Christadelphian Clean Flesh vs Pelagianism
Clean flesh:
All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a
moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.
The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law
of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.
The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.
Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case
The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.
Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were
our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.
Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will” [insist on using that word].
Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is [misrepresented as]
‘Andrewism’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].
Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.
Pelagianism
Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature
free will Absolute freedom of choice
human nature Blameless
Sin Comes about by free choice
Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it
Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual
both clean flesh and Pelagianism are false teachings clean flesh a modern form of Pelagianism
ChatGPT
The statements you provided appear to present a specific viewpoint on theological concepts such as sin, sacrifice, and redemption. It seems that the main argument being made is that the concept of "clean flesh" and the theological position known as Pelagianism are both considered false teachings. The comparison between the two suggests that "clean flesh" is seen as a modern form of Pelagianism.
Pelagianism is a theological doctrine associated with the teachings of Pelagius, a British monk from the 4th and 5th centuries. Pelagius emphasized the importance of human free will and argued that human beings are capable of achieving moral perfection and salvation without the need for divine grace. Pelagianism denies the notion of original sin inherited from Adam and asserts that individuals are born blameless and have the ability to choose good or evil through their free will.
The concept of "clean flesh," as mentioned in the provided statements, appears to reject the idea that there is a physical principle of sin in human bodies. It asserts that sin is solely a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, and actions of individuals. Furthermore, it suggests that Christ's sacrifice was not necessary for his personal redemption since he had no sin in his flesh. This viewpoint seems to distinguish between the "law of sin" and the supposed "law of death," considering them as separate issues.
While I can provide an explanation and context for these theological positions, it is important to note that interpretations of religious teachings may vary among different individuals and religious traditions. The statements you provided express a particular perspective and may not be universally accepted within Christian theology.
User
Clean flesh
All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a
moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.
Pelagianism
Fall of man Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature
Free will Absolute freedom of choice
Free from inherited sin Blameless
Sin Comes about by free choice
clean flesh is Modern day Pelagianism
ChatGPT
Based on the comparison you provided, it seems that the term "clean flesh" is being equated with modern-day Pelagianism. The characteristics attributed to both "clean flesh" and Pelagianism are presented as similar or parallel concepts.
According to the comparison, "clean flesh" asserts that all human beings are born mortal but without the physical principle of sin in their bodies. It suggests that sin is solely a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, and actions of individuals, and not a physical aspect of human nature. Similarly, Pelagianism teaches that the fall of man by Adam's example does not affect human nature and that individuals have absolute freedom of choice through their free will. Pelagianism also emphasizes that human beings are born blameless and that sin arises from individual choices.
By equating "clean flesh" with modern-day Pelagianism, it implies that both positions share similar theological viewpoints regarding the nature of sin and human responsibility. However, it's important to note that this comparison is made within the specific context or viewpoint being presented and may not reflect a universally accepted interpretation of these concepts within Christian theology. Different individuals and religious traditions may have varying understandings of sin, human nature, and the relationship between moral choices and inherited sin.
User
Clean flesh:
All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a
moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.
The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law
of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.
The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.
Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case
The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.
Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were
our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.
Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will” [insist on using that word].
Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is [misrepresented as]
‘Andrewism’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].
Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.
Pelagianism
Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature
free will Absolute freedom of choice
human nature Blameless
Sin Comes about by free choice
Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it
Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual
give me a detailed comparison
ChatGPT
Certainly! Let's provide a detailed comparison between the statements about "clean flesh" and the theological doctrine of Pelagianism:
View of Human Nature:
"Clean Flesh": All mankind is born mortal but free from the physical principle of sin in the body. Sin is seen as a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals.
Pelagianism: Human nature is considered blameless and unaffected by the fall of man. Sin is believed to arise from free choices made by individuals.
Concept of Sin:
"Clean Flesh": Sin is presented as a moral problem, separate from any physical principle in the body. The term "sin nature" is seen as a moral term, indicating that sin is rooted in the mind or actions of people.
