Born in Sins

[DHK]

HP: Nothing Winman said warrants such an absurd remark using something that can no more concluded from Scripture than a man in the moon. Lets see. I believe that would be called, a straw man argument based on meaningless rhetoric. :thumbsup:

The same argument is for you. You say we do not have depraved natures.
If we are born innocent, then are we born gods?

What did Jesus say to the rich young ruler?
"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, and that is God."
Jesus was saying: If I am good, then I am God; If I am not good, I am not God.

Only God is good.
Get that. Read again.
Only God is good.

Children, infants, etc. are not good. If they are, then they are gods!
Is this what you believe?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The same argument is for you. You say we do not have depraved natures.
If we are born innocent, then are we born gods?

HP: Define "gods."

 

[convicted1]

The difference between Jesus' birth and ours is there was no male in the conception. His Father was/is heavenly, and His mother, physically. The rest of us have come from the process called intercourse, and though in the marriage bed it is okay in the sight of God, it is a lust of the flesh. That is why we are conceived in sin(our outer physical body that is). Jesus did not come through this process. He had no sinful nature, neither did He have any sinful desires. I dare to go as far as to say He did not even have the ability to sin. I have read from previous threads, that Jesus chose not to sin. I believe this to be false. To state that Jesus chose not to sin is like stating He could have, but chose not to. If that be the case, then Him being called Immanuel/Emmanuel, would have been a lie.

 

[DHK]

HP: Define "gods."

deity.........

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Children, infants, etc. are not good. If they are, then they are gods!
Is this what you believe?

HP: Was Adam and the creation that God called 'very good' gods? Was the 'good' Samaritan god? Was the 'good' and faithful servant god? Was the 'good man' of Luke 6:45 god? Is the one with a 'good 'heart' god? Was the women full of "good works' god? Is the good man that obtaineth favor of the Lord, god? Is the 'good' man that leaveth an inheritance to his children, god? We could offer more but this should suffice.

 

[DHK]

HP: Was Adam and the creation that God called 'very good' gods? Was the 'good' Samaritan god? Was the 'good' and faithful servant god? Was the 'good man' of Luke 6:45 god? Is the one with a 'good 'heart' god? Was the women full of "good works' god? Is the good man that obtaineth favor of the Lord, god? Is the 'good' man that leaveth an inheritance to his children, god? We could offer more but this should suffice.

Do you argue just for argument sake?
Do you believe the Scriptures?

The Bible says:
There is none good, no not one.

Jesus said: Only God is good.

You decide. Are you ready to believe the Bible or not.
The verses you quoted, you quoted out of context.
What God did was good. We attribute what he did to his goodness, and that was before sin entered into the world. But only God is "good." Man is not good. He is intrinsically evil. If he claims "good" or goodness, then he is making a claim to Godhead or deity.

In the verses you quoted you used the word as an adjective, as in good works.
God is in essence good.
Man is in essence evil.

That is what Jesus taught to the rich young ruler of Mark 10.
It is what Jeremiah taught in Jer.13:23

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Has it ever occurred to some on this list that they are not god, and might in fact not have the foggiest idea as to precisely why the rich young ruler was inferring when he called Him 'Good Master' or why Christ responded the way He did? Does that possibility exist?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The verses you quoted, you quoted out of context.

HP: :laugh:

May the Christ of Christmas be real to the hearts of each and everyone this holiday season! Goodnight. :wavey:

 

[Rippon]

HP: Nothing Winman said warrants such an absurd remark using something that can no more concluded from Scripture than a man in the moon. Lets see. I believe that would be called, a straw man argument based on meaningless rhetoric. :thumbsup:

I'm not with you or Winman theologically,but I have to agree with you regarding DHK's methodology. He has employed that line of absurdity with me many times in the past.

 

[DHK]

I'm not with you or Winman theologically,but I have to agree with you regarding DHK's methodology. He has employed that line of absurdity with me many times in the past.

I simply brought up one more argument for the depravity of man.
It was first mentioned by Marke, but ignored.

The depravity of man.
All have sinned. There is none good, no not one. (Romans 3)
In Mark 10, Jesus teaches the rich young ruler that only God is good.

