The Nature of Fallen Man

[RandyPNW]

Would you please provide scripture that indicates our nature is reborn?

I'm assuming that you take issue with the word "nature." So you may not accept the plain language here, as it refers to our "Sin Nature?"

Rom 7.14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

What this says *to me* is that the human nature remains intact, but is actually changed. It evolves, through the influence of sin in and with us, to become a "slave to sin," a condition not just of privation, but one of contamination by an evil influence.

We as slaves to sin then incline to rebel against God's word. And it is our duty, as Christians, to internalize God's nature by making a complete commitment to Him, so that then the Holy Spirit is also in and with us, influencing us to do good.

Whether you want to call the Sin Nature an ontological change in who we are, or whether you want to call our Reborn Nature simply God dwelling in and with us is your choice. I believe we are reborn, as Peter says:

1 Peter 1.23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Would you please provide scripture that indicates our nature is reborn?

I'm assuming that you take issue with the word "nature." So you may not accept the plain language here, as it refers to our "Sin Nature?"

Rom 7.14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

What this says *to me* is that the human nature remains intact, but is actually changed. It evolves, through the influence of sin in and with us, to become a "slave to sin," a condition not just of privation, but one of contamination by an evil influence.

We as slaves to sin then incline to rebel against God's word. And it is our duty, as Christians, to internalize God's nature by making a complete commitment to Him, so that then the Holy Spirit is also in and with us, influencing us to do good.

Whether you want to call the Sin Nature an ontological change in who we are, or whether you want to call our Reborn Nature simply God dwelling in and with us is your choice. I believe we are reborn, as Peter says:

1 Peter 1.23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

The core problem, as I’ve said about several things, is that you don’t know what the nature (physis) is. And you won’t and can’t define it and give an account of its functionality.

All you’ve provided above would actually be lexically contrary to your position. Again, the Patristics dealt with all of this over 1.5 millennia ago. The nature is not born again.

I don’t even know that I can continue conversing with you without rebuking you as a scoffer. Brother, please. Consider that you are wrong to some degree about literally everything. You need to read some confessional material and Patristic clarification. Your personal interpretations are really bad.

[IMINXTC]

Scripturally, the only thing I inherited from Adam is death. The Bible is silent concerning a sin-nature as something bequeathed by the progenitor of the human race.

The NT, as cited earlier in the thread, does elaborate on the human condition as something that is dominated by the cravings of the mortal body, which in no way regards the presence or demands of God, as sin is a deliberate and conscious disobedience of God's will.

The "nature" of fallen, mortal flesh is one of obvious self determination, often involving degrees of perversion of God's natural order, akin to a thoughtless entity that easily goes awry, like an unthinking animal blessed with almost unimaginable potential.

Human nature is void of open recognition of God in His sovereignty, and is blind concerning that which is spiritual.

The Apostle describes this darkness as progressive and subsequent to men's deliberate rejection of the presence and knowledge of God.

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves..." Rm 1:21-25

The human race is, to a very large degree, lost, by consent. By choice.

[RandyPNW]

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.[/i]

1 Peter 1.23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

The core problem, as I’ve said about several things, is that you don’t know what the nature (physis) is. And you won’t and can’t define it and give an account of its functionality.

All you’ve provided above would actually be lexically contrary to your position. Again, the Patristics dealt with all of this over 1.5 millennia ago. The nature is not born again.

I don’t even know that I can continue conversing with you without rebuking you as a scoffer. Brother, please. Consider that you are wrong to some degree about literally everything. You need to read some confessional material and Patristic clarification. Your personal interpretations are really bad.

You asked me about a reborn nature, and you argue over the definition of the word "nature!" I just quoted you a Scripture, brother! If you don't like the Scripture, I guess you don't like Scriptures?

The sad thing is that you insult me and don't provide a single example of what the "bad language" is that I use. As far as I can tell, you just don't like it because you don't agree with it.

You've made yourself the voice of authority on what is "orthodox language," which is self-aggrandizing. I've been in church, and have been through confirmation in the Lutheran Church growing up. I feel I have a pretty good grasp of what "orthodox language" is, at least from a Protestant point of view. For 16 or 17 years I repeated the Creeds!

This is pure assertion from you as to what you *think* is "bad." Well, I think your analysis lacks any explanation, and trying to convince me to think otherwise without explanation is an exercise in futility on your part.

In fact, your emphasis on the "lexical approach" betrays a serious weakness in your approach towards biblical interpretation. And so I question the way you understand theology, as well.

When it becomes to the etymological root fallacy, which seems to be what you're doing, I can't sign onto that. Proving theology from component parts of words doesn't work, and is not a reliable way of interpreting the Bible and formulating theology.

Go ahead and try to insult my posts. But if you really hope to convince me of anything, you'll have to explain your own weaknesses. And you'll most certainly have to explain what it is you're complaining about, in terms of the language I use!

