Through one man, sin entered the world.

[Arial]

Free-Will is an idea that everyone has wrong except you.

Let's not go off topic or get personal please.
Thanks.

 

[LeviR]

Two important ideas:

First, the law is made weak by the flesh.

Second, temptation makes the flesh weak.

Temptation comes by the desires and enticement of the flesh. Therefore, the flesh is made weak by temptation.

Once temptation takes hold, the law becomes weak by the flesh with its desires.

This is the condition Jesus was under. He was tempted like us, but did not sin.
To say his condition was not like ours is to rob him of his glory in overcoming the world.

If these two ideas are grasped, the book of Romans will be easily understood.

 

[fastfredy0]

The flesh of animals is not sinful flesh. They are not made under the law.

True. You are interpreting the question differently than me IMO. My point is that the sin of man was the cause to the death of all life and from that vantage point sin spread to the animals.
Your point IMO is the fact that animals are sinless and not under the law and from the vantage point sin did not spread to the animals.

That would be true if Jesus was not made under the law.

Jesus was made "under the law". Gal. 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
If you can cite a verse saying Jesus was NOT born under the law, let me know.

Jesus is grouped among the animals.

Man is grouped among those under the law.

Based on false premise as I pointed out in Gal. 4:4.

Animals and Jesus vs man 1-0

True I suppose from a "committed sin" vantage point.

 

[fastfredy0]

A thought for consideration: the flesh is ‘self-centered’.
Christ Life is not.

Hmmm, the divine nature is self-centered while the human nature of Christ is not self-centered ... but he human nature of Christ is determined by the self-centered divine nature of Christ which is self-centered as evidenced by the purpose of the divine nature is His glory and pleasure.
IMO

 

[CrowCross]

The serpent played on the desire of Eve to eat and become as God.

Where does the bible teach this? Why is that not speculation?

If you told us you were speculating i would say...OK, that's your belief....but, where does the bible teach this?

 

[JIM]

So by extension, we should also understand that His will was not limited by sin, as fallen Adam's is.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what you or most others mean by will. It always seems to end up meaning whatever the user wants it to mean, probably in my own case. But particularly so in the case of God's will, Jesus' will or the Holy Spirit's will. I suspect that most people wouldn't credit the Holy Spirit with a will.

That said, I believe Jesus' will, whatever that might mean, was not limited by sin. But neither do I believe that our own wills, again whatever that might mean, are limited by sin. I believe that sin in our lives can be and often is influential in our decisions, but it never presents a limit to our will.

 

[JIM]

Why are you asking me those questions? If God doesn't spell it out for you or anyone else, I certainly can't. I just go by what it says.

With all due respect, you and everyone else, including me, do not really just go by what it says. We all go by what we think it means. There is little, some but little, controversy and discussion on what it says. Probably 99.99% of all theoretical discussions are over what we think it means, not what it says.

 

[Alive]

Hmmm, the divine nature is self-centered while the human nature of Christ is not self-centered ... but he human nature of Christ is determined by the self-centered divine nature of Christ which is self-centered as evidenced by the purpose of the divine nature is His glory and pleasure.
IMO

Ha! ;-
To many weeds for me, but I suspect you may know what I meant.
Just in case you didn't.
My flesh tends toward watching out for itself, but Christ within me tends to look outward for another's sake.

 

[CrowCross]

With all due respect, you and everyone else, including me, do not really just go by what it says. We all go by what we think it means. There is little, some but little, controversy and discussion on what it says. Probably 99.99% of all theoretical discussions are over what we think it means, not what it says.

many believe the bible means what it says. Don't you?

 

[Arial]

There are many animals who are flesh and blood. Man is flesh and blood.
The flesh of animals is not sinful flesh. They are not made under the law.

The flesh of animals is made under the law of God. Just not the moral law of God because they were not made in his image and likeness. They obey their God given purpose and actions ( which when it comes from the one who created them, God, it is law. Law of God is not only moral). They do it by instinct that God has imparted to them in their creation and as part of their nature.

 

[LeviR]

Where does the bible teach this? Why is that not speculation?

If you told us you were speculating i would say...OK, that's your belief....but, where does the bible teach this?

Gen 3:6-9. THE FALL.

6. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food--Her imagination and feelings were completely won; and the fall of Eve was soon followed by that of Adam. The history of every temptation, and of every sin, is the same; the outward object of attraction, the inward commotion of mind, the increase and triumph of passionate desire; ending in the degradation, slavery, and ruin of the soul ( Jam 1:15 1Jo 2:16 ). - Robert Jamieson

 

[LeviR]

The flesh of animals is made under the law of God. Just not the moral law of God because they were not made in his image and likeness. They obey their God given purpose and actions ( which when it comes from the one who created them, God, it is law. Law of God is not only moral). They do it by instinct that God has imparted to them in their creation and as part of their nature.

Yes, they are amoral.

 

[Arial]

With all due respect, you and everyone else, including me, do not really just go by what it says. We all go by what we think it means. There is little, some but little, controversy and discussion on what it says. Probably 99.99% of all theoretical discussions are over what we think it means, not what it says.

