The nature of man

1. The nature of man Involved are not only the false doctrines of heaven, hell and purgatory but original sin and inherited legal condemnation which divide Christadelphians.

2. The nature of man Mortal and prone to sin Mortal-- Genesis3:19 …for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Mortal --Ecclesiastes12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit (“ruwach”)shall return unto God who gave it. Mortal – Psa.146:4 His breath(“ruwach”)goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.* Mortal – Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. * Prone to sin -- Jeremiah17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? This all is so very clear – so why so many different beliefs?

3. It goes back to the lie of the serpent! The Nature of Man Two key words: Soul – “nephesh”, “psuche” Spirit – “ruach”, “pneuma”

4. Soul – “nephesh”, “psuche” “Soul” in the Bible means primarily a “breathing creature” a “body capable of life” and applies to “man”, “beast”, “fish” etc. • Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, …(literal = “having a soul of life”) • In Hebrew “nephesh” appears in v.20 but remains not translated in the KJV. • Rotherham translates V.20 “Let the waters swarm with an abundance of livingsoul, (“NEPHESH) …” • So why doesn’t the KJV translate the Hebrew word “nephesh” in Gen. 1:20? • Can you imagine Immortal mosquitoes!

5. Why did the KJV translate nephesh dead body and not dead soul? • Leviticus 21:11Neither shall he go in to any dead body(“nephesh” soul),nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother; • Haggai 2:13Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body(nephesh)touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. • The KJV translators thought the soul was immortal. Souls (“nephesh”) die!

6. Why did the KJV tranlators translate "psuche" both life and soul? • Mark 8:35-37 For whosoever will save hislife(5590 “psuche”)shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose hislife(psuche)for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. [36] For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his ownsoul(psuche)?[37] Or what shall a man give in exchange for hissoul(psuche)? • 5590 psuche {psoo-khay'}; n f AV - soul 58, life 40, mind 3, heart 1, misc. 3; 105 • They drew a difference between souls of men as intellectual souls as compared to all other creatures. Scripture however doesn’t draw that difference nor does it hold in Eze.18:4 for creatures don’t sin. Souls (“psuche”) die!

7. The Nature of Man • The Catholic View • Lateran Council of 1513 • "Whereas some have dared to assert concerning the nature of the reasonable soul that it is mortal, we, with the approbation of the sacred council do condemn and reprobate all those who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal, seeing, according to the canon of Pope Clement V, “…that the soul is [...] immortal [...] and we decree that all who adhere to like erroneous assertions shall be shunned and punished as heretics."

8. The serpent’s lie! • Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. • Who was right, God or the serpent? • Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: What it comes down to is who we believe – the serpent or God!

9. The Nature of Man • Martin Luther (1493-1546) • Regarding Luther's position Archdeacon Francis Blackburne of Cleveland; rector of Richmond states in his "Short Historical View of the Controversy Concerning an Intermediate State" of 1765 : • "Luther espoused the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, upon a Scripture foundation, and then made use of it as a confutation of purgatory and saint worship, and continued in that belief to the last moment in his life."page 14. • Martin Luther declared that it was the Pope, not the Bible, who taught that "the soul is immortal“ • Martin Luther, Defence, proposition 27"Luther held that the soul died with the body, and that God would hereafter raise both the one and the other."Catholic Cardinal Du Perron, Historical View, p344

10. The Nature of Man William Tyndale (1484-1536), • In 1530 responding to Sir Thomas More's objection to Tyndale’s belief that"all souls die and sleep till doomsday" he vigorously replied.” • "And ye, in putting them [the departed souls] in heaven, hell and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection...And again, if the souls be in heaven, tell me why they be not in as good a case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?” An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue (Parker's 1850 reprint), bk.4, ch.4, p.180. ) Tyndale was strangled and burnt at the instigation of ‘the church’.

11. What about the spirit? • Psalm 146:4 His breath (“ruach”) goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. • Eccles. 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit (“ruach”) shall return unto God who gave it. • When the life power of God is removed, man like every moving thing returns to the dust much like pulling the cord on a lamp. returns to dust

12. From an United minister stating why he doesn’t belief souls are immortal??? • Eccles. 9:5 • For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. • Psalm 6:4-5 • Return, O Lord, deliver my soul (“nephesh”): oh save me for thy mercies' sake. [5] For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? • Psalm 115:17 • The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.

13. What about heaven, do we go there? John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. • It is hard to find a more clear reference but Acts 2:29,30 can be even more convincing!

14. What is the Context? • Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. [30] Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; • Context:Peter is showing Jesus is the Messiah. He does this by contrasting a dead David with a raised Jesus who is at God’s right hand. • Once this contrast is seen it becomes a powerful proof to show neither David or any of the faithful are alive and in heaven.

15. If David didn’t go to heaven, how much chance do we have of going to heaven? • Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, [35] Until I make thy foes thy footstool. • The point from the context! • If David had an immortal soul and have gone to heaven, Peter wouldn’t have used this contrast. David’s tomb is thought to be still in Jerusalem and can be seen.

