"all have sinned"

[psalms109:31]

Scripture

But the children of Abraham are individuals. And not all of them are physically descended from Abraham. Galatians 3.7-9:

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
​

And in John 8.39 Jesus said to some Jews who claimed that Abraham was their father:

"If you were Abraham‘s children, you would do the works of Abraham."
​

So I do not see how it can only have been Jews who were chosen before the foundation of the world.

They didn't do as Abraham did believe God and rested in His word. The only reason they were not able to enter because of unbelief. They are crafted in individual when they heard the Gosple of their salvation having believed and those who believed God that is His possesion and have not rejected the salvation that was to come was never cut out since they are His.

I do believe God had provided a way to believe God to be included with the believing Jews from the beginning.

Exodus 12:48
“A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the LORD’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it.

Romans 2:
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

Philippians 2:
14 Do everything without grumbling or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.”[c] Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky 16 as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain. 17 But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. 18 So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

It is the tree of life that has been chosen and those who remain in it or included

Romans 11:
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

John 15
The Vine and the Branches
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

In the end it will be the tree that will be saved and those who are in it not individuals. We are one and we will be saved as one.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course I meant it in love. You too are redeemable.






You completely missed the point (again). I said that there are times when Roman Catholic doctrine matches orthodox Christian doctrine. They are not completely apart from truth or orthodoxy as many here would claim.

You, however, have very conclusively demonstrated Pelagian doctrine in your take on sin. I am not "badging" you with Pelagian beliefs. You are demonstrating by your posts that you hold Pelagian beliefs. No personal attack directed toward me will erase your own doctrines, so you can attack if you like, but it won't help your position.

Here is another definition of Pelagian belief. You match this definition perfectly as concerns original sin.

So are these P Doctrines deemed Heretical by the Orthodox Church? If so then this is the primary division, correct?

 

[glfredrick]

We should take note of those verses... They say very clearly that "we have been grafted in..." I've not met the branch that can graft itself. That is the work of the Master Gardener. :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

You completely missed the point (again). I said that there are times when Roman Catholic doctrine matches orthodox Christian doctrine. They are not completely apart from truth or orthodoxy as many here would claim.

There's that consistency thing again. If Roman Catholic doctrine matches at a certain point you believe, it's orthodox and truth. If a pelagian doctrine matches at a certain point you do not believe, it is not orthodox.

You ever consider that it could be just the opposite? I'm guessing not.

You, however, have very conclusively demonstrated Pelagian doctrine in your take on sin. I am not "badging" you with Pelagian beliefs. You are demonstrating by your posts that you hold Pelagian beliefs. No personal attack directed toward me will erase your own doctrines, so you can attack if you like, but it won't help your position.

...yet you deemed it an attack to call your hamartiology Roman Catholic when you have conclusively demonstrated your beliefs to be Roman Catholic on the matter The inconsistency is so thick it can be cut with a knife.

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

This will be the second time I will show how my beliefs do not hold up to what you want me to believe, but I'm sure this will come up again at some point since you are good at dismissing what someone tells you they believe and instead desire to tell them what they believe.

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall.

Humanity was most definitely affected by the fall. If death is not an "affect" I don't know what is. Mankind is under the curse of sin. Man has a sin nature.

It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement.

I agree Adam's guilt is not imputed. Original sin did occur...with Adam. It affected all creation. I adhere to total depravity that man left to himself will never seek God. I know no person who denies the substitutionary atonement, that's ludicrous.

It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will.

Man is not fundamentally good, he is affected by sin throughout his entire being. No person possesses libertarian free will which is defined as man can just get up and come to God whenever and however he wishes. These points are a false dichotomy, actually.

With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation.

Garbage. Man has no ability apart from divine aid to seek and obey Him. Where God commands, God enables. Man cannot, never, EVER "earn" salvation. Grace is not opposed to effort, grace is opposed to earning.

Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

I agree that everything but man being held accountable for Adam's guilt is incompatible with the Bible.

I suspect this will not be good enough for you, Luke, et al and you will brand me with this label again at some point, but here it is for the observable reader to discern.

 

[Luke2427]

...and I'm sure you meant that in all love, correct? Pot or kettle?

