What are you, a child? If you make the claim that the sin nature is passed by the father only, you should provide scriptural proof for this.
I don't think you can.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Job's Harmatiology
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
What are you, a child? If you make the claim that the sin nature is passed by the father only, you should provide scriptural proof for this.
I don't think you can.
All three of you fellas are real good at name calling and degrading those you can't answer their objections! However, you are not very good exegetes and that is pretty obvious.
You need to answer the objections I have repeatedly posted. I will not play your JUMPING and PITTING game until you answer the objections!
Here is my position. You have not provided ANY VALID objections to overthrow the evidences above and until you can I AM NOT MOVING.
Jerry Shugart
New Member
That is not evidence that supports your assertion that "the sin nature passes down through the woman to the child but through the father to the child."
If the lord Jesus thought that a little child was born dead spiritually and unclean He certainly would not have said the following about them:
"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).
If we are to believe your ridiculous ideas then we must throw our reason to the wind and believe that the Lord Jesus would compare these littele children to the Kingdom of heaven" even though, according to you, they are "children of wrath" and their father is the devil!
John the Baptist was not dead in sin while in his mother's womb:
"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth" (Lk. 1:15).
Even A.W. Pink, a well known Calvinist writer of the twentieth century, wrote that "there can be no point of contact between God and His Christ with a sinful man until he is regenerated. There can be no lawful union between two parties who have nothing vital in common. A superior and an inferior nature may be united together, but never contrary natures" (A.W. Pink, Regeneration or the New Birth, Chapter 1).
Of course Pink is correct as witnessed by the following words of the Apostle Paul:
"For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor.6:14).
How was it possible for the Holy Spirit to fill John the Baptist if he was dead and defiled as a result of Adam's sin?
It is evidence that all NATURAL BORN human beings are born sinners - unclean!
It is evidence that SUPPORTS the position that by "one MAN...death passed" not by "WOMEN...death passed".
It is evidence that SUPPORTS that such death was not "PASSED" by "man" to Christ since he was virign born and the "seed of the woman."
Until this SUPPORTIVE evidence an be answered I AM NOT MOVING!
By the use of the word "heretics" are you saying they are lost ( as in not born again) or just wrong on this particular doctrine?
Jerry Shugart
New Member
We have been over this already and Paul makes it plain that death assed to all men because all have sinned:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).
Since what Paul says does not match your preconceived ideas you just edit what he wrote by adding the following words in "bold":
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned IN CHRIST.
Then you put down your editing pencil in self satisfaction, all the while under the delusion that your ideas actually match what Paul wrote!
Heloo Winman, getting ready to sign off, but just wanted to throw this out for consideration:
When a man leaves father and mother and clings to his wife, the twain become one, right?
All are the result of this, including Mary. She is the result of a physical union between her father and mother, and is the "one" which resulted from the twain.
In the case of Christ's birth, He is not the result of the twain becoming one, but rather, is the result of God's creating His body in her womb.
This makes it possible for Christ to have a human nature while still retaining His divine nature. He was not the result of natural procreation.
Because of this, it can be said:
Hebrews 7
26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
"Separate from sinners."
He is contrasted with the rest of humanity, by us, I am sure you would agree, as well as by the record of scripture.
27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
All previous High Priests had to offer up sacrifice for themselves, then, for the people. Could we assume that there were among the Gentiles those that did not need to offer up sacrifice?
28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
The law set as rulers, or gave the rule, to men that were weak (most probably due to the fact they were sinners and needed to offer up sacrifice for themselves as well), but the word of the oath has made perfect forever the Son.
In many places we see Christ set apart from humanity, though He could, being made of a woman, die in the place of man.
What is that one thing that distinguishes man from every other man that has lived?
God bless.
The problem with this theory is that it makes Jesus unlike us, which contradicts scripture. Jesus could only sympathize with us because he knew what it was like to battle and resist temptation.
This temptation that he had to "suffer" is the evidence that he inherited his flesh and the ability to be tempted from Mary. God cannot be tempted, and he cannot suffer being tempted. Jesus had to get this ability somewhere, so it is obvious he inherited it from his mother.
Folks often equate temptation to being the sin nature. It is not sin to be tempted. It is when we willingly obey temptation and act on it when we sin. I will admit it is difficult to distinguish where temptation ends, and sin begins in some situations.
The Holy Spirit actually drove Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted and prove his obedience. He was 40 days without food. Folks have been known to catch and eat live rats when they are starving like this, even commit cannibalism. The devil knew Jesus was starving, this is why he tempted him to turn the stone to bread. Jesus must have been very tempted to follow through on this, but quickly set his mind on obeying the will of his Father.
If Jesus had some super nature at this time, would it have tempted him? No, and it would have been no real test of faith and obedience.
The problem is folks simply accept the doctrine of Original Sin because it is what the church has always taught. That is no proof that it is valid, the church has a history of false doctrine over long periods such as baptismal regeneration, which is STILL held by many. So orthodoxy is no proof.
Folks come up with ridiculous, even superstitious theories of why Jesus didn't inherit a sin nature, like Immaculate Conception or that virgins do not transfer sin. The real answer is that God made man upright (Ecc 7:29).
This temptation that he had to "suffer" is the evidence that he inherited his flesh and the ability to be tempted from Mary. God cannot be tempted, and he cannot suffer being tempted. Jesus had to get this ability somewhere, so it is obvious he inherited it from his mother.
