Featured How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

Your argument fails because you do not treat each side of the verse equally. You impute Adam's sin to all men unconditionally, but you impute Jesus's righteousness conditionally. That violates Paul's form of argument.

The only "equal" application is that Adam's sin is imputed conditionally to all men who sin as Adam did, and likewise, Jesus's righteousness is imputed to all those that believe on him as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead.

The only other alternative is that both Adam's sin and Jesus's righteousness are imputed to all men unconditionally which would lead to Universalism. And it is in fact, this scripture that Universalists use as their major proof text.

No, Adam and Jesus were legal precedents. They were the first, and those who followed in their steps were treated the same. Those who sinned were judged or made "sinners" and sentenced to death, those who believed were judged or imputed "righteous" and given life.

 

You tell me! It is an extreme and weird case. It shows the depravity of the human heart, perhaps even more what an evil religion can do in a depraved nation.
To blame the child was (from me) tongue and cheek.
Even for them, the police officer that charged him was fired.

OTOH, it doesn't make your case either. Why would it make the case for OS ridiculous. It makes the police force in Pakistan look ridiculous, not OS.
Is any child completely innocent??

 

I think it shows exactly how ridiculous Original Sin is. Everyone KNOWS this little child did not plot to murder anyone. The child is not even aware of what is going on around him.

And YES, he is innocent. And if a nine month old baby is innocent, how innocent are babies that die in the womb as many millions do every year?

Original Sin is nothing but a medieval superstition. Sin is not something physical that you inherit, but a knowing choice. And anybody can see this child is not able to make such a knowing choice to sin against God. Remember, Eve was fooled, she was simple and naive, but Adam knew exactly what he was doing. Do you really think this little child would understand such a choice?

 

Not according to the Bible or any realistic appraisal.

Biblical texts such as Romans 5 are not in the least Medieval nor superstitious. You and your errant philosophies have been weighed and found wanting Winman. Your ramblings are not a winning MO.

 

Classic Calvinist argument, says the Bible says such and such, but never shows the actual scripture.

What the Bible does say about little children is that you must be converted and become as a little child to enter heaven. That hardly sounds like little children are sinners.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

:laugh::thumbsup::applause::laugh:

 

The problem with being critical of Hebrews 7:9-10 is that God Himself made the interpretation of Levi paying tithes in the loins of Abraham not HankD.

Now, my interpretation of applying it to Adam and each one of us may be all wet. May be not.

What my point is that it is inevitable that each of us will (given the maturity of our will) commit our own version of Adam's disobedience because we are all the children of Adam and "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" so to speak.

According to Romans 5:12 and the past tense of all the verbs is that - Adam sinned; it was passed on through all of us; all died; all sinned; in a moment of that pass tense time in the garden. No one has yet convinced me otherwise of this conviction.

Admittedly this conviction may be seated in my own arrogance as none of us can know our own hearts completely (Jeremiah 17:9).

I believe God then allowed the passage of time to continue and run it's course of sin and death to "stop every mouth" in order to glorify Himself and the veracity of His word in that the Logos, Jesus Christ, born of woman, became human flesh and completed His course without sin and cleansed the world of sin (the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world) through the shedding of His own blood and subsequent resurrection.

In addition, personally, I don't think that this definite connection between our own sin and Adam's sin has been fully explained.

At very least, we received this propensity and ability of our father Adam (each after his own kind) to commit sin assuming maturity of the will.


HankD

 

To add to this thought:
Rom 8:19-23
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (ESV)

Before the fall nature was in harmony. Before the fall there was no sin, no curse.
Now even all of creation waits for the coming of Christ, that time when the curse will be lifted. The creation itself groans together "in the pains of childbirth" until now. It will be set free from its bondage to corruption and be set free.
In nature we see the battles take place. The lion pounces on his prey (a zebra or some other such animal). A hawk swoops down on a rabbit, and loons go after fish. This did not happen before the fall.
So my question is: Is a baby lion a "sinner" as soon as it is born? Is it born with the instinct to kill. Or must it be taught? Will the orphaned lion still kill? Is it in his nature? Before the fall it wasn't. But now?
The answer of course is plain. It will.
The instinct to kill will never leave the animal. The "instinct" or nature to sin that man is born with will never leave him. Jeremiah 13:23 teaches this. But so does Romans 8. All of creation is waiting for the curse to be removed.

 

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Tim 2:13-15 Is she saved in the bearing of the Christ?


Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.. James 1:13-15

Adam with Eve still apart of him was created, flesh with the life of the flesh in the blood and contained the lust of the flesh. The woman was taken from the man. Satan deceived her and Adam through his own lust, sin was conceived and brought death to the flesh to all mankind. This is passed to all mankind born of woman inclusive of the Christ, who did not sin.