This is great. You do not see it an insult to brand people "pelagian" based on their hamartiology, but you see it as an insult to be labeled "Roman Catholic" in describing yours. Are you then admitting by you calling me a pelagian it is YOUR "weapon in your arsenal" admitting it is an attack (since you consider it one on you)?

What a joke...

What you don't realize webdog is that everyone's hostility towards you is responsive. You start it with ignorant, smart alek remarks- any red blooded man gets tired of your crud and gives you what you dish out.

It would not take 5 minutes to do another peruse through your posts and find 30 more smart alek insults you hurl at those who debate you.

It didn't take long the last time I did it.

If you don't want somebody to pound you then YOU show some respect.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has engaged you in debate is NOT wrong about you- you are wrong about yourself.

Wake up.

 

[webdog]

Again, where did I say anything at all like that? You are grasping at straws here and it is not helping you at all.

How can He be tempted in "every manner as we have"? How is this possible if He were not fully 100% human as we are (complete with a sin nature)?

 

[glfredrick]

So are these P Doctrines deemed Heretical by the Orthodox Church? If so then this is the primary division, correct?

Note my use of the term "orthodox." I mean standard, biblical Christianity, not "Orthodox" as in Eastern Orthodox Church.

This, from Theopedia, is a good working definition for the way I am using the term:

The word orthodox comes from two Greek words, ortho + doxa, meaning "right opinion" or "correct thinking."

In Christianity, it generally means adhering to the accepted or traditional historic Christian faith. Some see "orthodoxy" as that which is defined by the early ecumenical creeds which would include the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, popularly known in the West as the Nicene Creed, that was formally accepted by the second Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The Apostles' Creed and the Athanasian Creed are accepted as ecumenical in the Western Christian confessions, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations (e.g. see the Lutheran Book of Concord where all three of these creeds are given as "ecumenical").

"Orthodoxy" may also be described as the least common denominator by which an individual, group, or church may legitimately claim the name "Christian." In this sense, orthodox would refer to essential doctrines defining the essence of Christianity.

As a proper name, Orthodox may be used to refer to the Eastern Orthodox churches and/or the Oriental Orthodox churches. It also shows up in some Protestant denominations such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

 

[webdog]

What you don't realize webdog is that everyone's hostility towards you is responsive. You start it with ignorant, smart alek remarks- any red blooded man gets tired of your crud and gives you what you dish out.

It would not take 5 minutes to do another peruse through your posts and find 30 more smart alek insults you hurl at those who debate you.

It didn't take long the last time I did it.

If you don't want somebody to pound you then YOU show some respect.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has engaged you in debate is NOT wrong about you- you are wrong about yourself.

Wake up.

Perspective mean everything, huh? I can swear I've read the exact same thing written about your posts and attitude...and from numerous posters not "webdog"

 

[psalms109:31]

Praise to be to His

We should take note of those verses... They say very clearly that "we have been grafted in..." I've not met the branch that can graft itself. That is the work of the Master Gardener. :thumbs:

I praise God through Jesus that God has decided to include believers in His Son and cut out those who do not bring praise and glory to His Son and believe Him. Trust in Jesus and you will not be disappointed, trust in a man made idea who murdered , beheaded, burned, hung the children of God that didn't believe they way they did, who to me is a depraved mind.

 

[Luke2427]

There's that consistency thing again. If Roman Catholic doctrine matches at a certain point you believe, it's orthodox and truth. If a pelagian doctrine matches at a certain point you do not believe, it is not orthodox.

The Roman Catholic church was orthodox for years, webdog- centuries.

Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in Pelagius' lifetime.

This will be the second time I will show how my beliefs do not hold up to what you want me to believe, but I'm sure this will come up again at some point since you are good at dismissing what someone tells you they believe and instead desire to tell them what they believe.
Humanity was most definitely affected by the fall. If death is not an "affect" I don't know what is. Mankind is under the curse of sin. Man has a sin nature.
I agree Adam's guilt is not imputed. Original sin did occur...with Adam. It affected all creation. I adhere to total depravity that man left to himself will never seek God. I know no person who denies the substitutionary atonement, that's ludicrous.
Man is not fundamentally good, he is affected by sin throughout his entire being. No person possesses libertarian free will which is defined as man can just get up and come to God whenever and however he wishes. These points are a false dichotomy, actually.
Garbage. Man has no ability apart from divine aid to seek and obey Him. Where God commands, God enables. Man cannot, never, EVER "earn" salvation. Grace is not opposed to effort, grace is opposed to earning.
I agree that everything but man being held accountable for Adam's guilt is incompatible with the Bible.

