The false doctrine of "sinful nature"

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Then talk about those symptoms of false doctrines, because no one is going to give you the time of day when you say they have a "different god." As a teacher, you are your own worst enemy, so stop that line of teaching.
Yes Jesus taught the same thing as to have in you the same Father he had in himself see John17 and you are so correct those religious folk didnt give Jesus the time of day for teaching the same thing either. For they did worship a different godf from the one jesus said he was of, same One I am of.
They don't have a different God, they just don't understand the one they have. Combat the false teachings of "we will always sin until after death," "we can't be perfect until after death," "we can't be glorified until after death," etc. Jesus came to make us like Him NOW! I agree with your doctrines that combat the false doctrines, now change your strategy.
Change my strategy? All I can do is be honest and repeat what Jesus said that who I am in the Father for what Jesus said we should be in Him as he was in Him. I dont know any other strategy than what Jesus said we should be.

Do you have a different strategy aside from the way of Jesus Christ who stirred people to the point of hatred, scandal, lies, to crucifying him for blaspheme?
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
Yes Jesus taught the same thing as to have in you the same Father he had in himself see John17 and you are so correct those religious folk didnt give Jesus the time of day for teaching the same thing either. For they did worship a different godf from the one jesus said he was of, same One I am of.

No they didn't know a different God. Nor was Jesus teaching the correct God, vs. a false God. It wasn't the God who was changing, it was COVENANTS.


Change my strategy? All I can do is be honest and repeat what Jesus said that who I am in the Father for what Jesus said we should be in Him as he was in Him. I dont know any other strategy than what Jesus said we should be.

Do you have a different strategy aside from the way of Jesus Christ who stirred people to the point of hatred, scandal, lies, to crucifying him for blaspheme?

Jesus DID NOT teach a different GOD. He was introducing them to God's SON, and the New Covenant of believing on Him.

Your "strategy" should be about COVENANTS and not accusations of pagan idols, which is how it is being perceived. If you stay with the lie that Jesus taught a different God, all the good that you could be sharing goes on deaf ears. They think you are a cultist, and the next thing you'll say is that YOU are Jesus. Come worship you. So stop that thinking in its tracks and teach what Jesus actually taught, and it WASN'T that the Father was a different God - they are One. But just as Jesus and the Father are different parts of the godhead, so were the two covenants.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
No they didn't know a different God. Nor was Jesus teaching the correct God, vs. a false God. It wasn't the God who was changing, it was COVENANTS.
The god they worshiped was of their laws to regulate their beliefs of their god. And Jesus was witness of the correct God to be as He is and one ion Him so clear in John 17.

And God never has changed as you say, He is the same today as He was in Adam, only beliefs of a god has changed. Today most have changed the God Jesus prayed to and obeyed into the image of a man to be in their own image of flesh.
Jesus DID NOT teach a different GOD. He was introducing them to God's SON, and the New Covenant of believing on Him.
Jesus taught to be a son of God yourself as he was Gods son. Introducing you to be as he was in the Father who is God.

And the new covenant has noting at all to beliefs, beliefs are not truths at all. It is a matter of God manifest in you as He was manifest in Jesus, in Adam,, in Abraham, in Moses in Mary in 120 and in Jesus in Matt 3:16. The manifestation of God is not a belief it is the reality of Him coming and making Himself known in you.
Your "strategy" should be about COVENANTS and not accusations of pagan idols, which is how it is being perceived.

Only for you who has not from God that what Jesus had from Him.
If you stay with the lie that Jesus taught a different God, all the good that you could be sharing goes on deaf ears.

Jesus didnt teach a different God as you perceive, He was witness of the One true God.
They think you are a cultist, and the next thing you'll say is that YOU are Jesus.

No' you think that Jesus was a cultist for all I do is repeat what he said you should be in his God and Father to be one in Him. John 17..
Come worship you.
Better yet come and worship the same God Jesus prayed to and obeyed.
So stop that thinking in its tracks and teach what Jesus actually taught, and it WASN'T that the Father was a different God - they are One.
Stop thinking as Jesus did and follow you? Typical of the religious folk who taught you that.
But just as Jesus and the Father are different parts of the godhead, so were the two covenants.
The godhead? God is the head of my body, the Godhead bodily. He is my mind, He is my thoughts, His is my way, His is my being. He is the head of my body.

There is no different parts either He is your head or He is not. You have been programmed to believe as the very establishments that you say you are not of.
 
