Born in Sins

[The Biblicist]

I did not say that the word does not refer to what happened at birth. What I said instead that the word is not in reference to the way that anyone is conceived at birth.

What are your credentials in the Greek language? Do you think that you know more that the recognized reek expert Joseph Henry Thayer, whose definition of the Greek word translated "to be made like" is "to make like: 'to be' or 'to become like' to one...Heb.ii. 17" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

That has nothing at all to do with how a person is conceived.

Thayer did not place that restriction on that term, YOU DID!

Thayer did not say it can be applied "to what happened at birth" but "not in refernce to the way that anyone is conceived at birth" - YOU DID?

What are your qualifications to put words in the mouth of Thayer? What are your qualifications to draw lines that Thayer nor any other Lexicographer has with that word??

Hence, your definition is PURE IMAGINATION just like your interpretation is PURE IMGINATION!

Thayer does not draw those lines - YOU DO
Hebrew 2:17 does not demand that extreme interpretation - YOU DO!

 

[DHK]

So e only came to die for the Jews":

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world"</I> (Jn.6:51).

Here Paul speaks of bodies in a sense of something which we are "clothed" with:

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked" (2 Cor.5:1-3).

The Scriptures do not say that his body is made like us in every way. You are just looking for things to try to defend your belief that the lord esus was not 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).

You want to take the passage literally. The words "Abraham," "brothers," are used. These refer to the Jewish nation, not us. He was "in every way," made like unto his brethren (the Jews), not us. That is taking the passage literally.

But we don't take the passage literally to the nth degree as you do.
He made LIKE his brethren in every way, referring to his humanity in every way. This does not negate the sin nature of man, a virgin birth, nor the fact that He was a Jew and the rest of us are not. Thus in every way he was not like the rest of mankind.

The verse refers to his humanity. Like every man, he could be tempted, tried, tested, suffer hunger, thirst, be persecuted, suffer pain, etc. In this way he was like every man. Like every man he suffered infirmities. This is what the Bible specifically says. But somehow you want to deny the clear teaching on the Bible on this. Look again:

Like every man:
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)
--He is able to help every man because he himself suffered temptation.

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
--The only way that we could have a great high priest, is that He would be able to intercede on our behalf. This He is able to perfectly. How?

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
--Because, like every other man, he suffered as we did with our infirmities, was tempted in ALL points like we are. In every way he was a man just like we are. He was human like every other man, and therefore perfectly qualified to be our Great High Priest.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:14-16)
--Therefore we can come boldly before the throne of grace. We can find mercy and grace there. For we have one who can identify with whatever we are going through, and he will intercede for us. This is unlike the High Priest of the OT, who did not always understand the temptations and infirmities of the weak, but could only make an atonement for their sins once a year. What a comparison!!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: The subject is not how" He was conceived but the fact that He took on the likeness of men in every way

.

HP: Well stated Jerry.:thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

.

HP: Well stated Jerry.:thumbs:

The virgin birth determines WHAT was conceived, not merely HOW he was conceived.

There is no rational way we can talk about Christ being "made" like his brethren if we do not discuss both WHAT is "made" and HOW he was "made" in the womb.

We are talking about what is the human nature are we not? We have established that human nature in prefallen Adam was without sin while human nature after the fall in Adam was involved with sin have we not????

Hence, human nature is not determined by the absence or presence of sin is it?? Can you at least agree to that?

Therefore, to say that Christ was made LIKE his brethren does not demand in and of itself the absence or presence of sin does it? All that is demanded is that he was make like his brethren in all things pertaining to human nature!

Why not be honest here???? I will tell you why, because it is not to your advantage to be honest with this simple undeniable fact that the presence or absence of sin does not in the least determine what or what is not human in nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

The virgin birth determines WHAT was conceived, not merely HOW he was conceived.

There is no rational way we can talk about Christ being "made" like his brethren if we do not discuss both WHAT is "made" and HOW he was "made" in the womb.

We are talking about what is the human nature are we not? We have established that human nature in prefallen Adam was without sin while human nature after the fall in Adam was involved with sin have we not????

Hence, human nature is not determined by the absence or presence of sin is it?? Can you at least agree to that?

Therefore, to say that Christ was made LIKE his brethren does not demand in and of itself the absence or presence of sin does it? All that is demanded is that he was make like his brethren in all things pertaining to human nature!

