JD wrote: > First of all, Judy does not argue for the inheritance > of a sinful nature but for an inheritance of sin.
On the contrary, I understand her to be arguing both. JD wrote: > Secondly, Adam's nature did not change with the > eating of the fruit or he could not have sinned to begin > with. Choice does not exist apart from the ability > to make the wrong choice. We should not assume that Adam could sin only if he had a nature to sin. This is not true. Lucifer and one-third of those in heaven chose to sin, but none of them had a sinful nature. They have a sinful nature now, but they did not then. Neither should we assume that all those who choose to sin do so because of a sinful nature. A person might sin partly because he has an inclination to sin, and others might sin even without an inclination toward sin, because they were deceived by someone, or for various other reasons. JD wrote: > When you argue for "sinful nature" in 5:12, you > change the very wording of the passage. You have > taken mankind's failure out of the equation and inserted > his potential for failure. Verse 12 is not saying that we > die because we share the same potential for sin. > Rather, with predictive certainty, Paul declares that we > die because we have all have done the very same thing > -- we have sinned. You have changed my argument completely. I never argued any such thing. If you go back and read my post, you will see that I proved conclusively that Paul's argument is that both death and sin have been passed onto us by Adam. How that works is open for interpretation. It is true that he makes the point that all have sinned, but this is augmenting his point that death has passed upon us via Adam. There is another element alluded to there that is spelled out in other passages, and that is the sinful nature, the inclination toward sin, and how do we recognize that inclination toward sin? Well, all have sinned! JD wrote: > Adam was not an eternal being before sin > and mortal afterwards!! If that were so, > there would have been no need for the Tree > of Life. It all depends upon the definitions of your terms, JD. Perhaps access to the tree of life is what defines being an eternal being. One thing we can be sure about: God said that Adam would die if he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What if Adam would not have eaten of it? Would he have lived forever? What do you say, John? What is your answer to this question? JD wrote: > Christ is not the solution to a problem so much > as He is the conclusion of the work of creation. Ugh. Theology tainted by science and evolutionary thinking is so repulsive. JD wrote: > There is none who can declare righteousness AND > -- we have none to blame but ourselves. Not > Adam. Not the serpent. Only ourselves. Death > passed onto me because I sinned. Somebody forgot to teach the author of Scripture this bit of information. Romans 5:19 ... by one man's disobedience many were made sinners... Malachi 2:8 ... ye have caused many to stumble ... Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