Folks often equate temptation to being the sin nature. It is not sin to be tempted. It is when we willingly obey temptation and act on it when we sin. I will admit it is difficult to distinguish where temptation ends, and sin begins in some situations.
The Holy Spirit actually drove Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted and prove his obedience. He was 40 days without food. Folks have been known to catch and eat live rats when they are starving like this, even commit cannibalism. The devil knew Jesus was starving, this is why he tempted him to turn the stone to bread. Jesus must have been very tempted to follow through on this, but quickly set his mind on obeying the will of his Father.
If Jesus had some super nature at this time, would it have tempted him? No, and it would have been no real test of faith and obedience.
The problem is folks simply accept the doctrine of Original Sin because it is what the church has always taught. That is no proof that it is valid, the church has a history of false doctrine over long periods such as baptismal regeneration, which is STILL held by many. So orthodoxy is no proof.
Folks come up with ridiculous, even superstitious theories of why Jesus didn't inherit a sin nature, like Immaculate Conception or that virgins do not transfer sin. The real answer is that God made man upright (Ecc 7:29).
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: And then to think that Biblicist has the gall to label the ones he calls heretics and outside of the faith, as 'name callers." Go figure. Biblicist has not only called my salvation into question but stated that arguments I have posted in rebuttal of his positions are 'demonic.'
You can certainly tell when one is running short on substance.:thumbsup:
The moderators have increased the level of attacks three fold by their refusal to enforce the rules against those acting like men of the baser sorts carrying out these personal attacks. Why they have chosen to present themselves to the world as hypocrites is beyond me.
Chickens have a habit of coming home to roost...... all in good time.
Last edited by a moderator:
From my observation they preach "another gospel" as they reject justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works. What does Paul say about those who preach "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9)?
Jerry Shugart
New Member
The Biblicist not only insults those who do not agree with his ideas but he also questions their honesty, as witnessed what he wrote to you on another thread earlier:
Too bad that he continues to argue with us because I thought he really meant what he said here:
"For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes" (Lk.6:44).
Again, here is the irrefutable evidence!
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Oh brother.
Biblicist, don't you think quoting your own post over and over again a wee tad compulsive and obsessive?
It does not help your cause. And responding to yourself is akin to talking to one's self.
Here is how I see it! I can play your silly game of JUMP and PIT or I can stand on solid ground that neither you or your friends can overthrow.
If we go to David (Psa. 51 & 58) we go round and round. If we go to Romans 5:12-19 we go round and round. If we go to Hebrews 2:17 we go round and round.
However, that merry go round stops in Job because you cannot honestly deal with the evidence, and the evidence proves that Job and his friends all believed in one accord that infants come into the world with a sinful nature.
So, I guess I will just keep on repeating it because you fella's can't answer it with any rational and sensible responses. So why move, when it is solid?
If Job is solid, and it is, then that proves your intepretations of Psalm 51 and 58; Romans 5 and Hebrew 2:17 are just as flimsy and wrong because God is not the Author of Confusion.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: You live in a fairytale world to think for a minute that you have proved your position. Proving something to your own mind does not necessitate it as being the truth nor does it prove you have made your Augustinian case with anyone else other than yourself. Oh well. Upward and onward.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biblicist, you simply pull scripture out of context to support your doctrine.
If the verses you showed from Job (and Psa 51:5) support original sin, then they all support that the sin nature is passed through the woman. Do you think the Holy Spirit would make such a mistake?
You will take Psa 58:3 as literal, and believe newborn babies can speak and tell lies (both of which are impossible), but when Job asks how anyone born of a woman can be clean, then all of a sudden it is not literal, it says woman, but it really means man.
It's not very convenient to you that Jesus was born of a woman is it ?
But when I ask you to show any verse that says sin is passed by the father, you refuse. Fact is, you can't.
The only thing you have proved is that you will wrest scripture to fit your presuppositions.
A charge you have not been able to demonstrate! In fact, I have proven that it is you and your friends who have misinterpreted terms, context and teaching in the book of Job. Just look at the past posts!
There is a difference between the expression "born of woman" which every man without exception is "born of woman" and the expression "the seed of the woman" which none but Mary fulfilled. Here lies your error, a failure to distinguish between two different phrases with two different applications. So it is not the Holy Spirit that made a mistake but it is you.
Babies come from the womb as liars and speak lies. Their speech is not English or French but what every mother understands to be strong complaints when they don't get their way or the attention they want. They very quickly LIE by the fact they scream as though something is wrong simply because they know they will get attention that way - that is deception.
Job 14:1 makes an assertion that man born of woman is in few days full of trouble due to his own sinful nature (v. 4). That is his point! He is not talking about his mother but the very nature of the child which is prone to trouble because the child is born by nature a sinner.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge the significance of the virign birth as a fundemental difference between Christ and all other human beings??? Why do you fail to see the significance of the phrase "the seed of the woman" when it is the "seed of the man" that impregnates! Only because you refuse to acknowledge these stark contrasts in the birth of Christ do you need to read into Hebrews 2:17 what it does not say!
"the seed of the woman" in regard to Christ is the answer but you can't see it! All other human beings are impregnated by the "seed of the man" but it is the "seed of the woman" impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Very simple. Very clear and yet you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious!
I will stay in Job because it proves all your presuppositions and forced interpretations of Psalm 51, 58; Romans 5:12-15 and Hebrew 2:17 are simply and factually wrong!