Why not be honest here???? I will tell you why, because it is not to your advantage to be honest with this simple undeniable fact that the presence or absence of sin does not in the least determine what or what is not human in nature.

Three FACTS that deny your interpretation of Heb. 2:17

1. Pre-fallen Adam was fully human in nature - FACT

2. Post-fallen Adam was fully human in nature - FACT

3. Therefore the presence or absence of sin has NOTHING to do with being make like his brethren in all things pertaining to human nature - FACT

 

[Winman]

Yes, Abraham, you and I, and all mankind have sin natures. We inherited them from Adam.

That is your fallacious interpretation. It is not what Jesus meant. If that is what Jesus meant, then you should have been born of a virgin. Were you born of a virgin Jerry, that Christ could have been made like you in every way?
I leave you with that one question.

DHK, we agree on most everything except this. The scriptures nowhere say or even imply Jesus was born of a virgin to escape the sin nature. Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign, showing he was born of God. If Mary had had relations with Joseph before Jesus was born, NOBODY would believe Jesus was the Son of God, they would believe him the son of Joseph. Being born of a virgin confirmed Jesus was born of God.

Jesus had the same NATURE as his brethren the seed of Abraham as stated plainly in Heb 2:16. He inherited his flesh and the ability to be tempted from his mother. God the Father is neither flesh, nor can He be tempted. To deny Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist. That is not an accusation against you, that is the word of God.

Being born flesh with the ability to be tempted does not make one evil. Adam and Eve were flesh and could be tempted, yet God called them very good. It is when we willingly and knowingly sin against God that we become evil and die spiritually.

 

[DHK]

DHK, we agree on most everything except this. The scriptures nowhere say or even imply Jesus was born of a virgin to escape the sin nature. Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign, showing he was born of God. If Mary had had relations with Joseph before Jesus was born, NOBODY would believe Jesus was the Son of God, they would believe him the son of Joseph. Being born of a virgin confirmed Jesus was born of God.

There are many signs God could have given a wicked old king, but why this one? Why a virgin conceiving a son, and why the son being called Emmanuel. Surely you don't believe it is simply a sign of prophecy?? God has purpose behind the things he does. And the purpose of the virgin birth was designed that Christ could maintain a perfect human body without inheriting a sin nature from the Adamic race. This was the only way it could be done. He was born of the seed of the woman, untainted from the seed of Adam. How can you not see this.

God made Adam in the likeness and image of God.
But Seth was born in the image of Adam.
This is significant for Adam had lost that likeness of God. That likeness was marred. It was tainted with sin. He now had a sin nature which would be passed on to every generation from henceforth. It was all part of the curse which he brought upon mankind.

Jesus had the same NATURE as his brethren the seed of Abraham as stated plainly in Heb 2:16. He inherited his flesh and the ability to be tempted from his mother. God the Father is neither flesh, nor can He be tempted. To deny Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist. That is not an accusation against you, that is the word of God.

No one denies that Christ came in the flesh. That is what the passage teaches. To deny that the virgin birth has no purpose but to fulfill prophecy is borderline heresy. To deny the depravity of man is borderline heresy. If you want to talk about being outside the mainline orthodox Christian teaching throughout history and in the realm of heresy you are putting yourself there. Ruiz already pointed this out to HP, who was offended by it, and yet it is true.
Consider: All Catholics, almost all protestants, including almost all Baptists, have believed in the depravity of man since the time of the Apostles. Which groups can you name that haven't? You are well outside the mainstream of Christianity, and have little Scripture to stand on.

Being born flesh with the ability to be tempted does not make one evil.

I never said it did. But all men are born with a sin nature and are inherently evil. Study Jer.13:23; Eph.2:1-3

Adam and Eve were flesh and could be tempted, yet God called them very good. It is when we willingly and knowingly sin against God that we become evil and die spiritually.

And Jesus was tempted and yet without sin. That is what qualifies him to be our Great High Priest. Read Heb.2:18; 4:15ff.
We are born sinners. One doesn't have to teach a child to lie; but one does have to teach a child to tell the truth. That was not so with Christ. He always pleased His Father. No sin was ever found in him. He had no sin nature to contend with. He was virgin born.

 

[Winman]

Children are not born dead in sins separated from God, children are not born the children of the devil.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Our children are not born to us, they are born to God. They belong to God and are his children as scripture plainly says.