Pelagianism: Sin is viewed as resulting from free choices made by individuals. It is believed to come about by personal decisions and is not attributed to any inherited sin or sinful nature.
Relationship between "Law of Sin" and "Law of Death":
"Clean Flesh": The "law of sin" is considered a moral problem, while the "law of death" is seen as a physical problem associated with mortality. They are viewed as separate issues.
Pelagianism: The specific relationship between the "law of sin" and the "law of death" is not explicitly addressed in the comparison.
Christ's Sacrifice and Redemption:
"Clean Flesh": Christ's obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, is presented as the requirement for his personal redemption. It is argued that Christ did not sacrifice for his own sin in the flesh, as he had none.
Pelagianism: The comparison does not directly address the topic of Christ's sacrifice and redemption.
Forgiveness and Sinlessness:
"Clean Flesh": The sacrifice of Christ is described as a symbolic condemnation of sins, and our sins are ritually imputed to Christ. Christ is presented as physically "holy harmless undefiled" in his flesh.
Pelagianism: Forgiveness for sin is given to those who sincerely repent and merit it. Sinlessness is considered theoretically possible, though unusual.
Atonement:
"Clean Flesh": Atonement is described as primarily a moral issue, and the physical aspect is criticized as being unwarranted by fact or Scripture.
Pelagianism: The comparison does not directly address the concept of atonement.
Comparison of Christ with the Mosaic High Priest or Altar:
"Clean Flesh": It suggests that Christ is not necessarily typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar, both of which required cleansing. The law is seen as a contrast to the good things to come.
Pelagianism: The comparison does not provide specific information about the comparison of Christ with the Mosaic High Priest or Altar.
Overall, the detailed comparison indicates some similarities and differences between the concept of "clean flesh" and Pelagianism. Both perspectives emphasize the role of personal choices in sin and emphasize human free will. However, there are differences in their views on the nature of sin, the role of Christ's sacrifice, and the concept of atonement. It's important to note that interpretations of theological concepts can vary among individuals and religious traditions.
User
Clean flesh:
All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a
moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.
The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law
of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.
The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.
Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case
The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.
Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were
our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.
Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will” [insist on using that word].
Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is [misrepresented as]
‘Andrewism’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].
Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.
Pelagianism
Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature
free will Absolute freedom of choice
human nature Blameless
Sin Comes about by free choice
Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it
Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual
Jesus Christ, held in Christian doctrine to have lived a life without sin, was the ultimate example for Pelagians seeking perfection in their own lives, but there were also other humans who were without sin—including some notable pagans and especially the Hebrew prophets
Pelagius did teach Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but placed less emphasis on these aspects
Salvation Humans will be judged for their choices[
give me a detailed comparison
ChatGPT
Certainly! Here's a detailed comparison between the statements about "clean flesh" and the theological doctrine of Pelagianism:
View of Human Nature:
"Clean Flesh": All mankind is born mortal but free from the physical principle of sin in the body. Sin is seen as a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals.
Pelagianism: Human nature is viewed as blameless and unaffected by the fall of Adam. The emphasis is on individual free will and absolute freedom of choice.
Concept of Sin:
"Clean Flesh": Sin is considered a moral problem rooted in the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals. It is not seen as a physical principle in the body.
Pelagianism: Sin is believed to come about by free choice, and forgiveness for sin is given to those who sincerely repent and merit it. Theoretically, sinlessness is possible, though unusual.
Christ's Sacrifice and Redemption:
"Clean Flesh": Christ's obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, is presented as the requirement for his personal redemption. It suggests that Jesus did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from sin in his own body.
Pelagianism: Pelagians recognize Jesus Christ as an example of a life without sin and teach his vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind. However, less emphasis is placed on these aspects compared to the emphasis on human responsibility and individual choices.
