

[robert derrick]

God sure didn't say babies will burn in Hell. You did.

True. I read of a rich man, not of a wealthy baby.

 

[robert derrick]

And it's for you to know what that Word achieved in the Son of Man. Look into that man and you will see wonders beyond the falseness of the Trinity. You will see an authentic Gospel working in the mind of a Son who overcame sin's flesh and was highly exalted to a position he did not previously enjoy. An inheritance he did not previous possess. A name he did not previous have.
F2F

This is the pagan theology of a created christ, who did many heroic things on earth, and so was deified in heaven.

The new and last Herakles. Which is as false as the new and last prophet Mohamed.

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Son who overcame sin's flesh F2F

What is sin's flesh? I read in Scripture of man's sins, and the soul sinning, but nothing about sin's flesh and the flesh sinning.

This is the animated theology of personified sin and being, that inhabits the flesh of men and women.

 

[robert derrick]

No, I'm pretty sure I referenced the Wheat and Tares doctrine of Matthew 13 in our very first exchange on this topic.

To which I responded, and the conclusion is simple: you first suggested the devil is the maker of flesh and blood with sin in it. Then you tried making God the Creator of sinful babes from the womb.

And I said I appreciated your effort.

It doesn't take much "effort" to completely ignore portions of someone's post in order to claim they're wrong.

True. Such as calling it a nice book and moving on.

First exchange I ever had with you here, you were vehemently arguing with me about a Christian's right to get drunk.

Obviously you are talking about someone else. Or just misshaping what I said.

We've agreed on a few things, but most of the time you seem to prefer finding a way to argue with people.

I only argue with those arguing with me. It takes two to tango. Until they begin to just repeat themselves without acknowledging my response, or they begin to find fault with the one disagreeing with them.

Such as here you have no more arguments to make, and I colnclude that neither devil nor God creates sinful sinners from the womb.

Both angels and men are created good and true by Christ, but with power to create their own lust against Him, and so any man can create lust for himself and make himself evil by sinning on earth.

Death passes upon all men by sinning, not by sin passing upon all flesh in the womb. If that were the case, then Jesus was a born sinner in the flesh like all men, because His body was prepared in the virgin with the seed of David, Abraham, Noah, Seth, and Adam.

I have made this point twice now, which you effortlessly ignore.

The Omnipotence and surety of Christ, is that He's not afraid of creating spiritual beings with free will of their own. And He certainly doesn't create any creature with the will set for sinning.

What is the psychology of that? Not really here to discuss Scripture, but more as a virtual outlet to assert power/dominance/control?

No one can discuss Scripture with another, except they agree. There a couple of people on this site that I have only agreed with, and we only add to one another's faith and knowledge of Scripture. That has happened a couple times with you, until now.

So when we disagree, there is no discussion, but a dispute of Scripture, which the apostles did as well, including rebuking one another, if necessary.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

And when doing so, we see who is mature or childish by how they respond to honest criticism, whether receiving or rejecting it honestly, or just take it personal.

You have failed to keep it professional, because you refuse to even acknowledge you are double minded in your effort to answer the simple question, of who is the maker and creator of sinner babes with sinful seed of man and sinful flesh of the woman's womb.

First you said the devil, then you say God. That's a pretty big leap from one to the other.

You don't even seem to want to get along with anybody.

Hmmm ... the jury's out.

The jury is in: of course not. Anyone on this site that wants to just make friends and get along, can go to the places provided for that as fellow Christians.

But those who want to just get alone over matters of the doctrine of Christ, by which we are saved, justified, and inherit His kingdom, have no place in His ministry.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

I do this because I love to, and I wish others would do the same, so they wouldn't get so pouty about being disagreed with.

People who refuse to be corrected, will never learn more than they already think they know.

I have been corrected in several ways for my own good, and I always acknowledge it, because it surprises me for the good, rather than upsets my feelings.

And so you have decided to make an end of this particular dispute, and I still thank you for the effort while it lasted.

Like Edison would say, we also learn more by how not to do it.

 

[TedT]

Actually, Adam and Eve acquired it, and we are in that position from birth. This natural state was/is passed from generation to generation from our first parents...