Last edited:

Sethproton

Well-known member
This one is more substantive.

If Jesus is God in flesh, why did He not inherit original sin?

https://carm.org/about-jesus/if-jesus-is-god-in-flesh-why-did-he-not-inherit-original-sin/
Curious what you mean by "substantive" How do you define that word in your context?
But it is a good question to ask why Jesus did not inherit original sin, and the theoretical answer because it comes thru the father.
Obviously Jesus did not inherit sin, and can it be shown that anyone inherited sin?
 
Curious what you mean by "substantive" How do you define that word in your context?
But it is a good question to ask why Jesus did not inherit original sin, and the theoretical answer because it comes thru the father.
Obviously Jesus did not inherit sin, and can it be shown that anyone inherited sin?
More substantive to this discussion because Matt Slick deals directly with the question of the sinlessness of Messiah, without spot or blemish, why Jesus was without sin and the spiritual imperative of the virgin birth.

And I've place some material and references here:

Arthur Custance - The Seed of the Woman - the spiritual imperative of the virgin birth.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...piritual-imperative-of-the-virgin-birth.1048/
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
More substantive to this discussion because Matt Slick deals directly with the question of the sinlessness of Messiah, without spot or blemish, why Jesus was without sin and the spiritual imperative of the virgin birth.

And I've place some material and references here:

Arthur Custance - The Seed of the Woman - the spiritual imperative of the virgin birth.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...piritual-imperative-of-the-virgin-birth.1048/
I asked you to give me a definition of the word substantive.

I know the word in a few contexts. But not sure how you define the word here
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
No they didn't know a different God. Nor was Jesus teaching the correct God, vs. a false God. It wasn't the God who was changing, it was COVENANTS.




Jesus DID NOT teach a different GOD. He was introducing them to God's SON, and the New Covenant of believing on Him.

Your "strategy" should be about COVENANTS and not accusations of pagan idols, which is how it is being perceived. If you stay with the lie that Jesus taught a different God, all the good that you could be sharing goes on deaf ears. They think you are a cultist, and the next thing you'll say is that YOU are Jesus. Come worship you. So stop that thinking in its tracks and teach what Jesus actually taught, and it WASN'T that the Father was a different God - they are One. But just as Jesus and the Father are different parts of the godhead, so were the two covenants.
You think I am a cultist the same way those of the day thought Jesus was to. And you need to go back and read the post in context, the poster said Jesus lied when his claim he was Gods son. That poster has made Jesus a god instead contrary to who Jesus said he was in the Father. Jesus didnt lie at all, he prayed to his God and he was clear that he was Gods son and his Father who was his God sent him to show us what it is to be in the Father ourselves, live in the new.

You dont understand what the new covenant is. Adam received the new covenant from law to spirit and became like God to know this difference. Abraham received the new covenant from the law to SPirit. Moses received the new covenant from law to SPirit, Jesus received the new in Matt 3:16, 120 received the new that is SPirit in an upper room. And we are no different. Either you live in the law as you have established to govern your beliefs or you have received the new where you become like Him and walk in His same light of Spirit and in His same image which is Spirit. You dont know what His Spirit is do you? And that is not an accusation -- Just asking.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Curious what you mean by "substantive" How do you define that word in your context?
But it is a good question to ask why Jesus did not inherit original sin, and the theoretical answer because it comes thru the father.
Obviously Jesus did not inherit sin, and can it be shown that anyone inherited sin?

Genesis 3:15. The sin nature is not passed down by the "seed of the woman."

The woman was a sinner, but her ovum does not pass the sin nature defect down. God designed it that way.

Adam was held responsible, Eve was deceived. So, its through the male sperm that passes down the sin nature. That is why it says it was through Adam that sin entered the world, but not the woman.. even though, the woman was the first to sin.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin,
and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." Rom 5:12

That is why Jesus could have no human father. The Holy Spirit provided the needed "sinless" genetic

Mary did not have to be a virgin in order for the body Jesus received to be sinless. Mary could have been a woman of ill repute. God wanted all parties involved to know it was from Him, and God wanted the birth of Jesus to also be a "sign." So, Mary was a virgin. At least she alone knew it was from God. Joseph later was informed by God and accepted the pregnancy as from God.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
You think I am a cultist the same way those of the day thought Jesus was to. And you need to go back and read the post in context, the poster said Jesus lied when his claim he was Gods son. That poster has made Jesus a god instead contrary to who Jesus said he was in the Father. Jesus didnt lie at all, he prayed to his God and he was clear that he was Gods son and his Father who was his God sent him to show us what it is to be in the Father ourselves, live in the new.

