Something interesting about gays.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Luke

Yes when I said correct I was agreeing with you statement of freedom from sinning and freedom from desire of sin.

Here are three illustrations that show that we can be tempted without having a carnal fallen nature:
1. Adam and Eve were created without a fallen sinful nature yet were tempted and fell.

2. Lucifer was created without a fallen nature and he fell along with a third of the angels.

Do you have scripture for either of these assertions? Chapter and verse, please.

3. Jesus was born without a fallen nature and yet He also was tempted but He did not sin.

These examples show beyond a doubt that one does not require a fallen nature unordered to be tempted or even unordered to fall to temptation. To say that Jesus had to desire sin unordered to be tempted to sin is to say that when satan offered Him all the Kingdoms of the world if Jesus would simply now down and worship satan is to therein,e Jesus was tempted with satanic worship for gain He desired to sin in this way!!!! To say that is crazy! From the temptations of Jesus alone we see that that temptation without the desire to sin is possible.

What about Job when his wife said curse God and die. Do you actually think Job desired to curse God?

The examples could go on on but these should suffice.

You are confusing someone "testing" another person (which is the sense in which Satan tested Jesus and Job's wife tested him) and a person being enticed and drawn away by their OWN lusts (desires). They are two completely different concepts. I can set up a trap and "test" my husband's fidelity based on my own doubt of his faithfulness; however, he will only be TEMPTED by that option if he finds the option appealing. Otherwise, my "tempting" of him is not a temptation at all to HIM.

Are you substituting "fallen nature" for "human nature?"

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Wow, that gave me a headache having to read that.

But, you reminded me of a funny conversation I had with my husband. I said, "I don't want to do things wrong - ever. I always want to be good." His reply, "I want to be bad, but God won't let me."

LOL!!! That's great!

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I can agree with Jesus being born without a fallen nature as he was God manifest in flesh.

But, how do you know that Adam, Even and Satan were created without a fallen nature? Genesis 1:31 says God beheld everything He made and called it good, couldn't the good also mean within his creative plan? If they had a choice between obedience and disobedience, that would seem they had a fallen nature present that they must chose between.

And Genesis 3:6 says, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat...."

The ideas of being wise and eating a fruit that was "pleasant to the eyes" and "good for food" were appealing to Eve; otherwise the temptation wouldn't have worked at all. The scripture could have read, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she turned her back on the tree and walked away...." At that point, even though she had inwardly felt and acknowledged a desire for the fruit, she would have walked away sinless. This is where I'm disagreeing with Luke. He believes that temptation does not equate "desire." I do agree with you that Satan deceived Eve.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Do you have scripture for either of these assertions? Chapter and verse, please.



You are confusing someone "testing" another person (which is the sense in which Satan tested Jesus and Job's wife tested him) and a person being enticed and drawn away by their OWN lusts (desires). They are two completely different concepts. I can set up a trap and "test" my husband's fidelity based on my own doubt of his faithfulness; however, he will only be TEMPTED by that option if he finds the option appealing. Otherwise, my "tempting" of him is not a temptation at all to HIM.

Are you substituting "fallen nature" for "human nature?"



LOL!!! That's great!



And Genesis 3:6 says, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat...."

The ideas of being wise and eating a fruit that was "pleasant to the eyes" and "good for food" were appealing to Eve; otherwise the temptation wouldn't have worked at all. The scripture could have read, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she turned her back on the tree and walked away...." At that point, even though she had inwardly felt and acknowledged a desire for the fruit, she would have walked away sinless. This is where I'm disagreeing with Luke. He believes that temptation does not equate "desire." I do agree with you that Satan deceived Eve.

That Adam and Eve created without a fallen carnal nature is obvouis in that how could they have had a fallen nature before they fell?

As to scripture for Adam and Eve being created without fallen carnal nature:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold , it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Romans 5:12 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:

Sin did not enter the world and did not taint mans nature until after the fall. To say that man was created with a fallen nature/a nature tainted with sin is to say that sin entered the world through God not through th e fall of man.

As to scripture that states Lucifer was created without a sinful nature:

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. note note note

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Luke

That Adam and Eve created without a fallen carnal nature is obvouis in that how could they have had a fallen nature before they fell?

Are you interchanging "fallen nature" and "human nature?" Obviously they possessed the ability to sin AND the propensity for it, because they were tempted and they gave in to the temptation.

No, they weren't yet "fallen"; however, God created them with free will. So is it your assertion that born again Christians are similar in nature to Adam and Eve before the fall? Meaning, they lack the "fallen" human nature? I'm not sure how this really argues against anything I've said, though, because even if you are right and they lacked a "fallen nature" or "carnal nature", they still were tempted and gave into the temptation. That would illustrate that even withOUT a fallen nature, humans then have the ability to be both tempted and to sin.