The concept of inherited sin means that sinners are created as sinners without any choice to rebel or to choose sin. This means they cannot be guilty of sin as there can be no guilt without mens rea, the intent to sin, yet they die and since death is the wages of sin, not a consequence of life, their death proves their sinfulness.

Also, since GOD cannot create evil, how can HE create a system, any system of creation, where by the created person is created as apart for HIM, as liable to the judgement and under the curse of death for sin???

A contradiction? No, a hint that we probably lived / existed before our earthly lives and chose to be sinful at that time after which we were sown into the world as per Matt 13:36-39.

This theological portrayal of our creation is called Pre-Conception Existence theology (PCE) and is not just a verse or two but is a whole, full, theology with some 3 dozen verse supports (NOT proofs!).

 

[TedT]

One Scripture says death has passed upon all men, for all have sinned, not because all are created with sin in the spirit or flesh of man.

But who then would this creator be?

This creator was YHWH, the one true LIVING GOD.

 

[robert derrick]

This creator was YHWH, the one true LIVING GOD.

Who is not the God of the dead but only the living, and so is Creator only of living souls in His image, not of sinners in the image of the devil.

PEC would be Christ creating each and every soul the same as Adam in the lowest parts of the earth, and then wrapping the first Adam in mortal flesh of dust, and now of the womb's flesh, which includes the 2nd Adam Jesus by the seed of David, Abraham, Noah, Seth, and Adam.

 

[TedT]

Our sin nature was not "given to us" or "placed upon us" in any way. But mankind did acquire the position of being at enmity with God and thus prone to sin through Adam's act of disobedience in Genesis 3.

No matter how you word it to soften the cognitive dissonance of such a stance, you cannot just choose any doctrine that supposedly solves the conundrum by doublethink...accepting that GOD cannot create evil but in our conception does indeed create evil people...as proven by the foetus being susceptible to death, the wage of sin, not a natural consequence of life.

Much better is the pce acceptance of our fall into sin before the foundation of the world by our own free will and our lives on earth in mankind are predetermined to be the best for to bring our self chosen sinful nature to a quick and full redemption and sanctification.

Light cannot create darkness.
A good tree cannot put forth rotten fruit.
A stream of life giving water cannot put forth salt or brackish water.
GOODNESS cannot bring forth evil.
Inherited sin or ANY sin by the will of GOD is anathema.

 

[TedT]

Agreed. Not born with it spiritually or naturally. No creator of it, and putting it into man's physical seed and flesh. It doesn't exist.

Of course our sinful nature enslaved to evil exists...it just was not created by GOD but by our own free will decision to rebel against HIM or one of HIS commands!

Our response to HIS proclamation of HIS deity and the gospel which we learned about in Colossians 1:23, was
1. to accept HIS claims fully and to chose to never sin, like the holy elect angels, or

2. to accept HIS claims for the time being but once safe from judgement and hell to go our own way against HIS commands, like His sheep gone astray into sin, or

3. to rebuke HIM as a liar about HIS claims and therefore a false god driven by an evil psychotic megalomania, thus sinning the unforgivable sin,

(to repeat: Our response...) was the cause of everyone, the #1s and 2s, who put their faith in HIM as GOD and saviour being elected to salvation or as a #3, condemned for sinning the unforgivable sin and, as a sinful #2, to be sown into the world with the #3 reprobate weeds for our redemption and sanctification as per Matt 13:36-39.

 

[robert derrick]

No matter how you word it to soften the cognitive dissonance of such a stance, you cannot just choose any doctrine that supposedly solves the conundrum by doublethink...accepting that GOD cannot create evil but in our conception does indeed create evil people...as proven by the foetus being susceptible to death, the wage of sin, not a natural consequence of life.

Much better is the pce acceptance of our fall into sin before the foundation of the world by our own free will and our lives on earth in mankind are predetermined to be the best for to bring our self chosen sinful nature to a quick and full redemption and sanctification.

Light cannot create darkness.
A good tree cannot put forth rotten fruit.
A stream of life giving water cannot put forth salt or brackish water.
GOODNESS cannot bring forth evil.
Inherited sin or ANY sin by the will of GOD is anathema.