My question is did God put the man and woman in the garden he had planted eastward in Eden, in the presence of Satan, to test them or for the bringing about of the Christ, as of a lamb, for the purpose of destroying Satan and his works and thus reconciling the world unto himself? Redeeming mankind who had succumbed to deceit and lust unto adoption as sons?

Did Adam, "fall," or react according to the known purpose of God?

There is scripture to support the above.

How human was Jesus? Was he human enough in that he being the singular seed of Abraham Gal. 3:16 that is, from the loins of Abraham pay the tithe in Abraham? Could Jesus, the Christ also be construed as being from the loins of God?

Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. Matt 22:42

 

I believe it is a figure, not to be taken literally. Jesus was of the order of Melchisedec, Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, Abraham was Levi's grandfather and therefore considered "greater" to the Jews (My Father is greater than I) than Levi, so it is just saying that the priesthood of Jesus is greater than the Levitical priesthood.

If it is saying Levi literally paid tithes to Melchisedec being in Abraham's loins, then you have all sorts of problems, we are not only guilty for Adam's one sin, but ALL of his sins, and ALL of the sins of ALL of our grandfathers. It also appears we get credit for doing truly good righteous works, as Abraham paying tithes to Melchisedec was a righteous work.

No, the scriptures say every man will give account for himself. The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son, but each man shall die for his own sin.

Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

I think Romans 14:12 is quite plain.

Again, I think Romans 14:12 is quite clear that each man will only have to give account for himself.

Romans 9:11 refutes this view, it clearly says Jacob and Esau had done no evil before they were born. This refutes your view that they actually participated and "sinned" with Adam.

In addition, it is just as possible, in fact I think it more probable, that it is simply saying all persons that have matured to understand right from wrong have "sinned". It only takes one sin to condemn us. So Paul would not say it any differently. This is a more likely interpretation, because it does not contradict Romans 9:11 if you understand a person must understand right from wrong to sin.

We don't have to inherit a sin nature to sin. Adam did not have a sin nature, and he sinned the very first time he was tempted.

All that is required to sin is free will and a lack of faith in God.

 

It is true that the world changed when Adam sinned, and corruption entered the world. Things began to wear down and grow old, fade away...

This indeed could contribute to sin, God himself said struggle would be introduced, man would have to raise crops by the sweat of his face. This struggle certainly tempts people to crime.

It is also true a physical corruption passed on man. I believe the tree of life must heal all sickness and infirmity, as shown in Revelation 22:2

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Even in the New Jerusalem it says the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations, so perhaps injury an illness will still occur, but these leaves from this tree will counter aging and disease? That is what this verse seems to imply.

I do believe man's judgment was affected by this corruption, men are not as intelligent or wise as they would be had there not been this corruption. This could contribute to men making foolish decisions and sinning.

But nowhere do the scriptures hint that man was transformed into some evil creature that could not do good. God certainly implied that Cain had the power and ability to choose to do good if he wanted to. I believe Total Inability is utterly false and refuted by MANY scriptures.

 

This is a logical fallacy.
We are not speaking of the "requirements" to sin. You are off topic. We are speaking of the nature of man. What is the nature of man compared to the nature of Jesus? Jesus did not have a sin nature and we do! If Jesus had a sin nature he would be disqualified for dying for our sins. No man on earth can die for another persons sins.

If your theology were correct than it would be possible to take an innocent child (if such a thing existed) and offer it as a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of another human. It can't be done. Why? The child itself is tainted with sin from the day it is born. There is no perfect sinless sacrifice that exists on earth. Everyone is tainted by sin.

The only perfect sinless sacrifice was Christ. He was sinless because he was born of a virgin, escaping the sin nature because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by man, and never sinned. He could die for all men because he was God--fully God and fully man at the same time.
By stating that some others are "perfect" sinless at birth, you have provided another way of salvation, if necessary. God requires blood from a sinless sacrifice. That was the OT way. You are denying the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ in an odd and twisted way.

 

I am not a Calvinist. I don't believe in Total Inability and never have. But I do believe in the depravity of man, that every man has a sin nature from birth. I believe the curse will be lifted after the Tribulation at the Second Coming when Christ sets up His Kingdom.

But you really didn't answer my post. It is a very basic argument. A lion and other animals are born to kill. They are born with that nature. As they were born with that nature (because of the curse), so was man born with a sin nature--the propensity to sin, and he has it from birth to death. It is never eradicated until he dies.

