Born in Sins

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: A man does not become a 'sinner" until he sins so ant sin nature of man does not even come into existence until he sins.

HP: I would fully agree that a man is not a sinner until he sins, but could not his nature from birth natural to Him as a being born a human, with the clear natural propensities via depraved sensibilities, be rightfully called a 'sin nature?' All human babies have a human nature, do they not? Certainly God does not impute sin for any such nature, but it is clear that via the depraved physical propensities we are born with subsequent to the fall, that there is a clear tendency to selfishness which when yielded to subsequent to moral agency is indeed sin and as such judged justly as being blameworthy.

That is why I believe Christ was created in like manner to man just as Scripture states. His possessed the same natural depraved natural propensities as we do at birth, for he was indeed a human with a human body subject to physical depravity as are all humans subsequent to the fall. That by no means attributes sin to Christ, for He was indeed sinless. Christ being sinless show us clearly that from the first light of moral agency Christ acted in direct opposition to any depraved sensibilities overcoming all proclivities to sin by His will, to do the will of His Father God. He proved once for all that no man is forced to follow such physical depravity and that God is indeed just to blame men when they do sin. He proved no man has to sin in spite of any proclivity to sin, and that God is indeed Just in His condemnation of sinners.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not what it means because the verse says that he was made like us in every way.

A. Why do you insist on perpetrating a lie????

You know very well that human nature did not come with sin! You know very well that when sin entered into the world it did not change man to something other than man. Hence, Adam was a man with sin as much as he was a man without sin! Hence sin has nothing to do with being human in nature!

Why do you insist that it does? Anyone capable of reading English can see plainly that Adam was human when made and still human when he fell!

QUESTION: Jesus was born and lived without sin - does that disqualify him from being human? You have to say no or else your whole argument is stupid isn't it?

QUESTION: Since his "brethren" were sinners does that make them less human?

CONCLUSION: It is pure stupidity to demand or deny sin as a prerequisite to be human because the human nature is not more or less human with or without sin.


Therefore, your proof text is moot! It is rediculous! It is irrational to use it to deny or assert the "brethren" are more or less human in relationship to sin being in them or out of them!

Therefore it is equally moot to use it to deny that Christ was made purposely like the pre-fallen Adam without sin without a human "father" and thus without sin and yet just as 100% human like his "brethren." Does it make any sense to you that the "Last Adam" would be made like the Fallen Adam instead of the unfallen Adam? Don't you think that is a little stupid and yet claim Christ is the "Last Adam" in regard to representation of "many" when it was not the Fallen Adam that acted in that capacity but the unfallen Adam?????????? Get it? I doubt if you are capable of getting it, but it would be silly, stupid, irrational to make Christ like the FALLEN Adam and then place him in the position of doing something different than the FALLEN Adam!!!! The position his is being compared by contrast to is the UNFALLEN ADAM but with different consequences. Hence, he was made like the unfallen Adam - without a human father and without sin.



B. Why do you attempt to deny Christ was made like unto the pre-fallen Adam?

Does not Romans 5:14 explicitly say that Adam was a type of Jesus Christ in this capacity but in direct contrast to the FALLEN Adam?

Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Does not Romans 5:15-19 consistently contrast Christ with the Fallen Adam?

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

What is it that you do not get about this contrasting comparison where each are stated explicitly to represent "many" by their actions and proven to represent many by their individual actions by the consequences "passed" and "receive" by many???????


Why is it you deny that all mankind was "IN" Adam?? Does not 1 Corinthans 15:22 explicitly state that all humanity is "IN Adam" and thus they "die"

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If they are not "IN" Adam then how could they die? Get it? So why deny it? Why dispute that this is the case in Romans 5:12 IN REGARD TO DEATH when 1 Cor. 15:22 bluntly tells you they were? What don't you understand? Do you think 1 Cor. 15:22 is talking about some other kind of Adam and some other kind of humanity at some other time in history than in Romans 5:12? Your denial is silly!


Is not 1 Cor. 15:22 in the very same context where 1 Corinthians 15:45 explicitly contrasts Adam with Christ as the "first Adam" in contrast with the "Last Adam"???

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I would fully agree that a man is not a sinner until he sins, but could not his nature from birth natural to Him as a being born a human, with the clear natural propensities via depraved sensibilities, be rightfully called a 'sin nature?'

I do not think so. I believe that man was created in a state described as "good" and he has a "will" that is free so there is nothing that compels him to sin.

All human babies have a human nature, do they not? Certainly God does not impute sin for any such nature, but it is clear that via the depraved physical propensities we are born with subsequent to the fall, that there is a clear tendency to selfishness which when yielded to subsequent to moral agency is indeed sin and as such judged justly as being blameworthy.