As to scripture for Adam and Eve being created without fallen carnal nature:Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold , it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Romans 5:12 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:

Sin did not enter the world and did not taint mans nature until after the fall. To say that man was created with a fallen nature/a nature tainted with sin is to say that sin entered the world through God not through th e fall of man.

Yet...even though they had no fallen nature, they could still be tempted and sin? How does this argue against anything I've said about a Christian's ability to be tempted and sin?

As to scripture that states Lucifer was created without a sinful nature:

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. note note note

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

You're sort of disproving your own assertions here. You're showing how people and creatures without a fallen nature can be tempted and sin. You can't then turn around and try to use that to prove that Christians don't have a fallen nature and therefore can't be tempted or sin. Obviously, by this logic, temptation and sin can happen without a fallen nature being present.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Luke

That Adam and Eve created without a fallen carnal nature is obvouis in that how could they have had a fallen nature before they fell?

How could Eve, who had already been instructed not to touch the tree, have a pure uncarnal nature, when she listened to Satan, looked at the tree, approached it, picked the fruit and ate it?

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

How does this prove Satan was created without a fallen carnal nature. It appears it was present with him and something sparked him to bring it out in the open.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Are you interchanging "fallen nature" and "human nature?" Obviously they possessed the ability to sin AND the propensity for it, because they were tempted and they gave in to the temptation.

No, they weren't yet "fallen"; however, God created them with free will. So is it your assertion that born again Christians are similar in nature to Adam and Eve before the fall? Meaning, they lack the "fallen" human nature? I'm not sure how this really argues against anything I've said, though, because even if you are right and they lacked a "fallen nature" or "carnal nature", they still were tempted and gave into the temptation. That would illustrate that even withOUT a fallen nature, humans then have the ability to be both tempted and to sin.



Yet...even though they had no fallen nature, they could still be tempted and sin? How does this argue against anything I've said about a Christian's ability to be tempted and sin?



You're sort of disproving your own assertions here. You're showing how people and creatures without a fallen nature can be tempted and sin. You can't then turn around and try to use that to prove that Christians don't have a fallen nature and therefore can't be tempted or sin. Obviously, by this logic, temptation and sin can happen without a fallen nature being present.

Your last statement is my exact point a person can be tempted and even fall even without a fallen nature I have never argued against that instead that is my argument.
What I am arguing is that it is possible to be tempted but not drawn to sin in other words I can be tempted but if my carnal nature is removed then I have no desire to sin therefore it is easier to love Christian life because the inward pull of sin and the world is gone.

Also earlier you spoke of my illustration of Jesus temptation as simply a test as if that made it somehow not apply to us (mainly imho because you if you agreed it applied to our temptation then you either had to admit that we can be tempted and not desire sin or say that Jesus was drawn to satanic worship for gain quite conundrum admit that your argument is wrong or agree with blasphemy lol) but James says that the point of temptation is to try our faith so if Jesus temptation was simply to try Him then it was just like ours according to James:

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
1:3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Luke

Your last statement is my exact point a person can be tempted and even fall even without a fallen nature I have never argued against that instead that is my argument.
What I am arguing is that it is possible to be tempted but not drawn to sin in other words I can be tempted but if my carnal nature is removed then I have no desire to sin therefore it is easier to love Christian life because the inward pull of sin and the world is gone.

I feel like you're talking in circles. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe the desire to sin is itself sin; you do, so you're going to great lengths to prove that a Christian won't have any desire for sin. Unreasonable lengths, IMO.

Also earlier you spoke of my illustration of Jesus temptation as simply a test as if that made it somehow not apply to us... but James says that the point of temptation is to try our faith so if Jesus temptation was simply to try Him then it was just like ours according to James:

No, I'm saying that it's two different concepts--two sides of the coin.

1. The idea of another person setting out to "tempt" or "test" another, and
2. The idea of a person being tempted due to their own particular, inherent lusts or weaknesses.

I can set out to tempt another person (or tempt God), but that doesn't mean it will qualify as a temptation on their side of the equation. I could say (as scripture does) that I "tempted" that person or "tempted God", but that was a description of MY actions; not necessarily their RESPONSE to my action.

Additionally, I am saying that the scenario where Satan tempted Jesus would fall into the category of Satan testing Jesus; that is a different concept from the idea that Jesus was actually tempted by Satan's challenge. You seem to agree that they are two different things, since you don't believe Jesus was actually tempted by what Satan was offering, either. Right?

However, when scripture says that Jesus was tempted in all points, like as we are, that's talking about things that Jesus actually FELT. I suppose you could say that it means He was presented with the same opportunities to sin that we are, but the scripture implies that He actually FELT the same "infirmities" (weaknesses) that we do. That's deeper than simply passing up an opportunity with ease. It implies that He at least felt the conflict in the human part of Himself.

...(mainly imho because you if you agreed it applied to our temptation then you either had to admit that we can be tempted and not desire sin or say that Jesus was drawn to satanic worship for gain quite conundrum admit that your argument is wrong or agree with blasphemy lol)

For the record, I don't appreciate you accusing me of being disingenuous. I don't argue an argument simply because I don't want you to be able to prove me wrong. I argue what I truly believe. Period.