Jesus always spoke well of children, in fact Jesus said we needed to be CONVERTED and BECOME as children to enter the kingdom of heaven.

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

Was Jesus saying we need to become wicked sinners, children of wrath, children of the devil to enter heaven? Absurd.

In the same passage Jesus said,

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Does God set angels guard over wicked little sinners, children of wrath, children of the devil?

Children can and do sin, but they are not held accountable until they are mature enough to understand sin before God.

 

[The Biblicist]

DHK, we agree on most everything except this. The scriptures nowhere say or even imply Jesus was born of a virgin to escape the sin nature. Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign, showing he was born of God. If Mary had had relations with Joseph before Jesus was born, NOBODY would believe Jesus was the Son of God, they would believe him the son of Joseph. Being born of a virgin confirmed Jesus was born of God.

Jesus had the same NATURE as his brethren the seed of Abraham as stated plainly in Heb 2:16. He inherited his flesh and the ability to be tempted from his mother. God the Father is neither flesh, nor can He be tempted. To deny Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist. That is not an accusation against you, that is the word of God.

Being born flesh with the ability to be tempted does not make one evil. Adam and Eve were flesh and could be tempted, yet God called them very good. It is when we willingly and knowingly sin against God that we become evil and die spiritually.

Heb. 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

The Greek word translated "prepared" in this verse is καταρτιζω and out of the 13 times it is found in the New Testament EIGHT times it is translated "perfect"!

Here it refers to the ceremonial correct offering which in the Old Testament had to be "without blemish" which symbolizes SINLESS PERFECTION!

 

[DHK]

Children are not born dead in sins separated from God, children are not born the children of the devil.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Our children are not born to us, they are born to God. They belong to God and are his children as scripture plainly says.

Scripture does not plainly state this. You take Scripture out of context. This is an OT indictment against Jerusalem.

Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, (Ezekiel 16:2)
--These are the sins of the people of Jerusalem; God's chosen people. They were God's people, God's chosen nation, and by God's covenant, all that were in the nation both adult and infant were his.

Jesus always spoke well of children, in fact Jesus said we needed to be CONVERTED and BECOME as children to enter the kingdom of heaven.

He was speaking of faith. Unless you have faith as a small child you cannot see the kingdom of God. A child puts complete trust in their parents for all things. Likewise we must put complete trust in Christ. That is faith.

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

Again the illustration is one of faith. Have faith as little children have faith.

Was Jesus saying we need to become wicked sinners, children of wrath, children of the devil to enter heaven? Absurd.

Little children didn't have "to become" that way; they are born sinners.

In the same passage Jesus said,

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Yes, and he said the same thing about the sparrows and the lilies of the valley. So what is your point?

Does God set angels guard over wicked little sinners, children of wrath, children of the devil?

If your interpretation is correct why are children aborted, abandoned, abused, etc. None of this should ever go on, but it does. Obviously you don't know the proper meaning of the verse.

Children can and do sin, but they are not held accountable until they are mature enough to understand sin before God.

Small children sin because they have a sin nature; Jesus never sinned. Jesus never had a sin nature. Jesus was virgin born.

 

[Winman]

Children are not born sinners, there is not one verse that says that. There are verses that say they soon go astray, but what do they go astray from? You can't go astray from evil to evil.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

In Luke 15 Jesus compares sinners to a Shepherd who had 100 sheep in his possession. One went astray and was lost. He searched for it and recovered it. He does not show we are born seperated in sins, we are born in the flock and belong to him. But we go astray in sins and become lost. He comes after us and calls us. When we RETURN to him we are saved.

It was the same with the prodigal, he was in his father's house. He went astray in sin and joined himself to a citizen of a far country (Satan). He came to himself, repented and returned home asking forgiveness. He was forgiven, and twice Jesus said the young man was alive AGAIN.

You cannot be alive AGAIN if you were never alive to begin with. You cannot be RETURNED to Jesus the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls if you were never with him.

Original Sin is false doctrine invented by Augustine and the RCC. The scriptures DO NOT teach it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Children are not born sinners, there is not one verse that says that. There are verses that say they soon go astray, but what do they go astray from? You can't go astray from evil to evil.

They are born sinners by nature and Going astray simply manifest that nature.

