Born in Sins

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: On the other hand, an infant doesn't know his right hand from his left and therefore is not held accountable for his nature. But as he grows, he will be held accountable for choosing sin over righteousness.

HP: If a baby is a sinner from birth, sin is necessitated not chosen. You might as well punish them for the color of their hair as to punish an individual for a fate that was unavoidable. In essence you are suggesting they should be punished because they have not escaped necessitated fate, something even God Himself could not do.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: If a baby is a sinner from birth, sin is necessitated not chosen. You might as well punish them for the color of their hair as to punish an individual for a fate that was unavoidable. In essence you are suggesting they should be punished because they have not escaped necessitated fate, something even God Himself could not do.

Like a politician you errect a straw man argument! You present your case, as though humanity had no appointed public representative in Adam and therefore his sin was strictly his own personal sin and no one else but Adam was held responsible for it. After making that the presumptive foundation you then proceed to argue that charging infants as sinners from birth is unjust and would make God an evil tyrant for punishing them for something they had no part of!

Then when we point out the representative capacity of Adam in original sin you react in an emotional tirade and totally dismiss it as some kind of baseless and unbiblical idea. When the evidence is presented you respond by simply deny it and return to your first premise and so the merry-go-round begins all over again.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are changing the subject from clear concise literal texts to texts that say nothing explicit and clear about how man is born into this world! You are changing the subject to a text you must INFER is a problem while IGNORING his virgin birth as the solution to your undue INFERENCE!

As I have told you more than once the verse does not speak of "how" He came into the world but instead that He was made in the likeness of us in every way.

But you just ignore that and continue to insist that the Lord Jesus was not made like us in EVERY WAY despite the evidence to the contrary:

"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 pick and choose which verses you will believe and you obviously do not believe this one.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor David: One of the surest evidences of original sin is found in the fact that death comes upon all men.

HP: Do not forget Enoch and Elijah that never saw death, as well as all that are alive and remain to be raptured with the Lord. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

As I have told you more than once the verse does not speak of "how" He came into the world but instead that He was made in the likeness of us in every way.

But you just ignore that and continue to insist that the Lord Jesus was not made like us in EVERY WAY despite the evidence to the contrary:

"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 pick and choose which verses you will believe and you obviously do not believe this one.

Do you actually believe that switching the subject from clear and explicit and concise texts that deal directly with the issue to a text that says nothing of the nature of natural born men but which you must INFER that a supernatural born man is at risk of being made a sinner from birth if natural born men are born sinners by birth????????????????

This kind of rational is especially rediculous when our whole position is based upon the transmission of the sin nature to only children who have a natural father! Did Jesus have a natural father???? Daaaaah!

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Do not forget Enoch and Elijah that never saw death, as well as all that are alive and remain to be ruptured with the Lord. :thumbs:

Do you realize how rediculous your response above is? Were Enoch and Elijah taken as infants? No! Were Enoch and Elijah taken after the age of accountability? Yes! When they came to the age of accountability are you saying they preserved without sin like Jesus Christ did? Are you saying Jesus lied when he said "there is NONE good but one and that is God"???? Remember the word "good" translates the term "agathos" which means intrinsic goodness!

Are you saying that there were simply "none good" in the world when Jesus spoke these words but he was not making a universal truth statement???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Do you realize how rediculous your response above is?

HP: Yes as a matter of fact I do. I mispelled raptured and typed ruptured. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Yes as a matter of fact I do. I mispelled raptured and typed ruptured. :laugh:

I don't know about that! Many believe the rapture occurs at the rupture of Armeggeddon!:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

What about the Lord Jesus who was born of a woman? Of course you refuse to believe that the Lord Jesus was made like us in every way:

"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).

Now it is again your turn to try to prove what is said there is in error by telling us the many ways that He was NOT made like us IN EVERY WAY.