The thread is on "born in sins." We are not good; we are born in sin, and have a depraved nature. Would you not agree, and does this Scripture not agree with your views.

 

[marke]

Have you ever considered that the scriptures are speaking of adults, and not infants? Jesus said unless we be converted and become as "little children" we will not enter heaven?

There is a difference between sins of ignorance and willful sins, as laid out in Num. 15. The Pharisees blasphemed against God and the Holy Ghost and were not forgiven because they knew what they were doing (Mark 3:29 and John 3:2). Paul, on ther other hand, and, as an adult, blasphemed God but he obtained mercy because he did it in ignorance (1 Ti. 1:13). If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there is never going to be a second sacrifice to cover that sin (Heb. 10:26), so there is no forgiveness for that sin.

What is the unforgivable sin (sinning willfully)? Heb. 10:23 says, "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith..." vs 25: "Not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together..." This is not about skipping sunday school or falling asleep in church. Forsaking is the total turning of one's back on God after coming to know Him by revelation from the Holy Spirit. Those who are brought into the light by the Holy Spirit and are shown their need to believe God and be saved, if they turn back ("fall away" - Heb. 6:6) there is nowhere else to go for salvation. Many of the Lord's disciples left the Lord in John 6:66, but not Peter, who said, "To whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Born again disciples of Christ will never turn back into the world and go full back to loving their old sins, like Lot's wife did, and they cannot forsake God because God in them cannot forsake Himself (1 John 3:9), but those who only toy around with religion, and take tiny sips of the goodness of God instead of totally committing themselves to every aspect of pleasing God (Heb. 6:5), will find thery don't have what it takes to finish the project they "began to build" (Luke 14:28).

Read Deut 1:39, God allowed the children to go into the promised land because they "had no knowledge between good and evil" in the day their parents sinned in the wilderness.

The promised land being a type of victorious Christian living where God gives us the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil, it only makes sense that those in the flesh will never enjoy the victorious Christian life, whether they are saved or not.

Read Jon 4:11 where God asked Jonah, "And should I not spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six-score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
Do you understand that question? God is asking Jonah whether it was JUST to spare Nineveh. Why was it just for God to be merciful to Nineveh? Because there were over 120,000 small children there who didn't know one hand from another. He compares them to cattle, which also have no concept of sin.

Having sin and having knowledge of sin are two different things. The kids are born in sin, we all were, but until God brings in His word to deal with them about their sins, they will simply be in the dark about the truth of their condition. They are not sinlessly perfect, but sinning in ignorance. There is a big difference.

Why did Paul say he was alive before the commandment came once? God does not hold little children accountable until they are mature enough to undertand sin before God.

That is true. He has commanded us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, telling them that God is not imputing their trespasses unto them, and will not hold them guilty if they will simply turn their hearts to Him for forgiveness of those sins of ignorance and ask Him for the gift of salvation.

 

[Winman]

All men are sinners, born with a sin nature. Keep it simple. Because man sinned, death came into the world. Death was passed upon all men, and along with that a sin nature. No man is good. Only God is good.

No one on this board teaches universalism or believes in it.
Your logic is obviously wrong.

Believe like Jesus?? Did Jesus need to be saved?

Exactly what Heb.2:17 says. He inherited his human nature from Mary.

He was human like we are. What is so difficult about this to understand.
He, like Adam, did not have a sin nature. Both were tempted. Adam fell, and Christ did not.
The result of Adam's fall is that he passed on to all generations a sin nature.
The result of Christ's life--death, burial and resurrection is that he passed on to all generations the opportunity to be saved.
Christ is the Second Adam.

You simply ASSUME men have a sin nature without scriptural proof. Because men sin does not prove they have a sin nature, Adam and Eve and even Satan and the fallen angels prove that, God declared all his creation very good.