A. Every single Biblical Text that specifically addresses the moral state of infants at birth unanimously demand infants are sinners/unclean at birth:

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Job 14:1 1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble......4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

Job 5:7 Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psa. 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Gen. 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.



B. Symbolically bearing children make the mother unclean:

Le 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.


C. Observational Evidence

Infants need no training, no examples, no rational choice to display attitudes and actions that cannot be attributed to the fruits of the Spirit but characterize the fruits of the flesh.


D. Definition of Sin

1. Jesus defines sin to be wrong "thoughts" or a sinful condition of heart:

Mt. 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mt. 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


2. Paul defines sin as coming short of the glory of God:

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Col 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;


Responses by those who believe children are born sinless:

1. They must EXPLAIN AWAY the above texts.

2. They have no biblical texts that address the moral character of infants (except Messanic prophecies that refer to a virgin born child)

3. They must INFER their position from texts that can be easily interpreted to harmonize with the above texts (e.g. Heb. 2:17).

4. They must limit the definition of sin to willful acts

 

[Winman]

Was Jesus born of a woman? If your interpretation is true, then Jesus was born a sinner.

So much for the being born of a virgin to escape a sin nature false doctrine.

We are born flesh. We have natural lusts and desires that tempt us. Jesus had these same lusts and desires and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

Adam and Eve were flesh. Eve was tempted by the lust of the flesh (the tree looked good for food), the lust of the eyes (the tree was pleasant to look upon), and the pride of life (it was "desired" to make one wise). This describes Eve BEFORE she sinned. Was she evil? NO, God himself said they were "very good".

It is not being flesh with lusts and desires that tempt us that makes us evil, Jesus had this NATURE (Heb 2:16). Adam and Eve had this nature before they sinned. It is actually committing known and willing sin that makes us evil.

 

[The Biblicist]

Was Jesus born of a woman? If your interpretation is true, then Jesus was born a sinner.

Why intentional pervert the argument? Does it make you feel good about yourself???

It is common knowledge that children have two parents and both contribute to the conception of a child. Christ was born of the seed of a woman without contribution of the male seed!

According to your theory he could have been concieved by both Joseph and Mary in conjunction with the Holy Spirit without any need to be virgin born!

However, he had to have a body that was especially prepared by God suitable for sacrifice (Heb. 10:5) or "blameless" as demanded under law.

Paul says that sin dwells in the body and you believe the following passage is about the lost man don't you?

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.


If your theory is correct then why did God have to provide Christ with a special body that was fit under sacrificial law????

Heb. 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

 

[marke]

The Election of Grace are born sinners, but they are not born in their sins. Reason being that Christ has already died for them 1 Cor 15:3 and bore them away Jn 1:29..So when when I say they are not born in their sins, that means they are not born with their sins charged against them ! Reason why ? Because they were Charged to Christ !

Sins of ignorance are still sins and all babies are born into this world in the sin that is inherited from Adam. Jesus bore the sins of the whole world on Calvary, so He could forgive whosoever would come to Him for forgiveness and salvation. Those who refuse to come to Him at His invitation will be sent to hell for refusing His sacrifice for their sins, so, in effect, they go to hell for refusing to have their sins forgiven on God's terms.

 

[Winman]

I haven't perverted anything, I simply used the scripture you presented to refute you. Jesus was indeed born of a woman.

And it is foolish to say Jesus could have been born of Joseph, then how could he be born of God? So, that is a ridiculous argument I NEVER made.

Jesus was born of a virgin as a SIGN. What is the purpose of a sign? To SHOW you something. And what did Jesus being born of a virgin show? That he was born of God and did not have a natural father. It was a supernatural sign. Never do the scriptures say Jesus was born of a virgin to escape a sin nature, God said it was a SIGN.

 

[DHK]

Children are not born sinners, there is not one verse that says that. There are verses that say they soon go astray, but what do they go astray from? You can't go astray from evil to evil.

What makes this hard for you to accept?
Verses that say they SOON go astray?
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalms 58:3)
--"as soon as they be born" is soon enough isn't it? It is from birth that they inherit a sin nature.
Explain Jeremiah 13:23:

An Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin because that is the way he is born. That is his nature.
A leopard cannot change his spots (to stripes for example), because that is the way he is born. That is his nature.
Neither can you do good, for you were born doing evil. You are accustomed to doing evil from your birth onward. That is your nature. It is in your nature to do evil. This is one of the clearest and strongest declarations of the sin nature of man in the Bible. Without Christ, you cannot change. You were born a sinner, you will remain a sinner--from birth onward. It is your nature.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Out of context. Jesus is writing to believers. It has nothing to do with infants, original sin, or depraved natures.