You don't understand how your last sentence contradicts the whole of your previous remarks.

If babies are not corrupt spiritually due to Adam's sin then they do not need a Savior. Sin nature is not something that floats around in the cells of the human body. Sin is a spiritual corruption. It cannot be seen under a microscope- it's effects on the biosphere are observable, but sin itself is NOT.

When you say that babies are not held accountable for the sin of Adam because he represents us all as our federal head then you undermine the very IDEA of babies being born with a sin nature.

Furthermore, you think nature and potential are the same thing. They are not. The nature to sin is not the same thing as the potential to sin. The first refers to a PRESENT corrupt condition. The second refers to a possible future condition.

You need to get this straight.

 

[Luke2427]

Perspective mean everything, huh? I can swear I've read the exact same thing written about your posts and attitude...and from numerous posters not "webdog"

Not the exact same thing but close enough to keep from dividing hairs.

I have admitted that much of what my critics say is accurate- have you?

 

[Luke2427]

So are these P Doctrines deemed Heretical by the Orthodox Church? If so then this is the primary division, correct?

You DO know what Orthodox means, right? You do know that the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Church is something altogether different, right?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You DO know what Orthodox means, right? You do know that the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Church is something altogether different, right?

Oh stop being a Baptist Pastor for a moment....I was an RC for 32 yrs before moving on ..... BTW you left out OPC... would you like their definition of Orthodox....come on, not everyone is a-retentive. you do know what I mean by that, right?

 

[Luke2427]

Oh stop being a Baptist Pastor for a moment....I was an RC for 32 yrs before moving on ..... BTW you left out OPC... would you like their definition of Orthodox....come on, not everyone is a-retentive. you do know what I mean by that, right?

No, I'll have to admit with a big smile on my face that I do not.

And I was not talking about you- I was talking about Webdog who cares not for orthodoxy.

The Greek Orthodox church does indeed get its name, if I am not mistaken from the fact that it unflinchingly adheres to the early major Councils.

They are in that sense, orthodox, but they have added other things to it which corrupts it.

So have the Roman Catholics.

You can be orthodox and be corrupt- but you cannot be unorthodox and NOT be corrupt in my view.

This is why we embrace the title "Reformed". The Reformers brought us back to Orthodoxy which the RC church had led us away from- at least corrupted by adding so much to it.

 

[webdog]

And I was not talking about you- I was talking about Webdog who cares not for orthodoxy.

Utter lie. I care enough to call you out on your agnosticism.

 

[Tom Butler]

Well, I figured my comments would create a firestorm among my fellow Calvinists, and it certainly did. And my reputation was further stained when webdog expressed agreement with me (a little humor there, folks).

Look folks, the fact of the matter is that we don't have a lot of scripture to determine what happens to infants (or even older children) when they die. I do believe David shed some light on the subject when the child by Bathsheba died, and he said, "...I can go to where he is..."

You can parse that statement until you're blue in the face, but to me it is simple and clear, and is not subject to any other interpretation. David is saying that when he dies he will go where his son is. Does anybody really believe that David did not go to heaven?

Further, God gave us a brain to help us figure things out. A baby who dies when he is two days old (or pick an age) has not sinned, and cannot, therefore, suffer punishment for sins he has not committed. Is anyone here going to make the argument that that infant has sinned?

You can argue that without faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the baby is condemned, but the fact is that baby does not have the intellectual capacity to do that. Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is right?

I am sure that I'll be challenged as inconsistent in my Calvinist soteriology. So be it. I am Calvinist enough to believe that the Creator of the universe will do right, and will be just in his dealings with infants.

Saved, maybe not? Safe? Definitely yes.

 

[webdog]

Well, I figured my comments would create a firestorm among my fellow Calvinists, and it certainly did. And my reputation was further stained when webdog expressed agreement with me (a little humor there, folks).

Look folks, the fact of the matter is that we don't have a lot of scripture to determine what happens to infants (or even older children) when they die. I do believe David shed some light on the subject when the child by Bathsheba died, and he said, "...I can go to where he is..."