I would only correct this by agreeing with Scripture that God does create evil, but does not create evil sinners from the womb.

He creates evil by creating people with power to choose evil, and so can create their own evil for themselves to do.

God creates all creatures good, but some creatures He creates with power to make themselves evil by doing it.

Without him creating such beings of free will, there could be no evil done at all.

The truth is that evil is only where evil is done. Evil is as evil does. So with doing good and righteousness.

It is not by mistake that the same people who teach a mythical sin nature to excuse their sinning, also teach a mystical righteousness without doing it.

 

[robert derrick]

Of course our sinful nature enslaved to evil exists...it just was not created by GOD but by our own free will decision to rebel against HIM or one of HIS commands!

Our response to HIS proclamation of HIS deity and the gospel which we learned about in Colossians 1:23, was
1. to accept HIS claims fully and to chose to never sin, like the holy elect angels, or

2. to accept HIS claims for the time being but once safe from judgement and hell to go our own way against HIS commands, like His sheep gone astray into sin, or

3. to rebuke HIM as a liar about HIS claims and therefore a false god driven by an evil psychotic megalomania, thus sinning the unforgivable sin,

(to repeat: Our response...) was the cause of everyone, the #1s and 2s, who put their faith in HIM as GOD and saviour being elected to salvation or as a #3, condemned for sinning the unforgivable sin and, as a sinful #2, to be sown into the world with the #3 reprobate weeds for our redemption and sanctification as per Matt 13:36-39.

I agree. Angels and men create their own lust to sin against God and His Word:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

sin does not enter in our lives, until we sin.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Lucifer created sin for himself first, but does not create it for others. He only tempts other angels and men to do the same as He.

 

[TedT]

Who is not the God of the dead but only the living, and so is Creator only of living souls in His image, not of sinners in the image of the devil.

HE is the GOD of all creation but the dead reject HIM as their God so HE can be considered to be not the GOD of the dead though HE created them.

HE created every person in HIS image, ie, perfectly able to be a Bride for HIM, with a free will* and an equal ability and opportunity to chose to put their faith in HIS claims to be our GOD and Saviour from sin or to to rebuke HIM as a liar and a false god, the unforgivable sin, self created in the image of the devil as you mention.

*No marriage which is forced upon the bride without her free will agreement to the marriage is a real marriage.

No love can be forced upon a person but must be a free will response to the prospective lover by the beloved person.

YHWH is not a Borg to be satisfied by a Stepford wife...our free will with the ability to rebuke HIM and become demonic is an absolute necessity.

 

[GEN2REV]

To which I responded, and the conclusion is simple: you first suggested the devil is the maker of flesh and blood with sin in it. Then you tried making God the Creator of sinful babes from the womb.

I don't know where you get your delusional ideas from. If I give you Scripture about a topic, that's not ME suggesting what the Scripture states.

Get it right.

Obviously you are talking about someone else. Or just misshaping what I said.

Negative. I rarely forget people or what we've discussed. It is on record if I need to look it up.

Both angels and men are created good and true by Christ

Not according to the Bible, Mr. Knows-it-all.

Your unrecognizable-to-you issue is that you're not right. And you don't align yourself with Scripture at all.

Many people here have issues with you because of how you interact.

A certain few dislike me because I am Rock-solid in my beliefs and I don't budge an inch, but there are also quite a number who do appreciate me for the same reasons.

I don't see any cordial qualities in you at all. All you do is argue and alienate people.

More power to ya. Clearly it's something that gives you contentment on some level, but nobody takes you very seriously because of it.

 

[face2face]

This is the pagan theology of a created christ, who did many heroic things on earth, and so was deified in heaven.

The new and last Herakles. Which is as false as the new and last prophet Mohamed.

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.



What is sin's flesh? I read in Scripture of man's sins, and the soul sinning, but nothing about sin's flesh and the flesh sinning.

This is the animated theology of personified sin and being, that inhabits the flesh of men and women.