 

I do not know how God intended the lion to be. He certainly seems designed to kill, with tremendous teeth and sharp claws. I know the scripture you are referring to;

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

This scripture speaks of a future time, it says the lion will eat straw like an ox. But is this how God originally designed the lion? The lion does not appear to be designed to eat straw.

So we ASSUME the lion ate straw in the garden, and perhaps he did, and perhaps he did not. When the scripture says Adam sinned and brought death into the world, perhaps this is only speaking of spiritual death, not physical. And perhaps it is not speaking of animals at all. But perhaps it is.

The lion is not a sinner for killing his prey. That is his nature, and you cannot be guilty of following your nature. This is the problem with believing men have a sin nature. If man was a sinner by nature, he shouldn't even be aware of it. Sin should seem natural, but it is not. Men immediately feel guilty for sin because it is unnatural.

Paul shows this in Romans where he says men turn against that which is natural.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

These verses argue against a sin nature. If man has a sin nature, then homosexuality would be natural. But it is not, all men know that homosexuality is unnatural. It is going AGAINST man's nature. So by nature, men desire healthy relationships, one man with one woman. Anything else is unnatural, and men know it.

Think about that for awhile.

 

The lion feels no guilt because it is natural.
It is natural for man to sin. The reason he feels guilt is, unlike the animals, God has put in every man not only the law but a conscience that he may suffer that guilt (Romans 2:14,15). He knows he is sinning and therefore accuses others of it and excuses himself. It is in his nature to sin. He, like the lion, does not have to be taught. He does have to be taught to do right, to tell the truth. It is not in his nature to do good.

More Scripture taken out of its context.
This goes against a recent idiom.
"God made Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve."
--That is the context. Homosexuality, specifically is against the nature of man. It is not speaking of his general sin nature or the depravity of man. It, in that verse, is specifically speaking of homosexuality. It is against man's nature for man to lie with man. That is quite obvious is it not?

 

You contradict yourself. If man were a sinner by nature, he would not feel guilty, just as a lion does not feel guilt for killing his prey.

Taken out of context? What are you talking about? I am simply showing that all men know homosexuality is unnatural, and you AGREED with me. This argues against having a sin nature, if sin was natural, a man would not notice.

 

And children don't feel guilty about their "sin" do they? As someone already posted they are not so innocent as one thinks:

Take your argument up with the LGBT groups. They think what they are doing is perfectly legitimate and have even changed the laws and the definition of marriage to reflect that legitimization. They can now "marry" in the eyes of the law, and not feel any "guilt" whatsoever. God has "given them over" to do those things which are against their nature.
They do have a sin nature. Are you really trying to prove that a normal heterosexual person doesn't have a sin nature because he doesn't practice immorality? Is this your argument? Sad indeed!

 

You are completely missing YOUR OWN POINT. You said a lion does not feel guilty when he kills his prey, because that is his nature. I agree 100%!!!

A man DOES feel guilty when he sins, BECAUSE IT IS NOT HIS NATURE. It offends his own nature, he is not happy, he is not comfortable, he cannot be satisfied with himself as a sinner, he is fearful and depressed... Every psychological problem men have is because they are unhappy with themselves because they are sinners.

Man is only truly happy when he obeys God's laws and is good, because that is what is natural for him.

This is why Paul taught that men without law perish without law. Why? Because Adam sinned? NO, because they are a law to themselves. By nature they do the things contained in the law. Men by nature know what is right and wrong, and men know when they sin and are convicted by their own conscience. But this knowledge or awareness of right and wrong is not developed in a newborn child or even a small child. It takes some time to develop, just as a child is not born knowing how to walk.

You just don't get it, Paul is telling you men keep the law BY NATURE.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

It is right there, plain as day, but it goes in one ear and out the other. You would rather listen to Calvinists tell you the exact opposite of what scripture truly says. Pathetic.

 

You obviously do not have a clue what a logical fallacy is. My argument that a sin nature is not required to sin is proved by Satan, the fallen angels, and Adam and Eve. God said everything he had made during the creation was "very good" and yet Satan, the fallen angels, and Adam and Eve all sinned. This is a perfectly logical argument.

Logic is not your strong point.

No, because they have not done good either. They are not evil, but they are not righteous either. They have not merited eternal life as Jesus did through good works.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Children have not "passed the test" as Jesus did. They have not done anything to merit eternal life, but neither have they done any evil to merit eternal damnation.

Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign. Repeating a falsehood a thousand times does not make it true. Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh". He inherited David's DNA through his mother Mary. Your view is nothing but pure superstition and contradicts the direct statements of scripture.

You are correct that Jesus was a sinless sacrifice. But Jesus was not simply without sin, he was also righteous, he merited eternal life through good works and perfect faith.