You can parse that statement until you're blue in the face, but to me it is simple and clear, and is not subject to any other interpretation. David is saying that when he dies he will go where his son is.

Further, God gave us a brain to help us figure things out. A baby who dies when he is two days old (or pick an age) has not sinned, and cannot, therefore, suffer punishment for sins he has not committed. Is anyone here going to make the argument that that infant has sinned?

You can argue that without faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the baby is condemned, but the fact is that baby does not have the intellectual capacity to do that. Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is right?

I am sure that I'll be challenged as inconsistent in my Calvinist soteriology. So be it. I am Calvinist enough to believe that the Creator of the universe will do right, and will be just in his dealings with infants.

Saved, maybe not? Safe? Definitely yes.

Well articulated, my fell pelagian friend :laugh:

I will admit it is inconsistent for your view, but in a good way. You do realize it does damage to the "T", the "U" and the "L", right? You are coming around

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, I'll have to admit with a big smile on my face that I do not.

And I was not talking about you- I was talking about Webdog who cares not for orthodoxy.

The Greek Orthodox church does indeed get its name, if I am not mistaken from the fact that it unflinchingly adheres to the early major Councils.

They are in that sense, orthodox, but they have added other things to it which corrupts it.

So have the Roman Catholics.

You can be orthodox and be corrupt- but you cannot be unorthodox and NOT be corrupt in my view.

This is why we embrace the title "Reformed". The Reformers brought us back to Orthodoxy which the RC church had led us away from- at least corrupted by adding so much to it.

OK Then....SORRY!

Yes & then you will get guys on here who will tell you that they have some historical purity & have bypassed reformation altogether. Thats fine, as long as you havent picked up any bad stuff along the way .... things not contained in Reformed doctrine like for example "Arian Doctrine" Granted even being reformed does not guarantee that you cannot go astray doctrinally. Thats where strong & proven doctrines, like the DoG come in to correct & adjust.

 

[glfredrick]

There's that consistency thing again. If Roman Catholic doctrine matches at a certain point you believe, it's orthodox and truth. If a pelagian doctrine matches at a certain point you do not believe, it is not orthodox.

Unlike you, I am not basing my doctrines on what I think. I'm basing them in the Scriptures and the orthodox teachings of the church for 2000 years as commonly expressed and accessible in any number of formats, theological works, confessions, creeds, etc.

I DO NOT hold that EVERY Roman Catholic doctrine is "orthodox." Clearly they, at some points, have strayed, hence the need for a Protestant Reformation. But we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. In some areas Roman Catholics are fully orthodox in their doctrines (or were at some point in their history, they having written most of what is considered Orthodox).

The same goes for my thoughts on your Pelagian stance. I simply examine the common theological definition for Pelagianism and compare your posted comments to that theology. You match almost word for word, so either you own what you hold or you repent and change your beliefs to match those of orthodox Christianity (and we can even further refine that to Reformation principles and doctrines if you like and need that level of specificity).

Attacking me for merely pointing out where your beliefs lay is not helping you and it is not working to change your stance, which is known heretical and outside the bounds of Christian thought. And, please note, for all of what it appears to be to you, I am NOT attacking you. I am merely reflecting your own words across doctrines that match. How is that an attack? They are YOUR WORDS that you are arguing for at every turn.

You ever consider that it could be just the opposite? I'm guessing not.

The simple fact that I am conversant with different perspectives, doctrines, and theologies of Christendom means that I have probably already considered various and multiple alternative doctrines, which in fact, I have. I have been tested extensively in my knowledge and understanding of these various doctrinal and theological positions. I would anticipate that you have not, but I'll leave that for you to explain.

Right now, as it stands in this and other interactions we have had, it is not me that has failed to understand the basis for what it is that you are arguing, it is you. So, your suggestion that I am not well-prepared to discuss both sides of the issues we're discussing is not at all a fair assumption, nor is it, again, helping your case. You cannot all of a sudden become orthodox by tearing down my (or the orthodox) Christian perspective. It just does not work that way because it is not me that you are at war with -- it is the doctrines of Christendom that have been handed down through the ages.

...yet you deemed it an attack to call your hamartiology Roman Catholic when you have conclusively demonstrated your beliefs to be Roman Catholic on the matter The inconsistency is so thick it can be cut with a knife.