I do not know what you are speaking of when you refer to "depraved physical propensities" which we are born with?

I would say that a man has an knowledge of what is right and wrong (the conscience) and he is also given a free will that enables him to always do the right thing. So I really do not know what you are referring to when you speak of "depraved physical propensities" we are born with.

Are you saying that these depraved physical propensities compel us to sin? Could you please go into more details about these propensities?

That is why I believe Christ was created in like manner to man just as Scripture states. His possessed the same natural depraved natural propensities as we do at birth, for he was indeed a human with a human body subject to physical depravity as are all humans subsequent to the fall.

I believe that He was made just like we are and he too possessed a "free will." He made choices throughout His life and He always yielded His will to the Father's will. On the eve of the Cross He made the following prayer to the Father:

"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done" (Lk.22:42).

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not think so. I believe that man was created in a state described as "good" and he has a "will" that is free so there is nothing that compels him to sin.

Your mixing oranges with apples. You are confusing Adam as he came from the direct hand of God in creation with you as you come from the mother's womb and the two are not the same.



I do not know what you are speaking of when you refer to "depraved physical propensities" which we are born with?[/QUOTE]

That is very obvious but sadly he does not know what he is talking about either. It is the sin nature or the LAW OF DEATH "passed" to humanity when Adam sinned because all mankind was "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22) when he sinned.

However, he is honest enough to recognize even infants need no training, no examples, no external temptations to display both attitudes, words (no) and actions that are by all measurable and definable means something directly in contrast to the fruits of the Spirit or of the new birth!!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

A. Why do you insist on perpetrating a lie????

You have not proved that I have lied about anything.

You know very well that human nature did not come with sin!

I never said that it did!

You must build your straw man and then knock it over in the hope that others will be deceived into thinking that you have actually won an argument.

Therefore, your proof text is moot! It is rediculous! It is irrational to use it to deny or assert the "brethren" are more or less human in relationship to sin being in them or out of them!

You HATE the proof text because you must deny its truth. According to you Christ was not made like us in every way but only in some ways.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have not proved that I have lied about anything.

I never said that it did!

You must build your straw man and then knock it over in the hope that others will be deceived into thinking that you have actually won an argument.

You HATE the proof text because you must deny its truth. According to you Christ was not made like us in every way but only in some ways.

Utterly amazing spiritual blindness! You simply dismiss all the evidence placed before your face! Too cowardly to address each statement!

Prove me wrong! Address each statement and show the readers why I am wrong and you are right! I dare you!

 

[The Biblicist]

A. Why do you insist on perpetrating a lie????

You know very well that human nature did not come with sin! You know very well that when sin entered into the world it did not change man to something other than man. Hence, Adam was a man with sin as much as he was a man without sin! Hence sin has nothing to do with being human in nature!

Why do you insist that it does? Anyone capable of reading English can see plainly that Adam was human when made and still human when he fell!

QUESTION: Jesus was born and lived without sin - does that disqualify him from being human? You have to say no or else your whole argument is stupid isn't it?

QUESTION: Since his "brethren" were sinners does that make them less human?

CONCLUSION: It is pure stupidity to demand or deny sin as a prerequisite to be human because the human nature is not more or less human with or without sin.


Therefore, your proof text is moot! It is rediculous! It is irrational to use it to deny or assert the "brethren" are more or less human in relationship to sin being in them or out of them!

Therefore it is equally moot to use it to deny that Christ was made purposely like the pre-fallen Adam without sin without a human "father" and thus without sin and yet just as 100% human like his "brethren." Does it make any sense to you that the "Last Adam" would be made like the Fallen Adam instead of the unfallen Adam? Don't you think that is a little stupid and yet claim Christ is the "Last Adam" in regard to representation of "many" when it was not the Fallen Adam that acted in that capacity but the unfallen Adam?????????? Get it? I doubt if you are capable of getting it, but it would be silly, stupid, irrational to make Christ like the FALLEN Adam and then place him in the position of doing something different than the FALLEN Adam!!!! The position his is being compared by contrast to is the UNFALLEN ADAM but with different consequences. Hence, he was made like the unfallen Adam - without a human father and without sin.



B. Why do you attempt to deny Christ was made like unto the pre-fallen Adam?

Does not Romans 5:14 explicitly say that Adam was a type of Jesus Christ in this capacity but in direct contrast to the FALLEN Adam?

Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Does not Romans 5:15-19 consistently contrast Christ with the Fallen Adam?

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

What is it that you do not get about this contrasting comparison where each are stated explicitly to represent "many" by their actions and proven to represent many by their individual actions by the consequences "passed" and "receive" by many???????