[IMINXTC]

The Patristics and theologians and linguists of the last 2 millennia haven’t been wrong.

Uh Oh! There it is.

[IMINXTC]

The Patristics and theologians and linguists of the last 2 millennia haven’t been wrong.

Uh Oh! There it is.

Hard to calculate the enormous delusions placed on the historical faith by high-horse scholasticism decreeing the guilt of babies and the urgent need for their Baptisms, per one example of getting it wrong. For millennia.

[RabbiKnife]

The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today.  They were neither inspired nor infallible.  The councils themselves were neither.

While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.

Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.

[Pablo]

The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today.  They were neither inspired nor infallible.  The councils themselves were neither.

While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.

Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.

Good to see that someone is cognizant of the truth. Only one thing is certain. Those church fathers are a lot worse than us because they planted the seeds that are controlling millions of people in the so-called church of today in these last days.

They came out of the truth being so close to the Apostles teachings, and therefore must have been massively corrupt themselves to promulgate the falsehoods that have led most people that name Christ as their master, into bondage in these last days.

Truly one must discard all the foundations that they have been taught and approach the bible and God, praying for grace to be set free from the teachings and traditions of man, so that they can come in spirit and truth before the God of our salvation.

[RabbiKnife]

Careful.

You are reading way too much in

Nit all of the ECF and the councils were bad

All I was saying is that none of them were infallible

There is tremendous truth to be learned from our forefathers in the faith

[Athanasius]

Good to see that someone is cognizant of the truth. Only one thing is certain. Those church fathers are a lot worse than us because they planted the seeds that are controlling millions of people in the so-called church of today in these last days.

They came out of the truth being so close to the Apostles teachings, and therefore must have been massively corrupt themselves to promulgate the falsehoods that have led most people that name Christ as their master, into bondage in these last days.

Truly one must discard all the foundations that they have been taught and approach the bible and God, praying for grace to be set free from the teachings and traditions of man, so that they can come in spirit and truth before the God of our salvation.

I'll make you a deal, Pablo.

You can say these things if you can provide a reasoned, logical, coherent argument in favour of the view.

Or, you can refrain from saying these things, and if you don't, then you can spread these falsehoods somewhere else.

If you want to make the argument, take it to Contro. Otherwise, no more of this idiocy.

[RandyPNW]

The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today.  They were neither inspired nor infallible.  The councils themselves were neither.

While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.

Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.

Wow,  you claim the Church Fathers were not inspired? And you think we Christians today are equally uninspired? The Church Councils were uninspired?

I do agree that neither the Apostles nor the Church Fathers were better than we can be today. But to deny experienced and tested Church leaders like that as if they were so much chaff seems a bit off to me?

[RandyPNW]

The Patristics and theologians and linguists of the last 2 millennia haven’t been wrong.

Uh Oh! There it is.

Hard to calculate the enormous delusions placed on the historical faith by high-horse scholasticism decreeing the guilt of babies and the urgent need for their Baptisms, per one example of getting it wrong. For millenia.

I don't see baptizing babies as a bad thing, anymore than committing to parenting our children in the Lord is a bad thing. Now, using sacraments as a tool of cleansing is another thing entirely, and was the entire reason the Lutheran Reformation came about. You can't use carnal tools to cleanse the soul. Baptisms, Communion, and Priestly Confessions cannot cleanse the soul--only true repentance and faith in Christ can.

I have a great appreciation for Scholastics, who tried to use reason to produce dogma that is comprehensible to the human mind. I think they were pursuing the good of mankind, and using the Gospel to do it.

However, I agree that dry doctrine doesn't do much better than empty rituals of the Church, because external cleansing of the vessel doesn't clean up inside of the vessel. There is always room for reform, in past Christian contributions as well as in the works of our own lives. I just don't wish to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[IMINXTC]

The Apostles were inspired (there were 12). And they clearly warned us about some of the doctrines of men which would follow.

[RandyPNW]

The Apostles were inspired (there were 12). And they clearly warned us about some of the doctrines of men which would follow.

True. And even the best of them sometimes made some awful errors. We only have one perfect man, Christ. We all need to be scrutinized, and helped with our failures. Sadly, some people prefer using a sword to "fix things," rather than a scalpel to heal. I'm not referring to you. You make a good point.

[IMINXTC]

The Apostles were inspired (there were 12). And they clearly warned us about some of the doctrines of men which would follow.

True. And even the best of them sometimes made some awful errors. We only have one perfect man, Christ. We all need to be scrutinized, and helped with our failures. Sadly, some people prefer using a sword to "fix things," rather than a scalpel to heal. I'm not referring to you. You make a good point.

Apostolic authority, as set forth and finalized in the NT is without error. No other so-called authority, outside of NT scripture can be reqarded as inspired.