There is something "thick" here and I'll venture a guess that it is not me. I hold no innate hatred for Catholic teaching. I will be one of the first to point out when I believe that they have strayed from the orthodox position of their early years -- and I have argued such vociferously with Roman Catholics on other forums where interaction between Catholics and Protestants exists. I cannot imagine a Catholic coming to this particular board and managing to stay here for more than a few minutes based on what I have seen from many posters here. In that regard, I'd suggest that those people who hate merely because of doctrinal differences are sinners against our Lord and repentance is needed!

When Catholic doctrine matches Scripture, it is orthodox, and in this particular case, it does and it is.

This will be the second time I will show how my beliefs do not hold up to what you want me to believe, but I'm sure this will come up again at some point since you are good at dismissing what someone tells you they believe and instead desire to tell them what they believe.

You are, unfortunately, barking up the wrong tree. Almost universally, every other poster in this thread has said in some way or anther that you are wrong. The one or two who have not have equal problems to your own and also need to be corrected by the Scriptures.

This is an on-going process and none of us are immune to the process. We are called to be "Bereans" in Scripture -- searching the Scriptures to insure our doctrines are correct -- and in this case, you have failed that test. And, again, blaming me for your failures will not correct them, nor modify your own position to one that agrees with the overall tenets of Scripture.

As for "what I want you to believe..." I have already said that what you believe is your business, but IF you chose to post your beliefs and argue against the beliefs of other people who are posting likewise, then you are fair game for the debate. It is not "what I believe" but rather what you believe that is the issue.

Also, the fact that I have stuck with you this long, and answered every post of yours in this thread, sort of blows your theory that suggests that I am immune out of the water...

Humanity was most definitely affected by the fall. If death is not an "affect" I don't know what is. Mankind is under the curse of sin. Man has a sin nature.

Yes. But, we disagree as to when that sin issue begins, or so it seems during this debate.

I agree Adam's guilt is not imputed. Original sin did occur...with Adam. It affected all creation. I adhere to total depravity that man left to himself will never seek God. I know no person who denies the substitutionary atonement, that's ludicrous.

So, if you agree to those theological and doctrinal tenets in their common usage without reservation, what are we arguing about?

Man is not fundamentally good, he is affected by sin throughout his entire being. No person possesses libertarian free will which is defined as man can just get up and come to God whenever and however he wishes. These points are a false dichotomy, actually.
Garbage. Man has no ability apart from divine aid to seek and obey Him. Where God commands, God enables. Man cannot, never, EVER "earn" salvation. Grace is not opposed to effort, grace is opposed to earning.
I agree that everything but man being held accountable for Adam's guilt is incompatible with the Bible.

Again, we are in agreement as long as you are using the terms above in the standard orthodox understanding that is common in theological circles.

But, until now, you have not argued the above. You have manufactured a special class of people that you call "innocent." My point is that there is no such class of people.

I suspect this will not be good enough for you, Luke, et al and you will brand me with this label again at some point, but here it is for the observable reader to discern.

I am not "just" branding you with a label out of spite. My response was not to "make you feel bad," "label you as a heretic," etc., but rather to point out the fact that what you are arguing so forcefully is Pelagian doctrine.

I will be MOST happy to withdraw that comment and call you what you are if and when you modify your argument to conform with orthodox Christian teaching (which, BTW has some "wiggle room" for various interpretations as long as those "wiggles" do not cross over into heretical pr blasphemous speech). I am not unreasonable and I have no ax to grind with you simply for the sake of grinding.

Also, you have so far, failed to answer my simple yes or no question from above.

 

[glfredrick]

How can He be tempted in "every manner as we have"? How is this possible if He were not fully 100% human as we are (complete with a sin nature)?

Again, I have not said what you imply in any way. I don't know why you continue this track. In fact, I posted the verse from Hebrews that said exactly that. But Christ had no sin nature. He was born free as was Adam, who was not born with a sin nature. Adam "fell" into sin by his choice, and of all humans, Adam HAD a choice. After Adam, there was no choice. We were born into sin as sinners. Christ also HAD a choice, but He did not sin.

To say, however, that Christ had a sin nature is to say that He is not the Son of God and perfect in every way. Note that He did not have a human father, or do we need to argue that as well?