All Have Sinned Part 2

[Winman]

No, all


Definitions and terminology are important here.

Example; innocent and not guilty are not the same.

I agree with you here Tom. Sin is something you do, no one is a sinner until they actually sin, just as no one is a bank robber until they rob a bank.

But I do agree all men are born with a propensity to sin.

Where I have a little difficulty is that I believe the Lord Jesus's body was just like ours. He got hungry, this is why Satan tried to tempt him with bread.

But what about the other temptations that Satan attempted on Jesus?

Matt 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

This to me seems to be an attack upon the spirit. The spirit is our God-consciousness. He dared Jesus to test God.

Matt 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

This seems to be a temptation to attack the soul, the self-conscious part of man, the self. He tempted Jesus with riches, glory, and independence.

Man is three parts, body, soul, and spirit. I could be wrong, but I see each of these temptations designed to attack a certain part of man.

Jesus had a body like us. I do not believe the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Jesus had physical desires just like us. He got hungry, he got tired, and he may have had other desires as well.

But his soul and spirit was different than ours. We are created souls and spirit, he is the eternally existing soul and spirit. Where our souls and spirit are weakened by the influence of the fleshly desires and sin, Jesus's could not be affected this way, or perhaps I should say they could not be overcome by the flesh.

Matt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

It appears to me that our spirit is not as depraved as the body or flesh. Paul said there is no good thing in the flesh whatsoever (Rom 7). But man is not solely flesh or body, he is soul and spirit as well. Jesus here seems to say man's spirit has the desire and will to do right, however it is weakened by the overwhelming influence of the body or flesh.

Something to chew on.

 

[Amy.G]

I think Jesus' body was like Adams. He had no inherited sin nature but was perfect like Adam. He had the same temptations as Adam yet without sin. That is why He's the 2nd Adam.

 

[Tom Butler]

I agree with you here Tom. Sin is something you do, no one is a sinner until they actually sin, just as no one is a bank robber until they rob a bank.

Winman, are you trying to speed up the second coming? Both webdog and you agree with me in the same thread.

Seriously, the questions you have raised might be worth a thread of its own. I think I know where I am on the issue, but am open to more light.

I try to imagine the situation, where Jesus had nothing to eat for more than a month, and here comes Satan with a proposal by which Jesus can satisfy that hunger. I can identify with the pull of the flesh at that point. I'd probably be dead after 40 days.

There's Jesus' sinlessness, and his sinless nature. Thus, the inevitable question, Could Jesus have sinned, given his nature?

I submit that the temptation had to be real. And that Jesus could have yielded.

But here we get into semantics again. The real question is not could he, but would he? So there's a tension between his flesh and his spirit. The pull of the flesh is real upon the Son of God, but God the Son will not sin.

This is sorta where I am right now, but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Winman]

Winman, are you trying to speed up the second coming? Both webdog and you agree with me in the same thread.

Seriously, the questions you have raised might be worth a thread of its own. I think I know where I am on the issue, but am open to more light.

I try to imagine the situation, where Jesus had nothing to eat for more than a month, and here comes Satan with a proposal by which Jesus can satisfy that hunger. I can identify with the pull of the flesh at that point. I'd probably be dead after 40 days.

There's Jesus' sinlessness, and his sinless nature. Thus, the inevitable question, Could Jesus have sinned, given his nature?

I submit that the temptation had to be real. And that Jesus could have yielded.

But here we get into semantics again. The real question is not could he, but would he?

THIS IS THEORY, I COULD BE WRONG.

We inherit our bodies from our parents. The body is full of lust and desires, but that is not sinful. We only become sinful when we obey these lusts.
We do not inherit our souls or spirit from our parents, they are created by God at conception. They are not evil.
If this is so, then we are not born sinners, but we are born with a good soul and spirit in a corrupt (dying), but sinless body. Of course, the moment we give in to the flesh we become sinners, and the death penalty passes on us (we are dead legally) The spirit is marred and weakened, but can still function. The more you sin, the more marred the soul and spirit become. God can still communicate with us through the spirit, a man can understand the gospel, trust and be saved.
Though the spirit can function, it is corrupt and dying, we need to be born again.
THIS IS THEORY, I COULD BE WRONG.