James 1:13-15 explains the cause of sin. Every man sins when he is enticed by his own lust or desire. Eve clearly had these desires, they are shown and decribed in detail in Gen 3:6. The forbidden tree appealed to the lust of the flesh, it looked good for food. It appealed to the lust of the eyes, it was pleasant to the eyes. It appealed to the pride of life, it was "desired" to make one wise. Eve had all these lusts BEFORE she actually sinned. These natural desires are what most people call the sin nature. Jesus also had these desires, but he never obeyed them when they would have caused him to sin as Eve did.

Jesus had the same NATURE as us, this is directly said in Heb 2:16. He had lusts and desires and could be tempted.

 

[Winman]

DHK, you should know better, the scriptures say when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished brings forth death. The Bible says the wages of sin is death.

Augustine and Calvinism teach the exact opposite of scripture, they teach you are born dead, and this spiritual death brings forth sin.

Sin ---> Death SCRIPTURAL

Death ---> Sin UNSCRIPTURAL

There is not one verse in all scripture that says we are born dead, and that this death causes us to sin. All scripture says we sin, and this sin brings forth death.

The order is important, you have it backwards as Augustine and Calvin falsely taught.

 

[Winman]

There is a difference between sins of ignorance and willful sins, as laid out in Num. 15. The Pharisees blasphemed against God and the Holy Ghost and were not forgiven because they knew what they were doing (Mark 3:29 and John 3:2). Paul, on ther other hand, and, as an adult, blasphemed God but he obtained mercy because he did it in ignorance (1 Ti. 1:13). If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there is never going to be a second sacrifice to cover that sin (Heb. 10:26), so there is no forgiveness for that sin.

I agree, knowledge is necessary for accountability.

Jn 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Notice Jesus said if he had not spoken to these persons, they would have no sin. You must have knowledge to sin. This is why Paul could say he was alive without the commandment once. When he learned what sin is through the law he was convicted by the law, and the law "slew" or killed him. How can you kill someone who is born "dead". That is illogical and an impossibility.

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

What is the unforgivable sin (sinning willfully)? Heb. 10:23 says, "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith..." vs 25: "Not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together..." This is not about skipping sunday school or falling asleep in church. Forsaking is the total turning of one's back on God after coming to know Him by revelation from the Holy Spirit. Those who are brought into the light by the Holy Spirit and are shown their need to believe God and be saved, if they turn back ("fall away" - Heb. 6:6) there is nowhere else to go for salvation. Many of the Lord's disciples left the Lord in John 6:66, but not Peter, who said, "To whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

I would agree.

Born again disciples of Christ will never turn back into the world and go full back to loving their old sins, like Lot's wife did, and they cannot forsake God because God in them cannot forsake Himself (1 John 3:9), but those who only toy around with religion, and take tiny sips of the goodness of God instead of totally committing themselves to every aspect of pleasing God (Heb. 6:5), will find thery don't have what it takes to finish the project they "began to build" (Luke 14:28).

Salvation is a free gift. You didn't work to get salvation, and you do not work to keep it. You are describing works salvation.

The promised land being a type of victorious Christian living where God gives us the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil, it only makes sense that those in the flesh will never enjoy the victorious Christian life, whether they are saved or not.

The promised land represented being saved, it represented heaven.

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Notice we enter into "rest" not works.

Having sin and having knowledge of sin are two different things. The kids are born in sin, we all were, but until God brings in His word to deal with them about their sins, they will simply be in the dark about the truth of their condition. They are not sinlessly perfect, but sinning in ignorance. There is a big difference.

Children are not born sinners. They are born flesh with a propensity to sin, but they do not become sinners until they knowingly and willfully sin. Jesus never spoke evil of little children, only good. Jesus said we must be converted and become as little children or we will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you really believe Jesus was telling us we must become sinners?

God said children belong to him.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy 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?

God called these infants who were sacrificed to idols "my children", he says they were "borne unto me". You are not born a child of the devil, a child of wrath, you become a child of the devil when you knowingly and willingly sin against God.

That is true. He has commanded us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, telling them that God is not imputing their trespasses unto them, and will not hold them guilty if they will simply turn their hearts to Him for forgiveness of those sins of ignorance and ask Him for the gift of salvation.

I agree.

 

[marke]

I agree, knowledge is necessary for accountability.