In Luke 15 Jesus compares sinners to a Shepherd who had 100 sheep in his possession. One went astray and was lost. He searched for it and recovered it. He does not show we are born seperated in sins, we are born in the flock and belong to him. But we go astray in sins and become lost. He comes after us and calls us. When we RETURN to him we are saved.

A red herring.
Jesus is speaking of sheep, those that have already been following Jesus. He is not speaking of original sin or depraved natures. Why take scripture out of context. Not wise.

It was the same with the prodigal, he was in his father's house. He went astray in sin and joined himself to a citizen of a far country (Satan). He came to himself, repented and returned home asking forgiveness. He was forgiven, and twice Jesus said the young man was alive AGAIN.

He was a son. The son was "prodigal." He had gone astray. He was separated from his father by sin. He was lost in the sense that he had gone astray. If you believe that he was lost in the sense that he was not saved, then you don't believe in eternal security. He is a son. There is nothing that one can do to change that. A son will always be a son.

You cannot be alive AGAIN if you were never alive to begin with. You cannot be RETURNED to Jesus the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls if you were never with him.

That is right. They were saved. They had gone astray. They had returned. Both of these passages are speaking of Christians. You are taking Scripture out of context.

Original Sin is false doctrine invented by Augustine and the RCC. The scriptures DO NOT teach it.

It wasn't invented by Augustine.
It is believed by almost all of Christendom.
Your denial of it is outside of orthodox Christianity and has been for every generation for the last two thousand years. Your position according to Christian history is heretical. Try and prove me wrong with that statement. History bears out that you hold to a heretical position. I challenge you to look down the annals of Christian history and see whether I am right or wrong. You stand on the wrong side of orthodox Christianity my friend. We all can't be wrong.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Forgive me for the length of this post but Biblicist is asking complex questions.

Biblicist: The virgin birth determines WHAT was conceived, not merely HOW he was conceived.

HP: The manner in which conception takes place does not determine 'what' is conceived. I have more than enough farmer in me to know that with certainty.

Biblicist: There is no rational way we can talk about Christ being "made" like his brethren if we do not discuss both WHAT is "made" and HOW he was "made" in the womb.

HP: Again, the manner of conception does not in any way determine the nature or character of what is conceived. The rules of the list must be honored or I would explain it to you in clear farmer terms.

Biblicist: We are talking about what is the human nature are we not? We have established that human nature in prefallen Adam was without sin while human nature after the fall in Adam was involved with sin have we not????

HP: Yes and well kinda sorta. Antecedent to the fall we agree. Subsequent to the fall we have some differences, at least so far. Sin is not nor can it be transmitted by physical means whatsoever. Sin is a judgment of God upon moral intents and actions. Sin has indeed had a great impact on the physical, for all men are indeed born with shortened life spans and ravaged by all sorts of physical (including the physical/mental as well) maladies, including but not limited to depraved sensibilities. If one is in doubt, visit your nearest baby Hospital. So has the human nature been 'involved with sin' as you ask? Yes there are physical consequences, but depravity of necessity is limited to that realm if morality is to be predicated of man subsequent to the fall. If the will of man in any way is depraved so that it can only follow the dictates of ones self or nature or whatever, it is driven by necessity, something foreign to morals completely. As I have stated on many occasion, if the will has no power of contrary choice, in that the will has no power to be the first cause of his intents, no morality can be predicated of the will period. Is ones nature involved in sin? Yes, as I have outlined, but not controlled by sin. Proof? God blames and punishes man for his intents and subsequent actions, proving that the will is not controlled by force or coercion. For moral accountability to be predicated of a man, one must be able to do something other than it does under the very same set of circumstances, apart from rewards or punishments coercing the formation of intents or subsequent actions.

Biblicist: Hence, human nature is not determined by the absence or presence of sin is it?? Can you at least agree to that?

HP: It depends on if you are speaking of ones nature from birth or a moral nature subsequent to the age of accountability.