 

[Luke2427]

I think Jesus' body was like Adams. He had no inherited sin nature but was perfect like Adam. He had the same temptations as Adam yet without sin. That is why He's the 2nd Adam.

Ding! Ding ! Ding! Ding! Ding!

The only difference was that Christ's body was made in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh.

It was made to LOOK like the rest of humanity. He might have had a crooked nose and an occasional pimple, etc...

But Amy is right. He was MORALLY pure through and through.

 

[Winman]

I think Jesus' body was like Adams. He had no inherited sin nature but was perfect like Adam. He had the same temptations as Adam yet without sin. That is why He's the 2nd Adam.

Amy, that is the problem, Augustine believed sin was inherited through the flesh, and thus had to explain how Jesus could share the flesh of his mother Mary and not have sin. This is exactly why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented.

 

[Luke2427]

Amy, that is the problem, Augustine believed sin was inherited through the flesh, and thus had to explain how Jesus could share the flesh of his mother Mary and not have sin. This is exactly why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented.

Winman, this is the danger of a lay person like yourself biting off more than he can chew.

There is nothing wrong with being a layman. Laymen carry the lion's share of the Gospel work.

Laymen do not need to be theologians. They know Christ died for them and is worthy of their lives- that is enough.

They can read their Bibles and find all the spiritual nourishment their souls could ever long for. And they can do this without training.

But almost no layman has any business performing a heart transplant. There may be the occasional genius layman who can do a heart transplant without training. He just reads enough and is intelligent and gifted enough to do it. But the vast, vast majority of laymen have no business sawing open the chest of a person and replacing his heart.

In like fashion, neither do you have any business discussing things on this level. The consequences are actually greater than in the anecdote. These are spiritual, eternal matters.

And since you have haphazardly sawed open the chest of Orthodoxy you have undermined the omniscience of God, denied original sin which NRTHODOX Christians in history have done and questioned the essence of the virgin birth of Christ.

The more you hack away at theology, indeed, the more you butcher Orthodoxy due to your lack of humility in recognizing your need for training in these matters and due to your own personal ignorance- the more horrifically dangerous you become.

And I am not talking about your denial of Calvinism. Arminians deny it as well and they are perfectly orthodox. I am talking about your massacre of the Orthodox Christian faith handed down to ALL truly Christian theologies, Arminian, Calvinistic, Biblical Dispensational, etc.. alike.

You have just enough knowledge to puff you up and keep you from getting that knowledge which you desperately need.

This makes you very dangerous for those Christians described as "simple" in Romans 16:17-18.

17Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

[Winman]

Winman, this is the danger of a lay person like yourself biting off more than he can chew.

There is nothing wrong with being a layman. Laymen carry the lion's share of the Gospel work.

Laymen do not need to be theologians. They know Christ died for them and is worthy of their lives- that is enough.

They can read their Bibles and find all the spiritual nourishment their souls could ever long for. And they can do this without training.

But almost no layman has any business performing a heart transplant. There may be the occasional genius layman who can do a heart transplant without training. He just reads enough and is intelligent and gifted enough to do it. But the vast, vast majority of laymen have no business sawing open the chest of a person and replacing his heart.

In like fashion, neither do you have any business discussing things on this level. The consequences are actually greater than in the anecdote. These are spiritual, eternal matters.

And since you have haphazardly sawed open the chest of Orthodoxy you have undermined the omniscience of God, denied original sin which NRTHODOX Christians in history have done and questioned the essence of the virgin birth of Christ.

The more you hack away at theology, indeed, the more you butcher Orthodoxy due to your lack of humility in recognizing your need for training in these matters and due to your own personal ignorance- the more horrifically dangerous you become.

Luke, it is not wrong to ask questions, and it is not wrong to seek answers. And I think it foolish to let someone do your thinking for you.
Using the Catholic church as your standard is foolish, the most corrupt religion that has ever existed. Being called a heretic by them probably means you are on to the truth.