Jn 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
Notice Jesus said if he had not spoken to these persons, they would have no sin. You must have knowledge to sin. This is why Paul could say he was alive without the commandment once. When he learned what sin is through the law he was convicted by the law, and the law "slew" or killed him. How can you kill someone who is born "dead". That is illogical and an impossibility.

Paul was 'alive' only in his ignorance before God showed him that he actually was dead and didn't know it because God hadn't yet turned the light on for him. He was also alive in that God had not finally revealed to him that there is none good, that none keep the law, and that the law cannot save, but, in actuality, only condemns. Paul only thought he was keeping the law and therefore was 'alive in God', but when God showed him the truth about the sin and the law he realized that the law was not saving him but was condemning him. That was quite an eye opener, I'm sure.

After salvation, Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "And you hath he quicked, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." and "Even when we were dead in sins..."
(Ch. 1). There is none good but God. All are born sinners from Adam, but Jesus paid for our sins on the cross, so God reconciled the world unto Himself before we were even born. Nevertheless, no matter how 'alive' one feels himself to be, until he is born again in Christ Jesus he is still dead in trespasses and sins, and has been since birth. Nobody is spiritually alive and will enter into heaven without being born again, and that does not happen before sinners are dead in trespasses and sins.

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

Great care should be taken by Christians when reading scriptures in which great care was taken by God to word them in exact detail. The passage in Rom. 7 shows the cause of Paul's death was not his turning away from God or "going astray", bringing him into death after he was already alive. None of that is in Rom. 7, but, instead, it is the commandment which is on the move, and at the time it shows up with all of its lights ablaze and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit to illumine and convict, Paul finally realizes for the first time that he wasn't alive after all, but was dead and had been the whole time.

People that go about to establish their own righteousness according to the law only think they are alive, but when the truth is revealed from heaven, they can see the law is that which condemns and will never give life to anyone. paul was a blasphemer in 1 Ti. 1:13, but he obtained mercy because he was doing it in ignorance, and at a time when he thought he was 'alive', but he wasn't alive, just ignorant of what Life really was.

Besides, if Paul was alive until the law came, then how did he lose that life and become a sinner? Where is the evidence of the fall from grace? I just don't buy the idea that Paul was sinless until God turned on the light for him on the road to Damascus.

I would agree. Salvation is a free gift. You didn't work to get salvation, and you do not work to keep it. You are describing works salvation.

Maybe it would be better to just quote the passage and let others interpret for themselves, then, since I don't believe in works salvation either. Luke 14:26-30: "If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish."

The promised land represented being saved, it represented heaven.

And yet, this verse does not refer to heaven: "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."
Heb. 4:11. This is that same rest spoken of in Heb. 3:11: "So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest."

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

We believers do enter into rest right here on earth, which is typified by the entering into the Promised Land, where battles remain to be fought still, yet the Lord is the One fighting our battles for us and giving us the victory in Him. Heb. 4:10 "For he that is (it does not say 'shall' or 'will someday', but 'is today, right now') entered into His rest, he hath also ceased (in the present tense, today) from his own works, as God did from His." Therefore, vs 11: "Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest..." This is not talking about working to enter heaven, but giving diligent attention to our spiritual growth in order to reach a level of maturity where we can walk with God in the Spirit and not in the flesh.

2 Peter 1:5 tells us to give all our energy to the adding of our faith the fruits of the character and nature of God, so that we do not fail of the grace of God spoken of in all of Hebrews.

Notice we enter into "rest" not works.

Notice we "labor to enter into that rest" (Heb. 4:11), not slide into it backwards on our carnal, lazy heinies.

Children are not born sinners. They are born flesh with a propensity to sin, but they do not become sinners until they knowingly and willfully sin. Jesus never spoke evil of little children, only good. Jesus said we must be converted and become as little children or we will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you really believe Jesus was telling us we must become sinners?

No, Of course Jesus did not command us to become sinners. He already knew we were sinners. Jesus said in Matt. 19:17, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God..." Jesus is the Word made flesh, so of course He knows what the word of God teaches, like Eccl. 7:20 (among dozens if not hundreds of other passages), "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not."