Again, we have a problem that without coming to agreement on, we will always talk over each other. You, as I have understood your posts, do not distinguish between the will and the sensibilities. All is sin whether it is a mere influence to sin via the sensibilities or if it is a direct act of the will. I only see sin as one voluntarily yields their wills in the formation of intents in the direction of selfish tendencies. You see such tendencies lending themselves to selfishness as sin (speaking of even infants now) where I do not see tendencies as sin strictly speaking. I would go as far as to say no sin can possibly be attached to the will until such a time as one knows the intrinsic value of a command apart from rewards or punishments. We call that age the age of accountability.


Back to your question. Human nature is determined to some degree from conception. God has instilled some first truths via consciousness developed from infancy that go into the makeup of our nature prior to moral agency.

There is no sin prior to the age of accountability, not in ones nature or anywhere else There are more than one uses of the word 'nature.' It can be used speaking of influences on us from conception, but not in the realm of morals. When you speak of the word 'nature' in the moral (sinful/righteous) realm, you are limited to the formation of traits subsequent to ones first moral choice. Moral nature is the nature or formation of influences upon the heart and will of man due to formed moral intents. So moral human nature, developed subsequent to the age of accountability is indeed determined directly by the presence of formed intents to sin. Such formed intents of selfishness, not just selfishness as an infant (not classified as sin), but rather selfishness when one has light of the intrinsic nature of the commands of God apart from rewards or punishments, is properly denoted as sin and begins to form the 'sin that lieth within us. Such presence of sin creates habits etc that serve as even stronger influences than natural proclivities.
If one tries to make the word 'nature always apply to influences prior to moral agency or from conception or birth, they do so in error.

Biblicist: Therefore, to say that Christ was made LIKE his brethren does not demand in and of itself the absence or presence of sin does it?

HP: The problem lies in the confusion between proclivities to sin and sin itself. Christ was made like unto His brethren, and if man is born in sin that passage of Scripture would indicate something we know full well is not true. If we limit the depravity passed on by the fall to the physical realm of proclivities or influences to sin, instead of sin itself, we are well on our way to harmonizing the two clear facts Scripture states of Christ. Christ was made in all points as we are, yet His will never yielded to any of those selfish propensities both the flesh of man and Christ were born with. These natural depraved selfish propensities (not sin in and of themselves) influence the will of Christ and the will of man, but again is not judged as sin untill the will chooses to form intents in accordance to them subsequent to moral accountability. Then and only then is selfishness said to be sin.

Christ never yielded to any sinful influences via the natural propensities of the flesh nor any outside influence to sin. He was indeed tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

I haven't perverted anything, I simply used the scripture you presented to refute you.

You presented the argument as though no other option existed but yours! At least we acknowledge your interpretation but demonstrate why it is wrong. You simply do not approach the issues objectively.

And it is foolish to say Jesus could have been born of Joseph, then how could he be born of God? So, that is a ridiculous argument I NEVER made.

You are born of God and yet have two human parents! Why couldn't he simply take upon himself the Humanity provided by both parents in the womb as neither parent supplies diety?? If the contribution of Mary does not affect His deity how would the contribution of Jospeh affect his Deity as according to your theory Joseph provides nothing more to Jesus than Mary - humanity???

However, Hebrews 10:5 tells us why the virgin birth was necessary because the human body Jesus assumed had to provided by God Himself in order to be sacrificially legal under law - "without blemish."

The sin nature resides in the body and the human father passes "death" on to the child not the mother.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Notice that Paul calls this indwelling sin in the body "This body OF DEATH" and that is what the father passes down to the children "DEATH" in the body.

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men......15 BY one man's offence MANY BE DEAD"

If your theory is correct then why did God have to provide Christ with a special body that was fit under sacrificial law????

Heb. 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Wiman: Children are not born sinners, there is not one verse that says that. There are verses that say they soon go astray, but what do they go astray from? You can't go astray from evil to evil.

HP: I agree. Even the verse you mention does not support in any way the notion of original sin.

David was comparing TWO groups of individuals in this text as he did in other texts as well, Psalm 53 for instance. There he once again pits the “FOOL” in the following manner: Ps 53:3 EVERY ONE of THEM is GONE BACK (not born that way, but GONE BACK) they are altogether BECOME FILTHY; (not born filthy) there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

David was speaking directly to those he considered as fools and was by no means making any universal acknowledgement of original sin in both Psalms, 14 as well as 53.