Sin nature

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Austin

Well Mike as always your view is always the right view and you'll make sure that point is brought across, especially with those who disagree with other teachings of yours. And you can see that in the verbiage. If it could it would jump out and hit me.
I still maintain that Adam was not perfect, and there is no comparison with Adam and jesus. If Adam was like Jesus then he would not have yielded to temptation, or should I say, to something he knew was obvious wrong.
Adam was made exactly the way God intended him to be.
Doesn't God have foreknowledge of all things? If so did he not know what Adam and Eve were going to do? Then if he did, why didn't he make them more perfect, or give them power to overcome this thing, or even forward them that is was about to happen.
This entire debate is nothing more or less than personal theology.
Yes god created mankind in his likeness and in his image. Likeness and image both could reflect each other. It could mean in appearance and and have some of the same attributes as god has. For instance, a creative will.
If you want to maintain your perspective in this issue that's fine with me, but I don't view theology with confidence.

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.

[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.

[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

Well Mike as always your view is always the right view and you'll make sure that point is brought across, especially with those who disagree with other teachings of yours. And you can see that in the verbiage. If it could it would jump out and hit me.

I removed a paragraph I wrote in response to this since this should not be personal in any manner. Let's please drop the personal involvement. I take all the blame. Sorry if I offended you. But please answer some questions.

How can God not be treating mankind unfairly if you claim God made man sinful and then told man to not sin? That's like creating a mouse to eat cheese and telling it that it is not supposed to eat cheese or it will go to hell. It makes no sense.

I still maintain that Adam was not perfect, and there is no comparison with Adam and jesus. If Adam was like Jesus then he would not have yielded to temptation, or should I say, to something he knew was obvious wrong.
Adam was made exactly the way God intended him to be.

Yes, you believe God made Adam sinful. Right.

Doesn't God have foreknowledge of all things? If so did he not know what Adam and Eve were going to do? Then if he did, why didn't he make them more perfect, or give them power to overcome this thing, or even forward them that is was about to happen.

Foreknowledge has nothing to do with how God created man. God knows what will happen, but that does not mean God wanted it that way. If you take that view all the way, then you must say God wills people be lost and you enter into Once Saved Always Saved.

This entire debate is nothing more or less than personal theology.

I disagree. It goes beyond that to actually implicating God with ill intentions.

Yes god created mankind in his likeness and in his image. Likeness and image both could reflect each other. It could mean in appearance and and have some of the same attributes as god has. For instance, a creative will.
If you want to maintain your perspective in this issue that's fine with me, but I don't view theology with confidence.

Sorry, that view makes leads to OSAS.

[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."