God said children belong to him.
Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy 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?
God called these infants who were sacrificed to idols "my children", he says they were "borne unto me". You are not born a child of the devil, a child of wrath, you become a child of the devil when you knowingly and willingly sin against God.
I agree.

I'm going to have to stop here for now. I hope we are making progress and I hope we can discuss this more, possibly, later.

 

[The Biblicist]

You simply ASSUME men have a sin nature without scriptural proof.

You may argue which comes first, sin or the sin nature but you cannot deny the scipture clearly teaches all "men" have sin natures.

"There IS not that DOETH good"
"there IS none good but one and that is God"
"The carnal mind IS at enmity with God and IS not subject to the law of God and neither indeed CAN be"

Because men sin does not prove they have a sin nature, Adam and Eve and even Satan and the fallen angels prove that,

Here is the crux of our disagreement. You argue that every human being comes into the world as Adam came into the world without a sin nature and thus the sin nature is caused only by one's own personal willful sin.

Therefore, according to your rationale only personal willful sin produces a personal sin nature rather than a sin nature producing sin.


There are many Biblical problems with this kind of rationale!

1. Adam and his personal actions are presented in scripture to have consequences upon all mankind - "by one man's offence MANY be dead" - rather than mere personal actions with only personal liabilities (Ezek. 18:4,20).

2. If that were true then the consequences for Adam's personal sin (Gen. 2:16; 3:16-19) should not extend beyond the person committing the sin (Ezek. 18:4, 20) but that is not true as the condemnation for Adam's sin does extend beyond his own person to all mankind (Gen. 2:16; 3:16-19).

3. If that were true than all infants should enter this world just as Adam entered the world not only without personal sin but without personal consequences due to Adam's sin. Adam entered the world without any personal consquences due to Satan's sin. But this is not true because infants die due to no personal individual choice made by them. They enter under the condemnation of Adam's sin - death. Therefore Adam did not act merely in an individual capacity or unrelated with all his posertity.

4. Because Adam actions had consequential effects upon all future posterity, therefore in all other humans sin nature precedes sinful attitudes, words and actions.

a. Training of children begins shortly after birth and long before they are able to rationally understand and make choices according to moral values and the scriptures present them as already having heart problems requiring discipline:

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

b. In regard to Adam's poserterity the Bible attributes the cause of sinful lusts, words and actions to be a sinful heart not vice versa:

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

Mt. 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
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. (James described the order internally to externally in committed the external ACTS of sin but Jesus deals with the internal nature of lust whether external acts are committed or not).


Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

However, your doctrine must reverse this order. Your doctrine demands it is the fruit that makes the tree good or bad. Your doctrine demands evil things produce the treasure of the heart rather than manifest the heart.

God declared all his creation very good.

God declared "everything" very good BEFORE angels or man sinned unless you beleive that God can look upon sin with approval?


Mt. 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
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. James 1:13-15 explains the cause of sin. Every man sins when he is enticed by his own lust or desire.[/QUOTE]

James is describing the process from internal lust to external action or the cause and effect relationship between internal before external. However, Christ demands that God judges the character of the internal "lust" whether it is good or evil and if evil it is sin whether or not man is able to externalize it by his actions:

Mt. 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
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.

Eve clearly had these desires, they are shown and decribed in detail in Gen 3:6. The forbidden tree appealed to the lust of the flesh, it looked good for food. It appealed to the lust of the eyes, it was pleasant to the eyes. It appealed to the pride of life, it was "desired" to make one wise. Eve had all these lusts BEFORE she actually sinned.

According to Christ all these lusts were evil and all were judged by God as sin BEFORE she externalized them by her action.

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

James is only explaining the relationship between internal to external rather than defining the nature of the internal lust. However, Jesus is defining the nature of the internal lust to be sin even though it is never externalized as an act.

These natural desires are what most people call the sin nature.

John did not call these things "natural" desires but call them sinful desires:

1 Jn. 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Both Jesus and John defined the very "lust" as sin. James is only describing the relationship between the internal lust and external act of sin. James is not denying or asserting that the lust that leads to external acts of sin is evil.