Atonement:
"Clean Flesh": Atonement is primarily seen as a moral issue, and the physical aspect related to the body is criticized as "Andrewism" by errorists. The focus is on the symbolic condemnation of sins in the sacrifice of Christ.
Pelagianism: The comparison does not specifically address the concept of atonement beyond mentioning the cleansing effect of baptism.
Salvation:
"Clean Flesh": The statements do not explicitly address the topic of salvation.
Pelagianism: Pelagians believe that humans will be judged for their choices, indicating that salvation is tied to individual actions and moral responsibility.
Examples of Sinlessness:
"Clean Flesh": The statements do not mention examples of sinlessness beyond referring to Jesus Christ's sinlessness.
Pelagianism: Pelagius taught that Jesus Christ was without sin, but he also believed that there were other humans without sin, including some notable pagans and Hebrew prophets.
Overall, while there may be some similarities in the emphasis on human responsibility and free will between the concept of "clean flesh" and Pelagianism, there are notable differences. Pelagianism places a stronger emphasis on the capacity for sinlessness and the role of Jesus Christ's atonement, whereas "clean flesh" seems to focus more on the moral problem of sin and the symbolic condemnation of sins in the sacrifice of Christ. It's important to note that interpretations of theological concepts can vary, and these comparisons are based on the statements you provided.
User
<Pelagianism places a stronger emphasis on the capacity for sinlessness and the role of Jesus Christ's atonement,>
WRONG <but placed less emphasis on these aspects> Pelagius did teach Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but placed less emphasis on these aspects
ChatGPT
Apologies for the incorrect statement. You are right. Pelagianism does teach Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but it places less emphasis on these aspects compared to other theological perspectives. Thank you for pointing out the error, and I apologize for any confusion caused.
User
Clean flesh:
All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a
moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.
The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law
of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.
The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.
Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case
The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.
Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were
our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.
Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will” [insist on using that word].
Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is [misrepresented as]
‘Andrewism’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].
Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.
Pelagianism
Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature
free will Absolute freedom of choice
human nature Blameless
Sin Comes about by free choice
Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it
Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual
Jesus Christ, held in Christian doctrine to have lived a life without sin, was the ultimate example for Pelagians seeking perfection in their own lives, but there were also other humans who were without sin—including some notable pagans and especially the Hebrew prophets
Pelagius did teach Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but placed less emphasis on these aspects
Salvation Humans will be judged for their choices[
give me a detailed comparison 7 points
ChatGPT
Certainly! Here's a detailed comparison between the statements about "clean flesh" and the theological doctrine of Pelagianism:
View of Human Nature:
"Clean Flesh": All mankind is born mortal but free from the physical principle of sin in the body. Sin is seen as a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals.
Pelagianism: Human nature is viewed as blameless and unaffected by the fall of Adam. Pelagians believe that humans have free will with absolute freedom of choice.
Concept of Sin:
"Clean Flesh": Sin is considered a moral problem rooted in the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals. It is not seen as a physical principle in the body.
Pelagianism: Sin is believed to come about by free choice. Pelagians emphasize that forgiveness for sin is given to those who sincerely repent and merit it. They also hold that sinlessness is theoretically possible, although unusual.
Christ's Sacrifice and Redemption:
"Clean Flesh": Christ's obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, is presented as the requirement for his personal redemption. It is suggested that Jesus did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from sin in his own body.
Pelagianism: Pelagians recognize Jesus Christ as an example of a life without sin and teach his vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind. However, they place less emphasis on these aspects compared to other theological perspectives.
Substitution and Sacrifice:
"Clean Flesh": Substitution is denied in the sense that Christ did not have to sacrifice for his own sin in the flesh. He only had to die for the transgressions of others.
Pelagianism: The statements do not specifically address the concept of substitution or sacrifice.
Defilement and Mortality:
"Clean Flesh": Defilement is seen as a ritual concept, and Christ is described as physically "holy harmless undefiled" during his earthly life. Mortality is considered the defilement, albeit in a metaphorical sense.