[Luke]

My apology as to my statement in the parenthesis it was a little much. First of all though I do not think the desire to sin or the pull to sin is actual sin it is simply the sin nature manifesting it self. My point is that Jesus can and does remove our carnal nature.

As to the temptation of Jesus weather or not you agree that the illustration that I used shows temptation without the desire to act upon that temptation really makes no difference because to say that the only way a person can be tempted is if he desires what is offered still falls short because the Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are therefore according to your argument at some point He desired sin. Unless I am missing something.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Luke

...First of all though I do not think the desire to sin or the pull to sin is actual sin it is simply the sin nature manifesting it self. My point is that Jesus can and does remove our carnal nature.

I agree with the bolded portion; you're losing me with the second part, though.

...As to the temptation of Jesus weather or not you agree that the illustration that I used shows temptation without the desire to act upon that temptation really makes no difference because to say that the only way a person can be tempted is if he desires what is offered still falls short because the Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are therefore according to your argument at some point He desired sin. Unless I am missing something.

I'm saying that the latter portion of your paragraph here and the first portion are two different descriptions of temptation; the first shows an outside force offering temptation, quite ineffectively. The second is a scripture about Jesus feeling the same weaknesses (infirmities) that we do; I see those as two different concepts.

My opinion about what comprises the second type of temptation is based on scripture. James 1:14 says that when we are tempted, it is when we are "drawn away of [our] own lust, and enticed." The word "lust" simply means "desire, craving, longing...."

So are you saying that Jesus was tempted in all points like we are but not in the way that James describes it? If not in that way, then you are seeing Him as being tempted in all points like we are, but only in the same way He was tempted by Satan--with a simple opportunity for sin.

What do you think of this scripture?

Romans 7:21-25

"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

It seems to me that Paul firmly believes that there is a current, ongoing struggle between his flesh and the Spirit.

FYI, I am aware that in chapter 8 he goes on to discuss how we can "mortify" the deeds of the flesh and walk after the Spirit. I believe that, too--that we can conquer the flesh by walking after the Spirit. However, that doesn't mean there is no struggle. What Paul describes isn't an easy thing, but a struggle--a war between the law of his mind and the "law in [his] members." He seems to be describing the war of carnal nature versus Spirit.

Further, what do you do with these scriptures (written to Christians, btw)?

I John 1:8-9 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The important thing is that he DID NOT sin. Him being God had a lot to do with that...

I think it's pretty much a moot point to argue shoulda coulda woulda... He didn't - He was the Only Begotten.

YES!!!! Well said, Hoovie....this is my belief, as well.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Luke

My apology as to my statement in the parenthesis it was a little much. First of all though I do not think the desire to sin or the pull to sin is actual sin it is simply the sin nature manifesting it self. My point is that Jesus can and does remove our carnal nature.

I believe that the carnal nature of the born again believer is removed from the spirit.

I believe that man is body, soul, and spirit. When one is born again the Holy Spirit comes to reside in a person's spirit (their inner man). They're one spirit with the Lord. Therefore, the carnal nature of the "spirit" of a man is removed and replaced with the righteousness of God. This is "regeneration".

However, the body and the soul are not yet regenerated. This will happen at the rapture when we are glorified. Until then the carnal nature of the body and the soul remain.

Definition of Terms:

- Body (Grk. Soma): The physical/biologial aspect of man.
- Soul (Grk. Psuche/Psyche): The mental/emotional aspect of a man; mind.
- Spirit Grk. Pneuma/Breath): The living essence, or life force, of a man.

Upon being born again the...

...spirit is regenerated and given a new nature.
...the soul must be renewed daily through study and meditation on God's Word.
...the body must be governed through the surrendered will, as it relates to the indwelling Holy Ghost.

This is why the body might still have sinful desires. The mind (your soul) if not in the right place might cave in and justify the sin to appease the flesh. And when the sin is committed... you have done something alien to the new nature of your spirit. This is why you feel such guilt, shame, remorse, depression, and anguish over personal sin. You are not living in tune with the new nature of your inner man. Guilt and shame after having sinned is actually a sign of having been born again and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

This is also why, although having a new nature (with regards to the inner man), we have sinful desires and proclivities that come from the flesh and wrong thinking. This is why we are still subject to hormones, hormonal imbalances, disease, genetic malidies, psychosis, and emotional issues... even though we are born again.

For the born again Christian true happiness, contentment, and peace only comes by aligning the behaviors of our body and the thoughts of our soul with the new nature residing in our spirits (the Holy Ghost). When these things are not in alignment fear, depression, guilt, shame, condemnation, and dozens of other negative emotions develope. Repentance is essentially aligning our entire being with the nature of the indwelling Holy Ghost residing in our inner man.

That's my take on it. God bless.