Either you are a heretic believing that Christ is a sinner, or,
You are deliberately trying to derail this thread. Which one?
Heresy will get you banned.
Derailing the thread is against the rules.

 

[DHK]

HP: If a baby is a sinner from birth, sin is necessitated not chosen. You might as well punish them for the color of their hair as to punish an individual for a fate that was unavoidable. In essence you are suggesting they should be punished because they have not escaped necessitated fate, something even God Himself could not do.

Are you limiting the power of God? Are you telling God what he can and cannot do? That is what Lucifer did. He said: I will put myself above the Most High. He was going to put himself in the place of God. That is a bad place to be.

God can do as he pleases, being our Creator. He created all things in six days and He can destroy all things in one millisecond if He so desires. He is not required to submit to your wishes or what you consider to be fair. He is our Creator, our Master, and has the right to take life or give life, according to His will, and for whatever reason He sees fit. "Something God could not do," you say. God can do as he likes, with or without your permission.

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you limiting the power of God? Are you telling God what he can and cannot do? That is what Lucifer did. He said: I will put myself above the Most High. He was going to put himself in the place of God. That is a bad place to be.

God can do as he pleases, being our Creator. He created all things in six days and He can destroy all things in one millisecond if He so desires. He is not required to submit to your wishes or what you consider to be fair. He is our Creator, our Master, and has the right to take life or give life, according to His will, and for whatever reason He sees fit. "Something God could not do," you say. God can do as he likes, with or without your permission.

He is completely reinterpreting the Biblical response to his false assertion! He is forcing the Pauline language "by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE many be made" to mean "by MANY MEN's OFFENCES many be made..."

He is blatantly denying that "many" can be held accountable for and actual recipitents of the consequences of "one man's offence" singular but rather are only the recipitents of their own offences plural!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Either you are a heretic believing that Christ is a sinner, or,
You are deliberately trying to derail this thread. Which one?
Heresy will get you banned.
Derailing the thread is against the rules.

Of course I never said that Christ was a sinner. I said that if the Calvinists are right and a man comes out of the womb dead in sin then we must believe that the Lord Jesus also came out of the womb dead in sin since the Scripturers declare in no uncertain terms that He was made like us in every way!

And this is not an attempt to derail this thread because that is the subject of this thread--"Born in Sins."

 

[The Biblicist]

we must believe that the Lord Jesus also came out of the womb dead in sin since the Scripturers declare in no uncertain terms that He was made like us in every way!

Jesus was not "MADE" like us in every way! He was "MADE" by conception of the HOly Spirit! That is precisely and techncially "HOW" he was "MADE" in the womb! No other man was "MADE" like that.

He was "MADE" without a paternal human father! No other man was "MADE" without a human paternal father!

Being "made" like no other man was "made" is why he is SINLESS and without a SIN NATURE!

This is the fly in your ointment which you refuse to acknowlege because it totally and completely exposes your heresey and logic!

 

[DHK]

Of course I never said that Christ was a sinner. I said that if the Calvinists are right and a man comes out of the womb dead in sin then we must believe that the Lord Jesus also came out of the womb dead in sin since the Scripturers declare in no uncertain terms that He was made like us in every way!

And this is not an attempt to derail this thread because that is the subject of this thread--"Born in Sins."

Then stick with mankind being born in sin and not Christ. If you want to start a thread on the sinlessness of Christ, then do so. But this is not the place. Christ was born of a virgin, not a man.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Then stick with mankind being born in sin and not Christ. If you want to start a thread on the sinlessness of Christ, then do so. But this is not the place. Christ was born of a virgin, not a man.

I NEVER said that Christ was born in sin!

 

[DHK]

I NEVER said that Christ was born in sin!

The title of the thread is "Born in sins." Why would you even bring Christ into this thread, Christ being sinless? It is another topic, unless you are inferring that he is one that is born in sin. So keep to the OP!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1773142#post1773142
Of course I never said that Christ was a sinner. I said that if the Calvinists are right and a man comes out of the womb dead in sin then we must believe that the Lord Jesus also came out of the womb dead in sin since the Scripturers declare in no uncertain terms that He was made like us in every way!