 

[Winman]

Luke, it is not wrong to ask questions, and it is not wrong to seek answers. And I think it foolish to let someone do your thinking for you.
Using the Catholic church as your standard is foolish, the most corrupt religion that has ever existed. Being called a heretic by them probably means you are on to the truth.

Luke, have you read the history of the Catholic church? They killed and tortured millions, cleary not the acts of true, born again Christians. And yet this is who you trust to interpret the scriptures for you. Now that is dangerous.
And you display their practices, you call anyone who disagrees a heretic. You use fear and intimidation to keep all the sheep in the fold. You have learned well grasshopper.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Amy, that is the problem, Augustine believed sin was inherited through the flesh, and thus had to explain how Jesus could share the flesh of his mother Mary and not have sin. This is exactly why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented.

sounds like youve had some catholic training there Winman.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, have you read the history of the Catholic church? They killed and tortured millions, cleary not the acts of true, born again Christians. And yet this is who you trust to interpret the scriptures for you. Now that is dangerous.
And you display their practices, you call anyone who disagrees a heretic. You use fear and intimidation to keep all the sheep in the fold. You have learned well grasshopper.

Further proof you do not know what you are talking about.

Orthodoxy predates all the ugly doctrines that Rome eventually implemented.

Orthodoxy has nothing to do with Catholicism other than the fact that we were ALL catholic at one point in Church History. Still are for that matter, but I know you are not going to understand this.

Orthodox is what the SBC and the Methodist and the Presbyterians and the Free Will Baptist and the vast majority of denominations in this country are.

But you do not care.

 

[Cypress]

Does anybody know if Jesus was orthodox?

 

[webdog]

I think Jesus' body was like Adams. He had no inherited sin nature but was perfect like Adam. He had the same temptations as Adam yet without sin. That is why He's the 2nd Adam.

Plausible, I have to admit. The thing keeping me from accepting this fully is the fact it was stated He was fully human, not pre-fall but post. I think that such a major doctrine would have been addressed (that He was fully human in the Adam sense, not like the rest of humanity). He died, which was something Adam could not do. He tired, He hungered, He experienced pain...all attributes we realize post fall, but not Adam pre-fall.

Of course I'm just your average layman with no business discussing these intricate doctrines

 

[glfredrick]

How is someone created not guilty as bad off as can be compared to the view one is created a sinner?
If every infant is "elect", all reprobates at one point were infants. Where does that logically take us?
Aren't both the elect and reprobate chosen before the foundation of the world? If all infants are elect, and it's due to them not being guilty of sin or having reached "reprobate status", that in itself refutes the "U". Additionally, the elect are defined as believers...elect unto salvation, and you even stated they cannot have faith.

You point out the problems with seeing infants in a special class of non-sinners. They are not. God, who sees all, knows that every heart is a heart of sin, even if not enacted by some noteworthy expression, and it is the heart intent that damns us -- all of us.

I asked a question in the other thread, "If someone, unprovoked kicks another person in the spleen, is it sin?" People seemed to have a hard time answering the question -- largely because I suspect that they understood what I was asking. Infants in the womb will repeatedly kick their host mother in the spleen (and every other internal organ) just because they can, without provocation. That is the definition of a sinful act, even before birth.

 

[webdog]

You point out the problems with seeing infants in a special class of non-sinners. They are not. God, who sees all, knows that every heart is a heart of sin, even if not enacted by some noteworthy expression, and it is the heart intent that damns us -- all of us.

Apples and horseshoes. Having a sin nature (human nature) does not make one a sinner. As Christ proved, sinning is what makes one a sinner. His life completely refutes Augustine. He was the only human being who could ever accomplish what He did...and He fulfilled it.

I asked a question in the other thread, "If someone, unprovoked kicks another person in the spleen, is it sin?" People seemed to have a hard time answering the question -- largely because I suspect that they understood what I was asking. Infants in the womb will repeatedly kick their host mother in the spleen (and every other internal organ) just because they can, without provocation. That is the definition of a sinful act, even before birth.