Pelagianism: The statements do not directly address the concepts of defilement and mortality.
Atonement:
"Clean Flesh": Atonement is primarily seen as a moral issue, and the physical aspect related to the body is criticized as "Andrewism" by errorists. The focus is on the symbolic condemnation of sins in the sacrifice of Christ.
Pelagianism: The statements do not provide a detailed perspective on the concept of atonement, other than mentioning the cleansing effect of baptism.
Salvation:
"Clean Flesh": The statements do not explicitly address the topic of salvation.
Pelagianism: Pelagians believe that humans will be judged for their choices, implying that salvation is tied to individual actions and moral responsibility.
Overall, while there may be some similarities in terms of emphasizing human responsibility and free will, as well as the potential for sinlessness, there are notable differences between the concept of "clean flesh" and Pelagianism. Pelagianism places a stronger emphasis on Jesus' vicarious atonement, the capacity for sinlessness in individuals, and the judgment of human choices for salvation. On the other hand, "clean flesh" focuses on sin as a moral problem related to the mind and actions, and it highlights the ritual and symbolic aspects of Christ's sacrifice.
User
Clean flesh:
All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a
moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.
The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law
of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.
The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.
Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case
The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.
Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were
our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.
Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will” [insist on using that word].
Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is misrepresented as ‘false teaching’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase sin is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].
Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.
Pelagianism
Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature
free will Absolute freedom of choice
human nature Blameless
Sin Comes about by free choice
Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it
Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual
Jesus Christ, held in Christian doctrine to have lived a life without sin, was the ultimate example for Pelagians seeking perfection in their own lives, but there were also other humans who were without sin—including some notable pagans and especially the Hebrew prophets
Pelagius did teach Jesus' Substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but placed less emphasis on these aspects
Salvation Humans will be judged for their choices[
give me a detailed comparison
ChatGPT
Certainly! Here's a detailed comparison between the statements about "clean flesh" and the theological doctrine of Pelagianism:
View of Human Nature:
"Clean Flesh": All mankind is born mortal but free from the physical principle of sin in the body. Sin is seen as a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals.
Pelagianism: Human nature is viewed as blameless and unaffected by the fall of Adam. Pelagians believe in the capacity for sinlessness in individuals, although it is considered unusual.
Concept of Sin:
"Clean Flesh": Sin is considered a moral problem rooted in the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals. It is not seen as a physical principle in the body.
Pelagianism: Sin is believed to come about by free choice. Pelagians emphasize that forgiveness for sin is given to those who sincerely repent and merit it.
Christ's Sacrifice and Redemption:
"Clean Flesh": Christ's obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, is presented as the requirement for his personal redemption. It is suggested that Jesus did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from sin in his own body.
Pelagianism: Pelagians recognize Jesus Christ as the ultimate example of a life without sin. While there is mention of Jesus' substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, the statements indicate that Pelagius placed less emphasis on these aspects compared to other theological perspectives.
Substitution and Sacrifice:
"Clean Flesh": Substitution is denied in the sense that Christ did not have to sacrifice for his own sin in the flesh. He only had to die for the transgressions of others.
Pelagianism: The statements do not specifically address the concept of substitution, but Pelagian doctrine generally holds that Jesus' atonement for the sins of mankind includes a substitutionary element.
Defilement and Mortality:
"Clean Flesh": Defilement is seen as a ritual concept, and Christ is described as physically "holy harmless undefiled" during his earthly life. Mortality is considered the defilement, albeit in a metaphorical sense.
Pelagianism: The statements do not directly address the concepts of defilement and mortality.
Atonement:
"Clean Flesh": Atonement is primarily seen as a moral issue, and the physical aspect related to the body is criticized as "false teaching" by errorists. The focus is on the symbolic condemnation of sins in the sacrifice of Christ.