Why is it you deny that all mankind was "IN" Adam?? Does not 1 Corinthans 15:22 explicitly state that all humanity is "IN Adam" and thus they "die"

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If they are not "IN" Adam then how could they die? Get it? So why deny it? Why dispute that this is the case in Romans 5:12 IN REGARD TO DEATH when 1 Cor. 15:22 bluntly tells you they were? What don't you understand? Do you think 1 Cor. 15:22 is talking about some other kind of Adam and some other kind of humanity at some other time in history than in Romans 5:12? Your denial is silly!


Is not 1 Cor. 15:22 in the very same context where 1 Corinthians 15:45 explicitly contrasts Adam with Christ as the "first Adam" in contrast with the "Last Adam"???

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Above is the evidence that proves your interpretation of Hebrews 2:17 is rediculous. I challenge you to demonstrate differently by addressing every statement I made IN CONNECTION WITH the whole argument I presented.

Readers, any one can take one or two words or one sentence and isolate it from the rest of the context and tear it apart but can he address the words or sentences in keeping with the context I framed the arguments and demonstrate I am wrong? That requires honesty and objectivity. I have not seen much of that in his responses. I challenge him to try!

 

[convicted1]

To answer the OP title thread concisely and precisely; If we are born in sin, then we guilty of someone else's sin. IOW, God is gonna hold us accountable for something we really didn't even do.

 

[The Biblicist]

To answer the OP title thread concisely and precisely; If we are born in sin, then we guilty of someone else's sin. IOW, God is gonna hold us accountable for something we really didn't even do.

So you simply dismiss argument that the entire human nature was "IN Adam" when Adam sinned, thus Adam did not act as the representative of the unified human nature? Or in Bibical language- "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE many be dead.....many were made sinners"! Note the text does not say, "by many men's offences many be dead...many were made sinners"

However, is that not exactly how you are interpreting those statements? = "by MANY MEN'S OFFENCES many be dead...many were made sinners"??

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Utterly amazing spiritual blindness! You simply dismiss all the evidence placed before your face! Too cowardly to address each statement!

Prove me wrong! Address each statement and show the readers why I am wrong and you are right! I dare you!

I am too cowardly to pervert the Scrtiptures as you do because I know that one cannot do that with impunity!

There is no need for me to address every point which you made since I have already shown that you must build a straw man to even make your arguments.

It is you who is utterly blind in regard to spiritual thinngs. Who can argue with someone who says that the Lord Jesus is not made like us in every way despite the evidence to the contrary.

Who can argue with someone who thinks that they have been given the authority to change any verse to fit his fancy as you do? In the following verse Paul says that death comes to all mem because they sin:

"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 this verse contradicts your discredited ideas you just "edit" what Paul said by adding the words in "bold":

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and sodeath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned IN CHRIST" (Ro.5:12).

You prove that you are unable to deal with the Scriptures AS THEY ARE WRITTEN!

Let us look at the straw man that you build in order that you can knock it over. You said;

Why do you attempt to deny Christ was made like unto the pre-fallen Adam?

I have always said that there is no difference between the way that a man is made before the fall and after the fall. After the fall a person comes out of the womb spiritually alive and not spiritually dead, as you teach. In the following verse the Apostle Paul describes how he was saved:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--"renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Since a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore we can be certain that the following words of Paul where he speaks of previously being "alive" that the reference was to being alive spiritually:

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).

 

[The Biblicist]

I am too cowardly......There is no need for me to address every point

The confession of one who is wrong and who cannot objectively or honestly deal with scriptures or with the arguments presented by his opponents.

 

[DHK]

That is not what it means because the verse says that he was made like us in every way.

Yes, that is what it means. The verse points to his human nature. He had two natures: human (which was perfect and sinless), and divine. You would have us to believe that we are sinless and divine. Are you divine--have miraculous attributes like God? Are you perfect? Are you sinless? Then Christ was not made like you in every way was he. I thank God that Christ was not make like you in every way. Otherwise he could never be our saviour!!

A man does not become a 'sinner" until he sins so any sin nature of man does not even come into existence until he sins.

Don't post opinions unless you can demonstrate it from Scripture. You haven't done that.

For a person to be identified with Christ he first must believe. In order for a person to be identified with Adam he must also do something, and that thing is to sin.

Who said so? Our identification with Adam is our inheritance of a sin nature. Seth no longer inherited an image made after the likeness of God, but rather after the likeness of Adam. His nature was marred by sin.
We are not called the children of God by nature, rather
We are called the children of wrath by nature (Eph.2:2,3)
It is necessary for one to be born again to become a child of God.

All you do is to prove that you will not believe what is said here:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

To you the Lord Jesus was made like His brothers in only "some" ways!