There is no way to go beyond what it says when it says God gave every green plant as food for everything that has breath, and says nothing more about it. All we know beyond that is what began to happen and what is still happening, that involves creatures devouring other creatures. The when, how, and why speculation is what is going beyond what it says. So don't expand the words or the conversation into a whole other territory.

 

[LeviR]

Where does the bible teach this? Why is that not speculation?

If you told us you were speculating i would say...OK, that's your belief....but, where does the bible teach this?

ch. 2:9. Now, in her eye, this was like all the rest. It seemed as good for food as any of them, and she saw nothing in the colour of its fruit that threatened death or danger; it was as pleasant to the sight as any of them, and therefore, "What hurt could it do them? Why should this be forbidden them rather than any of the rest?" Note, When there is thought to be no more harm in forbidden fruit than in other fruit sin lies at the door, and Satan soon carries the day. Nay, perhaps it seemed to her to be better for food, more grateful to the taste, and more nourishing to the body, than any of the rest, and to her eye it was more pleasant than any. We are often betrayed into snares by an inordinate desire to have our senses gratified. Or, if it had nothing in it more inviting than the rest, yet it was the more coveted because it was prohibited. Whether it was so in her or not, we find that in us (that is, in our flesh, in our corrupt nature) there dwells a strange spirit of contradiction. Nitimur in vetitum-We desire what is prohibited. - Matthew Henry

 

[LeviR]

@CrowCross

a. So when the woman saw: Eve surrendered to this temptation in exactly the way John describes in 1 John 2:16. First, she gave in to the lust of the flesh (saw that it was good for food), then she gave in to the lust of the eyes (pleasant to the eyes), then she gave in to the pride of life (desirable to make one wise).- David Guzik

 

[Arial]

Jesus’ flesh was not sinful flesh???
That would be true if Jesus was not made under the law.

Jesus wasn't made---he was born under the law. The Law---Mosiac Law---is not what MAKES man sinful ---otherwise it would be God making man sinful. That very question came up as an anticipated question in Romans 7:7-25 to which Paul replied "By no means!"

Flesh in not inherently sinful. That is a belief in some branches of Gnosticism. It became sinful by Adam breaking faith with God in disobedience. Jesus was not born in Adam. His Father is the Holy Spirit. That makes Jesus God. He was born of a woman. That makes him human, but not born in sin.

Jesus is grouped among the animals.

That is so derogatory and blasphemous it should be deleted. I am leaving it and responding to it for a purpose, but don't make a habit of it.

Man is grouped among those under the law.

Everything created including man is of necessity created under law. You have simply limited law to the Mosaic covenant legal code ----which most of Israel did and certainly the Pharisees did as Jesus pointed out with a whole series of woes on them.

 

[LeviR]

@CrowCross

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat (Gen 3:6).

Jesus said, "All that is in the world," or I guess John said, "All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16). Look at three: "lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, pride of life." Look how Satan hit her with a three-pronged attack. Lust of the flesh, was good to eat. The lust of the eye, it was pleasant to behold. The pride of life, a tree desired to make one wise as God. And so he hit her with a three-pronged attack, with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, the pride of life; it was all there. And she ate. And she gave to Adam and he did eat.

Now the woman was deceived but Adam was not. Adam knew better. In the New Testament we are told that Adam-actually the woman was deceived, not Adam. That is, Adam knew what he was doing. Adam's was a deliberate willful choice against God's command; where the woman would had really been hoodwinked by Satan, she was deceived. - Chuck Smith

 

[LeviR]

Jesus wasn't made---he was born under the law. The Law---Mosiac Law---is not what MAKES man sinful ---otherwise it would be God making man sinful. That very question came up as an anticipated question in Romans 7:7-25 to which Paul replied "By no means!"

Flesh in not inherently sinful. That is a belief in some branches of Gnosticism. It became sinful by Adam breaking faith with God in disobedience. Jesus was not born in Adam. His Father is the Holy Spirit. That makes Jesus God. He was born of a woman. That makes him human, but not born in sin.

That is so derogatory and blasphemous it should be deleted. I am leaving it and responding to it for a purpose, but don't make a habit of it.

Everything created including man is of necessity created under law. You have simply limited law to the Mosaic covenant legal code ----which most of Israel did and certainly the Pharisees did as Jesus pointed out with a whole series of woes on them.

The law is meant to expose the Jews complete inability to live up to its just demands.
But that’s not what brought death to them.
They die because they are like Adam. It was Adam that brought death to all of humankind.

 

[Arial]

Yes, they are amoral.

That would depend on what you are defining amoral as. If you mean neither moral or immoral then that is true. However it is not actually addressing my post. Bibilcally---they are not morally accountable to God, simply because they were not made in his image and likeness. They were not created as moral creatures. Man is.

 

[LeviR]

That would depend on what you are defining amoral as. If you mean neither moral or immoral then that is true. However it is not actually addressing my post. Bibilcally---they are not morally accountable to God, simply because they were not made in his image and likeness. They were not created as moral creatures. Man is.

They are not accountable to God because God never said to them “thou shall not”
He never told the serpent “thou shall not”