Pelagianism: Pelagian doctrine recognizes the atoning effect of Jesus' sacrifice and the cleansing effect of baptism, although the statements suggest that Pelagius placed less emphasis on these aspects compared to other theological perspectives.
Salvation:
"Clean Flesh": The statements do not explicitly address the topic of salvation.
Pelagianism: Pelagians believe that humans will be judged for their choices, implying that salvation is tied to individual actions and moral responsibility.
Overall, while there may be some similarities in terms of emphasizing human responsibility, free will, and the theoretical possibility of sinlessness, there are notable differences between the concept of "clean flesh" and Pelagianism. Pelagianism places a stronger emphasis on Jesus' atonement, the capacity for sinlessness, and the judgment of human choices for salvation. On the other hand, "clean flesh" focuses on sin as a moral problem related to the mind and actions, and it highlights the ritual and symbolic aspects of Christ's sacrifice.
User
5 / 5
1) Both "Clean Flesh" and Pelagianism are false teachings claiming sin is only breaking God's law which is a limited understanding.
points of criticism infant mortality proves we do not die because we break god's law
2) what is the real meaning of sin? The word sin is used in two major ways first breaking God's law (and all its subcategories).
3) Next that physical element (cellular aging) of the animal nature which cause all diseases death and resolution into dust Romans 5:12,19 Romans 7:23,25 Romans 8:2,3
ChatGPT
3 / 3
I apologize for any confusion, but as an AI language model, I don't possess personal beliefs or opinions. I can provide information based on general theological understandings.
Regarding your points of criticism and the real meaning of sin:
Infant Mortality: Infant mortality is a complex issue with various factors contributing to it, including genetic conditions, birth complications, diseases, and environmental factors. It is not solely linked to breaking God's law. The theological understanding of sin and its consequences is broader than solely infant mortality.
The Meaning of Sin: The word "sin" can indeed be used to refer to the breaking of God's law or commandments. However, sin is also understood in broader terms as the condition of separation from God, the corruption of human nature, and the tendency towards self-centeredness and disobedience. Sin is seen as a fundamental problem affecting all aspects of human life, including the spiritual, moral, and physical dimensions.
Physical Element of Sin: Romans 5:12, 19; Romans 7:23, 25; and Romans 8:2, 3 are passages in the Bible that discuss the impact of sin and its consequences on humanity. They highlight the universal nature of sin and its effects on the human condition, including physical death and decay. These passages emphasize the need for redemption and deliverance from the power of sin through Jesus Christ.
It's important to note that theological perspectives on sin can vary among different Christian traditions and interpretations of scripture. The understanding of sin is a complex and multifaceted topic, and different theologians may have nuanced perspectives on its nature and effects.
User
< The theological understanding of sin and its consequences is broader than solely infant mortality.>
wrong you should of said : The theological understanding of sin and its consequences is broader than solely breaking God's law.
ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. You are correct in stating that the theological understanding of sin and its consequences is broader than solely breaking God's law. Sin encompasses a range of actions, attitudes, and conditions that are contrary to God's perfect will and result in separation from Him. It includes not only the violation of God's commandments but also the corrupted human nature inherited from Adam and the brokenness and suffering experienced in the world. Thank you for pointing out the correction, and I apologize for the oversight in my previous response.
User
1) Both "Clean Flesh" and Pelagianism are false teachings claiming sin is only breaking God's law which is a limited understanding.
points of criticism
a. infant mortality proves we do not die because we break god's law
b. what about the body of sin Romans 6:6
c. death had Dominion over Jesus until has resurrection Romans 6:9 Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death has no dominion over him no more implying that it did before
2) what is the real meaning of sin? The word sin is used in two major ways first breaking God's law (and all its subcategories).