16. Why is Doctrine so divisive? To test and develop us that we might discern good and evil. • Luke12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division … • From the very beginning God divided light and darkness, day and night, waters above and waters below. • Genesis1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; • Why the divide? Because seen both naturally and spiritually, it was necessary. Spiritually the divide is seen between the sons of God (line of Seth) and the sons of men (line of Cain). This was necessary for in Gen.6:2 when the sons of God married the daughters of men (line of Cain) the bad corrupted the good and why God brought the flood. • Spiritually God divides, for as seen naturally the bad apple will corrupt the good apples. • Advice – when young it is wise to recognize Lk.12:51 and not let this contention turn you off of God’s offer of salvation.

17. What about the Nature of Man for this aspect has divided us for 100 years! • The roots of this division are in Catechism of the Catholic Church which says: • “By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost theoriginalholiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.” • “Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived oforiginalholiness and justice; this deprivation is calledoriginal sin". • The Catholic Encyclopedia says: • Original sinis (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin ...” • The Council of Trent, Sess, V.can..V says • “…whilstoriginal sin is effaced (erased) bybaptism. concupiscence still remains in the person baptized …”

18. What happens when a Bible FIRST PRINCIPLE is corrupted? • Biblical FIRST PRINCIPLES connect together so that a false understanding in one affects other first principles. • False doctrine acts like leaven, Mt. 16:12; 13:33; and a little leaven leavens the whole, Gal.5:9. • The Nature of Man is corrupted by the doctrine of “Original Sin” which is similar to the U.A. doctrine of “Inherited Legal Condemnation” which says mankind is born with sin-in-the-flesh which effects the nature of man, the nature of Christ, baptism, devil, atonement and resurrection. Resurrection Atonement baptism Devil Nature of man Nature of Christ Inherited legal condemnation (Adamic sin) Original Sin

19. Six First Principles affected! • Nature of Man – is mankind under inherited legal condemnation at birth? • Nature of Christ – was Jesus at birth alienated from his Father because of being under inherited legal condemnation? • Baptism – does baptism remove inherited legal condemnation. • Devil – (BUSF clause 9) “… the devil, orsin in the flesh…”.UA equate both to being born under inherited legal condemnation. This is in addition to being born mortal and prone to sin. • Atonement – Is there atonement for inherited legal condemnation? • Resurrection – Will only those in covenant relationship (baptized) be raised?

20. Is there “sin-in-the-flesh”? • Romans8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: • UA say mankind inherits the consequences of Adam’s sin namely mortality, proneness to sin and is under inherited legal condemnation because ofsin-in-the-flesh. • Amended say mankind at birth inherits the consequences of Adam’s sin namely mortality and proneness to sin – but since our inherited nature isn’t our crime nor under the law is there any sacrifice for nature, nor do we find any prayers for its removal we are not under inherited legal condemnation.

21. What about "sin in the flesh" Rom. 8:3 … God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh(Jesus had our sin prone nature), on account of sin: He condemned sinin the flesh,(NKJV) • UA interpret “sin in the flesh!” as born with Adamic sin therefore underInherited Legal Condemnation. • This phrase is only found in Rom. 8:3. • Amended emphasize “in the flesh” and say the amazing accomplishment was Jesus being able “in the flesh” to condemn “King Sin”(personification, Rm. 5:21) by not allowing it any time to reign over him and by dying destroy (Heb 2:14)its power over him and us. • “Sinful flesh” in Rom.8:3 stands for our contrary sin-prone nature which Jesus condemned by not sinning even though having a flesh body. (cp Rm.7:17-23) • Since there is no punctuation in early Greek manuscripts, Rm.8:3 can read: “He condemned sin, -- in the flesh!” meaning Jesus “in the flesh” didn’t sin. That’s amazing! King Sin therefore lost its power for Jesus broke the curse “sin equal death” bringing in forgiveness of sin.

22. NASU defines the devil as sin in the flesh • (BUSF clause 9 in the NASU document)“ … which is the devil; and finally destroy the devil,orsin in the flesh, in all its forms of manifestation.” • Sin in the flesh is an Unamended code word to support being under inherited legal condemnation. • (Richard Pursell, p.13)“The Unamended fellowship believes ‘sin in human nature’ is more than just ‘prone to sin’. It is the diabolos. And possession of that diabolos renders one ‘unclean’ and unfit for fellowship with the Almighty. It is not only a physical part of our being, but also a position, status, or designation in the eyes of God. By ‘putting on Christ’ one’s relationship to God changes, even though the ‘proneness to sin’ remains. This change is not physical, nor is it moral, and so the abstract concept of change has been described as legal” and why this is calledinherited Legal Condemnation.” • “putting on Christ”is upon baptism and why both baptism and the resurrection are affected and why UA believe if you are not baptized you will not be raised.