You dont understand what the new covenant is. Adam received the new covenant from law to spirit and became like God to know this difference. Abraham received the new covenant from the law to SPirit. Moses received the new covenant from law to SPirit, Jesus received the new in Matt 3:16, 120 received the new that is SPirit in an upper room. And we are no different. Either you live in the law as you have established to govern your beliefs or you have received the new where you become like Him and walk in His same light of Spirit and in His same image which is Spirit. You dont know what His Spirit is do you? And that is not an accusation -- Just asking.

I actually do know the Spirit. He is the reason that 100% of my prayers are answered according to 1 John 3:21-24 ever since He spoke to me, and then filled me with His Spirit 43 years ago.

Pardon me, but I don't know who you are or what you believe. According to your second paragraph, we may actually have the same beliefs. But if you are Calvinist, or are a Cessationist, then no, we are not the same.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
This one is more substantive.

If Jesus is God in flesh, why did He not inherit original sin?
Matt Slick
https://carm.org/about-jesus/if-jesus-is-god-in-flesh-why-did-he-not-inherit-original-sin/

And goes well with the excellent writing of Arthur Custance.

For the same reason a born again Christian cannot sin. 1 John 3:9. Read that verse for the answer. Hint: Jesus was conceived with it. And when we are born again, we live just like Jesus did while on earth. He was the FIRST of many brethren. I am one. Are you? Romans 8:29-30. Come partake of the divine nature. 2 Peter 1:2-11
 

e v e

Well-known member
There is this notion that sometimes crops up that humans have this "sinful nature" that is somehow a result of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Did you ever notice that one of the properties of the tree is that it was a tree of "the knowledge of Good"? If your doctrine precludes the idea that they have the knowledge of "good" and know only of "evil" after eating the fruit, please go back and read what the description of the tree is.

If we accept the idea that Adam and Eve had a "sinful" nature after they ate from the tree, and that their nature before the fall was "sinful", then when did the switch occur?



What nature did Adam and Eve have at the moment they they desired to sin?
  • sinful
  • not sinful
If Adam and Eve did have a "sinful" nature when they desired to sin, then some outside force acted on Adam and Eve to change their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful" prior to their desire to sin. The banishment from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life is because the nature of Adam and Eve were tampered with, not because they freely chose.

If Adam and Eve did not have a "sinful" nature when they desired to sin, then they desired sin without "sinful" nature.



What nature did Adam and Eve have the moment their desire to sin matured and they sinned?
  • sinful
  • not sinful

If Adam and Eve did have a "sinful" nature when they sinned, then some outside force acted on Adam and Eve to change their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful" before they sinned. The banishment from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life is because the nature of Adam and Eve were tampered with, not because they freely chose.

If Adam and Eve had a "not sinful" nature when they sinned, then they sinned without the "sinful" nature.



Conclusion: Either Adam and Eve either sinned
  • Without this thing called a "sinful" nature and likewise, so do we. The change is that we no longer have access to tree of life. (My view BTW)
or
  • With this thing called a "sinful" nature, and some out side force changed their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful". As a consequence they sinned and Adam and Eve are not to blame.
That concept of desiring sin is very Augustinian of you. it's not that they desired to sin. It's that when Adam did sin, he chose to stay in that position. Adam chose, a point those gluing early modern 'free will' concepts onto an ancient context miss. He chose instead of admitting what he did and staying with God and because of his own pride, to stay within the sin realm context (satan's realm), which existed even before Eden was brought into being by Him. (It's explained in Job how Eden intervened upon the satan realm).

Also consider that God created from Love (His Spirit)...so the dualism of "from something or from nothing", a Parmenidean Greek construct, is not applicable to God's creating. Much Greek philosophy was attached to Christian medieval theology causing confusions still extant today.

The nature of Eden is not sin. At the fall, a foreign nature of the enemy realm attached to Adam and it was a nature he did not depart from (a different topic involving discussion extraneous to the OP). It was that sin realm which orchestrated and executing the attack on Eden. Adam did not lose access to the tree, although I understand that this forum balks at referring to other ancient texts, so, I won't go into it. It's a bit different than the black and white explanation many give, and the answer IS right there in ancient texts when translated correctly --- further, the texts confirm each other on this point; even scripture does.

