Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Campion; CynicalBear

My take on Satan’s role in every man’s nature from Adam to the present is this: When Adam and Eve ate of the Tree, Satan gained rulership over the earth by causing his fall. (God had originally given Adam rulership until iniquity (sin) was found in him. His relationship to man through the ages has been that of a usurper; and until Christ returns, satan will remain the prince of the power of the air and the ruler of this present evil world. Man will again inherit the earth and shall live in it forever when Christ returns and sets up His kingdom. Until that time, ALL of us who have ever been born are subject to satan’s deeds. THAT is the sin nature as I see it. And unless we are saved by the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, we are powerless to free ourselves from that nature.


122 posted on 11/19/2013 7:03:44 PM PST by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]


To: smvoice
Until that time, ALL of us who have ever been born are subject to satan’s deeds. THAT is the sin nature as I see it.

Interesting, because that is not at all what I hear when I hear the term "sin nature".

What exactly do you mean by we are "subject to satan's deeds"?

(I don't want to poison your response, but that sounds to me a lot like we're sort of hostages in his thrall or kingdom, who need to be, in a manner of speaking, "ransomed". That I completely agree with, and it has a fine pedigree. But I don't think that's the essence of original sin. If Satan went "poof" and vanished into non-existence tomorrow, original sin would be just as real.)

How do you think Adam's own nature -- his humanity, if you prefer, was affected by his & Eve's sin? A followup: If you think his nature was changed, what implications did that have for his descendants?

142 posted on 11/19/2013 8:20:50 PM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

To: smvoice; Campion
That’s pretty much accurate.

I’m not sure what Campion is trying to accomplish here. It seems to me he may be playing a game of semantics or it may be that he takes a different position than the RCC itself. The RCC holds the same position on the “sin nature” but simply uses a different term which is “original sin” as illustrated here.

“Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality.” [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm]

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Original sin or “the sin nature” is one of the reasoning’s they use for the practice of infant baptism as seen here.

“That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm]

Catholics seem to like to take us down the rabbit trail of confusion and obfuscation.

206 posted on 11/20/2013 6:02:36 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson