All Have Sinned Part 2

[glfredrick]

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

Indeed... More than even you know...

It is impossible for Christ to have a sin nature and also to be holy God, capable of redeeming lost humanity. Of course, that is not that big a deal to you because your personal theology (uninformed layman stuff...) sees Christ as only a good example anyway. A good example can have a sin nature, for a good example doesn't have to forensically impute righteousness in place of a sin nature -- what the gospel says that Christ did for the elect.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

The prophet Jeremiah said that the heart is desperately wicked. He did not qualify an adult's heart, he said the heart.

From the moment the infant is born, it has the propensity to sin because it is born with a sin nature.

The Psalmist wrote that the wicked are estranged from the womb, and that as soon as they are born, they speak lies.

I know the Psalms are filled with poetry, but the fact is, whether infant or adult, as Jeremiah puts it... the heart is desperately wicked.

 

[Cypress]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I even think I could agree with you if there was cognition that there was another party to be wronged by a me first attitude, or that the me first attitude was something other than what was required by the Creator. We don't really know if the little kicker even has the slightest concept of self. So if you completely divorce cognizance of sin from something being sin, I can see why you make your statement.

If I might ask a further question,would you say that the little kickers kicking is displeasing to God?

 

[glfredrick]

Thanks for the clarification. I even think I could agree with you if there was cognition that there was another party to be wronged by a me first attitude, or that the me first attitude was something other than what was required by the Creator. We don't really know if the little kicker even has the slightest concept of self. So if you completely divorce cognizance of sin from something being sin, I can see why you make your statement.

If I might ask a further question,would you say that the little kickers kicking is displeasing to God?

First, I cannot speak for God, except to repeat what He has said. He has said that He hates sin. He has said that we are all sinners. He has said that our sin extends to the womb and to our heart attitude. He never did say whether a category like human cognition makes a difference. The only ones who have made statements like that are ones who have invented a category apart from the Scriptures via psychology or logic, but not based in revelation.

So, in the end, does it matter if that infant has a concept of "self"? I think not. Otherwise, we've invented a class of people to whom the cross is not necessary and I would present, based on Scripture, that the cross is necessary for all sinners to have any hope of reconciliation with God.

 

[webdog]

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

Ah...another Immaculate conceptionist. How the RC doctrine has invaded this board in recent weeks.

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.

He took upon the sin of the world, yes. The sin of the world was placed on Him at the cross. He was dying prior to that. Did Christ's death appease God's wrath against sin or sin natures? If the latter, why do we still have one after coming to Christ?

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

Suffering, pain and death are a result of the fall. You disagree with this?

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

Thanks for participating in my social experiment. When leaving the room open for a reformer to attack they will.

 

[webdog]

Indeed... More than even you know...

It is impossible for Christ to have a sin nature and also to be holy God, capable of redeeming lost humanity. Of course, that is not that big a deal to you because your personal theology (uninformed layman stuff...) sees Christ as only a good example anyway. A good example can have a sin nature, for a good example doesn't have to forensically impute righteousness in place of a sin nature -- what the gospel says that Christ did for the elect.

You, the "educated" one has stated it is impossible...now prove it. Where in Scripture does it state having a sin nature means you are separated from God?

 

[glfredrick]

Ah...another Immaculate conceptionist. How the RC doctrine has invaded this board in recent weeks.
He took upon the sin of the world, yes. The sin of the world was placed on Him at the cross. He was dying prior to that.
Suffering, pain and death are a result of the fall. You disagree with this?
Thanks for participating in my social experiment. When leaving the room open for a reformer to attack they will.

Dude, what planet do you live on?

EVERY Protestant holds to a doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. That is one of the fundamentals of the faith, and completely biblical. We do not all hold to the RC version of that doctrine, which has Mary in perpetual virgininity through the Immaculate Conception (which BTW was a VERY late RC doctrine, look it up!).

Webdog, seriously, you have to stop just reacting to terms that you clearly do not understand. Do some reading first, then come back with reasoned arguments. I'm trying to do you a favor here, and I'm assuming that you actually care enough about this stuff to learn it, but perhaps I'm wrong. I've been wrong before...

 

[glfredrick]

You, the "educated" one has stated it is impossible...now prove it. Where in Scripture does it state having a sin nature means you are separated from God?

That is the crux of the gospel... That you do not understand this simple and main point of the gospel is your main problem and one of the reasons you argue as you do.

Our sin nature IS what holds us as separated from God. Our rebirth with the imputed righteousness of Christ is what allows us to become one of God's adopted, justified children. That IS the gospel.

 

[webdog]

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.

This is ridiculous. I shouldn't even be wasting my time trying to show an infant kicking in the womb is not sinning. How's this: The mother is provoking the infant as her stomach is not growing in pace with the infant and has in essence squeezed it to the point of discomfort. Is it a sin now?

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.

...coming from one holding to Roman Catholic doctrine.

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.

See above reply.

 

[webdog]

That is the crux of the gospel... That you do not understand this simple and main point of the gospel is your main problem and one of the reasons you argue as you do.

Our sin nature IS what holds us as separated from God. Our rebirth with the imputed righteousness of Christ is what allows us to become one of God's adopted, justified children. That IS the gospel.

No faith? I thought the Gospel included faith?

I have a sin nature....yet I'm no longer separated from God.

 

[webdog]

Dude, what planet do you live on?

EVERY Protestant holds to a doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. That is one of the fundamentals of the faith, and completely biblical. We do not all hold to the RC version of that doctrine, which has Mary in perpetual virgininity through the Immaculate Conception (which BTW was a VERY late RC doctrine, look it up!).

Webdog, seriously, you have to stop just reacting to terms that you clearly do not understand. Do some reading first, then come back with reasoned arguments. I'm trying to do you a favor here, and I'm assuming that you actually care enough about this stuff to learn it, but perhaps I'm wrong. I've been wrong before...

:laugh: Dude, do you even know what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception consists of? The Incarnation is NOT the Immaculate Conception which is...

The doctrine states that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the Original Sin and filled with sanctifying grace that would normally come with baptism after birth. Catholics believe Mary "was free from any personal or hereditary sin".[3][4] Mary's immaculate conception should not be confused with the Incarnation of her son Jesus Christ; the conception of Jesus is celebrated as the Annunciation to Mary. Catholics do not believe that Mary, herself, was the product of a Virgin Birth.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

I said Immaculate Conception, NOT Incarnation. You seriously proof read for a living? RC's hold to the immaculate conception as necessary in order for Christ to be born without a sin nature. Even they see that if she were a sinner (and she was) it would mean Christ was human in every manner we were yet.

I would hope that someone who is in charge of many theological careers would get their terminology correct on simple matters! Let me quote you here, I think it's a good time... "you have to stop just reacting to terms that you clearly do not understand. Do some reading first, then come back with reasoned arguments. I'm trying to do you a favor here, and I'm assuming that you actually care enough about this stuff to learn it, but perhaps I'm wrong. I've been wrong before."

 

[quantumfaith]

:laugh: Dude, do you even know what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception consists of? The Incarnation is NOT the Immaculate Conception which is...

The doctrine states that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the Original Sin and filled with sanctifying grace that would normally come with baptism after birth. Catholics believe Mary "was free from any personal or hereditary sin".[3][4] Mary's immaculate conception should not be confused with the Incarnation of her son Jesus Christ; the conception of Jesus is celebrated as the Annunciation to Mary. Catholics do not believe that Mary, herself, was the product of a Virgin Birth.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

I said Immaculate Conception, NOT Incarnation. You seriously proof read for a living?

I would hope that someone who is in charge of many theological careers would get their terminology correct on simple matters! Let me quote you here, I think it's a good time... "you have to stop just reacting to terms that you clearly do not understand. Do some reading first, then come back with reasoned arguments. I'm trying to do you a favor here, and I'm assuming that you actually care enough about this stuff to learn it, but perhaps I'm wrong. I've been wrong before."

Webdog,

I understand the catholic postion of immaculate conception. Here is my question, is it (wrong, incorrect, heretical) to simply think that when Mary was selected and deemed "highly favored" by God, that he could simply deal sovereignly with her position as a mere mortal?

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

I understand the catholic postion of immaculate conception. Here is my question, is it (wrong, incorrect, heretical) to simply think that when Mary was selected and deemed "highly favored" by God, that he could simply deal sovereignly with her position as a mere mortal?

Not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if it were possible for God to remove her sin prior to the incarnation?

 

[WestminsterMan]

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.

How is that dangerous? Our theology comes from the reformers who were not ivory pure either. Does that invalidate their theology? Further - I think modern scholars would not set the number of "tortured and killed" in the millions - a number that exceeds the population of much of Europe during the period. That's just fallacious historically speaking.

Just my 2c..
WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Does anybody know if Jesus was orthodox?

He was an orthodox Jew.

 

[glfredrick]

:laugh: Dude, do you even know what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception consists of? The Incarnation is NOT the Immaculate Conception which is...

Webdob, you were the one that brought up Immaculate Conception. The original topic was the virgin birth of Christ. Your own error at first now leads you to discuss something that is not even on the table in this discussion. NNE (except you, in error) is even talking about the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

We are talking about the FACT that Mary was made pregnant by God while yet a virgin and knowing NO man.

Get that right and you can let all the rest go. No one is arguing Catholicism here. Oh, and don't pin that on me again. I, at least, know the difference.

The doctrine states that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the Original Sin and filled with sanctifying grace that would normally come with baptism after birth. Catholics believe Mary "was free from any personal or hereditary sin".[3][4] Mary's immaculate conception should not be confused with the Incarnation of her son Jesus Christ; the conception of Jesus is celebrated as the Annunciation to Mary. Catholics do not believe that Mary, herself, was the product of a Virgin Birth.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

I said Immaculate Conception, NOT Incarnation. You seriously proof read for a living? RC's hold to the immaculate conception as necessary in order for Christ to be born without a sin nature. Even they see that if she were a sinner (and she was) it would mean Christ was human in every manner we were yet.

I would hope that someone who is in charge of many theological careers would get their terminology correct on simple matters! Let me quote you here, I think it's a good time... "you have to stop just reacting to terms that you clearly do not understand. Do some reading first, then come back with reasoned arguments. I'm trying to do you a favor here, and I'm assuming that you actually care enough about this stuff to learn it, but perhaps I'm wrong. I've been wrong before."

The whole rest of this is nothing but a red herring... Not even pertinent to the discussion. Are you getting boxed in again? This is typically what you do once you get to the end of your own contrived doctrines.

 

[webdog]

Webdob, you were the one that brought up Immaculate Conception. The original topic was the virgin birth of Christ. Your own error at first now leads you to discuss something that is not even on the table in this discussion. NNE (except you, in error) is even talking about the RC doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

It was stated the virgin birth was necessary for Christ to not have the same nature we do. Where is the Scripture for this? It is mere tradition that requires Mary to be sinless (the IC). That is indeed pertinent to the discussion.

Get that right and you can let all the rest go. No one is arguing Catholicism here. Oh, and don't pin that on me again. I, at least, know the difference.

...this coming from an Augustinian.

The whole rest of this is nothing but a red herring... Not even pertinent to the discussion. Are you getting boxed in again? This is typically what you do once you get to the end of your own contrived doctrines.

Since you don't follow along real well in these discussions, I'll chalk this up to the usual retreat. I'm sure the time restraint excuses will follow shortly.

 

[glfredrick]

It was stated the virgin birth was necessary for Christ to not have the same nature we do. Where is the Scripture for this? It is mere tradition that requires Mary to be sinless (the IC). That is indeed pertinent to the discussion.

Who said anything about a sinless Mary? Oh... You did.