It's about dominion and ownership robert.
In Romans 8:3 it's styled sin in the flesh or sinful flesh to mean our nature has a bias to sin and as such we die (Romans 6:23). Christ had the exact same nature as you. Accept or reject it - it doesn't matter because the Scripture is clear Hebrews 2:14-16.
F2F

 

[TedT]

I would only correct this by agreeing with Scripture that God does create evil, but does not create evil sinners from the womb.

He creates evil by creating people with power to choose evil, and so can create their own evil for themselves to do.

Please consider:
The creation of innocents , neither moral nor immoral, who can choose what they want with no coercions nor constraints upon them from GOD, is not creating evil if someone choose to be evil by choosing evil...

Yes, HE created the possibility of evil but since HE made no one chose evil, their choice to be evil in HIS sight is upon themselves, not upon HIM. Evil was generated by their mens rea, their decision to do evil in HIS sight against HIS stated desires for them.

 

[PinSeeker]

No matter how you word it to soften the cognitive dissonance of such a stance...

It is what it is. I'm not trying to soften anything, and there is no "cognitive dissonance" ~ perception is not reality.

you cannot just choose any doctrine that supposedly solves the conundrum by doublethink... accepting that GOD cannot create evil but in our conception does indeed create evil people...

God creates people who, as descendants of Adam, inherit the sinful nature that he took on as a result of the fall, despite God's warning not to do so.

Inherited sin or ANY sin by the will of GOD is anathema.

Well, I agree with the latter, but the former... it's not particular sin that's inherited from Adam, Ted, but the proneness to it, the state of the heart in need of redemption, even though possibly not yet having outwardly committed any sin. We can blame Adam, but still, the only solution is to believe in the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, God made man, by Whom we may be redeemed... to be no longer in Adam, but in Christ. As for our creation, because of this sinful nature that we all naturally have, God could have justly chosen not to create anyone, but He did so, and for His own glory, and chose to call some to Himself, to redeem them, and ultimately bring them from dust to glory.

We serve a great and awesome God. To Him along be the kingdom, the glory, and the power forever.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[TedT]

The so-called fallen nature is believed to be propagated by men. Oh? Then
whence did Eve obtain it?

Please consider that She was sinful when she was sown (Matthew 13:36-39) into her body taken from Adam's body. Let's look closely to see if there are any clues about this:

First:
Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything... which must(?) include the evil angels of the satanic rebellion who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.

It seems to me that this everything somehow includes these evil angels as very good or everything does not refer to some beings who existed and fell into sin before this earthly creation.

Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before his earthly life and fell into sin before his earthly body but IF HE DID he might not be included in the summation the everything that was very good, just like the evil angels are not included.

Second:
It is not proven that very good refers to a state of being and not to a purpose. If the purpose of God's creation of the earth was as a rehab centre for those addicted to evil, ie, a reform school to chasten, convert and sanctify His fallen sinful Church by teaching them to be righteous, Hebrews 12:5-11, then His creation of the earth for the purpose of the redemption of His church could indeed be called very good even though part of the church was already fallen and not doing so good.

The words of Genesis 2:18 are very familiar to us today:The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’” Have you ever considered the implication of this NOT GOODNESS being corrected before everything was judged to be VERY GOOD, verse 1:31? Does it not imply that GOD created something as not good?

How could Adam be alone when GOD was in full fellowship with him? How does the presence of GOD need to be augmented by someone else for Adam to be not alone?

Did HE make a mistake or did something change within HIS creation so Adam was alone in a bad way, that is, needing to be corrected? Do we not believe that the only thing that can separate us from GOD is the free will choice to be sinful, to rebel against HIM because GOD cannot create evil?

And how does GOD fix this not good? HE brings the animals to Adam to name them and to see if his helpmeet was among them: Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adame no suitable helper was found.

helper: S5828. ezer
Definition: a help, helper

suitable: S5048: neged:
in front of, in sight of, opposite to
Does anyone have a reason so many, ie, most, commentators of this verse leave out any reference to the word suitable, that is, “in front of, in sight of, opposite to” as to its meaning to the verse or to the English, suitable? It seems like a wild guess as to what it means here...