No soul of His has a sinful nature; the sin nature is the Self glued on as a foreign entity. Your discussion of sin nature sounds as Calvin. The soul is not depraved, it's the self glued to her that is, a theological confusion much older than Calvin, where npsh and psuche got conflated. I've posted several times a link to a dissertation out of BU on this topic...which of course no one bothered to read. That dissertation may not be perfect, however, it does manage to distinguish and list and clarify every single use of npsh and every single use of psuche and to show why the two terms do not refer to the same entity.
 
Last edited:

Sethproton

Well-known member
Genesis 3:15. The sin nature is not passed down by the "seed of the woman."

The woman was a sinner, but her ovum does not pass the sin nature defect down. God designed it that way.

Adam was held responsible, Eve was deceived. So, its through the male sperm that passes down the sin nature. That is why it says it was through Adam that sin entered the world, but not the woman.. even though, the woman was the first to sin.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin,
and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." Rom 5:12

That is why Jesus could have no human father. The Holy Spirit provided the needed "sinless" genetic

Mary did not have to be a virgin in order for the body Jesus received to be sinless. Mary could have been a woman of ill repute. God wanted all parties involved to know it was from Him, and God wanted the birth of Jesus to also be a "sign." So, Mary was a virgin. At least she alone knew it was from God. Joseph later was informed by God and accepted the pregnancy as from God.
I think you missed 3 important words in Romans 5:12 - "because all sinned"
death spread, not because of Adam's sin, but because all sinned.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
Genesis 3:15. The sin nature is not passed down by the "seed of the woman."

The woman was a sinner, but her ovum does not pass the sin nature defect down. God designed it that way.

Adam was held responsible, Eve was deceived. So, its through the male sperm that passes down the sin nature. That is why it says it was through Adam that sin entered the world, but not the woman.. even though, the woman was the first to sin.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin,
and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." Rom 5:12

That is why Jesus could have no human father. The Holy Spirit provided the needed "sinless" genetic

Mary did not have to be a virgin in order for the body Jesus received to be sinless. Mary could have been a woman of ill repute. God wanted all parties involved to know it was from Him, and God wanted the birth of Jesus to also be a "sign." So, Mary was a virgin. At least she alone knew it was from God. Joseph later was informed by God and accepted the pregnancy as from God.
We all need to learn how God views sin, and why nothing happened when Eve sinned, but when Adam sinned they SAW they were naked.

There was sacrifice that God would accept for how Eve sinned, but no sacrifice for how Adam sinned. Eve sinned unintentionally, Numbers 15:22-29 thinking she could be like God; but Adam willfully sinned against God's command to him, Numbers 15:30-36.

1 John 5:16-17 calls these two different types of sin, sins not unto death (Eve), and sins unto death (Adam). This is why it was Adam's sin that brought death to all the earth.
 

e v e

Well-known member
By his own choice Adam did what he did. And this produced cosmological changes, not merely 'mental ones'.

The word Kosmou is not merely 'system' and sin is not merely a system of sin, but reflects the fallen cosmology.
 

CharismaticLady

Active member
all those who were in eden that followed adam
What do you mean "that followed Adam"? Adam was the last to sin inside Eden. And it was his willful sin that cursed the whole world. Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, lest they ate of the Tree of Life, and remain cursed for eternity.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
I actually do know the Spirit. He is the reason that 100% of my prayers are answered according to 1 John 3:21-24 ever since He spoke to me, and then filled me with His Spirit 43 years ago.

Pardon me, but I don't know who you are or what you believe. According to your second paragraph, we may actually have the same beliefs. But if you are Calvinist, or are a Cessationist, then no, we are not the same.
Jesus trusted no man only the Father and what was good enough for him certainly is good enough for me. Doctrines such as Calvinism or any other is not my concern. What is my concern is my life measured up with the standards of Jesus life to walk as he walks in his same light, perfect even as my father in heaven is perfect, same mind, same Spirit, pure holy and without sin. I am born of God and in that it is impossible to be in sin. 1 John 3:9

What has Calvin or any other considered that God Himself has not considered and not able to teach and give me Himself?