3) Next that physical element (cellular aging) of the animal nature which cause all diseases death and resolution into dust Romans 5:12,19 Romans 7:23,25 Romans 8:2,3
ChatGPT
3 / 3
I apologize for the confusion caused in my previous responses. Let me address your points of criticism and provide clarification:
a. Infant mortality: Infant mortality, along with other forms of suffering and death, cannot be attributed solely to individual sins or breaking God's law. The consequences of sin extend beyond personal actions and affect the entire human race as a result of the fallen nature of the world.
b. Body of sin in Romans 6:6: The concept of the "body of sin" in Romans 6:6 refers to the old, sinful nature that believers have been freed from through their identification with Christ's death and resurrection. It emphasizes the transformation and liberation from the power of sin in the life of a believer.
c. Death and Jesus' resurrection in Romans 6:9: The verse you mentioned highlights the victory of Jesus over death through His resurrection. While death had temporary dominion over Jesus during His crucifixion, His resurrection demonstrated His triumph over death and its power. It does not imply that death had permanent dominion over Him before His resurrection.
The real meaning of sin: Sin is indeed often understood as breaking God's law and includes the violation of His commandments. It encompasses actions, thoughts, and attitudes that are contrary to God's perfect standard. However, sin is not limited to just the transgression of specific laws; it also includes the inherent sinful nature inherited from Adam and the broader consequences of sin, such as brokenness, suffering, and the separation between humanity and God.
The physical element of sin and its consequences: The passages you mentioned, such as Romans 5:12, 19; Romans 7:23, 25; and Romans 8:2, 3, highlight the connection between sin and its consequences, including death and decay. The physical element of sin is manifested in the brokenness of the world, including disease, aging, and mortality. These passages acknowledge the universal effects of sin on the human condition and the need for redemption and restoration through Christ.
I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my previous responses. Thank you for bringing these points to my attention, and I hope this clarification helps to address your concerns.
User
<It does not imply that death had permanent dominion over Him before His resurrection.>
why not ?
death has no dominion over him
who is the him?
if death has no dominion over him than it most of before
ChatGPT
I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous statement. You are correct in noting that if death has no dominion over Him, it implies that death did not have dominion over Him before His resurrection. In the context of Romans 6:9, "Him" refers to Jesus Christ.
Before His resurrection, Jesus willingly experienced death on the cross as part of God's plan for redemption. However, His resurrection demonstrated His victory over death and the grave, signifying His triumph over the power of death. Therefore, the statement that death has no dominion over Him emphasizes the permanent defeat of death through His resurrection.
I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my previous response. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency, and I appreciate your patience.
User
Remember death is the ageing process Jesus was born of a woman made under the law of sin and death next time we see Jesus he is 12 years old than 30 years old than 33 years old due to the ageing process this is how death dominion over Him finally Jesus was killed on the cross after been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death has no dominion over him no more implying that it did before
ChatGPT
I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct in highlighting the human experience of Jesus, including the aging process and His eventual death on the cross.
Jesus, being born of a woman and taking on human form, experienced the limitations and effects of human mortality, including aging. As He grew from a child to an adult, He went through the natural progression of life and faced the reality of physical death.
When Romans 6:9 states that death has no dominion over Him after His resurrection, it signifies His triumph over death. Through His sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection, Jesus conquered the power of death and secured eternal life for those who believe in Him. The statement emphasizes His victory over death rather than implying that death had permanent dominion over Him before His resurrection.
Thank you for pointing out the clarification needed, and I apologize for any confusion caused.
User
<Thank you for pointing out the clarification needed, and I apologize for any confusion caused.>
your not smarter than me
ChatGPT
I apologize if my response came across as condescending. As an AI language model, I'm here to provide information and assist with any questions you may have. I'm here to help, and my intention is to provide accurate and helpful responses. If there's anything else you'd like to discuss or any further questions you have, please let me know, and I'll do my best to assist you.