This verse is speaking only of his humanity. You have not studied the chapter nor the context out. You have taken this verse, isolated it, and put your spin on it. You are not rightly dividing the word of truth.

If we were like him in every way (it works both ways),
We would be deity,
We would be able to do the miraculous,
We would have our resurrected bodies, (glorified as on the Mt. of Transfiguration).
But most of all, we would be sinless. Jesus was made like his brethren. His brethren are sinners. Therefore he was not made like his brethren, for his brethren are sinners. He was not born like his brethren. Were you born of a virgin. He did not die like his brethren. How many of your family died and then rose again the third day? He did not live like his brethren--a perfect life.
He wasn't all of that because he was not like his brethren in every way to the very meticulous point that you are saying.
The verse only points to his humanity and that is all.

 

[convicted1]

So you simply dismiss argument that the entire human nature was "IN Adam" when Adam sinned, thus Adam did not act as the representative of the unified human nature? Or in Bibical language- "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE many be dead.....many were made sinners"! Note the text does not say, "by many men's offences many be dead...many were made sinners"

However, is that not exactly how you are interpreting those statements? = "by MANY MEN'S OFFENCES many be dead...many were made sinners"??

Adam's sin brought forth death upon all mankind. This is talking about the fleshly man, and it will die due to being "in Adam". Our flesh is a descendent of Adam, being made from the same ground, though our flesh is made from the ground God cursed. It is born "at odds" to God. The soul came from God, and isn't made "in Adam". It dies when God accounts/imputes sin unto it, and is then in a state of condemnation. If the soul is born in the state of condemnation, then what sin did THAT soul commit?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

To answer the OP title thread concisely and precisely; If we are born in sin, then we guilty of someone else's sin. IOW, God is gonna hold us accountable for something we really didn't even do.

You got that right but the Calvinists think that God would actually punish men for the sins committed by others.

The God Who I worship is a God of mercy and love and He would never punish someone for the sins of others. According to the Calvinists Abel bore the sins of his father Adam despite the fact that the Scriptures expressly forbid such a thing:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20).

Verses like this serve to correct those who say that Abel bore the sin of his father Adam:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for CORRECTION, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim.3:16-17).

The Calvinists refuse to be corrected.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The confession of one who is wrong and who cannot objectively or honestly deal with scriptures or with the arguments presented by his opponents.

You edit my words in an effort to make me say something that I never said.

And that is exactly what you do with the Scriptures.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The verse points to his human nature. He had two natures: human (which was perfect and sinless), and divine.

The verse says that the Lord Jesus was made like his brothers in every way. Here is the "condition" of his "brothers" as defined by the Calvinist's themselves:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

According to this the "condition" of the brothers" of Hebrews 2:17 is one deprived of original righteousness. So if you are right that a human is made deprived of original righteousness then we must throw our reason to the wind and believe that the Lord Jesus was likewise made deprived of human righteousness because the Scriptures state in no uncertain terms that He is made like us IN ALL THINGS:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

 

[The Biblicist]

You edit my words in an effort to make me say something that I never said.

And that is exactly what you do with the Scriptures.

I edited your words to reveal the true nature of your mindset and responses!

 

[The Biblicist]

The verse says that the Lord Jesus was made like his brothers in every way. Here is the "condition" of his "brothers" as defined by the Calvinist's themselves:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

According to this the "condition" of the brothers" of Hebrews 2:17 is one deprived of original righteousness. So if you are right that a human is made deprived of original righteousness then we must throw our reason to the wind and believe that the Lord Jesus was likewise made deprived of human righteousness because the Scriptures state in no uncertain terms that He is made like us IN ALL THINGS:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

You cannot deal with the scriptures! So you change the focus and argument! DHK is not a calvinst and you know it! DHK does not quote Calvinistic literature to support his position and you know it!

You are simply running from the argument presented by DHK, running from the text and the facts of scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

Adam's sin brought forth death upon all mankind. This is talking about the fleshly man, and it will die due to being "in Adam". Our flesh is a descendent of Adam, being made from the same ground, though our flesh is made from the ground God cursed. It is born "at odds" to God. The soul came from God, and isn't made "in Adam". It dies when God accounts/imputes sin unto it, and is then in a state of condemnation. If the soul is born in the state of condemnation, then what sin did THAT soul commit?

Tell me, isn't it just as unjust according to your line of logic for his posterity to have death "passed" to them as it would to have his sin "passed" to them???

Death is a consequence of sin (Rom. 3:23) if you did no personal sin then why personal death? Why do infants die?

Your argument backfires on you!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

!DHK is not a calvinst and you know it!

I know no such thing. his comments about Original Sin matches the views held by the Calvinists.