Jesus had the same NATURE as us, this is directly said in Heb 2:16. He had lusts and desires and could be tempted.

He had "lusts" but not the "lusts" that Eve exhibited in Genesis 3 as those were evil lusts which bore evil consequences. He had "desires" but not evil desires.

He was not "made" with an evil heart but all his brethren were born with such a heart.

Hebrews 2:17 requires nothing more or less than Jesus was made in all things like unto his brethren in regard to being HUMAN in nature as contrast to ANGELS in Nature (Heb. 2:16).

In order to be compared to the first Adam, Christ had to be made like unto the first Adam without a fallen nature. The first Adam was 100% without the sin nature as he was 100% human with the sin nature, therefore, neither the presence or absence of the sin nature made Adam anything other than 100% human in nature.

The virgin birth was necessary so that Christ would possess a legal sacrificial body under law (without blemish) and it was through the virigin birth that God "prepared" a body legally qualified to offer up as a proper sacrifice (Heb. 10:5).

The body received through natural generation from the natural father has the sin principle or law at work in it from birth and the proof is that infants die (Rom. 7:17-18, 20) and is thus the "body of DEATH."

Christ was born without any inclination toward evil because he was furnished a body from God without the law of sin working in his members.

 

[Winman]

"There IS not that DOETH good"

You left out part of the verse. Read the whole verse.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Paul is not saying we are born evil, he says we have gone OUT of the way, we have BECOME unprofitable.

Jesus said sinners do good.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Jesus said sinners do good. So, when the scriptures say there is none good, it is speaking of being 100% good or righteous. It is not saying that sinners are unable to do some good, Jesus said sinners cannot only do good, he said they actually do good. So, your interpretation fails, you have to consider all scriptures, not pull one verse out of context.

"there IS none good but one and that is God"

Again, this is speaking of being 100% righteous, without any sin whatsoever.

"The carnal mind IS at enmity with God and IS not subject to the law of God and neither indeed CAN be"

I would agree this is the strongest argument in all of scripture to argue natural man cannot do good. But you cannot take this one verse alone to counter many other scriptures that show natural man can do good, and even believe.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that a person first hears the word of God and believes to receive the Spirit. So obviously the natural man can believe. Cornelius is a perfect example, the scriptures say he was devout and feared God, he gave alms and prayed always. Was Cornelius saved? NO. Did Cornelius have the Spirit? NO. We know this from chapter 11.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

So, we see that a natural man can believe in God. Cornelius believed in God before he was saved, else the angel would not have told him to send for Peter to hear words whereby he and his house would be saved. And Cornelius did not receive the Spirit until Peter came and preached to him.

This shows your interpretation of Rom 8:7 error. It cannot be teaching that the natural man is unable to think spiritually, especially when he has heard the word of God and been taught. It is simply saying the natural man left to himself cannot think spiritually. Big difference.

 

[The Biblicist]

You left out part of the verse. Read the whole verse.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Paul is not saying we are born evil, he says we have gone OUT of the way, we have BECOME unprofitable.

Yes and no! Yes, there is a time when all normal humans come to a point in life they are capable of discerning good from evil and with that understanding they willfully sin and thus make a willful departure from what they know to be right.

However, they make that willful sin because they were born sinners by nature and from birth manifested that sinful nature through natural untrained expression of evil without understanding what they were doing.

Jesus said sinners do good.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Jesus said sinners do good. So, when the scriptures say there is none good, it is speaking of being 100% good or righteous. It is not saying that sinners are unable to do some good, Jesus said said sinners cannot only do good, he said they actually do good. So, your interpretation fails, you have to consider all scriptures, not pull one verse out of context.

First, he is talking about HORIZONTAL relationships and reactions considered good between men. He is not defining "good" by VERTICAL relationship between man and God.

Second, he is talking to his own disciples rather than to the lost unbelieving people.

Third, you must assume that those returning the good are lost people.

fourth, in Matthew 19:17 and Romans 3:10-11 he is talking about VERTICAL definition of God before God as judged by law (Rom. 3:19-20).

