[Damian]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Will and mind, for the xth time. We are personal beings capable of making choices for a myriad of reasons.

By refusing to directly address the question, you concede the point by default.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Damian

By refusing to directly address the question, you concede the point by default.

You won't accept an answer until we spout whatever it is you believe. Your question and answer is dumb. You are locked into a wrong view and cannot think outside of the box. You are not being reasonable, so buzz off. I answered responsively, you didn't like the answer, and then you think the point is conceded to you by default? How old are you?

[Damian]

Originally Posted by godrulz

You won't accept an answer until we spout whatever it is you believe. Your question and answer is dumb. You are locked into a wrong view and cannot think outside of the box. You are not being reasonable, so buzz off. I answered responsively, you didn't like the answer, and then you think the point is conceded to you by default? How old are you?

I will only accept an answer from you that qualifies as a rational explanation. But before that, you must provide me with some kind of answer to the question I asked in order for me to evaluate its rationality. You couldn't do that much. So, you have no credibility with me.

[elohiym]

Originally Posted by surrender

Do you mean it was like tempting a person to eat dirt?

Yeah, I suppose so. But it is more like someone asking you to prove your identity to yourself by doing something only you should be able to do if you are who you say you are. Not for one moment would you doubt that you are you, and you would not feel tempted to do something to prove it to yourself because you know without doubt that you are you. In that sense Jesus was being tempted to prove he was the Son of God. "If you are the Son of God, turn these stones into bread." Jesus was being tempted to think he was not the Son of God, but he was not internally tempted in his heart to believe he might not be the Son of God.

Originally Posted by surrender

Do you think the devil was unaware that nothing would be tempting to Jesus?

Yes. It appears so.

Originally Posted by surrender

What do you think it means that Jesus can be a sympathetic high priest now that he was tempted in all things like we are (Heb. 2:15).

It means that Jesus was externally tempted in all things like we are, not internally tempted. Paul said that some of us were adulterers and others types of sinners before we were washed. If Jesus had been internally tempted like those washed adulterers had been in the past to commit adultery, he would have been guilty of coveting first and not without sin.

Again, Jesus was being tempted to think he was not the Son of God, but he was not internally tempted in his heart to believe he might not be the Son of God. Are you not tempted in that way, too? Aren't you sometimes tempted to doubt that you are a son of God by the accuser?

[surrender]

Originally Posted by elohiym

Yeah, I suppose so. But it is more like someone asking you to prove your identity to yourself by doing something only you should be able to do if you are who you say you are. Not for one moment would you doubt that you are you, and you would not feel tempted to do something to prove it to yourself because you know without doubt that you are you. In that sense Jesus was being tempted to prove he was the Son of God. "If you are the Son of God, turn these stones into bread." Jesus was being tempted to think he was not the Son of God, but he was not internally tempted in his heart to believe he might not be the Son of God.



Yes. It appears so.



It means that Jesus was externally tempted in all things like we are, not internally tempted. Paul said that some of us were adulterers and others types of sinners before we were washed. If Jesus had been internally tempted like those washed adulterers had been in the past to commit adultery, he would have been guilty of coveting first and not without sin.

Again, Jesus was being tempted to think he was not the Son of God, but he was not internally tempted in his heart to believe he might not be the Son of God. Are you not tempted in that way, too?

I guess I’m still struggling with what external temptations are. Do you have some examples?

Aren't you sometimes tempted to doubt that you are a son of God by the accuser?

Sure, but Jesus could have proven it if he had wanted to. How could I?

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Son of Jack

I have been questioning for some time now whether the doctrine of original sin is a biblical one or not. Let me say that I haven't decided one way or another yet, but I'm leaning toward sin being more a matter of nurture rather than nature and that Augustine was just flat out wrong on this one.

Thoughts?

You posted once in this thread and then let off? Shocking.

Have you come to a conclusion? Can you also make your definitions more explicit?

[zippy2006]

I'd say it is fairly clear that the Biblical witness is nature, not nurture, not least of all because the Jews didn't even seem to have a developed concept of "nurture." Furthermore, orthodoxy Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) is of one mind that original sin is related to our nature. A brief overview of human or Biblical history shows this as well, and I think a work like Lord of the Flies is true to reality on this point. I'd say that the need for a savior and the falsity of Pelagianism depends on this fact.