So Adam did not just need a companion (perhaps a wife as most commentators suggest?) but he needed help with something... and the help was not just a general help such as with his gardening job but a specialized, suitable, helping as by a teacher, mentor or example, maybe.

Does this need for a specialized helper impact at all upon the question: "Whose idea was it that Adam look among the animals for a his suitable, ie specialized, helper?" GOD knew HE had Eve in the wings for him so it must have been Adam's idea that an animal might be suitable, right? So why did GOD acquiesce to Adam's wanting to look among the animals for his helper instead of just telling him, "Nope, I got someone special for you!?" It seems like there was some separation between them after all, eh? Some lack of communication between GOD and HIS perfect, faithful, creation? Only a bit of miscommunication?

Or does it imply that Adam was not as he was created, ie perfect and faithful, but was being a little rebellious to GOD, ie, unfaithful in his heart against what GOD wanted for him? Does this story imply that Adam was sinful at this time in the garden? Was this why he and Eve were characterized as `RM, erm, that is, naked, the exact same word also used of the serpent to describe his being cunning in evil in the very next verse?

If so, then this cannot have been their creation because they had had time after their creation to understand GOD's commands and to break at least one of them to become sinful, that is, `rm.

If they were in fact merely unclothed and not sinful, then why when they ate were their eyes opened to their unclothedness, the unclothedness they had before they ate, as their sin and not to their eating as their sin?? What is sinful about being unclothed as GOD created you in the privacy of your own garden? Even if this is a euphemism for sex then how is it sinful when they were ordered to procreate? Nothing about this makes sense since being unclothed cannot be a sign of sinfulness?? !

Since the rabbis were convinced Adam and Eve were created in the garden, they rejected the idea they were already sinners when they arrived in the garden (GOD cannot create evil people - at least, not until HE needs to do so for some unknown reason, a reference to the inherited sin fiasco ...another blasphemy altogether...) so they interpreted `rm as naked, not cunning in evil though the spelling was exactly the same. The Church Fathers agreed with the Hebrew scholars and ignored the implications of this story. Eisegesis can be fun, eh?

I also have concerns how this story of the fall in the garden and not before fits with
Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc. which tells us clearly that the law was NOT given to the righteous to steer their decision but to the sinful to convict them of their sin,
Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. which suggests that the command to not eat was given to them as sinners to convict them of their sinfulness as it did, very well.

To sum up the hints that there was sin in the garden (not just in the serpent) before they ate:
1. It was not good that Adam was alone.
2. There is no reason for Adam to be looking amongst the animals for Eve if he was not being rebellious.
3. Adam and Eve are called `rm which is both naked or equally possible, cunning in evil.
4. They were given a command which implies that they were sinners needing to have their eyes opened to their sin to convict them so they could repent and return to Christ.
5. Then there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin and tempted Eve, the first to sin. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate.

The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from Sheol into his human body, Matthew 13:36-39, and as the first person in the garden was the first to bring evil into world.

 

[TedT]

But everyone is born with the same sinful nature ~ proneness/propensity to sin, and thus dead in sin, and in need of salvation.

NOT due to Adam's sin but due to their own free will choice to sin before the foundation of the world!

Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and ALL the sons of God shouted for joy? If you are a son of GOD then this implies that you were there singing your heart out at this proof of HIS divinity and power, Romans 1:18-20, which could never, actually has never been achieved by the mere study of nature's wonders...

 

[face2face]

Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything... which must(?) include the evil angels of the satanic rebellion who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.

It seems to me that this everything somehow includes these evil angels as very good or everything does not refer to some beings who existed and fell into sin before this earthly creation.

If you are implying divine angels can be evil then your interpretation is way off. Messengers here are human. We can hit this subject from a number of angles to prove this. Temptation to sin has its source in flesh and blood "only" as per James 1:14-16. With your above post you have marred your inheritance if you believe divine nature can sin. Now before you run off to Revelation which is the standard play...think about this carefully!

In an instance you have compromised your God for the divine decree of Romans 6:23 must fall equally on them as it does us! You get an unjust God otherwise.

Have another look at 2 Peter 2:4 and lets see if you are cognisant enough to ask the right questions in context.

F2F