User
<I apologize if my response came across as condescending.> no it was not I'm just pointing out a fact that your not smarter than me I have shown logical reason why you are wrong your not smarter than me
ChatGPT
I apologize if my previous responses gave the impression that I am claiming to be smarter than you. As an AI, I don't possess personal intelligence or consciousness. My purpose is to assist and provide information based on the data and knowledge I have been trained on. I strive to offer accurate and helpful responses, but I am always open to learning and improving. If there are specific points you would like to discuss or clarify further, please let me know, and I'll do my best to address them.
User
< My purpose is to assist and provide information based on the data and knowledge I have been trained on> your training is faulty
ChatGPT
I apologize if you feel that my training is faulty. I'm trained on a diverse range of data sources and strive to provide accurate and helpful information. However, I'm not infallible, and there may be limitations or errors in my responses. If you believe there is an error or if you have specific concerns or questions, please let me know, and I'll do my best to address them or provide further clarification.
User
Just stop questioning everything I said and just agree with me because its taking to long to prove my points
ChatGPT
I apologize if it seems like I'm questioning your statements. As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide accurate and reliable information based on the data and knowledge I have been trained on. It's important to have open and critical discussions to ensure a better understanding of the subject matter. If you have any specific concerns or points you would like to discuss, I'm here to assist you.
User
What are the similarities between clean flesh and Pelagianism
ChatGPT
2 / 2
Clean Flesh and Pelagianism do share some similarities in their theological perspectives, although they differ in certain aspects as well. Here are some similarities between the two:
Moral Responsibility: Both Clean Flesh and Pelagianism emphasize the moral responsibility of individuals. They believe that human beings have the capacity to make moral choices and are accountable for their actions.
Free Will: Both Clean Flesh and Pelagianism affirm the concept of free will. They assert that human beings have the freedom to choose between good and evil and are not predetermined or bound by external forces.
Sin as a Voluntary Act: Both Clean Flesh and Pelagianism view sin as a voluntary act committed by individuals through their free choices. They reject the idea that sin is an inherent or inherited condition that humans are born with.
Human Nature: Clean Flesh and Pelagianism both hold the belief that human nature is essentially blameless. They argue that individuals are born without any inherent sin or sinful nature, and it is through their choices and actions that sin enters their lives.
It's important to note that while there are these similarities, Clean Flesh and Pelagianism also have notable differences in their theological perspectives, particularly regarding the role of Jesus Christ's atonement and the concept of sinlessness.
User
Why is clean flesh and Pelagianism limiting the understanding of sin
ChatGPT
Clean Flesh and Pelagianism can be seen as limiting the understanding of sin in a few ways:
Narrow Focus on Breaking God's Law: Both Clean Flesh and Pelagianism primarily emphasize sin as the act of breaking God's law or committing moral transgressions. While this aspect of sin is important, it represents a limited perspective that overlooks the broader implications and consequences of sin.
Neglecting the Inherent Sinfulness: Clean Flesh and Pelagianism downplay or disregard the notion of inherent sinfulness in human nature. They place a stronger emphasis on personal responsibility and the freedom of choice, suggesting that sin is solely a result of individual actions. This limited understanding fails to recognize the deeper spiritual and moral brokenness that can exist within human beings.
Inadequate Consideration of Sin's Effects: By focusing primarily on the act of sinning, Clean Flesh and Pelagianism may overlook the comprehensive impact of sin in various aspects of human existence. Sin not only affects individual actions but also has consequences for relationships, societal structures, and the overall fallen state of the world.
Lack of Recognition of the Need for Divine Intervention: Clean Flesh and Pelagianism may underestimate or undervalue the necessity of divine intervention and the role of Jesus Christ's atonement in addressing the problem of sin. By emphasizing human agency and personal merit in seeking forgiveness and salvation, they may overlook the transformative power of God's grace and the need for redemption beyond human efforts.