And this is not an attempt to derail this thread because that is the subject of this thread--"Born in Sins."

HP: I for one believe your remarks are in direct keeping with this thread. We all agree that Christ was sinless, and if the misuse of a verse would indicate otherwise, it certainly is in order to bring that connection to the minds of the listener.

Arguing from a point of universal agreement is an excellent way to point out error.:thumbsup:

Excellent point Jerry.:applause:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1773142#post1773142
we must believe that the Lord Jesus also came out of the womb dead in sin since the Scripturers declare in no uncertain terms that He was made like us in every way!

Biblicist: Jesus was not "MADE" like us in every way! He was "MADE" by conception of the HOly Spirit! That is precisely and techncially "HOW" he was "MADE" in the womb! No other man was "MADE" like that.

HP: So the Scriptures are in error, right Biblicist?

The difference was in the method conception took place, not in what you seem to indicate that he had no human seed implanted.

Biblicist: He was "MADE" without a paternal human father! No other man was "MADE" without a human paternal father!

HP: Who said that Joseph was not his pateral father? Scripture states, buy way of genealogy, is that Joseph was His earthly father, but it simply was not accomplished by normal human means.

Biblicist: Being "made" like no other man was "made" is why he is SINLESS and without a SIN NATURE!

HP: Do you have a Scripture that states that as fact, that the reason why he was sinless was because He was made like no other human? I think your philosophy concerning original sin is driving your imagination to manufacture evidence to support your presuppositions.

Biblicist: This is the fly in your ointment which you refuse to acknowlege because it totally and completely exposes your heresey and logic!

HP: When I got that pointed and brash as a child my mother used to remind me of the four fingers pointing back at myself.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Clearly the issue of Christ being sinless indeed affects and drives ideas directly associated with being born in sin or original sin. It is always right on target to point out how one idea drives the other in circular reasoning. They reason in this manner without ever coming to grips with the fact that they are assuming without proof some of the very notions they use to support other notions. They assume without proof that all are born in sin. They assume without proof that sin is passed down by the father. They assume without proof that Jesus had no real physical tie to the lineage of David via Joseph as Scripture states He did. They ignore the truth that Scripture clearly states that Christ took upon Himself the 'seed' of Abraham, and that my friend did not come from Mary.


Now the problem for those holding to being born in sin or sins, is that they have to approach several issues, reasoning in a circle that goes like this:

Jesus was sinless therefore He could not have had a physical father for all men are born in sin, and because of that Jesus could not have had a physical father for all men are born in sin, and because of that Jesus could not have had a physical father.............and on and on in circle they go.

 

[marke]

HP: The choosing you speak of is not choice in the least. If the nature of man dictates the intents and actions of man, no choice in reality takes place. Choice only happens in a system of freedom and you are depicting one of necessity. If the nature of man is responsible, it is the nature that deserves all blame and not the man himself. Your choosing does not represent choosing in the least or anything to do with choice.... Unless of course you believe that a smell 'chooses' to freely rise from a dead carcass.

Of a truth, 'freedom to do as one wills' does not represent freedom in the least.

I'm not intending to be disrespectful, but I am not quite following you here. Salvation is freely offered to sinners so that "Whosoever will" may freely partake. God is not willing that any should perish but that all men woiuld be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. God laid on the Lamb of God the sins of the whole world.

All of the God-ordered sacrifices of the O.T. involved the participation of men willing to obey those commands from God. "Choose you this day whom ye wil serve..." Lev. 1 says, "...If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord,... he shall offer it of his own voluntary will... and it shall be accepted for him to make an atonement for him."

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even the Lord Jesus was lifted up so that all men have to do is 'Look and Live'. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever, apart from assuming things that are not stated or revealed, that God made anyone look up and live.