Calvinist, Jesus and original sin

[Crabtownboy]

In another thread discussing original sin an interesting point was brought up about Jesus.

Christians say that Jesus was totally human and totally God. If at Calvinist say all humans are born totally depraved then it must be assumed they have to believe that Christ was born totally depraved. If he was not born totally depraved then he was not totally human in the accepted Calvinist view of original sin or at least as some have expressed it on this BB. How can this be? I am looking for a rational discussion on this. This seems to be another big problem I see with Calvinist.

Enlighten me.

 

[Jim1999]

You also have difficulty understanding that this is not a debating area of the Baptist Board. It is for fellowship.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Crabtownboy]

You also have difficulty understanding that this is not a debating area of the Baptist Board. It is for fellowship.

Cheers,

Jim

I debated with myself which topic I should put this question in on the BB. I did not want to limit the discussion to only Baptist members. So I put it here. "All other discussions" imply debates and includes all members, not just Baptist.

I do not see how you reply added anything to the thread. Maybe you can enlighten me on this and on the topic I raised.

Cheers.

 

[webdog]

I debated with myself which topic I should put this question in on the BB. I did not want to limit the discussion to only Baptist members. So I put it here. "All other discussions" imply debates and includes all members, not just Baptist.

I do not see how you reply added anything to the thread. Maybe you can enlighten me on this and on the topic I raised.

Cheers.

You probably need to repost this in all other christian denominations which is a debate forum.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You probably need to repost this in all other christian denominations which is a debate forum.

Good ides. I missed that one when I was looking over where I should post the question.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

In another thread discussing original sin an interesting point was brought up about Jesus.

Christians say that Jesus was totally human and totally God. If at Calvinist say all humans are born totally depraved then it must be assumed they have to believe that Christ was born totally depraved. If he was not born totally depraved then he was not totally human in the accepted Calvinist view of original sin or at least as some have expressed it on this BB. How can this be? I am looking for a rational discussion on this. This seems to be another big problem I see with Calvinist.

Enlighten me.

Romans 5 says that the sin nature is passed on by the father. Who was Jesus' father? Did Jesus' father have a sin nature?

Think about it. You'll get it eventually.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Romans 5 says that the sin nature is passed on by the father. Who was Jesus' father? Did Jesus' father have a sin nature?

Are you referring to Romans 5:12 which reads:

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: {KJV}

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— {New International Version

I do not see this as saying sin is passed by the father. Enlighten me on this.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I do not see this as saying sin is passed by the father.

Not my problem.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Not my problem.

Guess I will just have to pass the statement off as an opinion with no substance behind it. I was hoping for something rational and enlightening. Oh well ...........

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I was hoping for something rational

I can only tell you what the Bible says. I can't make you believe it.

Now, as debating is not allowed here, this will be the last I have to say to you about it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Funny, I say the same thing to myself every time I read one of your posts.

Your ignorance of the most basic of Christian doctrines is not my problem. I explained to you in very simple terms that even someone like you should have been able to understand why Christ has no sin nature in spite of the fact that He is fully human.

I do believe he had no sin ... but he did have free will and could and did make choices ... just the right choices. I believe he was born innocent just as all infants are born innocent. Original sin is an was introduced into Christianity by the 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's.

My question was I do not see how a Calvinist can hold to original sin as expressed on this BB, and also believe that Jesus was fully human. The two are contradictory in the way they have been described in posts here.

And why do you feel discussion and/or debate is not allowed here. It is in the section called "other discussion" and reads at the top as:

All Other Discussions Friendly discussion about everything else.

 

[dcorbett]

FRIENDLY discussions, NO DEBATE in here please....and no name-calling, no snide remarks in ANY forum. Please abide by the rules. Moderators will be forced to follow protocol.

 

[billwald]

Well, wasn't Adam fully human before he sinned? Jesus is the last Adam.

 

[DHK]

FRIENDLY discussions, NO DEBATE in here please....and no name-calling, no snide remarks in ANY forum. Please abide by the rules. Moderators will be forced to follow protocol.

Christian DEBATE Forums (All Christians)

This thread is now officially in the debate section, so feel free to debate away, however, as dcorbett has advised please abide by the rules.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

...just as all infants are born innocent.

As usual, the Bible disagrees with you. Ps 51:5 and Ps 58:3 both say that babies are not born innocent. They're born sinners, just like the Bible says.

What's more, Eph 2:3 says that sinners are children of wrath by nature, not that they're born innocent and become children of wrath at some later date.

Original sin is an was introduced into Christianity by the 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's.

Well, yeah, if you don't count all of the Bible verses that teach original sin.

My question was I do not see how a Calvinist can hold to original sin as expressed on this BB, and also believe that Jesus was fully human. The two are contradictory in the way they have been described in posts here.

And I explained precisely how Jesus can be both sinless and human. You just didn't like the answer.

And why do you feel discussion and/or debate is not allowed here. It is in the section called "other discussion"

That's right. "Other discussion", not "debate". "Other discussion" merely means topics that don't necessarily fit into other categories. You know, like somebody who denies original sin and "Christian".

 

[dwmoeller1]

First lets remind the readers that classical Arminians also hold that all men are totally depraved so this isn't really about Calvinism.

In answer to the question:
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

All have sinned. Jesus did not sin. Either there is a contradiction or Jesus does not fit within the category of "all". Obviously the latter is the accepted answer. Same for the doctrine of total depravity - Christ is not considered to fall within the category of "all men". He is his own category - the one who is both God and man.

In short, there is no more contradiction in the doctrine of total depravity than in the teaching that "all have sinned".

 

[DHK]

That's right. "Other discussion", not "debate". "Other discussion" merely means topics that don't necessarily fit into other categories. You know, like somebody who denies original sin and "Christian".

This point is moot, as this thread is now in the Other Christian Denom. Forum, which is a debate forum.

 

[Tom Butler]

Can we find a clue in the fact the we humans are said to have been corrupted byAdam's sin, not Eve's? Can we deduce from this that our sinful natures are inherited from our fathers"

If that's the case,then it will explain why Jesus did not have a sinful nature, even though his mother had one.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Can we find a clue in the fact the we humans are said to have been corrupted byAdam's sin, not Eve's? Can we deduce from this that our sinful natures are inherited from our fathers"

That would be going considerably beyond what scripture says or implies, and there are several viable explanations. Hence it would be a fallacious deduction. A reasonable speculation maybe, but a fallacious deduction.

Furthermore, such a conclusion would tend to do damage to the larger meaning of the passage. After all, if all dying in Adam is referring to sin being inherited through the father, then how do we take the fact that all are made alive in Christ? Does this imply that salvation is inherited as well? Since we would reject this notion it would be unreasonable to use such verses to argue for father inherited sin.

 

[dcorbett]

That would be going considerably beyond what scripture says or implies, and there are several viable explanations. Hence it would be a fallacious deduction. A reasonable speculation maybe, but a fallacious deduction.

Furthermore, such a conclusion would tend to do damage to the larger meaning of the passage. After all, if all dying in Adam is referring to sin being inherited through the father, then how do we take the fact that all are made alive in Christ? Does this imply that salvation is inherited as well? Since we would reject this notion it would be unreasonable to use such verses to argue for father inherited sin.

That is explained pretty easily - Adam wasn't Christ's real father.

In the Hebrew culture, the lineage is traced through the Father's side....__ begat __, __ begat __ . Many Jews are surnamed "Ben ____" which means "son of ____"

We are "sons" of Adam....so we were born with a sin nature. This is different than sinning.

Am I right, preachers?