As far as speaking in tongues or operating in the gift of the Spirit come natural with His SPirit. None of this passed away at all it is as fresh today as it was 2000 years ago. One thing I learned about speaking in tongues is the message in it is universal. And that message was it takes faith to do it. Sadly some say you must speak in tongues to have the evidence of the Holy SPirit which is actually a doctrine devised by man making his own rules not much different from that of Calvin just different laws to govern their beliefs. Some has made a religion of speaking in tongues and worship it. Been there done that. Tongues is simply an exercise if using faith to produce that what was not. Most cant even muster enough faith to speak in tongues let alone heal the sick.

And in my 50 years of following Christ I have been through the gauntlet of mans religions from COC Catholic, Pentecostal, AOGs, Baptists, Methodists, been to the nondenominational or Charismatics, been the deacon and elder and all of these are no different from one to the other . The only difference in these is the laws they have established to govern their beliefs. And thank God 25 years ago He came to me by His SPirit and opend all of His heaven to me. This very thing hapopend in Jesus when he was about 30 years old in Matt 2:16.

And like Jesus he had to leave these temples for law that he once taught in and actually do Gods will. And in that the very ones he once taught their laws who revered his knowledge of the law after Matt 3:16 are the very ones who had him crucified for blaspheme.

Whether you are a Catholic, Baptists, Mormon, Charismatic, you are bound by the creed these establish as a truth. Thank God He freed me from these to walk as He walks in His same light.

Jesus said that in that day ye shall ask me noting but go to the Father for myself and He will give it me. I did and He did.

You say God has answered your prayers. -- By Gods Spirit coming and opening up all of His heaven gave me a new perspective in prayer. Prayer is not about asking for things, prayer is in communication with God talking with Him, not to Him. Jesus mad a most simple but profound statement when he took his disciples up on the mountain to pray. He said look WITH ME not for me. And that is where most get the purpose for prayer wrong.

Not to say that you got it wrong only that what God has opened to me about it. Talk with Him not to Him, look with Him as my own eyes, not for Him with my own eyes. He doesnt need my help looking with religious minds of all these establishments for enterprise they call church.
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
There is this notion that sometimes crops up that humans have this "sinful nature" that is somehow a result of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Did you ever notice that one of the properties of the tree is that it was a tree of "the knowledge of Good"? If your doctrine precludes the idea that they have the knowledge of "good" and know only of "evil" after eating the fruit, please go back and read what the description of the tree is.

If we accept the idea that Adam and Eve had a "sinful" nature after they ate from the tree, and that their nature before the fall was "sinful", then when did the switch occur?



What nature did Adam and Eve have at the moment they they desired to sin?
  • sinful
  • not sinful
If Adam and Eve did have a "sinful" nature when they desired to sin, then some outside force acted on Adam and Eve to change their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful" prior to their desire to sin. The banishment from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life is because the nature of Adam and Eve were tampered with, not because they freely chose.

If Adam and Eve did not have a "sinful" nature when they desired to sin, then they desired sin without "sinful" nature.



What nature did Adam and Eve have the moment their desire to sin matured and they sinned?
  • sinful
  • not sinful

If Adam and Eve did have a "sinful" nature when they sinned, then some outside force acted on Adam and Eve to change their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful" before they sinned. The banishment from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life is because the nature of Adam and Eve were tampered with, not because they freely chose.

If Adam and Eve had a "not sinful" nature when they sinned, then they sinned without the "sinful" nature.



Conclusion: Either Adam and Eve either sinned
  • Without this thing called a "sinful" nature and likewise, so do we. The change is that we no longer have access to tree of life. (My view BTW)
or
  • With this thing called a "sinful" nature, and some out side force changed their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful". As a consequence they sinned and Adam and Eve are not to blame.
Indeed, for the reason why Adam and Eve sinned and why we sin also has nothing to do with a sinful nature but rather because when God created Adam and Eve he gave them a nature with free will but one that wasn't yet totally completed and perfected in the image of God through the Tree of Life.

For what God did create in Adam and Eve was good, and meaning that there was no sin within it and it was exactly what God wanted, but God required that in order for Adam and Eve to be completed and perfected in his image, they would have to choose righteousness with their free will like God in whose image they were made in does also.


So God provided a test to prove man out with, and which is what the two Trees in the Middle of the Garden were there for and so he also allowed Satan to tempt man in order to prove man whether he would be perfected in righteousness by making the right choice or not.


If man had made the right choice, then God would have made sure that he would eat of the Tree of Life and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to keep him in obedience but man choice to have his own independence and become his own god and to have his own knowledge of right and wrong instead.


Therefore Adam passes on to us his descendants, the same
 
Top