Sin nature

[Sam]

I may not agree with Bro. Blume on everything
but I'm not smart enough to argue with him.
He does his homework and only speaks after well-thought out study.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Sam

I may not agree with Bro. Blume on everything
but I'm not smart enough to argue with him.
He does his homework and only speaks after well-thought out study.

Ditto

Genisis 3:6
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, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Did Adam know that the fruit Eve gave him was from the forbidden tree ? Or did she not tell him ?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sam

I may not agree with Bro. Blume on everything
but I'm not smart enough to argue with him.
He does his homework and only speaks after well-thought out study.

Please do not think that I do not think I might be wrong.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Please do not think that I do not think I might be wrong.

Oh, I do not think you are infallible.
You have admitted that you have changed your mind on stuff.
I really appreciate that honesty.
Some grab ahold of an opinion and refuse to ever consider any alternative from then on.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

Oh, I do not think you are infallible.
You have admitted that you have changed your mind on stuff.
I really appreciate that honesty.
Some grab ahold of an opinion and refuse to ever consider any alternative from then on.

I had a pastor, Frank E. Curts, who was considered a "Bible Teacher" back in the day when pastors used charts, etc to teach. That was back before power point. He had a book out on the Tabernacle that was distributed by the UPC Publishing House at one time but is not longer available as far as I know. His teaching on Daniel, Revelation, and Prophecy was a combination of Larkin and that Seventh Day Adventist book (don't remember the name of it). Two things that impressed me about his teaching on prophecy were: 1) there is nothing new in the Book of Revelation. It is all found somewhere else also. and 2) he said he would never put any teaching on Revelation in writing because he changed his mind at times.

[Sam]

We have differences here on just about everything. I think we see the diversity in the Body of Christ displayed here on AFF.

On April 13, 20ll Bro. David Bernard posted the following on facebook:
"We need unity on the essentials of the faith, but we must allow for a diversity of views on end-time prophecy."

[Austin]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Adam and Jesus both had a human nature. They both had free will as preordained in the foreknowledge of God. Yet Jesus is different... Jesus had the absolute fullness of the divine nature. Adam didn't. Thus Adam could choose to sin. For Jesus, it would be against His very nature to do so. And glory to God... we can now be partakers in that very same divine nature that makes us "new creatures", whereby we are fashioned into the very image of Christ.

Exactly what my point was.

[Austin]

MY point is not be be rude or indifferent with anyone. I know some of our opinions on theology subject matter is different and we will disagree. I don't think that Brother Blume is some false prophet I think he is a man of God and knows the Lord as his personal savior. And I give him personal credit for his commitment in studies of the word. However, my rebuttal to the Adam and Jesus comparisons is reflecting the content not only on this post but the other which is dealing with the same issues. It wasn't intended toward Mike and his posts.
There was a suggestion reflecting in several of the articles in the posts, that Jesus had a nature which was sinful. That to me is that walking on the border of blasphemy.
I personally am not offended by what someone thinks about the nature of Adam.
I think his nature then when he was created was no different than ours today when we are born.
For someone to make a choice that they are going against the will of god by premeditation of the act, and then do it. That is a witness that the person who will do this did not have a sinful nature after the fact. They may have become more sinful as time allowed. I believe that the problem in the nature of Adam was already there before the incident presented itself. And that problem was this, he was simply weak in spirit to resist sin's temptation.
Now, that is the only point that I'm trying to make here. When Jesus was created in the flesh by a divine method and did not have the possibility to sin. For the word says it is impossible for God to sin. To me that means, Jesus had no nature to sin, no desire to sin, and there was no conditions presented that would have ever made him sin.
When we are born again by the power of God, we now have that nature in the spiritual ream of our being that will not sin, has no desire to sin, and cannot be made to sin. Sin now appears and manifested itself in our flesh through the temptations and desires of our mind and body.
That is my only point and none other.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Austin

Exactly what my point was.

But having free will in Adam does not mean Adam had a fallen nature in his creation. And just because Adam did not have fullness of divine nature in him does not mean Adam had a sinful nature.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Austin

MY point is not be be rude or indifferent with anyone. I know some of our opinions on theology subject matter is different and we will disagree. I don't think that Brother Blume is some false prophet I think he is a man of God and knows the Lord as his personal savior. And I give him personal credit for his commitment in studies of the word. However, my rebuttal to the Adam and Jesus comparisons is reflecting the content not only on this post but the other which is dealing with the same issues. It wasn't intended toward Mike and his posts.
There was a suggestion reflecting in several of the articles in the posts, that Jesus had a nature which was sinful. That to me is that walking on the border of blasphemy.
I personally am not offended by what someone thinks about the nature of Adam.
I think his nature then when he was created was no different than ours today when we are born.

It cannot be true that Adam had the same nature we have since we have a bend towards sin, though, because that means God created man with inability to do good, like Paul said he had the will but not the power to do good. This makes God cruel because it means God created man to sin and then God demanded man not sin. It makes no sense and makes God cruel. I do not think you intend to see God as being like that, but I am trying to show that this is the only conclusion your idea pushes you, and therefore it cannot be a correct idea.

For someone to make a choice that they are going against the will of god by premeditation of the act, and then do it. That is a witness that the person who will do this did not have a sinful nature after the fact.

I disagree. He simply disagreed with God.

They may have become more sinful as time allowed. I believe that the problem in the nature of Adam was already there before the incident presented itself. And that problem was this, he was simply weak in spirit to resist sin's temptation.

Adam had full ability to resist sin. he simply chose not to.

Now, that is the only point that I'm trying to make here. When Jesus was created in the flesh by a divine method and did not have the possibility to sin. For the word says it is impossible for God to sin.

I disagree with your reasoning here as well. GOD cannot sin, but Jesus was more than God. he was also a human with human nature. And JESUS COULD HAVE SINNED.

Watch this: God cannot be tempted, the bible says. But JESUS WAS TEMPTED in Matt 4:1. How can God not be tempted and yet Jesus was God and was tempted. It was because the GOD nature of Him was not tempted, it was only his humanity that was tempted. If Jesus was tempted then something in Him wanted to sin. Does that mean Jesus had a sinful nature? Of course not. No different than Adam. Wanting to sin is not having a sinful nature. Not being able to resist sin is having a sinful nature. And Adam could resist it as well as Jesus could. In fact, I believe Jesus in his humanity proved Adam could have resisted sin since Jesus was made like Adam, and Adam was a figure of Jesus who was to come (Romans 5).

To me that means, Jesus had no nature to sin, no desire to sin, and there was no conditions presented that would have ever made him sin.

Jesus could have sinned and had desire to sin, because He was tempted. That is not a sinful nature, though. It's like an alcoholic versus someone who is not an alcoholic. A non-alcoholic can be tempted to drink alcohol.

When we are born again by the power of God, we now have that nature in the spiritual ream of our being that will not sin, has no desire to sin, and cannot be made to sin. Sin now appears and manifested itself in our flesh through the temptations and desires of our mind and body.
That is my only point and none other.

And I merely disagree with that and have an opinion that differs. Why? Because my opinion is that your view makes God cruel and makes God a maker of Adam's sinful nature and tells Adam to not sin when He made Adam to sin.

Anyway, I doubt I will change your mind, so we can leave it at that between our views. No offense intended.