If you believe a baby moving in the womb is a sinful act...no wonder you have no grasp on hamartiology. Crying out of hunger must be equally sinful...I mean how selfish to require someone to feed you every other hour!
The irony is that someone on that thread stated if it were done in self defense it would not be a sin proving it's a heart issue and not a physical one.

 

[Cypress]

Glfredrick,
do you really mean this " Infants in the womb will repeatedly kick their host mother in the spleen (and every other internal organ) just because they can, without provocation. That is the definition of a sinful act, even before birth"
At worst it could be because it is pleasant for the fetus to move.....at best it could be to escape deformity or discomfort, or merely developmental. God created creatures with sensory capacity. You are ascribing a sinful motive to these actions.....How and why?

 

[webdog]

Glfredrick,
do you really mean this " Infants in the womb will repeatedly kick their host mother in the spleen (and every other internal organ) just because they can, without provocation. That is the definition of a sinful act, even before birth"
At worst it could be because it is pleasant for the fetus to move.....at best it could be to escape deformity or discomfort, or merely developmental. God created creatures with sensory capacity. You are ascribing a sinful motive to these actions.....How and why?

I believe he is serious. He would not qualify the act of someone kicking another in the spleen being a sinful action. I asked him if it were to defend my family, in an MMA bout, a RB trying to hurdle a defender, Kobe Bryant trying to dunk over someone, two combatants on the battlefield, or someone being angry with another and trying to cause him physical harm. Which action of kicking someone in the spleen is a sin? It's what flows from the heart that is sin.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Quote from webdog

I think that such a major doctrine would have been addressed (that He was fully human in the Adam sense, not like the rest of humanity).

It was. It is the doctrine of the "virgin birth".

He died, which was something Adam could not do.

Jesus died, not because of His sin nature; but because of our sin nature.
Jesus took upon Himself the sin of all the ones that the Father had given Him.
He then cried, "It is finished". He gave up the "ghost" by His own will.

John 10:16-18
16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."

He tired, He hungered, He experienced pain...all attributes we realize post fall, but not Adam pre-fall.

How do you know Adam did not experience these pre-fall?

Of course I'm just your average layman with no business discussing these intricate doctrines.

Your "honesty" is appreciated. It is indeed a blessing for a man to understand his limitations.

 

[glfredrick]

Glfredrick,
do you really mean this " Infants in the womb will repeatedly kick their host mother in the spleen (and every other internal organ) just because they can, without provocation. That is the definition of a sinful act, even before birth"
At worst it could be because it is pleasant for the fetus to move.....at best it could be to escape deformity or discomfort, or merely developmental. God created creatures with sensory capacity. You are ascribing a sinful motive to these actions.....How and why?

Very simply, it is an act of sin to exercise one's own will when it harms another, if only slightly.

Now, don't go running with what I just said. I mean just what I said, and not that babies in the womb are the most horrific creatures imaginable. They, obviously (like most of the rest of humanity!) are not. Mostly, none of us sins as much as we could, but all it takes is ONE heart attitude of "me first" and we have indeed sinned against God. Babies are not disqualified.

 

[glfredrick]

I believe he is serious. He would not qualify the act of someone kicking another in the spleen being a sinful action. I asked him if it were to defend my family, in an MMA bout, a RB trying to hurdle a defender, Kobe Bryant trying to dunk over someone, two combatants on the battlefield, or someone being angry with another and trying to cause him physical harm. Which action of kicking someone in the spleen is a sin? It's what flows from the heart that is sin.

Webdog, I qualified it. You simply failed to read that post. You can go back and check. I said in response to your query, "A kick, where the one being kicked did nothing to provoke the kick." All of your examples above miss that point. No fight. No MMA, no combat, no mugging, etc.

Also, you still have your own issues to deal with, i.e, Christ with a sin nature, which is an heretical doctrine, denial of original sin, imputed and inherited from conception (or before if we factor in election), etc.

As long as you are coming at the issues with that concept in mind, there is no way that you will ever reconcile the Scriptures on any doctrine of sin.