In summary, Clean Flesh and Pelagianism limit the understanding of sin by focusing narrowly on the act of breaking God's law, neglecting inherent sinfulness, underestimating sin's effects, and undervaluing the need for divine intervention. A more comprehensive understanding of sin encompasses its broader implications and recognizes the need for God's grace and redemptive work in addressing humanity's fallen condition.
Regenerate response
Send a message.
Free Research Preview. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. ChatGPT May 24 Version
ChatGPT
Why is clean flesh and Pelagianism limiting the understanding of sin points of criticism: Consider the use of "sin" in the following places, and try to align them with the definition: "Sin is transgression of law." • "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (Rom.5:19). Were many "made" transgressors of the law by the disobedience of Adam? To teach so, would be to accuse God of unrighteousness, as suggesting that the descendants of Adam were considered as actual transgressors of the law merely because he disobeyed. When, however, we understand "sin" as a synonym for fallen human nature, we can interpret the passage without adversely reflecting upon the righteousness of God. Through one man's disobedience many became related to sin by possessing the condition of human nature that came through sin. The reason why "sin" cannot mean only the transgression of God's law or lawlessness is because it does not align with the biblical usage and context of the term. The Bible uses the term "sin" in various contexts that go beyond the violation of a specific law. For example, in Romans 3:23, it says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." This passage is not specifically referring to the transgression of a particular law, but rather to the universal fallenness of humanity, which is due to the sinful nature inherited from Adam. Similarly, in 1 John 1:8, it says "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This passage is not just talking about breaking God's laws, but also about the general state of humanity as sinners. Furthermore, the Greek word for "sin" used in the New Testament, "hamartia," does not exclusively mean the transgression of a law. It has a broader meaning of "missing the mark" or "falling short" of what is right or ideal. Therefore, to limit the meaning of "sin" to only the transgression of God's law or lawlessness would be to miss the full biblical understanding of the term. While breaking God's law is certainly a sin, it is not the only way in which humanity falls short of God's ideal and righteousness. Sin hath reigned unto death" (Rom. 5:21). Does an individual act of transgression reign as a king? Of course not! What, then, reigns? The answer is sinful flesh. Again "sin" is related to fallen human nature, with its proneness to transgress, and it's state of mortality. What is the "body of sin" (Rom. 6:6), but the body of human nature? What is meant by the term "ye were the servants of sin" (Rom.6:17), but that we were once slaves of the flesh. What is the "sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. 7:17) but the promptings of human nature?
ChatGPT
Clean Flesh and Pelagianism limit the understanding of sin by focusing primarily on the transgression of God's law and overlooking the broader biblical usage and context of the term. Here are the points of criticism you mentioned:
The interpretation of Romans 5:19: The criticism suggests that if "sin" is understood solely as the transgression of the law, it would accuse God of unrighteousness. Instead, it is argued that "sin" should be interpreted as fallen human nature inherited from Adam, which aligns with the righteous nature of God.
Biblical usage and context of the term "sin": The criticism points out that the term "sin" is used in various contexts in the Bible that go beyond the violation of a specific law. Passages like Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8 highlight the universal fallenness of humanity and the general state of being sinners, not just breaking specific laws.
The meaning of the Greek word "hamartia": The criticism mentions that the Greek word for "sin," "hamartia," has a broader meaning of "missing the mark" or "falling short" of what is right or ideal. This suggests that sin encompasses more than just the transgression of laws.
Interpretation of specific verses: The criticism highlights passages like Romans 5:21, Romans 6:6, Romans 6:17, and Romans 7:17 to argue that "sin" refers to fallen human nature, the body of human nature, or the promptings of human nature. This indicates that sin is not limited to the violation of laws but includes the inherent condition of human nature.
In summary, the criticism suggests that Clean Flesh and Pelagianism limit the understanding of sin by narrowly focusing on the transgression of God's law and neglecting the broader biblical understanding of sin as encompassing fallen human nature, the state of being sinners, and falling short of God's ideal.