PLEASE NOTE VERY CAREFULLY -- I said that Jesus did not have a human father and that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. THAT is what I said.

All the rest is your effort to obfuscate the entire issue.

http://www.rfactorcentral.com/screenshots/lge/28-Dec-09-rFactorCentral-0795_GRAB_003r.jpg...this coming from an Augustinian.
Since you don't follow along real well in these discussions, I'll chalk this up to the usual retreat. I'm sure the time restraint excuses will follow shortly.

I'm not the one having reading comprehension issues. See directly above...

You continually toss out stuff that was NEVER SAID, nor even implied in a vain attempt to make a point, that should you succeed in making, would be heretical. You really need to quit while you are at least only wrong instead of going full bore heresy.

 

[webdog]

Who said anything about a sinless Mary? Oh... You did.

PLEASE NOTE VERY CAREFULLY -- I said that Jesus did not have a human father and that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. THAT is what I said.

All the rest is your effort to obfuscate the entire issue.

Is the virgin birth the reason Jesus did not have a sin nature, yes or no.

I'm not the one having reading comprehension issues. See directly above...

Link doesn't work.

You continually toss out stuff that was NEVER SAID, nor even implied in a vain attempt to make a point, that should you succeed in making, would be heretical. You really need to quit while you are at least only wrong instead of going full bore heresy.

Man, seriously?!? How many times have we gone back and forth with you saying "so what your saying is..."and I reply "I have no idea how you got that from what I said". How do you keep your glass home heated this time of the year?

 

[DHK]

Is the virgin birth the reason Jesus did not have a sin nature, yes or no.
Link doesn't work.
Man, seriously?!? How many times have we gone back and forth with you saying "so what your saying is..."and I reply "I have no idea how you got that from what I said". How do you keep your glass home heated this time of the year?

Here is what he said:

PLEASE NOTE VERY CAREFULLY -- I said that Jesus did not have a human father and that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. THAT is what I said.

That is the orthodox view of the virgin birth of Christ and has nothing to do with the IC, which you brought into this discussion Webdog.

Where does it say that man is born with a sin nature. Every time it says that we are not born into God's family it implies it. Thus the need to be born again. Man was created in the image of God, without a sin nature. When Adam sinned that image was marred. Go back to the book of Genesis. Ever since that time we are in the "image of man." Why? Because we have a sin nature. That sin nature is passed down from Adam. Once born into God's family the image of God is partially restored but not totally. We still retain a sin nature and all of mankind is born with it. But when saved as we change from day to day we are more and more "conformed to his image." And when we get to heaven "we shall be like him for we shall seem him as he is."

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)
--The application is to all of us. The devil is our father.

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (Ephesians 2:1)
--Before salvation our spirit was dead (inoperable and separated from God). It needed to be made alive.

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (Ephesians 2:2)
--We were even called the children of disobedience. Why? We followed after the prince of the power of the air--our natural father. We were born with a sin nature. We naturally followed after him.

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Ephesians 2:3)
--We are by nature the children of wrath. We have a sin nature. It is in our nature that we are the children of wrath, not of God.

David verifies the same thing:
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalms 51:5)
--He refers to his sin nature, his depraved nature--not the sin of his mother. Right from his birth was he a sinful man.

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalms 58:3)
--Whether it refers to the wicked or the righteous is of no consequence. It refers to infants. And they go astray as soon as they be born. They have a sin nature, the Adamic nature, that nature that is inherited from Adam, from every man.

It was vitally important that Christ be born of a virgin. Why? That Christ would not inherit this sin nature, that would have been inherited from Joseph. Take a step backward.

Read this prophecy:
Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

Joseph was a descendant of Coniah. This is just one more reason why Joseph could not be the human father of Christ and why Christ had to be born of a virgin.

However, the main reason, IMO, is that Christ could not inherit a sin nature. He had to be born without sin so that he could be the sinless son of man: perfectly man and perfect God at the same time--the God-Man. Only the sinless could die for the sinner.