23. This root is supported in the NASU document! • * “FALLEN” - UA under-stand as under “Inherited Legal Condemnation” and under a “fallen”state. * E.W. Farrar in his book The Imputation of Adam’s Sin said: “We are deemed to be in a stateof sin and we are accounted as having the status of sinners”. • “PERISHING = mortality • “INCLINED TO SIN”is ….sin proneness. • “FALLEN” = Inherited ….Legal Condemnation. Confirmed in NASU Pg 3, 3rd paragraph “Once in Jesus through baptism …” “…Nevertheless, the inherited dying nature (= “perishing”) with its proneness to sin remains …” • Note “fallen” is missing! -- Why? UA believe baptism removes “inherited legal condemnation” therefore “fallen” being missing supports the UA belief at baptism this 3rd fallen state is removed. • NASU Page 3 does not clarify but supports the UA root (“Inherited legal Condemnation”) that has divided our fellowships for over 100 years. At least 18 further problems in the NASU document! (see document 1)

24. The way we contended in the past is seen in the responsibility question! Is it baptism or knowledge that makes man responsible to resurrection and judgment? • BASF #24 (“ … namely, those who know the revealed will of God, and have been called upon to submit to it”) will be raised and summoned before his judgment seat. This is the reason for the amendment for it is easier to see using Bible passages at the tip of the iceberg then at the root. • John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. • Jn. 11:24; 6:39,40,54 • 1 Peter 4:3-5 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: [4] Wherein they think it strange that yerun not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: [5]Whoshall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. Resurrectional responsibility Baptism Nature of man Nature of Christ Atonement Devil Inherited legal condemnation (Adamic sin)

25. Summary Mankind is born with a mortal dying nature that is naturally self seeking and prone to sin. Mankind’s nature must be countered and destroyed. Mankind unlike the animals has been given the opportunity to understand God’s marvellous plan of salvation. With opportunity comes responsibility to obey and live or disobey and die. Mankind is born with a mortal, sin prone nature but this nature is not “original sin” or under inherited legal condemnation.

26. The Exhortation • Jude3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation (both to Jew and Gentile), it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. • “contend” - root is “agonizomai” from which is our word “agonize”. AV - strive 3, fight 3, labour fervently 1; 7 • In Greek the definite article is there. See 1Tim. 6:12 –“agonizou”… tei pistei) = agonize the good fight of the faith. • When one, let alone six first principle doctrines are corrupted we are really exhorted to “earnestly contend for THE faith.”We do this by contending as Jonathan did with Saul for he wanted Saul to be in God’s kingdom.

27. What about the Rich Man and Lazarus? Luke 16:19-21 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: [20] And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, [21] And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

28. The popular belief in Jesus’ day (Josephus (Ch.1, pp 530-531) • They also believe “that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards of punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again;"

29. This is said to not be a parable since in no parable is an individual named. • Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; [23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. • Not true, i.e. Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, … 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

30. Evidence that the Rich man and Lazarus is a parable • Matt. 13:34,35 "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them." • It begins like many parables: "There was a certain rich man”, i.e. Mt. 13:3 “… behold a sower went forth to sow.” • This parable doesn't fit today’s popular idea of souls in hell for the "rich man", "Lazarus", and "Abraham" all have bodies that includes "eyes", "finger", "tongue" and "bosom".

31. How could anyone take this literally, Well some do! Luke 16:24-26 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. [25] But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. [26] And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

32. What scriptures contradict this? • Psalm 146:4 His breath (“ruwach”) goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. • John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. • My, father Abraham sure has a big bosom!

33. Interpreting the parable of the rich man and Lazarus • SETTING: Parable given by Christ in Perea, East of Jordan where news of Lazarus death came to him. (Jn.11:6 with 10:40; 1:28) • RICH MAN:Caiaphas (Sadducees) who were "clothed in purple and fine linen". (Luke 16:19 with Ex. 39:2,24,29) "have not heard Moses and the prophets" The Sadducees had not heard Moses on adultery or the prophets on the resurrection. (Luke 16:29 with Deu 24:1-4; Dan. 12:2) "For I have five brethren". Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas, and according to Josephus had five sons, (Lk.16:28 read). • LAZARUS: Lazarus types the publicans & sinners who were not given even the spiritual crumbs. . • BACKGROUND:Lazarus died but raised by Christ, John 11:1-44. • HELL This parable takes the popular belief as described by Josephus (Ch.1, pp 530-531) and shows the Pharisees that though one rose from the dead the Sadducees wouldn’t believe.

34. Interpreting the parable of the “Rich man and Lazarus” • NATIONAL INTERPRETATION: • SETTING:Christ spoke in parables which contained the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven because the people's hearts waxed gross, and their ears dull and their eyes were closed.(Matt.13:11-15) • RICH MAN= Israel, appointed a priestly kingdom with the responsibility to so act and let God's light shine forth, (Exo.19:5,6). • LAZARUS = the Gentiles, associated with dogs, (Matt. 15:26,27) but within Abraham's bosom.(James 2:5) • HELL: After Christ's death, the Jewish position was reversed and after AD 70 it was hell on earth for them.

35. There is hope but it is the hope of the resurrection! 1 Cor. 15:42-46 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. [45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul(“psuche”);the last Adam was made a quickeningspirit(alive “pneuma”).[46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. • When are we made an “alive spirit”? When we are resurrected