[godrulz]

Those who deny traditional original sin also make a strong case for our universal condemnation and need for a sinless Savior (Rom. 1-5). Few are extreme Pelagian. The bottom line is that sin is volitional, not genetic (hence culpability).

[Seydlitz77]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

I'd say it is fairly clear that the Biblical witness is nature, not nurture, not least of all because the Jews didn't even seem to have a developed concept of "nurture." Furthermore, orthodoxy Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) is of one mind that original sin is related to our nature. A brief overview of human or Biblical history shows this as well, and I think a work like Lord of the Flies is true to reality on this point. I'd say that the need for a savior and the falsity of Pelagianism depends on this fact.

God's first recorded teaching of what sin is disagrees with your witness.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. (Genesis 4:6-7 KJV)

Cain was not sinful by condition otherwise God is lying that if Cain did well he would be accepted, Cain became sinful by choice. His Father's role in this is that he brought about the condition that allowed Cain to choose sin. To make a wrong choice you must know it is the wrong choice. Adam gave all of us a knowledge of Good and Evil and God knows that all of us choose Evil (some choose it rarely others choose it frequently). So yes we're in this mess because of Adam (not that we should vilify him) and we all need Christ to get out; but we are sinful through our (unwise) decisions not our condition.

Actually 2 Nephi 2 is a good read on the whole subject.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Seydlitz77

God's first recorded teaching of what sin is disagrees with your witness.



Cain was not sinful by condition otherwise God is lying that if Cain did well he would be accepted, Cain became sinful by choice. His Father's role in this is that he brought about the condition that allowed Cain to choose sin. To make a wrong choice you must know it is the wrong choice. Adam gave all of us a knowledge of Good and Evil and God knows that all of us choose Evil (some choose it rarely others choose it frequently). So yes we're in this mess because of Adam (not that we should vilify him) and we all need Christ to get out; but we are sinful through our (unwise) decisions not our condition.

Actually 2 Nephi 2 is a good read on the whole subject.

Personal sin is always by choice, this is a misunderstanding of original sin.

[kmoney]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

I'd say it is fairly clear that the Biblical witness is nature, not nurture, not least of all because the Jews didn't even seem to have a developed concept of "nurture." Furthermore, orthodoxy Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) is of one mind that original sin is related to our nature. A brief overview of human or Biblical history shows this as well, and I think a work like Lord of the Flies is true to reality on this point. I'd say that the need for a savior and the falsity of Pelagianism depends on this fact.

I'd say it is both. We have a natural inclination for sin but there can certainly be nurturing too. But I'm not a big proponent of original sin. I suppose that depends on how original sin is defined. I don't think anything fundamentally changed in Adam and Eve and the rest of subsequent humanity after they sinned.


In some ways I think Pelagianism follows from sin being a choice.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by kmoney

I'd say it is both. We have a natural inclination for sin but there can certainly be nurturing too.

Certainly nurture plays a large role in our sinfulness, but I don't think it is the meat of Original Sin.

But I'm not a big proponent of original sin.

I'm not so fond of it either.

I suppose that depends on how original sin is defined. I don't think anything fundamentally changed in Adam and Eve and the rest of subsequent humanity after they sinned.

Then why is no one righteous? Were we all made sinners from the beginning?

In some ways I think Pelagianism follows from sin being a choice.

I'd agree and clarify that it follows once you throw out depravity.

[kmoney]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Certainly nurture plays a large role in our sinfulness, but I don't think it is the meat of Original Sin.

What is the meat of OS? What is your understanding of it?

I'm not so fond of it either.

Then why is no one righteous? Were we all made sinners from the beginning?

Is no one righteous? Do you mean sinless? Not sinning is hard.

I'd agree and clarify that it follows once you throw out depravity.

Sure. I threw that out long ago.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by kmoney

What is the meat of OS? What is your understanding of it?

Original Sin is a necessary weakening of the human being's nature which inclines them toward sin. If Original Sin is said to come from nurture rather than nature, then it is accidental, not necessary, and all of Christian theology, but especially Paul's theology, falls apart.

Is no one righteous? Do you mean sinless? Not sinning is hard.

Why is it hard? 'Cause mom and dad did a bad job? What about in people where they did a good job, are they righteous?

Sure. I threw that out long ago.

[Untellectual]

Is the doctrine of original sin that Adam and Eve were the first sinners (and that all mankind after Adam and Eve have now sinned (as a result))?