Conclusion: You are perverting the scriptures and misinterpreting them.

 

[The Biblicist]

I would agree this is the strongest argument in all of scripture to argue natural man cannot do good. But you cannot take this one verse alone to counter many other scriptures that show natural man can do good, and even believe.

I have proven that the scriptures you claim I am countering are not speaking of the same thing! They are speaking of HORIZONTAL relationships between man and man and what man defines as good. Every single one of my texts is speaking about VERTICAL relationships between man and God and what the Law defines as good enough to be justified and YOU KNOW that is no failure even in one point! So you are mixing apples and oranges and you know it.

So your choice of scriptures are wrong! You intepretation of those texts are wrong. Your forcing them into the context where VERTICAL relationship and "good" defined by Law - no failure in any point - is obvously wrong!

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that a person first hears the word of God and believes to receive the Spirit.

You know that I define the genitive case to be a subjective genitive and refers to regeneration or the giving of a new heart that can hear and see (Deut. 29:4; Ezeil 36:26) and thus with that heart "believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10).

Cornelius is a perfect example, the scriptures say he was devout and feared God, he gave alms and prayed always. Was Cornelius saved? NO. Did Cornelius have the Spirit? NO. We know this from chapter 11.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

The term "saved" does not necessarily refer to intiational regeneration/conversion and that is the case here. They were already believers in the Old Testament gospel (Acts 10:43) as Peter tells them they already knew this. What they did not know, was exactly what Apollos didn't know. They did not know that Jesus was that predicted Messiah they had already believed in and they did not know the New Testament congregation was the new house of God for service. It was their life that was "saved" in the sense of service through the new house of God.

Proof that they were already regenerated children of God by faith in the Old Testament gospel is that God accepted their prayers and offerings and their testimony for God was well established among the Jews before Peter came.

Second, They were pronounced already "clean" by God three times to Peter and Peter was rebuked for calling them "unclean."

 

[Winman]

Yes and no! Yes, there is a time when all normal humans come to a point in life they are capable of discerning good from evil and with that understanding they willfully sin and thus make a willful departure from what they know to be right.

Correct and scriptural.

However, they make that willful sin because they were born sinners by nature and from birth manifested that sinful nature through natural untrained expression of evil without understanding what they were doing.

False. Do you have a conscience? What is a conscience? A conscience by definition means to know right from wrong and have an inclination to do what is right. By nature we desire to do what is right. When we do right we feel good because that is what we are designed to do. When we sin we feel guilty and fearful, because we have offended our God given nature.

Paul said all men have a knowledge of God and are without excuse. Paul said men choose to go against their God given nature.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

If our nature was evil, it would be natural to commit such sins. Paul shows that man by nature knows he is sinning against God and committing "unnatural" acts.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Men by nature know right from wrong. God called the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wicked sinners when there was no written law. How could there be sin without law? There was law, natural law. Men know by nature that it is wrong for men to be with men and women to be with women.

First, he is talking about HORIZONTAL relationships and reactions considered good between men. He is not defining "good" by VERTICAL relationship between man and God.

Boy, all I know is that Jesus said sinners do good. Jesus never spoke like you Calvinist theologians.

Second, he is talking to his own disciples rather than to the lost unbelieving people.

No, he was speaking to the public.

Third, you must assume that those returning the good are lost people.

I'll leave assuming to you, I believe what Jesus said, and Jesus said sinners do good.

fourth, in Matthew 19:17 and Romans 3:10-11 he is talking about VERTICAL definition of God before God as judged by law (Rom. 3:19-20).

No, Paul said (quoting Psa 14) we have GONE OUT of the way. We have gone off track, we have run off the road. He said we have BECOME unprofitable. If you were born dead in sins with a corrupt nature, then you could not later BECOME unprofitable. Why don't you accept what scripture says, not what Augustine and Calvin taught? The scriptures always say we have "gone astray" or "turned to our own way", or "become corrupt". Words have meaning.

Conclusion: You are perverting the scriptures and misinterpreting them.

I am in fact understanding the scriptures for what they literally say. You are overlooking plain words anyone could understand to fit your presuppositions.